House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
1. What recent discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the costs and benefits of his reforms to judicial review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The impact assessment of 23 April and the Government response to the consultation clarify the costs and benefits of our reforms, which are intended to tackle delays and reduce the burden, while upholding access to justice.
Caroline Lucas
Figures published by the Minister’s Department confirm that the proportion of judicial review applications for planning and environmental cases has remained unchanged since 2005. Does she agree that, rather than facing a culture of so-called meritless judicial review applications, what we actually face is a meritless attack on people’s fundamental constitutional rights to challenge unlawful behaviour by public bodies and protect their environment, without a shred of evidence to substantiate the changes she is rolling out?
Mrs Grant
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Judicial review is a critical check on the power of the state—and it will remain so—but it is also subject to abuse, stifling innovation, frustrating reforms and imposing unnecessary costs on individuals, business and the economy. Our reforms will tackle the burden while maintaining the benefits of the rule of law, access to justice and the right to a fair hearing.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
In welcoming my hon. Friend’s remarks, may I urge her to look at other, wider areas where judicial review might be considered to some extent to be supplanting Parliament by interfering with the answerability of Government? I am thinking of some immigration tribunals and areas of the benefits system, where judicial review has been misused.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
How can the Minister possibly claim that these changes are not damaging access to justice, when she knows full well that by reducing the possibility of taking cases to judicial review, public authorities and the Executive cannot be held to account by ordinary citizens? Why is she destroying what is so important in our justice system in this country?
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with the principle that public power should not be exercised to abrogate fundamental common-law values, at least unless abrogation is required or those concerned are empowered by clear primary legislation? If we have better and clearer primary legislation, we are likely to have less judicial review.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
2. What steps he plans to take to reduce the number of offences committed by people on probation.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
On 9 May, I announced “Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform”, which sets out how we will transform the way in which we rehabilitate offenders to make progress in driving down reoffending rates. Under our proposals, for the first time in recent history, every offender sentenced to less than 12 months in prison will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community when they are released from custody. Alongside that, we will open up the market to a diverse mix of providers, freeing them to innovate and paying them by results, so that they focus relentlessly on reducing reoffending.
Jason McCartney
I would like to take this opportunity to praise the innovative work that my local Kirklees probation service is doing to bring down offending rates. Rates in West Yorkshire are down by 10% and in Kirklees the reduction is nearly 17%. I spent time with my local service over the Easter recess. What effect will the extension to a minimum of 12 months’ supervision in the community now have?
Chris Grayling
Good work is being done in many parts of our probation service, but overall, rehabilitation is not delivering what we expected it to, and reoffending rates are rising. However, I expect the teams that are delivering excellent work on the ground in our probation service to play an important part in the future that we have unveiled. In many areas, we will see those probation officers forming their own social enterprises and partnerships to deliver a high-quality service to us.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
When I visited the Kirklees probation service, which is based in Huddersfield, I found people who were very demoralised by some of the Government’s proposals. They feel that they are undervalued, and I agree with them. The probation service is probably the most effective and efficient part of the criminal justice system. Are not the Government undermining its morale?
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is simply not right. The Select Committee found recently that only 25% of the time probation staff spent at work was spent working with offenders—the Committee’s Chairman is here today and he will recall this—yet the biggest block of offenders who are likely to reoffend get no support at all. That is why change is necessary.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
We very much support the Government’s moves to extend supervision, but they also want private security firms to take responsibility for supervising medium-risk offenders in the community. That would include people who have committed violent and sexual offences. How do the Government plan to ensure that those private security firms have the appropriate skills and training to protect the public?
Chris Grayling
It is a pleasure to see the hon. Lady in her place today. I have begun to forget what the shadow Secretary of State looks like. His team regularly attends these events, but there are some faces missing.
The whole point of what we are trying to do is to address the glaring gap in the system that is leading to reoffending rates that are simply unacceptable. The mechanisms that we are putting in place to manage risk will provide a simple means of transferring offenders from a medium-risk category to a high-risk category if their situation changes and if a risk assessment carried out by the public probation service requires such a transfer. The public probation service will always remain responsible for dealing with the highest-risk offenders.
Mr Speaker
I think that the Secretary of State has ambitions to deliver a public lecture on this subject, but he should preferably not do so in the Chamber today.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one way of maintaining continuity in the records of ex-offenders under his new regime would be to welcome in-house spin-offs such as those being proposed in Wiltshire? These would involve the existing probation service becoming a separate and private individual organisation.
Chris Grayling
I very much welcome the discussions that are taking place. Support is being provided by the Cabinet Office, including financial support, for those members of our probation teams who want to set up their own spin-offs, and I would positively encourage them to do so.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
3. What progress he has made on improving the feedback from tribunal judges to the Department for Work and Pensions on the reasons for overturning employment and support allowance refusal decisions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The provision of feedback on reasons for tribunals’ decisions is always a matter for the judiciary. As the hon. Lady will be aware, new arrangements for this were put in place in July 2012. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is continuing to work with the judiciary, the Department for Work and Pensions and the other organisations involved to find ways of improving feedback.
Sheila Gilmore
The problem is that the feedback mechanism, which involves the use of a drop-down menu, is very brief. For example, the reason given for 40% of the overturned decisions was “cogent oral evidence”. That does not give decision makers in the DWP any real help in understanding how they can make changes that would result in fewer appeals. Surely it is necessary for the Department, which bears the cost of the appeals, to do something about this.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The waiting times for appeal hearings for employment and support allowance claims are far too long. The waiting time at the Leicester venue is now 40 weeks, which is a complete disgrace. What is the Minister going to do to sort this out?
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important to deal with these cases in a timely manner. National waiting times for ESA appeals are actually down, from 21.5 weeks in December 2011 to 16.7 weeks in December 2012. The figures are even better in Scotland, but of course more needs to be done.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
That is a very good tie, by the way, Mr Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that so many incorrect first decisions having to be overturned by judges not only causes massive grief for the families concerned but incurs significant additional cost to the taxpayer? That is a double whammy. Surely it is time we got this right.
Mrs Grant
The judiciary provides feedback, which is being considered. In November 2012, over 60% of appeals allowed by tribunals had reasons for the decisions attached. As I indicated in response to the question before last, we are looking at a new pilot, and I will write to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) about it.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Minister told us earlier about what she views—wrongly in my view—as the exploitation of judicial review. Is it not the case here that poor decisions by Atos are piling work on the tribunals service and therefore costing the public more money? Why does her Department not liaise properly with the Department for Work and Pensions, or is this another case of one arm of the Government not knowing what the other is doing?
Mrs Grant
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) says “such as” from a sedentary position. Those measures include recruiting more judges, securing additional venues and more Saturday sittings in addition to striving continually to improve original decision making.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
4. What the Government’s strategy is on the future of the probation service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
As part of our transforming rehabilitation strategy, we will create a new public sector national probation service, which will work to protect the public and build upon the expertise and professionalism already in place. The national probation service will work alongside new contracted rehabilitation providers and, in the future, the skills and expertise of probation professionals will be utilised across the public, private and voluntary sectors.
Kate Green
The Government say that private providers will support lower-risk offenders and will be paid by results, but private providers are already saying that they will accept only a small proportion of their fees from the results that they achieve. What is the real risk that providers will take and what proportion of their fee will genuinely be payment by results?
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Lady will understand that in respect of these contracts there will be a requirement for providers to meet the expectations of the courts, so in relation to court orders there will be limited room for manoeuvre as to what is done, and offenders on licence will be expected to meet the requirements of those licences. These contracts could never be 100% payment by results. We will determine the percentage they will put at risk—they will put their own money at risk in this—by consulting all those involved in this business and all those involved in rehabilitation in the future. We will reach the right conclusions; we will work through this with all those involved.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
18. I congratulate the Minister on his proposals to change the way in which the probation service works, particularly in respect of short-term prisoners. Will he clarify what the criteria will be to determine whether someone has successfully completed that period of probation?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the big design challenges with which we have had to wrestle in designing this system. It is, of course, important that those providing rehabilitation services should be rewarded for a complete stop in someone’s offending. That is what the public are looking for here. However, we also want to make sure that there are no perverse incentives and that providers will continue to work with those who are difficult to manage and those whose lives are difficult to turn around. We will have a mechanism for payment by results that reflects not just a binary “did they stop offending altogether or did they not” measurement, but one of progress in respect of the number of times someone offends. By combining those two, we think we will get to the right measurement.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
5. What plans he has to assist ex-offenders into employment.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
8. What plans he has to assist ex-offenders into employment.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
12. What plans he has to assist ex-offenders into employment.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
14. What plans he has to assist ex-offenders into employment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
We have already ensured that prison leavers aged over 18 who claim jobseeker’s allowance on release or shortly afterwards are referred to the Work programme immediately. We have also introduced work in prisons on a much larger scale than before, providing offenders with the real work experiences. Our transforming rehabilitation reforms will see new rehabilitation providers working to tackle the root causes of offending by using innovative approaches such as mentoring and by helping ex-offenders to find housing, training and employment.
Oliver Colvile
Will my hon. Friend tell me what happens to those offenders who are foreign nationals once they have completed their period in prison? Do we deport them and, if not, why not?
Jeremy Wright
We most certainly do seek to deport foreign national offenders, and my hon. Friend will be encouraged to learn that 4,500 or so were deported during the last year for which we have figures. However, we also think it important to remove such offenders while they are still serving their sentences if that is possible, which is why we seek to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements such as the one that we signed with Albania in January. We are working towards a similar arrangement with Nigeria. We want offenders to leave our shores, during the currency of their sentences if possible but otherwise immediately thereafter, because the right place for foreign criminals is not in our country but back in their own.
Steve Brine
What involvement does the Minister expect the voluntary and community sector to have, and how does he expect it to dovetail with the Work programme in helping ex-offenders to find stable jobs? More importantly, how does he expect it to work for the purpose of resettlement, which, as we know and as the Select Committee said in its report, plays a major role in diverting people from reoffending?
Jeremy Wright
As my hon. Friend says, and as the Select Committee has made clear, resettlement is hugely important. We agree that the voluntary and community sector can play a major role, and we think it important for that role to begin while offenders are still serving the custodial part of their sentences. The reforms that we have in mind will enable those who are dealing with rehabilitation to make contact with offenders early, and to see them through the prison gates and out into the community. One of the main ways in which we expect them to help offenders to go straight and stay straight is by finding jobs for them to do, for, as we know, keeping a job is one of the best ways of keeping out of crime.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The Minister is doubtless aware of National Grid’s young offender programme, under which 80 companies are now delivering training and jobs to those who are heading towards release. Does not a reoffending rate of less than 7% suggest that private providers can play a big part in the rehabilitation revolution?
Jeremy Wright
I certainly think that it demonstrates that a range of different organisations have a significant part to play. I am familiar with what National Grid does, and I know that it does an extremely good job. One of the questions that it has raised with me is whether there are better ways of enabling it to work with offenders in a limited number of prisons. I think that the restructuring of the prison estate that we have in mind, which will ensure that prisoners can be released into the community from only a certain number of prisons, will help it to do even more good work along the lines that my hon. Friend has described.
Mary Macleod
How will the Minister engage ex-offenders in his plans for long-term mentoring even after they have found work? I believe that keeping a job and breaking the cycle of crime is essential to successful rehabilitation.
Jeremy Wright
I agree that mentoring is likely to play a significant part in what providers choose to do in order to turn lives around. I also agree that involving ex-offenders is a good way to start to find the mentors whom we will need. A great deal of very effective mentoring already takes place in prisons, with older and more established prisoners mentoring younger and newer ones. We want that to continue outside the prison gates, so that we can provide the kind of support that my hon. Friend has described.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Dealing with alcohol misuse and dependency is a major problem for many ex-offenders who need to find work. What discussions is the Minister having with the Department of Health, and indeed with those who are likely to provide probation services in the future, about improving alcohol treatment in prisons and after prisoners have been released?
Jeremy Wright
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a hugely important issue. Given his knowledge of the subject, he will recognise that a consistent approach is also important. As I said a moment ago, the work should start while prisoners are in custody and continue as they go through the prison gates and out into the community, so that supervision and support for those with drug or alcohol problems can be maintained throughout the process to ensure that they do not relapse and go back to their old ways. We will certainly think about how we can engage with not just health service providers but rehabilitation providers, and do so over a longer period.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Offenders with drug addictions often lead very chaotic lives, and often relapse several times before they secure the help that will enable them to embark on the path towards a more normal lifestyle. They need a great deal of work over a long period, and they are often not directly ready even to start looking for a job. How will the Minister’s system of payment by results, and his efforts to get more offenders into work, take account of the work that will need to be done over, perhaps, a number of years?
Jeremy Wright
As the hon. Lady says, this is a difficult and faltering path for many people with serious drug addiction problems. The system that we are designing, however, is based on the central tenet that people should do what works to reduce reoffending, and that those who do so will be rewarded for it. If someone has a major drug problem, it will be necessary for providers to address that in order to ensure that that person does not reoffend. I am confident that they will focus on those issues, and will do what is necessary to turn people’s lives around. If what is necessary in the case of a particular individual is getting him off drugs and keeping him off them, I am sure that that is what they will do, but we will need to bring in a number of agencies to work with them.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In Magilligan prison in my constituency there is a very good scheme preparing prisoners for the outside world and employment, and reducing reoffending rates. What measures can the Minister implement in conjunction with the devolved structures to ensure that such best practice is replicated across the entire United Kingdom?
Jeremy Wright
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will know that I do not have direct responsibility for the prisons in Northern Ireland, but he makes a good point. There will be examples of good practice across other Administrations from which we can learn, and we will certainly seek to do so.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Unfortunately, there is scant evidence of rehabilitation in the recent inspection report on Serco and HMP Thameside. Instead we hear of bad management, gang-related violence, and prisoners sleeping away the day spending up to 23 hours locked in their cells. We also now have irregularities in the tagging contracts and the sudden resignation of the G4S chief executive. Does the Minister not agree that this is more evidence of why we should be wary of rushing headlong into handing over our probation service to these same companies? A failure repeated outside the relative safety of prison walls would see dangerous offenders walking our streets completely unsupervised.
Jeremy Wright
I think that what there is good evidence of is the need for reform. We need to make sure more work on rehabilitation is going on within prisons, as well as more work through the gate and out into the community. As the hon. Lady well knows, the truth is that there are good and bad reports on private prisons, just as there are good and bad reports on public prisons. We will want to make sure that we do everything we can to engage in rehabilitation while people are in prison. More work in prison will certainly help: 800,000 more hours were worked in prisons last year than the year before. Progress is being made, but there is certainly more to do, hence our reforms, which I hope the hon. Lady will support.
Mr Speaker
We are immensely grateful to the Minister. I feel sure that the Government could with great advantage schedule at some point a full day’s debate on the subject.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
6. What recent progress he has made on the implementation of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Justice Act 1999.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The Ministry of Justice is actively looking at the practical issues around implementing section 28 of that Act. Putting victims and witnesses first must be a common goal for everyone working in the criminal justice system. That is why this work has involved us working closely with the judiciary, the police, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service, and it should be completed shortly.
Ann Coffey
I thank the Minister for his response. One victim of child sexual exploitation was aggressively cross-examined by seven barristers for three weeks in the Telford trial. Another was repeatedly called a liar until she broke down. Justice is not served by bullying vulnerable witnesses already scarred by their experiences. When does the Minister expect to be able to report further on the implementation of section 28, which allows pre-recorded witness evidence and cross-examination outside court, making the trial process less of an ordeal for victims?
Damian Green
I know that the hon. Lady has a long and distinguished record of activity in this area, and I am not asking her to be patient for much longer. As I said in my initial answer, we should come to a decision shortly. This is the last of the Act’s measures to protect particularly vulnerable witnesses to be implemented. I entirely share her concern that, within the confines of having trials conducted properly, vulnerable witnesses should receive proper protection.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
We accept that section 28 is not easy to implement, but given the many recent appalling cases involving character assassination and the bullying of vulnerable witnesses, is it not now time to implement, as one measure, the approach proposed by many, including the Advocacy Training Council in its report “Raising the Bar”, of introducing compulsory training and certification for barristers in cases of this kind?
Damian Green
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying there are practical difficulties in implementing this. We are looking at a range of measures. He will be aware that our consultation on the victims’ code closed only a few days ago, and the Minister for victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), will be publishing a response this summer. Obviously, that must align with the witness charter as well. I hope all these things will come to fruition shortly.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
7. What the Government’s plans are for the future of legal aid.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
We are consulting on proposed reforms of the legal aid system, as set out in our consultation document, “Transforming Legal Aid”, which was published on 9 April. We are seeking views on proposals to ensure that the criminal legal aid system in this country operates more efficiently, that we live within our means, and that we have a system in which the public can have confidence.
Mrs Glindon
What steps is the Minister taking to make publicly available details of the amounts paid by the legal aid authorities to counsel and solicitors and the costs for the preparation of cases prosecuted each year?
Chris Grayling
That information is already available to a degree. It is available to hon. Members and has been published under the Freedom of Information Act. It is very important that at the same time as ensuring we have a proper legal aid system that provides access to justice to all, we ensure that the payments we make are payments we can afford.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
How can Ministers be confident that under their proposals there will be a genuine market and not just a few very large businesses that would have no great incentive to maintain quality once they got a fixed proportion of the business?
Chris Grayling
That is a very important point. First, I have absolutely no intention of ending up with a legal aid market dominated by a small number of very large firms. A central part of the tendering process will involve a quality threshold that ensures that we have the quality of advocacy and litigation support in this country that we need and expect.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State talked about the quality threshold, but his own Department’s consultation document warns against the danger that some advice might go above the quality threshold and therefore be too expensive. What does he have to say to that and how will he ensure that criminals get a proper defence?
Chris Grayling
We must ensure that every defendant, innocent or guilty, has access to a proper defence. We also need a system that is affordable at a time of great financial stringency. Our proposals are designed to find the right balance between those two things.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The current graduated fee system is clearly broken and is costing a huge amount of money to administer. Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at constructive proposals to streamline the system and improve the system of criminal fees?
Chris Grayling
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have been very clear in saying to both barristers and solicitors—to the whole legal profession—that this is a consultation. I have challenges to meet financially, but I am very open to means of improving the current system in a way that makes it affordable while maintaining the quality and effectiveness of provision.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the Secretary of State intends to award legal aid franchises on the basis of price and not on anything else? That means that the lowest common denominator will prevail and one of the basic founding tenets of the legal aid system, equal access to justice, will be at an end.
Chris Grayling
No, it is not. I have no intention whatsoever of awarding contracts on the basis of price alone.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
How will the Government ensure that the proposed residence test does not leave many victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied child immigrants and victims of domestic violence with no access to justice? Is there not a real danger that our attempts to look tough on immigration will leave many vulnerable people without the justice they deserve?
Chris Grayling
Under the new systems we have put in place, the Legal Aid Agency has discretionary funding to deal with the very unexpected cases. However, I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that if someone is going to come to this country and access public support, they should have been here for a period of time and paid taxes before they do so.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
More than 70% of the public, according to a poll in today’s papers, think that the Secretary of State’s cuts to criminal legal aid will lead to innocent people being convicted. Does he really think that miscarriages of justice are a price worth paying for his mismanagement of the justice budget?
Chris Grayling
I still do not think that the Opposition understand the nature of the financial mess they left behind and what we have to do to balance the books. I also think that the public would expect me to do what I can to maintain a strong prison system and a strong court system at the same time as having a legal aid system that provides justice while being affordable. That is what we are doing.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
9. How many prison staff have current unspent convictions for firearms offences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that over 45,000 personnel records are held by the National Offender Management Service and to determine firearms offences for all staff would involve extracting information from those files at disproportionate cost, but I can reassure him that all new recruits to the service undergo security vetting, and as part of this procedure, checks are made on criminal convictions. Any criminal conviction or caution received by staff or recruits is assessed carefully before a decision on recruitment or continued employment is made.
John Mann
Rebecca Knighton was sacked using fabricated evidence, Steve Casey resigned following the illegal use of CCTV, and now, I understand, a senior manager has been convicted of a firearms offence but not sacked. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the managerial chaos at Ranby prison?
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the basis of what I know at present about the cases that he has raised, but I will certainly look into them and come back to him on what we think can best be done.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
10. What support he provides for ex-service personnel in the criminal justice system.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
Depending on their individual risks and needs, offenders with a military history are eligible for the full range of NOMS interventions and offender services. Many prisons have a designated support officer for veterans in custody. Often these officers have served in the forces themselves, and they provide support tailored to the experiences that veterans may have had while on active service. Several probation trusts have an equivalent role for support in the community. The MOD has also made its veterans mental health services available to ex-service men and women in custody.
Mr Anderson
Since 2008, 300 veterans have gone through the veterans treatment court system in Buffalo, New York state. Not one has reoffended. That has been so successful that 103 similar courts have been set up across the USA. Will the Minister agree to meet me and others who support this process to see whether there are lessons that we can learn from the USA and adapt for this country?
Damian Green
I would be happy to do that. As I hope the hon. Gentleman will have seen this morning, we are very open to new ideas throughout the criminal justice system, and spreading best practice is the way to reduce reoffending and in this case to help veterans.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The Minister, sadly, missed out on an excellent visit that the Secretary of State paid to my constituency recently, when he met offenders who were on the Royal British Legion Industries scheme; they had been through the criminal justice system and are now in work. Although it is essential that a cross-departmental approach is taken to help ex-service personnel re-integrate into society to stop them entering the criminal justice system, it is even more important to do so after they have been through it. What are the Government doing to raise awareness of the schemes that are out there to provide support and help?
Damian Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. As I said, spreading information about best practice is extremely important. That is the basis of many of the reforms that we are introducing through the criminal justice system. If she perceives an information gap somewhere, I will be happy to discuss this with the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is the Minister with responsibility for veterans and who has significant overall responsibility in this area.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
11. What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
We have heard a lot this afternoon about our plans for transforming rehabilitation. It is worth restating to the House what I believe is a crucial part of those reforms: the alignment of the prison service geographically to areas into which people are going to be released, through the creation of a network of resettlement prisons. I think that will make as big a difference to the process as any other part of our reforms.
Yvonne Fovargue
A recent report from the Charities Aid Foundation welcomed the opportunities that payment by results will create for the voluntary sector, but it also warned that many organisations will need support to ensure that they can become credible providers of services on a much larger scale. What help is the Minister putting in place to ease this transition?
Chris Grayling
We are doing two things. First, through the Cabinet Office, which has responsibility for liaison with the voluntary sector, we are putting in place widespread support to help the voluntary sector prepare for this process. We have also put in place a justice data lab, which is designed to allow smaller voluntary sector organisations that have a track record in working with offenders to quantify the impact of their work on rehabilitation so that they can sell a story about what they can do to partners in the bidding process.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
As one would expect, getting more work into prisons will make a considerable contribution to reducing reoffending. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the progress being made by one3one Solutions?
Chris Grayling
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he did as Justice Minister on improving the availability of work in prisons. It is to his credit that we saw an increase of 800,000 in the number of hours worked in our prisons last year. My hon. Friend the Prisons Minister is building on that work and it is my hope and expectation that we will see that increase continue.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Will there be resettlement prisons for women?
Chris Grayling
There are of course a smaller number of women’s prisons, but it is our intention to have the same geographic links between detention and release for women as well.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
13. What recent progress he has made on reform of the probation system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
As my hon. Friend knows, on 9 May we published our strategy for transforming rehabilitation. The reforms we set out in that strategy will see new market providers delivering rehabilitation services alongside a single national probation service from autumn 2014.
Laura Sandys
As the Minister knows, there is great concern in the North Thanet and South Thanet constituencies about people on probation being located next door to vulnerable people, and also people with criminal backgrounds. Is this the right location? Should there be more risk assessment of where people on probation are relocated with their rehabilitation programmes?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend knows that risk assessment is always taking place, and it is important that it does so. She knows also that we are looking carefully at the specific circumstances that she raises in the area that she represents, and we will come back to her as soon as we can draw some firmer conclusions.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
15. What recent representations he has received on the reform of legal aid; and if he will make a statement.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
My ministerial team and I have met with a number of stakeholders since the launch of our consultation on legal aid reform. Among others, I have met the chair of the Bar Council, the president of the Law Society, members of the senior judiciary, the circuit leaders and a number of solicitors representing Law Society members.
Miss McIntosh
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard the same concerns that I have about restricted access to justice. Having started out as a young advocate a number of years ago, may I say that there is real concern that there will be less access to the profession, particularly for young barristers, with lower fees while they are trying to pay off their student loans?
Chris Grayling
We have taken care with these proposals to put together a package based on our statistical analysis which we think will protect incomes at the lower end of the Bar particularly. It is my intention that where we have to impose changes on the profession, they come through either the reorganisation of businesses or income changes at the top end of the income scale.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Justice Secretary knows full well that his plans for price competitive tendering in criminal legal aid are completely opposed by the profession. They are unworkable. Will he now sit down with the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association and discuss a way forward out of this mess?
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the principle of price competitive tendering was first proposed in a report commissioned by the last Government eight years ago. We have looked carefully at the best way in which we can deliver better value in our legal aid system, which we have to do to meet financial targets. We will do so in a way that protects the interests of the justice system, but no change is simply not an option.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I understand the drive to try to save money in this area, but the Justice Secretary will be aware of many of the concerns. Will he look carefully at ideas that have been raised with him such as making more use of frozen assets to pay for cases or dealing with fraud cases more efficiently, to try to reduce the legal aid bill in that way?
Chris Grayling
I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says on frozen assets. Of course, they are already used to fund police, the Crown Prosecution Service and victims’ services, so this is not an untouched resource. In the Crime and Courts Act 2013, we have taken powers to extend the use of frozen assets, but I do not believe that the amounts of money available are sufficient to make a material difference to our proposals.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
What recent representations has the Secretary of State had from the Department and Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Assembly concerning the reform of legal aid?
Chris Grayling
I am not aware that I have received a letter concerning that. I obviously have regular meetings and exchanges with the Northern Ireland Minister. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman if I have received such a representation; I am not aware of having seen it.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Is not a defendant’s freedom and ability to instruct a solicitor of their own choosing the fundamental basis of our criminal justice system? Will not these proposals restrict the numbers of corporate entities, with vested interests and conflicts of interests, running prisons, probation services and representing defendants? And if Eddie Stobart gets a contract, why do not the Government go the whole hog, put the magistrates court in the back of the wagon and be done with it?
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that that contribution is what I would expect from the Labour party. This is not about creating an opportunity for giant firms. It is about saying to small and medium-sized firms, “You will need to change the way you do things to bring down costs, to share back offices, in a way that enables us to get better value for money for the taxpayer.” If Opposition Members really want me to place financial constraints elsewhere in the system, to close courts and to have fewer probation officers, rather than having a more efficient criminal justice system in the legal aid arena, that is their choice. I know which route I am taking.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
16. What steps he is taking to reduce drug addiction in prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
The Government are committed to helping prisoners with a drug dependency to live drug-free lives. We are working with health services to reshape drug treatment in prisons, establish wings in prisons that focus on recovery and abstinence, and connect offenders with community drug recovery services in custody and on release. We are also keen to use our new reforms, particularly the through-the-gate provision and the reconfiguration of the prison estate, to build on that collaboration.
Mr Raab
I thank the Minister for that answer. The Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust estimates that if just 10% of drug-addicted prisoners received abstinence-based rehabilitation, we might be able to save almost half a billion pounds a year. What progress has been made on replacing methadone prescriptions with abstinence programmes in our jails?
Jeremy Wright
I entirely agree that we need to see more abstinence from drugs. My hon. Friend will know that one of the obstacles to proceeding down that path with many drug-addicted offenders is that they stay in prison for a very short period and there is no confidence about what happens when they leave custody. [Interruption.] Our through-the-gate reforms mean that we will be able to move more offenders on to that pathway much more quickly and be confident that they will be supported when they leave custody.
Mr Speaker
We all heard the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) say, “Lock ’em up for longer”. If he was worried that his tone was untypically muted, his worry was groundless.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
20. What the Government’s strategy is for victims of crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
For many years victims have felt overlooked and completely unsupported by the criminal justice system. The Government are determined to put that right, which is why we are implementing a range of reforms that will put victims at the very heart of the criminal justice system, which we say is where they belong.
Stella Creasy
Today we will hear more about the tragic case of Maria Stubbings and how she was dealt with as a victim of domestic violence. Ministers have acknowledged that delays in our courts system disproportionately affect victims of sexual violence. Will they acknowledge that too many female victims in Britain get a raw deal in our criminal justice system, and what do they intend to do about it?
Mrs Grant
I categorically do not agree with what the hon. Lady has said. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling domestic violence and violence against women and girls. We have set up a national taskforce, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, to protect children and vulnerable people from sexual violence. We have also opted into the EU directive on combating child sexual exploitation and will continue to do everything we possibly can to ensure that vulnerable people are protected from the devastating crimes that can do serious long-term harm.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I would like briefly to update the House on our proposed changes to the regime in our prisons. I think that the public rightly expect that prisons should be a place of punishment and rehabilitation. For too long prisoners have been handed privileges such as in-cell television, DVDs and association time as a reward for simply keeping out of trouble. That is not just unfair at a time when the rest of the country is doing without; it is a shamefully wasted opportunity. That is why we have announced a major overhaul of our incentives and earned privileges schemes in prisons. We want to see prisoners earning their privileges by working hard to turn their lives around. We have banned certificate-18 DVDs, subscription TV will be removed by the summer, prisoners will in future have a longer working day, and if they behave badly or do not engage with rehabilitation activities they will be stripped of their privileges. That is designed to improve confidence in our prison regime and to encourage positive rehabilitation activities within our prisons.
Grahame M. Morris
I would like to ask the Secretary of State about his plans to privatise the probation service. Following the Olympics security debacle, why does he believe that companies such as G4S are suitable providers to manage low and medium-risk offenders, including prolific burglars, drug-users and those convicted for domestic violence, if they could not manage Olympic security? How will he guarantee public safety?
Chris Grayling
What I want for our probation service is the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors: the public sector has high-quality skills in managing the risk of harm; the private sector can deliver a more efficient system, so that we can release funds to support those offenders who get no support at the moment; and the voluntary sector has the kind of mentoring skills we so desperately need to help people turn their lives around.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
T4. Our criminal justice system may be the most expensive in the world, perhaps by a factor of two or three times, and yet we continue, as a state, to pay many practitioners several hundreds of thousand pounds a year more than we pay surgeons or scientists. This practice is of course enthusiastically supported by the Bar Council, and apparently by Opposition Front Benchers. Can the Secretary of State confirm that his consultation will at last bring to bear competition and market forces?
Chris Grayling
It certainly brings competition to bear. We are trying to take tough decisions on legal aid in a way that, where possible, impacts on the top end, not the bottom end, of the income scale. That is what we believe in, and I am surprised that Labour Members appear to disagree with us.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State read his interview with the Law Society Gazette this week? I would not blame him if he had not, because it is a bit of a car crash. Does he stand by the passages where he says that he has no evidence of a lack of public support for legal aid but has received “lots of letters”, where he is “unsure” where £160 million of Department spending has gone, and where he defends taking away a choice of solicitor because
“people in our prisons and…courts come from the most difficult and challenged backgrounds”
and are not
“great connoisseurs of legal skills”?
Chris Grayling
Not surprisingly, I do stand by interviews I give. We are now three years into this Government and Labour Members have no answers to any of the challenges we face. We have big financial issues to deal with and we need to create a system that is affordable. They have no alternative suggestions about how to do that.
Mr Slaughter
The Justice Secretary has one answer: payment by results.
Last Friday, the Justice Secretary was forced to investigate alleged overpayment to G4S and Serco on the tagging contracts. Today the Financial Times is reporting that he has suspended outsourcing prison contracts to Serco, Sodexo and Amec. Should not he review all current contracts with the chumocracy of private firms who get the MOJ’s shilling, including Capita’s disastrous running of the interpreters contract, and should not he suspend plans to hand out another £500 million of probation contracts to more of the cosy cartel?
Chris Grayling
Sometimes Labour Members are breathtaking. I am not going to say much to the House today about the investigation that we are carrying out into the tagging contracts; I will provide that information in due course. I simply say to Opposition Front Benchers that the contracts we are investigating date back to 2005 and were signed and put together by the previous Government.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
T9. . What can the Secretary of State do the reverse the increase in the compensation culture in the UK?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Our whiplash consultation closed on 8 March. We looked into the use of independent medical review panels and increasing the small claims compensation threshold. A response to the Government’s consultation will be published in autumn this year after the Transport Committee’s inquiry into whiplash.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
T2. What plans does the Minister have to monitor the banning of referral fees in personal injury matters and to review the payment of referral fees in conveyancing?
Chris Grayling
We have already introduced changes that ban referral fees, and we are looking at other reforms that will tighten up the whole culture that exists around personal injury and similar claims. There is good work in parts of the legal profession in doing genuine work on behalf of genuine claims. However, there are too many question marks in the system. Now that we have made those changes, the challenge is for the insurance industry to bring down policy prices. If it does not do that, we will not hesitate to take action in the other direction.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
T10. I strongly back the Government’s plans to get prisoners to do a full day’s work, but how can we make sure that they do not undercut the jobs of other UK workers whose businesses have higher costs than businesses in prisons?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is a balance to be struck in this respect. We want more prisoners to be working, but we also want to make sure that jobs outside prisons are not unfairly undercut. That is why, as he knows, we have a code of practice that we have recently strengthened to ensure that that does not happen and that, where we can, we bring work in from abroad to be done in our prisons or use work in prison to support contracts that provide work outside the prison gate.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
T5. Our criminal justice system is strengthened in its ability to deal with international crime through our co-operation in the EU’s justice and home affairs policies. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is another powerful reason why we should remain a full member state of the EU?
Chris Grayling
I believe that we should co-operate fully internationally, not simply in the European Union, but elsewhere, to combat international crime. I do not want this country to become part of a European justice system. That is what divides us.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Chris Huhne and his former wife were released from prison recently after serving just two months of an eight-month sentence. In surveys that I have conducted, an overwhelming majority of my constituents believe that prisoners should serve their sentences in full. Aside from locking them up for longer, Mr Speaker, will the Secretary of State say how long he thinks people should serve in prison before they are released?
Chris Grayling
On this matter, I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. He may have sensed from my recent comments that I am looking closely at this area. I hope to be able to provide further reassurances to him in due course.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
T6. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he and the Government have no plans to withdraw from the European convention on human rights?
Chris Grayling
It is not the policy of the coalition Government to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. My party is looking at what proposals we want to put to the country at the next general election. The vast majority of the population want changes to our human rights framework. If the Labour party disagrees, I look forward to having that debate.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Further to the Secretary of State’s statement about prisons at the start of topical questions, does he agree that far too many drugs are still circulating in prisons? How far is he getting with his zero-tolerance policy, which is aimed at staff and visitors because the drugs are not coming into prisons with the prisoners?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend is right that too many drugs are still coming into prisons, but he will be reassured to know that the rate of positive drug tests is coming down. As he will know, we must also tackle the misuse of prescription medication in jails. We are addressing all those problems to the best of our ability and will continue to do so.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T7. There are some excellent local voluntary sector organisations that have valuable experience of working with offenders. How will Ministers ensure that small organisations with expertise are not shut out from rehabilitation work, while a handful of large private sector companies with little experience but deep pockets stitch it up?
Jeremy Wright
The answer to the hon. Lady’s question has two parts. First, when we assess the bids for rehabilitation work, the bidders must demonstrate that they will support smaller organisations to carry out the work with them. Secondly, there must be contract management to ensure that as the contracts proceed, the smaller organisations are looked after and have a sustainable future. We will do both those things.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
In common, I am sure, with colleagues across the House, I am dealing with the case of a chaotic, long-term drug addicted prisoner who has been in and out of the revolving door of prison. I could not be more supportive of the Government’s rehabilitation revolution. However, before anybody will take that person on, he has to demonstrate behaviour that, being chaotic and addicted, it is very hard for him to demonstrate. It seems to me that that is a small gap in the new arrangements. Will the Minister meet me to talk about how we can bridge that gap and get people to the stage where they can take advantage of the new arrangements?
Jeremy Wright
I am very happy to discuss that matter further with my hon. Friend. I hope that she will be reassured that all offenders who leave custody or receive a community order will be allocated to a provider and will be expected to undergo whatever rehabilitation is appropriate.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
T8. I welcome the extension of supervision to short-term prisoners, but I am concerned that Ministers continue to refuse to give an estimated additional cost for that provision, claiming that it depends on competition. Ministers must have made an estimate for the fixed fee that will be paid up front before any bonus for success. Will the Minister say what the fixed fee is likely to cost?
Jeremy Wright
I understand why the right hon. Gentleman finds our position frustrating, but we cannot give a specific figure because it depends entirely on what price the bidders tell us they can do it for. I can tell him that the cost of providing for the additional 50,000 offenders will be covered by the savings that we make through competition. Opposition Members who dislike the idea of competition in this field must tell us whether they support the extension of the provision to short-term offenders. If they would not pay for it through competition, how would they pay for it?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he considers to be the most intolerable aspects of the United Kingdom’s current relationship with the European Union?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind the Secretary of State that answers to topical questions must be brief?
Chris Grayling
Given that I do not have the time at the Dispatch Box that I might choose to discuss the matter, I would simply say that the European Commission’s recent decision to publish a justice scorecard assessing justice systems across Europe, and making recommendations for their improvement, is one that this country neither welcomes nor intends to co-operate with.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on miscarriages of justice of his proposals on criminal legal aid?
Chris Grayling
I am very confident that what we are doing, which involves encouraging the litigation part of our system to operate more efficiently and making changes to the top end of the income scale for the Bar, but also protecting incomes for the junior Bar, will be the best way of delivering an effective balance between proper justice and something that is affordable to the taxpayer.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What is the latest number of foreign national offenders in our prisons, and what progress is being made on sending them back to secure detention in their own countries?
Jeremy Wright
Off the top of my head I think there are about 10,300 in our prisons at the moment. We are making progress, as I explained earlier, not only with individual compulsory prisoner transfer agreements such as the one that we have already negotiated with Albania, but with more effective use of the European Union prisoner transfer agreement. Something like 200 cases under that agreement are currently being considered for deportation by the Home Office.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
A Bar Council and ComRes poll published this morning shows that more than 70% of the British public are concerned that the legal aid cuts will result in injustice, and lawyers in Newcastle believe that they will increase costs to the taxpayer. Will the Secretary of State meet me and a delegation from Newcastle to listen to concerns on that vital issue?
Chris Grayling
I have already met a number of lawyers from the north-east and Newcastle, and I will listen to all the representations that I receive to try to get this as right as I possibly can. However, the hon. Lady should not believe, and no one in the House should believe, that the Administration can avoid difficult financial decisions. I am trying to take those decisions in the way that provides the best balance between justice and value for the taxpayer, and that is what I will continue to do.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
There seem to be ways of both making substantial savings and providing a better service and improving the way in which the courts operate, particularly by using more digital information so that documents do not get lost and fail to arrive in court at the correct time. What work has the Ministry of Justice been doing to try to achieve that?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that the digitisation of the whole criminal justice process, not just in the courts but including the police, is absolutely essential to ensuring not only that we continue to provide proper justice but that we do so more speedily and efficiently. A huge amount of work is going on inside the Department, and announcements will be made.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Ministry of Justice estimates that approximately 60% to 90% of young offenders have communication needs. What is it doing to increase speech and language therapy services in young offenders institutions?
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is a significant problem among young offenders both inside and outside custody. She may know that the comprehensive health assessment tool is currently used to identify those problems as early as we can, so that we can do something about them. As she knows, we believe that it is important to have a greater focus on education for all young offenders in how we structure the secure custodial estate for young offenders, and we are looking at that carefully having just closed a consultation on it.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State update the House on progress towards criminalising squatting in commercial premises?
Chris Grayling
We are looking seriously at the matter, which is one for Members of all parties to consider. If any hon. Member has experience of it in their constituency, we would like to hear about it, including the impact that it has had on businesses. We in the House have perhaps more awareness than anybody else about what is happening on the ground, and I would like to hear from hon. Members about it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I was going to call the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), but she has been perambulating around the Chamber and I had lost sight of her. If she wishes to ask a question, her time is now.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I was going to ask the Secretary of State about legal aid. A vulnerable constituent of mine was charged on four separate occasions, and her solicitor, whom she appointed, was able to support her throughout. That ability is under threat from the legal aid proposals. Why is the Secretary of State proposing restrictions on access to legal aid for the vulnerable and those who cannot afford to pay?
Chris Grayling
I am not proposing that access to legal aid for the vulnerable be removed. Every person brought before a court or into a police station, and every person charged with an offence, will have access to legal aid for a defence unless they have sufficient means to pay for it themselves.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Given that a third of prison suicides take place in the first week, what risk assessment have the Government made of the changes to the regime in the first two weeks?
Jeremy Wright
As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his previous ministerial experience, risk assessments are made for every prisoner when they arrive in prison. The changes we have announced to the prison regime are about ensuring that prisoners understand at the earliest possible stage that if they comply with the regime and engage with rehabilitation, they will be able to earn privileges. If they do not, they will not, but that does not affect the risk assessment process. I also point out that where there are exceptional reasons due to a particular vulnerability, governors have discretion not to apply those provisions.
Objections to a Free School (Edgware)
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Hendon, and specifically on behalf of the Broadfields Estate residents association.
The petition states:
The Petition of Residents of Hendon,
Declares that the Petitioners oppose the Avanti House School development on Broadfields, Edgware; further that the petitioners note that Avanti House School have identified land between Hartland Drive and Broadfields Primary School for a new school which would accommodate 1680 pupils and that sport pitches are planned to be placed on green belt land; further that the petitioners do not believe that the area can accommodate this and the proposed school will not actually serve the Broadfields area or even the Borough of Barnet; further that pupils would arrive by cars and buses adding to already congested roads and that the north part of Broadfields is surrounded by green belt land and access is possible via only two roads meaning the area is only able to handle residential traffic. This development threatens to cause traffic chaos and ruin the lives of our local community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government not to support the relocation of Avanti House School to the Broadfields site in Edgware, and draw attention to this petition and to a second submitted to Barnet council, containing 1,002 signatures.
And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[P001179]
Closure of Rhyl Crown Post Office
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I wish to present the following petition to Parliament on behalf of the residents of Rhyl and the Vale of Clwyd, who are totally opposed to the proposal by Post Office Ltd to franchise Rhyl Crown Post Office. They believe that the proposal will severely damage the provision of services in Rhyl, especially to the elderly, and they call on Post Office Ltd to withdraw its proposal and to retain Rhyl Crown Post Office.
The petition states:
The Petition of those concerned about the proposed closure of Rhyl Crown Post Office,
Declares that Rhyl Crown Post Office should remain within the Crown Network and not become a franchise. The Petitioners believe that the proposal for a franchise will severely damage the provision of services in Rhyl.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Minister of State for Business and Enterprise to protect much-loved public services.
And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[P001180]
A and E Departments
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on what evidence he has to show how his plans to change GP services will solve the current crisis in accident and emergency departments.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
A and E departments are under great pressure, and the whole House will want to pay tribute to the thousands of doctors, nurses and health care assistants who work extraordinary hours in very challenging conditions. They are there for us when we need them, and we owe them a great debt.
More than 1 million more people visit A and E every year compared with just three years ago—those are additional numbers—and the simple fact is that if growth continues at that rate it will be unsustainable. It also means that when there are short-term pressures on the system, such as a very cold winter, teething problems with NHS 111 or bank holidays, the system cannot cope as well as it needs to and the quality of care is affected.
Let us be clear: A and Es are currently hitting the 95% target. The latest figures show that 96.3% of patients are seen within four hours, and people are waiting on average 55 minutes for treatment. However, if A and E services are to be sustainable, we need both short-term and long-term measures to address the underlying causes of the pressure they are under.
Last week, NHS England announced that it would change the basis on which tariff money for certain A and E cases is spent. For the first time, hospitals will have a say in how money is spent to alleviate demand when that money is withheld for numbers exceeding the 2009 baseline. We also need to address more fundamental issues, which is why I announced to the House on 13 May that the Government will publish in the autumn a vulnerable older people’s plan that will tackle those long-term underlying causes of pressure in our A and Es, particularly for the frail elderly who are the heart of many of the issues we face in both quality of care and service performance.
The changes the Labour Government made to the GP contract took responsibility for out-of-hours care away from GPs. [[Interruption.] Labour Members may not like to hear the facts about the consequences of those changes, but let us go through them—they asked the question. Since those changes, 90% of GPs have opted out of providing out-of-hours care, and they got a pay rise in addition. As a result of those disastrous changes to the GP contract, we have seen a significant rise in attendances at A and E—4 million more people are using A and E every year than when the contract was changed. As researchers from the university of Nottingham found, to give just one example, a reduction in out-of-hours services provided by patients’ usual family doctors is a direct cause of increased A and E attendance by children.
There are other issues too, including the lack of integration with social care, and vulnerable patients being discharged from hospital with no one co-ordinating proper health and social care to support them in their own homes. That lack of integration was something else that the previous Government failed to address over 13 long years.
Then there are the problems inside A and E departments caused by the disastrous failure of Labour’s IT contract. When people are admitted to A and E departments, the departments are unable to see their medical records, which could have an enormous impact—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. First of all, the Secretary of State should not have to shout to be heard. Secondly, the more heckling there is, the slower progress tends to be. I want to accommodate colleagues, but as a matter both of courtesy and of practicality the Secretary of State should be heard in silence.
Mr Hunt
We will address those problems inside A and Es and the system-wide issues. It is not all about the GP contract, but that is a significant part of it, because confidence in primary care alternatives is a key driver in decisions on whether to go to A and E. We will take responsibility for sorting out those problems, but the Labour party must take responsibility for creating a number of them.
Andy Burnham
The Secretary of State could brief the newspapers last night, but he could not give a straight answer to my question today. He has not outlined his plans to change GP services.
The facts are that A and Es are under severe pressure and people are waiting hours on trolleys in corridors or in the back of queuing ambulances to be seen. Last week, a third of major A and Es missed the Government’s lowered targets—some were seriously adrift. At University Hospitals of Leicester, 78% of patients were seen within four hours. Seventy-nine per cent. of patients were seen within four hours in Portsmouth. Things have taken a more serious turn today, with news that 20 senior A and E doctors say they are unable to guarantee patient safety.
For weeks, the Opposition have warned the Secretary of State to get a grip. His only substantive response was to tour the TV studios to blame the 2004 GP contract. We today read that his answer is yet another costly NHS reorganisation, this time of GP services. Where is the evidence to support his contention that that will solve the A and E crisis? Why did he not outline his plans to the House—he has already given the news to newspapers?
This morning, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation told the Select Committee on Health that there is no link between today’s pressures on A and E and the 2004 contract, echoing expert analysis from the King’s Fund. If the GP contract is the root cause, as the Secretary of State claims, will he explain why 98% of people were seen within four hours in 2009, five years after the contract was signed? That figure has deteriorated sharply under his Government, and mainly on his watch. Major A and Es have missed the target in 33 of the 35 weeks when he has been Health Secretary. His complacency is dangerous. Is it not time he stopped blaming GPs to divert attention from a mess of the Government’s own making and addressed the real causes?
Two weeks ago, NHS England told the Secretary of State what those causes were. He needs to provide convincing answers on each. What steps is he taking to prevent the collapse of adult social care in England? What is he doing to ensure that all A and Es in England have enough doctors and nurses to provide safe care? Will he update the House on the status of his plans to cobble together a £400 million A and E crisis fund, news of which was leaked a fortnight ago? Will he halt the closure of NHS walk-in centres and personally review all planned A and E closures? What is he doing to sort out the failing 111 service? Did he not speed up implementation against official advice?
The truth is that this is a mess of the Government’s own making. It will not be solved by the Secretary of State’s spin or by blaming GPs. He has been found playing politics when he should be dealing with the real causes of today’s chaos. Faced with a real crisis, he has been found wanting. He needs to cut the spin and get a grip.
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Gentleman says, “Forget Wales,” but why has he never once been prepared to condemn the appalling failures in A and E in Wales, caused by the Welsh Labour Government’s decision to cut NHS spending by 8%? What he says would have some credibility were he at least prepared to condemn what has happened in Wales, but he never does.
The right hon. Gentleman asks for the evidence, and I will tell him. Patrick Cadigan of the Royal College of Physicians says that the pressures on A and E are caused because many people assume that, after 5 pm, the lights in the NHS go out everywhere except A and E departments—a direct consequence of those disastrous 2004 changes to the contract. Nottingham university conducted an independent study, and last year’s GP patient survey found that only 58% of patients know how to contact their local out-of-hours service, 20% find it difficult to contact their out-of-hours service, and 37% feel that the service is too slow—problems that we are trying to address. Perhaps he should visit some A and E departments and talk to consultants, doctors and nurses, because they will tell him that the changes to the GP contract, which he says have nothing to do with the pressures on A and E, have had a huge and devastating impact.
He talks about taking responsibility for these problems. Let us see if he is prepared to take responsibility. Is he prepared to take responsibility for the target-at-any-cost culture in some parts of the NHS under Labour, which led to the disaster of Mid-Staffs? Is he prepared to take responsibility for the IT failures that mean that A and E departments cannot access GP records? Will he nod his head if he is prepared to take responsibility? [Interruption.] He is not prepared. Is he prepared to take responsibility—
Mr Speaker
Order. Let us get this back on track. There are two very simple points: first, those on the Opposition Front Bench should not be yelling at the Secretary of State; secondly, for the avoidance of doubt, the responsibility of the Secretary of State is to answer questions, not ask them.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have told the Secretary of State what the position is. It is not for argument or debate. His responsibility is to get on with answering in the way the House of Commons expects.
Mr Hunt
And I would always seek to do so, Mr Speaker.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman constantly seeks to run down the performance of the NHS. Where is the recognition of the outstanding performance of the NHS under this Government: the fact that under this Government 400,000 more operations are happening every year than under Labour; the fact that the number of people waiting for more than a year for an operation has gone down from 18,000 under Labour to fewer than 1,000 under this Government; the fact that MSRA rates have been halved; and the fact that mixed-sex wards have nearly been eliminated? We will stick up for the great achievements of our NHS and we will not allow people to run it down. However, we will also tackle problems honestly and ensure that we address crises, many of which were caused by the previous Government.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that patients seeking urgent care will go to that part of the health service where the lights are on, and that the failure of the Opposition, over 13 years, to create genuinely integrated emergency care is the fruit we are now harvesting?
Mr Hunt
As ever, my right hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom. When it comes to the frail elderly, the key is to have a system that heads off problems before they arrive so that people do not find that they end up having to be rushed into A and E in the middle of the night. That can often be the very worst place for someone with advanced dementia or any condition that makes them extremely fragile and vulnerable. We need to integrate systems properly, and that did not happen under the previous Government. One of the key work streams of the vulnerable older people’s plan will be to look at barriers to integration, particularly the barriers to joint commissioning of social care and health. We intend to make good progress on that front.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that when NHS Direct was operating, nurses had the professional competence to decide not to refer people to A and E, and to provide reassuring advice? They have been replaced by call handlers who, understandably, opt to send people to A and E because they have neither the professional competence nor the professional confidence to do anything else?
Mr Hunt
I agree that there have been teething problems with 111 and we are addressing those problems. [Hon. Members: “ Teething problems?”] There is laughter on the Opposition Benches. We are hitting our A and E targets at the moment, and 111 is available in more than 90% of the country. We are dealing with those teething issues, but I take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s point. The 111 service needs to be quicker at getting advice to people from a GP or a nurse. The fundamental issue with 111 is that giving the public an easy number to remember has highlighted how inaccessible GP out-of-hours services have become. We have to address that if we are to restore public confidence in 111.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
If someone cannot get an appointment with their family doctor, they are undoubtedly more likely to end up in A and E, but does the Secretary of State agree that we will not increase capacity in primary care unless we address the work force shortage in general practice and broaden the skill mix of those who can see people in primary care?
Mr Hunt
I agree with my hon. Friend. Under this Government, we have 6,000 more doctors than we had under Labour, but we need more people going into general practice as well. [Interruption.] Yes, the training might have started under the Labour Government, but the funding happened under this Government, and it would not be possible if we cut the budget, which is what the Labour party still wants to do. She is right to point out those issues, however. One way of making general practice more attractive is to restore the personal link between GPs and the people on their list and a sense of personal responsibility and accountability. We need to find the right way of doing that, given the pressures on general practice at the moment, and I hope to work with her and many others to do that.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
May I tell this complacent Secretary of State that in 28 out of the last 30 weeks Southampton general hospital has missed the waiting time A and E target? In the week beginning 7 April, only six out of 10 patients were seen within four hours. It is clear that this is a crisis of the whole health system. Given that in the last six months his own specialist advisers have praised the Southampton health economy for the role that primary care has played in reducing pressures on A and E, will he think again before simply blaming one group of doctors for a problem that runs right through the health system and into social care?
Mr Hunt
I am not blaming any doctors; I am blaming the Labour party for making disastrous decisions in office. We are addressing the issues that his party failed to address. If Southampton is not meeting its A and E targets, that is unacceptable. We are talking to all the hospitals struggling to meet those targets, but they all say—I am sure that people in Southampton would say this as well—that we need to look at the fundamental issues, which are barriers between the health and social care systems, poor primary care alternatives and problems inside hospitals with how A and E is handled. We are addressing all those issues.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Better co-ordination of ambulance trusts and A and E departments is essential, but it will not happen by accident. Are we not now missing the strategic health authorities, given that ambulances are being sent to units already working at full capacity?
Mr Hunt
By getting rid of the layers of bureaucracy we had with strategic health authorities and primary care trusts—a brave and important decision made by my predecessor—we have been able to invest in more front-line staff. The NHS is doing much more, in terms of the number of operations, out-patient appointments and people being seen by A and E, because we are investing in the front line, but it is the responsibility of the new clinical commissioning groups to ensure proper co-ordination, and I would expect them to do that.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State attributes the current crisis in A and E in part to a contract that doctors signed back in 2004 and the fact that large parts of the NHS turn off the lights at 5 pm or 6 pm, which they have done for 60 years. Is there anything for which this Government have been responsible in the NHS since 2010?
Mr Hunt
Yes, we have been responsible for a huge increase in performance, many more people being operated on, the virtual elimination of mixed-sex wards, MRSA rates being halved, more operations than ever before, more outpatient operations than ever before and more GP appointments than ever before.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I am struck by the fact that no mention has yet been made of the drivers of the reported chaos in A and E and the pressures on primary care out of hours. What of ageing? What of obesity? What of the changes in behaviour, the absence of stoicism, the increase in medical technology costs? Whatever the system that either the Government or the Opposition talk about, it will come under pressure. When will we have some reality in this Chamber about the causes of this problem, because the sooner we have, the better we will all be?
Mr Hunt
I recognise my hon. Friend’s clinical background. When I talk to clinicians in A and E wards, they tell me that the long-term drivers of the pressures they are under are an increase in the number of older people and an increase in the acuteness of the conditions of people coming through the doors. That is why at the heart of our long-term solution is a vulnerable older people’s plan that ensures we look after them with the dignity, compassion and respect they deserve.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Why does the Secretary of State not increase access to primary care during normal working hours by reintroducing the requirement on primary care services to see patients within 48 hours, as happened under the Labour Government?
Mr Hunt
That target led to many problems, as the hon. Lady well knows. She might remember, from the 2005 general election campaign, the issues of people being denied appointments for three, four or five days because GP surgeries were being paid to meet specific 48-hour appointments. That is one issue. Too often, if people call GPs for an appointment, they are told that the earliest they can have one is in two, three or four weeks, which makes them think, “What are my alternatives?” and leads them into A and E. We must think about how we can change that and alter the incentives in GP contracts so that they can give the kind of service to their lists they would like to.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Do I need to remind my right hon. Friend that the outgoing Labour Government in 2010 left a note on the desk of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying, “There’s no money left”? Is not the challenge the need to make the NHS work on more or less flat funding—though we are doing our best to increase it—while dealing with huge increases in demand? Is not the only answer to do more in the general practice setting, where it can be done more responsibly, more local to patients’ needs and more cheaply, in order to take the pressure off A and E services?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks extremely wisely. We must do just that, particularly for the frail elderly, people with long-term complex conditions, because they are the people for whom an A and E department can be a bewildering place, especially if it knows nothing about them and cannot access their medical records. Prevention is far better than cure, and I agree that that is one way of doing it.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State advises us to visit A and E departments. Were he to visit the one in the excellent Ealing hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), he would see the grotesque, confusing and expensive sight of a spatchcocked urgent care centre next to an A and E department, one acting as a gateway for the other. It is confusing, divisive and expensive. Is he entirely comfortable with this concept?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have failed as an NHS to give the public confidence in there being anything between an A and E department and a GP surgery. Whether they are urgent care centres or other centres, the public do not have that confidence and do not understand their role. We need other things, besides those two extremes, and to do a better job of informing the public about how they work. That is part of the reason for reforming primary care.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
May I invite my right hon. Friend to visit Frimley Park hospital, which serves his constituents and mine? I went there on Friday and saw the magnificent new A and E facilities in which it has invested. Yes, it has been under pressure in the past year or so, but it has managed and the out-of-hours service is being provided by GPs. I encourage him to come and see what a magnificent service is provided. Its excellent chief executive, Andrew Morris, raised with me the question of the tariff. Will my right hon. Friend explain a bit more his proposals to recompense hospitals such as Frimley Park, which are doing a fantastic job in A and E, for the additional burden they have had to assume?
Mr Hunt
I agree with my hon. Friend: Frimley Park is a terrific hospital and Andrew Morris a first-class chief executive. In fact, I am visiting Frimley Park in the next month and I will certainly have that discussion with him. My hon. Friend is right that one issue that A and E departments frequently raise is the tariff and the fact that they get paid only 30% of it for any A and E admissions over the 2009 baseline. That was why NHS England announced an important change a few weeks ago. Previously, hospitals had no say over how the money that is withheld from them is spent—it is meant to be used to reduce demand. We are now setting up urgent care boards, and hospitals will have a seat round the table to ensure that the money is spent in a way that reduces pressures on their A and E departments.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State say how the numbers attending A and E in south-west London will be reduced by the closure of St Helier hospital’s A and E department, which saw 80,000 people last year?
Mr Hunt
I have not seen any plans for the closure of St Helier. I know that NHS London is looking at possibilities to improve services in those areas, but, as the hon. Lady will know and should take comfort from, if a major reconfiguration is proposed and then referred to the Secretary of State by the local overview and scrutiny committee, I will not approve the change unless I am convinced that it will improve patient care.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could make better use of the ambulance service and that if we had more fully trained ambulance men who could assess whether a patient needed to go to hospital, we could reduce A and E admissions that way?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the importance of the ambulance service, which is also feeling the pressure on A and E departments. We need to help the ambulance service to do its job better too. One thing that it always strikes me would make a huge difference to ambulance services is if staff could access the GP records of someone they were picking up on a 999 call, so that they would know that the patient was a diabetic with mild dementia and a heart condition, for instance. That kind of information can be incredibly helpful. I hope that by sorting out the IT issues with which the last Government struggled, we can help ambulance services to do that.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Select Committee on Health heard evidence today from the College of Emergency Medicine about a 50% shortfall in trainee doctors and consultants. On average, trusts—I was going to say PCTs—spend £500,000 on locums. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that?
Mr Hunt
We certainly intend to address A and E departments’ recruitment issues, which I recognise are one of the causes of the pressure. Over-reliance on locum doctors is not a long-term solution to improving the performance of A and E departments either, so those are both areas that we will be looking at.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Government—Governments generally—cannot legislate to predict or control accidents or genuine emergencies, but they can direct resources. Hospital bed numbers have been cut by about 30% in the last 10 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult for A and E departments to function effectively if they do not have adequate bed capacity behind them?
Mr Hunt
I do agree, but what hospitals say is that the issue is not the number of beds, but the people in them who are not being properly discharged into the social care system. I was at King’s College hospital last week, where I was told that the hospital had probably two wards full of people who could be discharged into the social care system but had not been. Breaking down those barriers—something that I am afraid the last Government did not get round to doing in 13 years—will be an important priority.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The A and E department at Wolverhampton’s New Cross hospital recently saw a record 365 patients in one day. Those pressures will increase with the downgrading of Mid Staffordshire hospital. Does the Secretary of State agree that it will be deeply unfair to patients in both Wolverhampton and Staffordshire if the added burden on Wolverhampton’s New Cross A and E department is not met with increased resources from him, in terms of size and staff, to cope with the increased pressures?
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the new role that GPs will play in commissioning will greatly assist the production of better community services and more integration with social care, all of which has been championed so frequently by the King’s Fund?
Mr Hunt
I completely agree with that. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) for piloting those important reforms through the health service. I just hope that the Labour party, which claimed to support practice-based, clinically led commissioning, will see the error of its ways and understand that proper clinical commissioning holds the key to solving many of these problems.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
One of the concerns raised with me is about the lack of commissioning of community services to help patients to be discharged from hospital, which has a knock-on effect on A and E and queuing ambulances. Is not the reality that, as health professionals tell me, the lack of community services, which is what causes the problem in A and E, is a direct result of this Government’s reorganisation?
Mr Hunt
Quite the opposite: the changes introduced by my predecessor make it possible to have truly joint commissioning between clinical commissioning groups and local authorities, which are responsible for social care. I hope that will deal precisely with the problems the hon. Gentleman talks about. That is what we have to encourage and facilitate in every way we can.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
One million more patients a year are going through A and E departments and an increasing number of family doctors are progressively opting out of out-of-hours care. Why does the Secretary of State think that the King’s Fund can see the correlation but the Labour party cannot?
Mr Hunt
Because, I am afraid, the Labour party is completely failing to take responsibility for some catastrophically bad decisions that it made when it was in power. Labour Members might want to talk not only to people such as the King’s Fund, but to their own constituents, who say that traditional family doctoring is something they would like to see return.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
How does the decision to close the A and E unit at King George hospital in Ilford, which was taken by the Secretary of State’s predecessor, who is sitting next to him, and confirmed by him recently, help to take the pressure off Queen’s hospital in Romford?
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The last Labour Government closed accident and emergency at Crawley hospital, but in the last few years the urgent treatment centre has been able to see more and more patients. Does my right hon. Friend agree that upskilling urgent treatment centres is part of the answer to the problem?
Mr Hunt
I do, and my hon. Friend is right to point out that the last Labour Government closed or downgraded 12 A and E departments. The Opposition have criticised us in the press—indeed, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who is sitting on the Front Bench, has criticised me for not getting on and closing more A and E departments, which is what he seems to want to happen. Every time there has been a controversial reconfiguration, Labour has opposed it all the way. I think we could expect a bit more consistency from a shadow Secretary of State who was once a Health Secretary.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
About eight weeks ago, the Secretary of State made a commitment to refer the decision to close four out of nine A and E departments in north-west London. Can he tell the House why he has not kept his word?
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
There is a general acknowledgement and recognition that one of the problems for A and E departments, particularly at night and on weekends and bank holidays, is people going to them who do not need to. Does my right hon. Friend think there is scope for the new clinical commissioning groups to commission primary triage at the entrance of A and E departments, so that those who need only primary care treatment are directed towards to it, and those who need A and E treatment go through to A and E?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that actually happens in many places throughout the country, but we need to go even further. When it comes to the most frail, vulnerable older people, we need to commission services in a way that ensures that someone outside hospital knows what is happening with them the whole time, is accountable for their care and treatment, and can pre-empt the need to seek emergency care in the middle of the night. That will be the key to ensuring that the pressures on A and E are sustainable.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Today, the Health Committee heard that this Government’s cuts to social care were a direct cause of increased A and E attendances: patients cannot be returned home on time, and all the services that used to keep people well have been cut. This Government cut local authority budgets, resulting in £2 billion going out of adult social care. Will the Health Secretary now accept what the experts are telling us on the Health Committee: that that is the direct cause of the increased A and E attendances?
Mr Hunt
Once again, the Labour party opposes every single cut made by this Government then tries to pretend that it is serious about getting the deficit under control. On this point, I remind the hon. Lady that the NHS is giving £7.2 billion of support to the social care system for health-related needs, precisely in order to ensure that services are not compromised. Where they have been compromised, we are looking into it and we are disappointed about it, but we continue to monitor the situation and to urge local authorities to ensure that they discharge their responsibilities properly.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, we cannot divorce emergency care from the provision of acute beds. The Secretary of State mentioned the fact that an increasing number of patients with acute illnesses are going into hospital. May I urge him to look carefully at any proposals to reduce the number of acute beds anywhere in the country, because I believe that we shall need them all?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I commend him for the extremely responsible and committed way in which he has been keeping an eye on what is happening in his local hospital. He is absolutely right to suggest that, before implementing any big reconfiguration, we need to be certain that what we are doing will improve patient care and not damage it. I will continue to ensure that that is the case.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
We know that walk-in centres alleviate the pressure on A and Es. How many walk-in centres have shut since May 2010?
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
The issue of out-of-hours care and the additional pressure on A and E has been present in Suffolk since before the election. Just last Friday, I was in Felixstowe to meet the four patient participation groups there, and yet again out-of-hours care was identified as a real problem. I welcome the reforms that might be announced later this week, but can we ensure that patients realise that we are on their side and that we want them to be back with their family doctor?
Mr Hunt
Absolutely. It is extraordinary that in this debate in Parliament today, Labour Members have their heads in the sand about the low public confidence in out-of-hours GP care, which is a major driver of the problems in A and E departments. We are going to sort out that problem—[Interruption.] If they do not want us to, they are just going to have to watch while we do it.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I ask the Secretary of State to deplore the personal attacks that are being made on Julie Bailey, who was responsible for drawing attention to the many deficiencies in Mid Staffordshire hospital. She has suffered personal attacks in the street and has had faeces pushed through her letterbox. We should all deplore the fact that that is happening to such an important and brave whistleblower.
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Lady speaks wisely, and I completely concur with her comments. Those attacks are totally reprehensible and I condemn them utterly. Julie Bailey is a remarkable lady, and it is thanks to her that the standard of compassionate care in hospitals across the country is going to improve dramatically. We all owe her a huge debt.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Thanks must go to all the staff at Kettering general hospital’s A and E for doing their best to cope with a 12% year-on-year rise in A and E admissions, which is being driven by one of the fastest household growth rates in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and I have written to the Minister responsible for A and E services, as part of a cross-party campaign, to request a meeting to discuss the special circumstances that Kettering’s A and E faces. Does the Secretary of State agree that that meeting should take place at the earliest opportunity?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The basic problem with the 111 service is the national specification of the triage system. The ambulance drivers in my constituency warned of this two years ago when the service was trialled, and last year the north-east local medical committee also told the Department of Health that the system was not working. It is the Secretary of State who has his head in the sand. Why does he not listen to the professionals on the ground?
Mr Hunt
I am listening. I have said that we have teething problems and that we want to sort them out. I am prepared to look at the whole of the 111 service to see whether it is delivering the service that the public need. However, I would say to the hon. Lady that the issues with 111 have focused public attention on the poor standard of out-of-hours care in many parts of the country. There is a particular issue of enabling people to speak out of hours to a GP who can, with their permission, look at their medical record, which is a pretty basic starting point. Until we sort that out, we will not be able to sort out the wider issue of confidence in 111.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Despite my warnings in the Chamber, this Government closed the Newark accident and emergency department, as a consequence of which there has been a 37% increase in deaths. I know that the Secretary of State is too much of a survivor ever to dare to mess with Bassetlaw A and E, but does he agree that the reconfiguration of services in London has absolutely nothing to do with the reconfiguration of services in north Nottinghamshire?
Mr Hunt
All decisions on reconfigurations have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The really important thing is to ensure that, when we reconfigure services, we have a good alternative in place and we are able to give the public the confidence that it is in place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we follow the four tests before any ministerial approval is given for a reconfiguration to go ahead.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of the opening of the present Charing Cross hospital. The Secretary of State is welcome to come to the party, although he might be unpopular, as the A and E department there is one of the four in west London that he wishes to close. Three months ago, at Health questions, he told me that he would refer those decisions to the IRP, but he now appears to be telling my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) that he is taking advice on whether to do that. Will he stick to his promise and make that referral for a full review?
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2009, long after the GP contract was introduced, accident and emergency units were hitting their 98% target. The Secretary of State has reduced that target to 95%, but we are now hearing that units around the country are not even achieving that. How can that possibly be? What steps is he going to take to deal with the situation?
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State appears to have managed to make the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) smile. The occasion should be noted.
Mr Hunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is probably the nicest thing you have ever said to me. I shall dine out on it.
The answer to the question from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) is that the changes in the 2004 GP contract are not the only cause of pressure on A and Es, but they are a significant cause. They set in train a process of declining public confidence in GP out-of-hours care, which has fuelled the growth in A and E attendances, and that growth has continued so that in the three years since 2009, attendances have gone up by more than 1 million. That is why those changes are having a significant impact on A and E services.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently visited the London ambulance service. When ambulance staff cannot hand over a patient to A and E, the patient is kept waiting in the ambulance. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the number of handover delays lasting more than 30 minutes has doubled to 200,000 in the past three years? Will he also update the House on when he expects that trend to be reversed?
Mr Hunt
Handover delays are unacceptable, and the short-term and longer-term measures that I am putting in place will, I hope, help to reduce them. The hon. Lady might want to talk to her own Front Benchers about this, however, because they seem to be setting their face against improving primary care as a way of reducing the pressures on A and E departments, even though that goes against the grain of what the public and the NHS want.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I support the request from the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss resources for Kettering general hospital, which is in a fast-growing area. Corby has the highest birth rate in England and is one of the fastest growing towns in Europe. I urge the Secretary of State also to recognise that the issues with the 111 service are rather more than “teething problems”. Twice this year, Kettering general hospital’s A and E has had to close its doors to all patients other than those arriving by ambulance and to notify the public not to come to the unit. That is extremely worrying for my constituents.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Eighteen months ago, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust experienced a sustained increase in visits to A and E and hospital admissions, resulting in thousands of cancelled operations. The trust conducted an independent investigation to help it to understand and respond to the crisis, which had multiple causes. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the study did not conclude that poor provision by GPs or the out-of-hours service was to blame?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
On Sunday, some of my constituents dialled 999 for an ambulance for an 83-year-old woman who had fallen in the street. They were told to ring 111, but after 15 minutes, with the operator saying he was still assessing needs and the lady still lying in the street, they abandoned the call and rang 999, when an ambulance was dispatched. Is that the norm for this service?
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State seems to have decided that changing GP out-of-hours services is part of the solution to the A and E crisis. In the Public Accounts Committee a few weeks ago, we heard from clinical commissioning groups that they fear a single tender just to GPs because of the threat of legal action. We have seen that played out in Hackney, where GPs have been knocked back by the clinical commissioning group. When will the right hon. Gentleman get a grip on his Department and let the CCGs have the freedom to commission local GPs rather than fear the legal action that prevents them from doing so?
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Secretary of State confirm how many walk-in centres have closed since May 2010? Will he accept that those closures are linked to the rise in A and E attendance?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland as in England there have been lots of problems with increasing numbers presenting at A and E. The Northern Ireland Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety introduced the triage system, which enabled more effective processing of patients and allowed people to get the level of care and medical attention they needed. Will the Secretary of State agree to discussions with that Northern Ireland Minister to see what can be learned from what has been done in Northern Ireland?
Mr Hunt
I always welcome discussions with the devolved Administrations to see what we can learn. Better triaging at the point of entry to A and E is certainly one of the things that makes a difference between A and E trusts that are managing to meet their targets despite very high pressures and those that are not.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and the 40 Back Benchers who contributed to the debate on the urgent question.
Point of Order
Mr Speaker
I trust that this will be a point of order rather than a continuation of the argument.
Andy Burnham
I am sorry to test your patience, Mr Speaker, but I want to ask you whether it is in order for the Government to brief newspapers about a major change of policy, to bring it before this House so that questions can be asked about that major change of policy, and then to fail to provide any details to hon. Members about the changes they have in mind. Is that acceptable behaviour, Mr Speaker, or is it indeed a major discourtesy to this House?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, I attach great importance, as have all previous Speakers, to the timely announcement of Government policies in the House first and not to the media. I made a judgment that this matter warranted the urgent attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will also have noticed that the level of interest in the subject was such that I thought it appropriate to run the urgent question very fully. As to what has or has not been disclosed elsewhere, I do not feel able on this occasion to say, but I would like to thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and all colleagues for their participation. We will leave it there for today.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 366 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New schedule 1—‘Consequential amendments—Marriage according to usages of approved organisations—
The following amendments are made to the Marriage Act 1949—
(1) In section 26 (marriages which may be solemnized on authority of superintendent registrar’s certificate) in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
(ca) a marriage conducted under the auspices of an approved organisation;”.
(2) In section 35 (marriages in registration district in which neither party resides) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
(3) In section 43 (appointment of authorised persons) in subsection (3) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation authorised by the Registrar General under section 47A”.
(4) In section 50 (person to whom certificate to be delivered), in subsection (1) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
(da) if the marriage is to be solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registering officer of that organisation”.
(5) After section 52, the following section is inserted—
“52A Interpretation
In this Part of this Act “approved organisation” has the meaning given to it in section 67.”.
(6) In section 53 (persons by whom marriages are to be registered), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
(ba) in the case of a marriage solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registered officer of that organisation;”.
(7) In section 54 (provision of marriage register books by Registrar General), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends,” there is inserted “registering officer of an approved organisation”.
(8) In section 55 (manner of registration of marriages)—
(a) in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and
(b) in subsection (1)(b) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation” and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.
(9) In section 57 (quarterly returns to be made to superintendent registrar), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
(10) In section 59 (custody of register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
(11) In section 60 (filled register books) in subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the words “registering officer of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; after the words “members of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of the said organisation”, and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.
(12) In section 63 (searches in register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.
(13) In section 67 (interpretation of Part IV), there are inserted in the list of definitions the following—
““approved organisation” means an organisation approved by the Registrar General under section 47A of this Act;” and
““registering officer of an approved organisation” means a person whom the principal officer of the said organisation certifies in writing under his or her hand to the Registrar General to be a registering officer in England or Wales of that organisation;”;
and in the definition of “superintendent registrar” after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
(ba) in the case of a marriage registered by a registering officer of an approved organisation, the superintendent registrar of the registration district which is assigned by the Registrar General to that registering officer;”.
(14) In section 75 (offences relating to solemnization of marriages) in subsection (1), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and in subsection (2), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation.”.’.
Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
(iA) section 47A (marriage according to the usages of approved organisations).’.
Amendment 20, in clause 5, page 6, line 29, after ‘solemnized’, insert
‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.
Amendment 21, schedule 7, page 49, line 16, after ‘celebrated’, insert
‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.
New clause 14—Civil union—
‘(1) Two people, whether they are of different or the same sex, may enter into a civil union if—
(a) they are both aged 18 or over;
(b) they are not within prohibited degrees of relationship;
(c) they are not currently in a civil union with someone else.
(2) A civil union must be solemnized by a Registrar.
(3) No religious service is to be used while the civil union registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil union document.
(4) A civil union ends only on death, dissolution or annulment.
(5) The Marriage Act 1949 is repealed.’.
New clause 18—Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage—
‘(1) Any marriage solemnized (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949 (Marriage under Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate), the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970 or an Order in Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6 (other than a marriage according to religious rites and usages) shall be termed a Civil Marriage.
(2) The Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor may, by order, make such provision (including provision amending UK legislation) as the Secretary of Sate or Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of this section.’.
Amendment 58, in clause 9, page 9, line 5, at end insert
‘and such a marriage shall be a civil marriage’.
Amendment 59, in clause 15, page 12, line 15, at end insert—
‘(ba) an order under section (Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage).
Kate Green
I am moving new clause 15 to introduce humanist marriage, along with new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21 that are consequential to new clause 15. May I start by paying tribute—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will not say that I was heckled by the Clerk of the House from a sedentary position, as he was rather helpfully advising me from his usual position on a point on which we need to be clear. I am sorry if the hon. Lady thinks this is a pedantic point, but it is quite important procedurally. The hon. Lady can speak to the other amendments in the group, but the only item she is moving at this stage is new clause 15. We anoraks like to get these things right.
Kate Green
Thank you for that exceptionally helpful advice, Mr Speaker. I am, of course, moving new clause 15 and speaking to new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21.
I should like to pay tribute to the British Humanist Association for its support with drafting and its general and wider advice. This proposal seeks to put right a long-standing injustice in a simple and uncontroversial way.
Kate Green
I would like to make a little more progress and then take some interventions. Let us start by establishing the ground on which I shall make my case and I will accept interventions later.
Whereas Christians and most other believers have a choice when they marry of a civil ceremony in front of a registrar, or a religious ceremony that reflects their beliefs, non-religious people have no choice: it is the local registrar at a register office or in a so-called approved place or nothing.
The Government have objections to my proposals. It is important to say this afternoon that we are absolutely crystal clear about what those objections are. If there are problems with the way in which the new clause seeks to achieve its objective, we stand ready to work with the Government to address those concerns. There is a very strong wish for humanist weddings to be recognised and for any perceived problems to be overcome.
It has been suggested that the proposals before us are in some way a wholesale departure from what has been described as fundamental English marriage law. I question whether any such fundamental law in fact exists. Our marriage laws are an accretion of changes and legislative and social developments over many centuries, but I accept that the broad framework in which our English marriage system operates goes back in many regards to the 18th century when Lord Hardwicke introduced his Marriage Act 1753, which required all marriages to be conducted in parish churches and after due notice had been given.
Kate Green
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the general importance of the premises in English law in relation to most faiths, but I think she should bear in mind that in the Church of England the clergy are registered, that registrars are registered in our civil system and that, as I have said, Jews and Quakers already operate in a different legislative framework from that governing religions as a whole.
Kate Green
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I promised that I would.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I know my place.
When I first received communications from humanists supporting this approach, I looked up “humanist weddings”, and discovered from the humanism.org.uk website that there are wedding celebrants who can take services now. It is recommended that people obtain a civil marriage certificate at the register office and then hold the ceremony wherever they want, perhaps in the open air: they are not limited by buildings in any way. I understand that that applies to a number of religions, as well as to humanists. I am therefore wondering whether we need to have this debate.
Kate Green
What the hon. Gentleman says about other religions may be correct, but it is not the case that all religions are required to go through a dual process. Jews and Quakers are not. My contention is that we should recognise the strong popular support for humanism, just as we recognise popular support for other forms of marriage. Many organisations can perform legal marriages in their own right, and do so for smaller numbers than the humanists would and, indeed, than the humanists do now. While I would not for one minute suggest that our marriage laws should be based on some sort of numbers game—although I believe that some Members sought to suggest as much in Committee, an approach that I found somewhat offensive and regrettable—my contention is supported, in this context, by the fact that not only is practice in relation to humanist marriages already fairly widespread, but the numbers are increasing. The popularity is growing.
The Attorney-General
I hope the hon. Lady will accept that I make my comments in a completely neutral way and that I appreciate what she is trying to achieve, but I have absolutely no doubt that the new clause, if passed, would render the Bill incompatible with the provisions of the European convention on human rights, because it identifies a group that is not a religious group and gives it a special status. The first thing that would happen is that all sorts of other secular groups would claim non-discrimination rights under article 14. I realise that that may be capable of being cured, but I can only say to the hon. Lady that the new clause would make it impossible for the Minister to sign a certificate under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, enabling the Bill to proceed to the other place.
Kate Green
First, although of course I respect the Attorney-General’s expert advice, I must point out that the narrow drafting of the new clause follows advice from the Government’s own officials. We had been given to understand that it would be possible to prescribe, very tightly, a mode of marriage for humanists, legally recognised, and we are surprised that human rights objections are being raised now.
Kate Green
I will give way in a moment, but I have not quite finished dealing with the points raised by the Attorney-General.
Secondly, although I am encouraged to learn that the Attorney-General believes that there is potential for some of the objections to be “cured”—
Kate Green
I must say, with respect to Government Members, that I need to respond to the first point before I can respond to points two, three and four.
I understand that the possibility of challenge on the grounds suggested by the Attorney-General exists, broadly, in England and in Scotland, where humanist marriages are already being conducted. While I accept that there is one significant difference between humanist marriage and the religious forms of marriage that are recognised in English law—namely, that they are not religious forms of marriage—they are none the less a belief form of marriage.
I venture to suggest that if we could have the benefit of a fully worked and argued opinion from the Attorney-General, I might be able to take on board his complaint, but, having engaged in a series of discussions with Government officials to reach this point, I am very disappointed to find that we are now being presented with what appears to be one potentially significant legal objection that has not been properly raised with us until now.
Kate Green
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, first proposed this measure as an amendment in Committee.
Stephen Williams
Mine will be a triangular intervention, inviting the Attorney-General to intervene on the hon. Lady again. Given that humanist weddings have taken place in Scotland since 2005, and given that the United Kingdom, rather than England and Wales, is the signatory to the European convention on human rights, why has the Registrar General for Scotland not been subject to a legal challenge under the convention? Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain. [Interruption.]
Kate Green
My hon. Friend—if I may call him that in this context—has raised an excellent point. I hear mutterings from Government Members, who are suggesting that the answer to his question is that in Scotland it is the person who is registered. Let me say, with the greatest respect, that I do not see how that can possibly deal with the human rights point.
The Attorney-General
I do my best to provide advice on the law of England and Wales—Scottish law is unquestionably different historically—but, according to my limited understanding of the position, in Scotland it is not just humanists who may be registered for this purpose; pagans and all sorts of other groups may also qualify. I simply make the point that in the context of the Bill as drafted and as proposed today—I realise that the hon. Lady may be upset about this, but I have no role in it—the new clause undoubtedly introduces a serious human rights problem, which I think is obvious because of its discriminatory nature. That is really all that I can say on the matter.
Kate Green
I make no great claims for my understanding of Scots law, despite having a rather elderly and unused degree in it, but—
Kate Green
I really cannot take an intervention before I have dealt with the preceding one. I will give way to the Minister in just a moment.
Although I understand the premise of the Attorney-General’s concern, I think that there are arguments to be advanced on the other side. The Equality Act 2010 provides for the recognition of “religion or belief”, and we strongly contend that our approach falls within the same legal territory. We are also mindful of the fact that in Scotland, where such challenges have also been possible—I recognise that Scotland has a different legal system, but in this context I do not think that that is an issue—registrars have been able to prevent organisations with no apparent legitimacy or justification from being registered to undertake weddings. I should be grateful if it could be explained to me why, given the tight drafting of the new clause, that could not be the case here.
Maria Miller
I would not normally intervene on the hon. Lady, but she said that Government officials had advised her in a certain way, and I wanted to make clear that they did not advise the narrowing of the new clause. They drew attention to the problems with the earlier amendment, which—I say this for the benefit of Members who may not have had an opportunity to read the report of the Committee’s proceedings—covered both religious and non-religious organisations, and created real and unnecessary uncertainty about who would actually be covered. I think that the hon. Lady is aware of the genuine problems raised by amendments tabled in Committee. They confused the distinction in marriage law between religious and civil ceremonies, and it was therefore unclear how the religious protections in the Bill would work within such a system.
Kate Green
I do not accept that. I do not wish for one second to impugn the messages received from officials. It is quite possible that there was some gulf in understanding between those who delivered the message and those who heard it. I was not present at the conversations myself, and the Secretary of State is, of course, right to put forward her description of what took place, but my understanding is that the way that they concluded led the British Humanist Association, which is advising me, to understand that a more tightly worded proposal, such as the one that I have put before the House this afternoon, would meet the concerns. Although that may not have been the intention intended to be conveyed, it was certainly the intention that it came away with.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an extremely strong and compelling case, and I look forward to expressing my support for it in more detail later. I have here a letter from the Culture Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, saying:
“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover the humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”
Does the hon. Lady agree that that strongly suggests the Government supported this change?
Kate Green
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I was at a wedding on Sunday. I only attended the evening part, but during the day there was a humanist ceremony, and everyone said it was a wonderful occasion. It was held in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. Does my hon. Friend agree that humanists in Scotland cannot understand why their fellow humanists in England might not enjoy the same rights as they do and feel very disappointed about that?
Kate Green
I, too, have attended humanist weddings in Scotland, including that of my niece last October, which was an incredibly special occasion. I can fully understand what my hon. Friend says about the concern and hurt humanists across the UK will feel that these ceremonies that have worked so successfully in Scotland since 2005 have not been replicated here in England.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. There are now 2,500 humanist weddings a year in Scotland. It is now the third most popular form of marriage that we have in Scotland, yet the Attorney-General has suggested that these weddings are somehow illegal under European law. However, the UK is the signatory to European human rights treaties, so what he says is a lot of nonsense. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the UK is the signatory to the European human rights treaties and that, if these weddings are illegal in England, they must also be illegal in Scotland?
Kate Green
Obviously, I do not answer for the Government, and I will not respond to any specific interventions on that point. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a speech later.
Kate Green
I will take one more intervention, and then I am going to develop the compelling case for why we want humanist weddings in this country, not why there are apparently so many legal objections to be overcome.
The Attorney-General
The last thing that I want to do is interrupt the hon. Lady’s flow, but I want to reply very briefly to what was just said. I am not suggesting in any way that what is happening in Scotland is unlawful. Instead, I am highlighting that there is a serious defect in the amendment. Given the discriminatory nature of the favour it gives to humanists as opposed to other secular organisations, it would have the consequence of making the measure incompatible with the convention rights. I think that that is obvious when we examine the amendment.
Kate Green
It may be challengeable under the convention, but I do not think we know at all whether such a challenge would be successful.
Let me develop some aspects of the case for humanist weddings. So far this has been a rather unpleasant and legalistic debate, and in the same spirit as our debates on same-sex marriage, I want to make the case that the House should feel joyful about humanist weddings and celebrate them.
For those who are concerned about protections, the new clause provides that the Registrar General could issue a certificate to any organisation that
“(a) is a registered charity principally concerned with advancing or practising the non-religious belief known as humanism;
(b) has been in continuous existence for five years; and
(c) appears to the Registrar General to be of good repute.”
That provision addresses some of the wilder claims that unlikely organisations would or could either qualify or mount a human rights challenge.
The details are closely modelled on the existing law, and they were drafted following conversations with the Government—although perhaps not conversations in which both sides fully understood each other—and address the specific points rightly raised by Ministers in Committee, when the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) first proposed the amendment. We have taken as much account as possible of the concerns that we believe the Government have about this proposition, and we are therefore disappointed and startled to see a whole new front of opposition opened up this afternoon.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
For my own information really, can the hon. Lady say how much consultation she has had with the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches on this amendment and its possible implications?
Kate Green
I think that it is fair to say that the Churches are not displaying tremendous enthusiasm for this proposal. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not easy for the official Opposition to carry out extensive consultations, but the issue was raised in Committee, when we took evidence from some of the Churches, and I detected no great appetite or enthusiasm from them for further discussion of this kind of proposal.
Of course, we would like the Government to adopt this proposal and take it forward wholeheartedly and in a way that delivers a robust and settled legal right to humanist weddings. In the absence of that, we simply need to take the evidence of the number of people who are coming forward asking for a humanist ceremony, the number of humanist ceremonies that are taking place and the very high popularity they enjoy both among those who participate in them and those who attend them.
Let me read the remarks of one couple:
“A humanist wedding offered us the chance to make the wedding ‘ours’, it enabled us to construct our own vows and create a ceremony that felt immediately very personal to both us and our guests, it also portrayed exactly what marriage meant to us and how we see our marriage growing in the future.”
We should be celebrating that in the context of this Bill, and I greatly regret that a sense of celebration is being lost as a result of the way that this afternoon’s debate is proceeding.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I should declare an interest: I am a member of the BHA. Is the hon. Lady aware that civil registrars are increasingly offering full ceremonies, so we already have a secular alternative, and this proposal does not make a new one but just adds one that a lot of people want?
Kate Green
I am disappointed in that question. Secular and humanist are not the same. I am not a humanist. I would want a purely secular ceremony were I to be marrying, but others want a ceremony that reflects their beliefs. Humanism is recognised as a strand of belief. A ceremony to accommodate that deep-held feeling has to be organised and provided if we are to meet the legitimate desires of our humanist friends and neighbours.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady will be well aware of my opinions and views on this matter. In Committee evidence, there was among the Churches and other religious organisations an overwhelming majority opposed to humanist weddings. Is she saying we should ignore that vast strand of public opinion—the many millions of people who oppose this—in favour of a small minority?
Kate Green
With the greatest respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any evidence whatever that millions of people are opposed to this proposal.
Kate Green
No, not until I have dealt with the question fully. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman has evidence of millions of Church members opposing this proposal. I fully accept that there is quite likely to be a lack of enthusiasm among those at the top of the Church hierarchy, but I would not necessarily take even that for granted in all cases. Many people, including people of faith, attend humanist weddings, and value and celebrate their participation in them, either as family or friends.
Kate Green
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; he is next.
Many people of faith—I think this is the position of Ministers—who believe marriage itself to be a ceremony of huge social value and importance would welcome a humanist marriage ceremony founded on belief and commitment in preference to a secular ceremony or to no ceremony at all.
Mike Thornton
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) was supporting humanist marriage. As a churchgoer and a Christian, I was privileged to be able to have a ceremony that I believed reflected my faith and my beliefs. I think it is vital that people with humanist beliefs who are not Christian and not churchgoers have the opportunity to have a celebration that reflects their beliefs. It is extraordinary that anyone of faith should oppose someone else having such a ceremony, and I do not understand such objections.
Kate Green
I am grateful for that welcome and helpful intervention and for the intervention from the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales).
Concerns and doubts have been expressed about the quality of the service, if I may call it that, that humanists would offer, but the British Humanist Association runs a long-established ceremony service. We have already identified that many people, including many of us, have already attended humanist weddings and some of us might have attended humanist funerals or baby-naming ceremonies. There is a very long and extensive experience in this country of participation in such ceremonies and to my knowledge no adverse comment or criticism of them has been made at all—indeed, quite the reverse.
It is also important to note that the British Humanist Association is extremely concerned about maintaining the highest quality. It trains, accredits, insures and provides a form of continuing professional education for its hundreds of celebrants throughout the country. Perhaps we should therefore not be surprised that the ceremonies attract high satisfaction as a result; more than 95% of clients, if I may call them that, give them a five-out-of-five rating. That is not an experience that all people report from their registry office or other wedding.
Humanist weddings, in particular—this is based on the testimony of those couples who have had one—are greatly valued as reflecting those couples’ beliefs and allowing the ceremony to be devised, in collaboration with the celebrant, in a way that meets their own wishes. I have read some letters over the course of the past few weeks from couples who write eloquently about how much the ceremony has meant not only to them but to their relatives and friends. I am sure that over the past week or so, many right hon. and hon. Members will also have heard from the 3,000-plus humanists in this country, including many couples who have had a humanist wedding, about the importance of the ceremony to them. It is clear that we already have in this country a precious form of ceremony that is highly valued by many couples, and my new clause would simply seek to recognise and acknowledge that in law.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I have one fairly fundamental disagreement with the British Humanist Association, which is that I think they are wrong about God, but I fully believe that we need to acknowledge humanist weddings. Two generations ago, the established Church did not allow nonconformist Churches to hold burial rites in their churchyards. This is a dangerous precedent. As an Anglican, I do not feel in any way offended in my faith by knowing that humanists can celebrate weddings in such a way.
Kate Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Secretary of State has been extremely eloquent throughout the passage of the Bill about the importance that she personally attaches to marriage, so I say to her that my proposal goes with the grain of her position by seeking to extend marriage to more couples precisely because they share that sense of its importance and want to value it.
The whole Bill is about equality, although I recognise that it is predominantly about equal marriage for lesbian, gay, transsexual and, indeed, bisexual people. My new clause is also about equality; it is about the equal recognition of humanist marriages. We should remember that they are already legal in many countries, where they contribute to an increase in the number of marriages, going with the grain of the Secretary of State’s ambitions to strengthen and extend marriage in our society. In Scotland, for example, the number of marriages has been rising in recent years, with an increase of more than 1,500 between 2009 and 2011, more than half of which are accounted for by humanist marriages.
There is plenty of evidence of public demand for reform. I believe that this proposal is a reform that disadvantages no one and costs the public purse close to zero. In an age of equality, it removes an unnecessary injustice based on religion or belief, and it will strengthen the institution of marriage, going with the grain of Ministers’ intentions for the Bill. I believe that today we need to move forward to introduce legal humanist marriages in our country, as they have been successfully introduced in other countries across a range of legal jurisdictions. If the Government have concerns, we need to see a written view from the Attorney-General about those objections, so that they can be scrutinised not just by amateur Scottish lawyers such as me, but by properly qualified expert human rights lawyers and others. That would allow us to see in detail the reasoning behind the view that he has expressed at the Dispatch Box.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Kate Green
I will not, as I am just coming to a conclusion.
If during this afternoon’s debate the Government can provide undertakings that they will put before us that full, reasoned legal opinion and give us the time properly to test and explore it, so that the concerns can be taken forward appropriately when the Bill reaches the House of Lords, we will of course be happy to take that time to ensure that the legislation is wholly fit for purpose. Without those detailed explanations, it is difficult for us to accept that there is some endemic objection in principle to introducing humanist marriage into English law, and that I is why I have tabled new clause 15.
Sir Tony Baldry
Let me start by saying that I have great admiration for humanists. My mother was a Quaker and I was brought up and educated at a Quaker school. I often think that Quakers are simply humanists who believe in God—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is going to heckle throughout my speech, he will just indicate the discourtesy he shows for the views of anyone who disagrees with him. If we heard a little less from him, we would all do a lot better.
As the House will know, when the Bill was introduced the Church of England and other faith groups did not greet it with unalloyed joy. However, we sought to engage constructively with Ministers and officials and they constructively engaged with us. Ministers and the Government made it clear at the outset that they wanted to ensure that faith groups that did not wish to perform same-sex marriages would not be obliged to do so. The legislation therefore has at its heart protections for faith groups such as the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims and others who do not wish to perform or celebrate same-sex marriages. That is enshrined in the quadruple lock for the Church of England, because of canon law, and in the other locks for other faith groups. Those locks are essential to ensuring the freedoms that the Government made clear at the outset would be there to protect faith groups.
Sir Tony Baldry
Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady, but may I finish the point?
Those locks are based on the assumption enshrined in English marriage law: English marriage law is based on buildings and not on celebrants.
Sir Tony Baldry
I am going to give way to the hon. Lady, but let me finish the point because it is important.
In Scotland, there is celebrant-based marriage, whereas the protections in marriage in England are based on buildings. If new clause 15 is passed, it will in effect unpick all the protections in the Bill that relate to the locks and to the protections for other faith groups.
The Speaker acknowledged earlier that he was an anorak. There are degrees of anorakism in the House, and I too am a bit of an anorak, in the sense that I believe that if public Bills that will make substantial changes to public law are to be introduced, there should be proper consultation. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) honestly and properly acknowledged, there has been no consultation with faith groups on the proposed provisions, which would completely unpick the protections in the Bill that Parliament has sought to give to faith groups.
Kate Green
I do not see why faith groups should be singled out for consultation. If there is to be consultation, it should include those of no faith, and other organisations too. I do not understand at all how this proposition unpicks locks which are intended to protect religious institutions and individual celebrants within those institutions. I simply do not understand that, and I do not accept that marriage under English law is confined to religious institutions that have premises. As I say, English law also provides for Jews and Quakers to conduct marriages according to their own rites.
Sir Tony Baldry
My point is that no one has been consulted. I was not praying in aid just faith groups. The hon. Lady has not consulted anyone, but she might at least seek to consult those faith groups for which there are protections enshrined in the Bill—unless she is saying that she is not impressed by the protections to ensure that faith groups are not compelled to perform same-sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. When the debate first started, many of the representations that I received were from people of faith who were concerned that this was a slippery road which would lead to their being obliged at some time in the future to undertake same-sex marriages in churches even if they did not want to do so, and I do not think it helps if the hon. Lady gives even a scintilla of a suggestion that that might be the direction of travel.
The protections are very important. There are historic reasons why Quakers and Jews are treated differently, but they are faith groups. Indeed, Quaker marriages are not celebrant-based, because there are no celebrants in the society of friends. In a sense, the hon. Lady wants to have it both ways. The new clause relates to non-religious organisations, yet it seeks to apply the protections that refer to religious organisations. We therefore have a sort of bolt-on, whereby the hon. Lady is claiming for the humanists, who are clearly not in a religious organisation, the protections in the legislation for religious organisations.
Dr Huppert
I think that the hon. Gentleman has now accepted that he was not correct to say that all marriage in this country is tied to place, because as has been discussed, that is not the case for Jews and for Quakers. He has consistently made the case that the Church of England and other groups should be able to produce ceremonies in their way. Can he explain why, while believing that the Church of England should be protected and allowed to have its ceremonies in its way, humanists should not be allowed to have their ceremonies their way? I can assure him that humanists—the British Humanist Association—are not seeking protection from same-sex marriage; they very much welcome it.
Sir Tony Baldry
My hon. Friend is wrong. I have made it quite clear throughout that English marriage law is buildings-related, except, for historic reasons, where it relates to Quakers and Jews; it has never been celebrant-related.
Let us consider the Scottish example. In Scotland we have seen pagan weddings celebrated, spiritualist weddings celebrated, and weddings celebrated by the White Eagle Lodge. That is a question on which our constituents should properly be consulted. I cannot speak for other Members of the House, but I have had enough problems in my constituency with same-sex marriage. If I go back to the shires of Oxfordshire and tell constituents that Parliament is about to endorse pagan marriage in England, they will think that we have lost the plot completely. If they think that the Opposition support pagan marriage and masonic marriage, they really will think we have lost the plot.
Kate Green
The new clause would not allow pagan marriage to take place. It would allow humanist marriage to take place, and the Bishop of Chester supports it.
Sir Tony Baldry
The hon. Lady is a lawyer so, with the greatest respect, she has no excuse for not listening to the advice of the Attorney-General. He made it clear to the House—any hon. Member would follow the logic very straightforwardly—that it would not be possible in the Bill to give privileges to one non-faith organisation, the humanists, without its being challenged by other similar non-faith groups, such as the pagans or the secularists, who have had weddings celebrated in Scotland. Pagans would say, “We are allowed to have marriages north of Hadrian’s wall. Why cannot we have marriages south of Hadrian’s wall?”
Pete Wishart
I strongly object to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting—that we in Scotland could not care less about marriage. We have had 2,500 humanist weddings per year. Marriage is important to people in Scotland. The only thing we want to do is extend it to people who love each other.
Sir Tony Baldry
Nothing that I have said could possibly be construed as implying that Scotland is not concerned about marriage. The fact is that under a celebrant-based system, pagan marriages take place in Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asks what is wrong with that. There has been no consultation in England as to whether or not the people of England would wish to have pagan marriages celebrated in England. I am afraid that, if he cannot understand that, there is a great deficit in democracy so far as he is concerned.
Stephen Williams
The new clause as drafted, which has been exhaustively considered by the advisers of the British Humanist Association and passed by the Department, has its own version of a triple lock, one part of which states that the organisation in question, such as humanism, must be registered as a charity. I do not believe that the charity commissioners of England and Wales would register as a charity Jedi knights, white knights, druids, pagans or anyone else whom the hon. Gentleman wishes to conjure up, so they would not come under the provisions of the new clause.
Sir Tony Baldry
The House will know, because it is a matter of record, that I am a freemason. Freemasons are registered as a charity. I do not know whether people in England want to see the introduction of masonic weddings. As the new clause has not been properly consulted on, and there has not been time for proper consideration of all its ramifications, it leads the hon. Gentleman into all sorts of areas that have not been properly construed. There has been no proper opportunity for the House to take the advice of the Attorney-General.
I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda that during the past couple of days I have been a bit confused as to which are wrecking amendments and which are not. I am still trying to work out whether the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment. I am really not quite sure whether this new clause is a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment, because it is difficult to see how Parliament, and certainly the other place, could allow the Bill as amended by the new clause to go forward without a serious delay while there was proper consultation to think through the ramifications.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I think the hon. Gentleman united the House in confirming that he is confused. We all agree with him; he is clearly confused. If he thinks that the new clause would lead to pagan weddings, can he explain why the Bishop the Chester—the Anglican, Church of England, Bishop of Chester—supports it? Would it not make sense for us to allow this to go forward to the House of Lords so that the Bishop of Chester can speak on the matter?
Sir Tony Baldry
First, the only point that I am confused about is whether this is a wrecking amendment. Secondly, in this House I speak for the Church of England, not the Bishop of Chester, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, with 44 diocesan Bishops, it is usually possible to find at least one Bishop who will have a view contrary to the other 43. Let me put it on record, lest there is any scintilla of doubt, that the Church of England is strongly opposed to the new clause, not because we do not love or like humanists, but simply because it would unpick the locks in the Bill, which, when we started, were important to ensuring the protections of faith groups in the context of this legislation.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Notwithstanding the Bishop of Chester, does my hon. Friend agree that some very clear problems arise from the new clause, which could indeed turn out to be a wrecking amendment? Is it not therefore inconsistent for the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen yesterday to have promoted a review on extending civil partnerships, but on an apparently similarly problematic amendment such as the new clause before us not to mention such a review? Surely on that score it is a wrecking amendment.
Sir Tony Baldry
I want to conclude by making a further and serious point.
Those of us who were opponents of the Bill and who voted against it on Second Reading have taken on good faith—and it has been delivered in good faith by the Government and the proponents of the Bill—that there would be protections for faith groups and that they would not be compelled to carry out same-sex marriages if they did not wish to do so. My understanding was that that approach was supported by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen as well. With legislation of this kind it is important that people feel confident that it will not in some way be unpicked in the future, and that the protections for faith groups will endure, irrespective of any change of Government.
The Opposition Front Bench’s approach this afternoon causes me concern. I point out that the Church of England has been wholly approachable to the Opposition—of course it would be—throughout the Bill’s passage. It is a matter of some concern that at no time have the official Opposition, who have adopted the new clause—it has not been moved by a Back Bencher; it has been proposed by a member of the shadow Front-Bench team—sought to consult the Church of England or other faith groups, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has acknowledged and admitted, on the import or impact of the new clause.
In every way, this is a bad new clause. It is bad because it has not been properly consulted on; it is bad because it will unpick the protections—
Sir Tony Baldry
No, I am about to finish. [Interruption.] I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions. I am sure that he can make his own speech in his own time.
The new clause is bad, because it will unpick the protections enshrined in the Bill, and it is bad because it will lead to unforeseen consequences, upon which no one in this country has been consulted. If Opposition Front Benchers really believe that the new clause is tenable, I challenge them to consult their constituents and ours on whether people in England want to see the prospect or possibility of pagan marriages taking place in England.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I welcome the debate. I strongly support new clause 15 and the associated amendments, and believe that it would be a massive, progressive step if the provisions were enacted. I declare an interest as vice-chair since 1997 of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, and as an active member of the British Humanist Association. In that sense, I have a vested interest, but even if I were not a humanist, I would passionately support the proposal to permit humanist weddings.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I have been searching for information but cannot find it on how many humanist weddings there are in England each year on average at the moment. Does the hon. Gentleman have that information?
Kelvin Hopkins
Hon. Members are calling out numbers to me—600 in England and 2,500 in Scotland. Why something is so easy in Scotland and so difficult in England is beyond me to imagine.
One point that the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) made quite strongly concerned democracy. Democracy is not dictatorship of the majority. Our kind of democracy accepts freedoms for minorities as well. The humanists are a substantial and significant minority, of whom I am proud to be one. Over the past decade, between the past two censuses, there has been a substantial increase in those professing no religion, and a significant proportion of those people have become humanists. If a number of those professing no faith understood that there was an alternative way of living according to some strong ethical beliefs, they could become humanists themselves. They would only need to find out more about humanism, and they might well become humanists and want a humanist marriage.
Ian Swales
In the 2011 census, 25% professed no religion. That is more than 14 million people. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that they should have the opportunity to celebrate their marriages?
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those figures, which had escaped me for the moment. Indeed, 25% is a substantial number. I do not want to oppress any minorities, or majorities, but I do not want my minority to be oppressed by anyone else.
Dame Angela Watkinson
I do not think there is any question about the desirability of humanist marriages. The issue is that if we embark at this moment on the complexities that others have referred to, it will cause an unacceptable delay in the passage of this Bill.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I suspect that similar arguments were displayed when Catholics became emancipated in 1829. It was argued that it would undermine the constitution, that we have an established religion, and so on—all sorts of arguments against. When progressive changes are made, a year later such pettifogging arguments are forgotten.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
To reinforce the point made in the earlier intervention, there is a great deal of sympathy for the proposed provisions. I went recently to a humanist funeral and it was a marvellous ceremony. I do not think that Government Members would argue otherwise. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, protecting minorities is important, and a great deal of care and thought has gone into the locks in this Bill to protect people of faith and to give them reassurance. The concern is that this Bill is the wrong vehicle in which to make this change, because by implementing a change for the humanist minority, one unpicks the protections in the Bill for people of faith.
Kelvin Hopkins
At some time, somebody can explain to me the difficulties. I just do not accept those difficulties. It is a simple thing to allow a significant proportion of our population to be married according to their own beliefs, in the same way that other people are married according to their beliefs. I cannot see that it threatens anyone else in so doing.
Dr Huppert
A couple of hon. Members have said that the new clause would unpick the locks, but they have so far failed to say in what way—I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees—because we already have exemptions for Jews and Quakers, who are not tied to a place. Does he also agree that if Members are to claim that, they should do more than simply asserting it to be true? They should try to provide some sort of evidence and reason why they think it is true.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Those Members sitting on the Government side of the Chamber will no doubt explain that in their speeches, and I will listen with interest.
I like to equate humanism with other belief systems, some religious and some non-religious. It is interesting that in France, a strictly secular country with a strong separation of the state and religion, humanists are treated in the same way as religious organisations. Humanists cannot attain any kind of support at all from the state, in the same way that Churches cannot, because if they did so the Churches might try to claim it as well; so they are treated in the same way.
In my constituency, which has many religions and strong support for them, we have a council of faiths that does wonderful work in bringing people together. It has produced a colourful pamphlet showing a rainbow spectrum of different beliefs and belief systems, including humanism, so it treats humanism on a par with other belief systems. I think that we should do the same by allowing humanists to be married.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I want to intervene while the Attorney-General is in the Chamber. Was the hon. Gentleman, like me, astonished when the Attorney-General advised at the Dispatch Box that extending rights to a particular group of people could somehow fall foul of the Human Rights Act?
Kelvin Hopkins
It is bizarre, but I must say that I am not a lawyer—I am only a humble economist—so these things escape me. Perhaps I can look forward to legal explanations later in the debate.
The Attorney-General
I will say this one last time. It has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of wanting to extend marriage to humanist or secular groups. The way the amendment has been drafted confined it to groups promoting humanism, but there are many other secular groups. The local tiddlywinks club might wish to become a registered charity and to conduct weddings, so by its very nature, and for that reason, it is discriminatory, and by being discriminatory it is in serious danger, I suggest, of violating article 14 of the European convention on human rights. I can only say that. It might be curable, and there might be all sorts of other things that can be done—[Interruption.] Well, not in this House. As matters stand, the amendment is in that condition. I made that point simply to help the House.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the Attorney-General for that intervention. No doubt Scotland will be drummed out of the convention for what it has done.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on her powerful speech, which I think she made extremely well. I only wish that she had been given more time to go through all the detailed objections, which the British Humanist Association has answered at length, but of course there is not always time in debates to answer every question. I assure hon. Members that the BHA has dealt with all the objections it has heard so far. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are too many private conversations going on and I am struggling to hear—[Interruption.] Mr Blunt, order, please.
Kelvin Hopkins
In conclusion, I want to put it on the record that I strongly support new clause 15 and very much hope that it will eventually lead to humanists being allowed to marry in the way they wish and not to be required to get married in any other way.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I want first to speak to new clause 15 and to express my full support for it. After doing so, I will link that with new clause 14, which stands in my name, and the comments I made yesterday on amendment 10 and why it could and should have been dealt with separately.
In expressing my support for new clause 15, I remind the House of my early-day motion 667, tabled in September 2010, which called for humanist marriages to be allowed in England and Wales in exactly the same way as in Scotland. That is something I believe as a liberal, and also because I was extremely fortunate in having the honour of being best man at the wedding of two humanist friends, Derek and Louise, in September 2007. It was an honour to play a role in that ceremony. I was moved by what an appropriate, fitting and solemn ceremony it was. They were married exactly the way they wanted to be, according to their beliefs. They were equally happy to participate in my Catholic wedding a few years before.
As a liberal, I believe that each and every one of us has the right to marry according to our own beliefs. The problem with how the Bill is currently drafted is that we are allowing a situation to continue in which some religions—to be more precise, some sects of some religions—have access to a civil marriage ceremony while other religions, sects of religions and belief-based systems do not. To me, as a liberal, that is simply not justifiable. My opinion is simply that each and every citizen of this country, of all belief systems and religions and none, should have the same right to equal recognition of their relationship.
New clause 14 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), whose support and common-sense approach on this I appreciate. The simple reality is that if the Government had approached this matter in a more rational and common-sense way, the debate we are having now would be entirely unnecessary. Many Members on both sides of the House—interestingly, they include many who have concerns about the Bill and many who fully support it—believe that we should be making a proper separation of the belief-based recognition of a relationship, whether humanist or religious, from the state’s right to confer legal rights and legal recognition on individuals. The trouble is that the Bill, as drafted, conflates and confuses the two. Even worse, it enshrines the confusion we have heard about, such as the various marriage Acts replacing each other, and adds even more layers of complexity, which means legal confusion. At the same time, there is the absurd situation in which the Bill is having to specify in law that some Churches may not marry certain people and having to put in place protections for other Churches so that they do not have to do so. Of course, if we had a proper separation of civil and marriage, those things would simply not be necessary.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I commend my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 14 and for advancing the argument that I hope to make later in relation to new clause 18, if you call me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the Bill’s real failings is that it does not address the need to separate, for the purposes of marriage, the secular and the religious. Had we gone down that road, there would have been a much better resolution and many more people would have found it far less difficult to deal with this legislation.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my right hon. Friend for that pertinent contribution. I support his new clause 18 and the similar way in which he is trying to deal with this issue. It cannot be right that certain people of some religions and, in the case of humanism, belief systems, have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony according to their beliefs while others do not. The Bill, as drafted, will continue to allow that. I am afraid that, as with civil partnerships, it will enshrine the existing inequality in the law, and that cannot be right in something that is supposed to be about equality.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Would the new clause, in essence, abolish marriage and civil partnerships and replace it with civil union? If so, what would be the status of someone who is currently married? Would they become unmarried and move into a civil union?
Greg Mulholland
Technically, in terms of the law, absolutely. As I said yesterday, the new clause cannot be seen in isolation; it has to be seen with amendment 10, which sought the repeal of the Marriage Act 1949. It must also be linked with the amendment that I tabled to remove clauses in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and to repeal the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The point is that there would be one single definition of a legal recognition for relationships.
I am not necessarily dictating whether this should be called a union, a marriage, or, as Peter Tatchell suggests, a civil commitment pact. I am not particularly interested in the language. Some people feel very strongly that we should call it marriage; others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), do not like the word “marriage”. That is a debate to be had. The point is that what we need to do, and what the Bill should have sought to do, is give all citizens of this country the right to one single recognition by the state of their union. Of course, that would apply to everyone in an existing marriage or an existing civil partnership. Everyone would have the one single recognition through the state, and the legislation would have been drafted to achieve that. That answers the hon. Gentleman’s question very simply, but we are now moving into technical legal questions. In reality, this change would require a separate Bill, but it is currently proposed as a new clause.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Would my hon. Friend’s proposals mean that Methodists, Catholics and others who fought for many years for the right to conduct a marriage ceremony that was valid in law would lose that right and have to go along to the town hall to get validation for the marriage that they had conducted?
Greg Mulholland
I believe that Methodists and Catholics should have exactly the same rights as humanists, Baptists, Jews and Quakers. That is my whole point. I do not accept that some religions should have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony but not others; as a liberal, I find that indefensible. My right hon. Friend has to accept, as do I and all right hon. and hon. Members, that marriage is being redefined; the state has chosen, through its Parliament, to do that. Therefore, now is the time to deal with the complex, multi-faceted and, indeed, confusing and discriminatory current marriage laws and to carry out the reform properly, which is not happening.
I suspect that there is also a practical dimension to my right hon. Friend’s question, and I am happy to address that. In order to have the necessary separation between civil and religious ceremonies, we would need to ensure that no religious minister was able to convey the rights of legal marriage. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible, either through the presence of a registrar at a belief-based or religious marriage ceremony, or by another process, to have that conveyed at the same time. If my right hon. Friend is arguing against that separation, he is defending the situation that the Government are proposing, which will mean having to legislate on what certain Churches may or may not do and needing a complex system of law to ensure that other Churches, including the one he belongs to, are not then forced to do things they do not want to do. If we have a proper separation, none of those things is necessary, and surely that is the sensible way to proceed.
I have had support from all sorts of different sources, including ministers from Churches of various denominations and other religions who are saying that this is indeed a sensible way to proceed. On the Gay Leeds website there is an article by Colin Ross in which he says:
“This seems a very sensible approach to me, I am a gay man and not religious. If I wanted to spend my life in a loving relationship recognised by the state I want to be able to do that—without any religion having their opinion on it—but what is more I want to have the same rights as everyone else. The current Marriage (same sex couples) Bill does not offer equality, the legislation is flawed it still doesn’t provide equality especially in respect of pension rights when one partner dies and issues affecting the Trans community, likewise the Civil Partnership legislation was not about equality—as it neither gave equality to marriage and also did not allow opposite-sex partners to have Civil Partnership as well.”
Similarly, in the release that he put out today under the headline, “Gay marriage bill is not full equality”, Peter Tatchell says:
“Instead of bringing same-sex couples fully within the ambit of existing marriage law, the bill leaves some aspects of marriage law different for gay and straight married couples. Although these are relatively minor, they violate the fundamental principle of marriage equality for all.”
He goes on to say:
“While this may be a progressive reform of marriage legislation, it makes the law unequal. If we want marriage equality, that’s what the bill should give.”
We should also have equality of religions and belief systems, and the Bill does not achieve that either.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the debate on this subject; we had a shorter debate in the Bill Committee. The hon. Gentleman is clearly explaining that redefining marriage raises lots of complications. Perhaps if we had gone back to first base and had a longer, more considered consultation about the redefinition of marriage, although perhaps not quite as long as the one we are about to have on civil partnerships, we could have reached a more consensual view about the state’s involvement in unions. Has he made any representations to the Church of England? Would not his new clause have an impact on the relationship between Church and state, particularly with regard to the right of every parishioner to get married at their local church?
Greg Mulholland
My hon. Friend is touching on the elephant in the room, which is the establishment of the Church of England. That is another matter that is worthy of debate. There will be different views, and I hope that he is prepared to take part in that debate. I am trying to show that it is possible to separate civil marriage and religious and belief-based ceremonies without necessarily having the effect that he suggests. This involves the constitution as well as the Church of England. I suggest to him—I do not know if he would agree—that the Church of England is now in a most odd and uncomfortable position as a result of the way in which the Bill has been drafted. Similarly, it is not a particularly happy situation for other Churches. That would not necessarily be the case if we had the separation that I propose.
I will continue to pursue this matter beyond the passage of the Bill, which will of course receive its Third Reading tonight. I share my hon. Friend’s view that had we had a proper and fuller consultation—this is not so much about the time period as about the intent and scope of the Bill—we could perhaps have looked seriously at sweeping away the current framework and coming up with one that is properly radical and fit for purpose, and gives all our citizens the same rights whether they are religious, humanist, or of no belief.
If we want true and exact legal recognition of all adult couples and to convey the same rights to them all, we will not achieve that as things stand this evening. If we want to have clear and proper respect for freedom of conscience, we will not achieve that this evening. Those things are still possible if amendments are made. I ask hon. Members to consider the amendments. I do not intend to press new clause 14 to a vote, but I hope that the views that I have expressed have been heard and that the Secretary of State and her colleagues will note the support that they receive from all parts of the spectrum on this issue.
Geraint Davies
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his interesting comments.
I rise primarily to support new clause 15, which would allow people to have humanist marriages if they so choose. Members will know that that is an established option in Scotland, chosen by about 2,500 couples a year. About 600 couples in Wales and England choose to have a humanist wedding without it becoming a legal marriage.
Religions do not have a moral monopoly on marriage. Different religions have different moral views linked to their faith, and the humanist tradition has its own secular but moral conception of what is right. The members of the humanist community want to be able to join in moral partnerships in which they may express and celebrate their personal ethics, and for those bonds to be recognised in law. There is nothing wrong with that. Like many Members, I have been lobbied by people in my constituency on this matter. Brian Cainen, who conducts various humanist ceremonies, including funerals, is very concerned and passionate about this, as are many people who approach him to ask about the options that are available.
I was drawn into this debate by my interest in the issue, but I was disappointed by the level of emotion expressed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who seemed to suggest that humanist ceremonies were some sort of pagan ritual, whereas we are talking about moral, ethical people who want to pursue their own ethics.
Sir Tony Baldry
I did not say that. Those of us who oppose the Bill have tried hard, so far as is possible, to make it work within the context of the protections that we have sought. When the Bill was introduced, faith groups were promised protections. It seems to me that we should finish the passage of the Bill where we started and ensure that those protections are still in place. That is all that I am asking for, no more and no less.
Geraint Davies
I accept that the assurances that have been offered to faith groups should be delivered and guaranteed, but what we are talking about is widening the franchise of equality so that people can be married whether they are of different sexes or the same sex and whether they are humanists or people of faith. As I said, faith groups do not have a moral monopoly. A quarter of people say that they have no religion—obviously, the situation is changing over time—and there is no reason why such people should not be embraced within the fraternity of marriage.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am much taken with the idea of having some form of humanist marriage, but I am worried that by agreeing to such marriages, we would cause problems for religious marriage. That makes me think that perhaps we are rushing the proposals through too quickly and that we should perhaps slow down or stop and think again.
Geraint Davies
Clearly, we are here to debate the Bill. The people who push for delays and referendums tend to be those who oppose the Bill in any case. The debate on same-sex marriage has been going on for a long period, and not just in this House at this time. In the run-up to the Bill, there has been an enormous amount of discussion in faith communities, among people of no faith and in political communities. Internationally, we have seen equal marriage proposals move forward in a number of developed countries. I think that we have a role to play in providing leadership.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although the concerns that are being raised about process may be quite legitimate, many of us are concerned that it might be many years before we have another opportunity to debate and vote on this issue?
Geraint Davies
I very much agree with that important point. We are all aware of the political difficulties in the Conservative party and the differences within the coalition and across the House. Same-sex marriage is an important measure and it is imperative that we deal with it now. If it does not happen now, political complexions may change as we approach the 2015 election and we might miss the opportunity. People may make the calculated gamble that if the issue is pushed into the long grass, it will stay there. Thousands of people want us to move forward on same-sex marriage, a large and growing community of people want us to move forward on humanist marriage and, as we have heard Government Members say, there are people who want us to move forward on civil partnerships. I hope that the review on that matter makes rapid progress and that the options are provided in a fully informed way.
I was very surprised by the Attorney-General’s intervention in which he seemed to say that new clause 15 would be in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights and would open the door for people who wanted to marry in the name of tiddlywinks. That was very peculiar. I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to which the European Court of Human Rights has regard. I have not heard it suggested in any serious chamber that there ought to be parity between the rights of those who want humanist weddings, which are already an option in Scotland, and those who demand tiddlywinks marriages.
Geraint Davies
I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a tiddlywinks fanatic.
Dr Huppert
I am not a tiddlywinks expert, but I am a humanist. I am a member of the British Humanist Association and the all-party humanist group. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there has been a judgment on the what test should be for serious beliefs in such cases. The judgment in Grainger plc v. Nicholson states:
“The belief must be genuinely held, must be a belief and not an opinion based on present available information and a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and behaviour”.
None of that could really apply to tiddlywinks.
Geraint Davies
I am grateful for that intervention. It elaborates the point that we should not spend too much time talking about tiddlywinks. However, it was brought up by the Attorney-General and I thought that I had better deal with the matter because he said that his best criticism of new clause 15 was that it would be in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights. That seems very unlikely, to put it mildly. It is scraping the barrel and was a bizarre thing for the Attorney-General to say.
I realise that the intention behind new clause 14 was to start a discussion, but it would abolish marriage and civil partnership and replace them with civil union. People who had been married in good faith would wake up one day and find that they were no longer married. That is not something that we should seriously consider. In the cut and thrust of political dialogue, it was famously said that people who went to bed with Nick Clegg might wake up with David Cameron. This proposal is akin to that idea. One day people would be married and suddenly, after a change in the legislation, they would no longer be married.
Greg Mulholland
After a reasonably intelligent start, it is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman is making silly, petty party political comments. I say again that there should be and would be one way of recognising all adult couples, including those who are already married or civil partnered. He is being slightly mischievous in another way, because those who believe themselves to be married in the eyes of one religion, Church or belief system would continue to do so, as happens now, regardless of whether the state regards them as married or not.
Geraint Davies
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is slightly lacking in a sense of humour. My point about waking up with David Cameron was not meant as a sharp political point. I am sure a lot of his colleagues would be very happy to wake up with David Cameron.
On the serious point—there is a serious point—I realise that the hon. Gentleman is making a genuine point about the need for absolute equality in marriage and civil partnership and asking why, if that is not happening, we do not have civil union. I see the logic of that, but I was simply making the case that in practice, if that came in now and we essentially abolished marriage, people would wake up in a slightly different relationship from the one they anticipated when they made their vows. In parallel, I was making a perhaps not very funny joke about people voting Liberal and ending up with a coalition Government.
This Friday is the 25th anniversary of section 28, which gives us a stark reminder that time has moved forward but we still have not made all that much progress. Gay people are still abused at school, for instance—where my children go to school, the word “gay” is used in an abusive way. We need to move forward and provide equality before the law. I appreciate that we are going to end up with equality for same-sex marriage and that there will still be work to do on civil partnerships, but in the meantime we need to move forward on the humanist agenda, whose delivery is already established in Scotland.
Jane Ellison
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment that we need to make progress, but speaking as a supporter of the Bill, I am concerned about the advice that we have received that it may not be the right vehicle to meet humanists’ desires on marriage, even though many Members on both sides of the House wish to do so. The problem is not opposition to that aim, but the risk that the Bill is not the right vehicle and that by including such a provision, we would unpick the locks carefully assembled to protect religious minorities.
Geraint Davies
It is important that we have this debate. My view comes from looking at the detail of the Bill and from the fact that humanist marriage is already established in Scotland and seems to be working well. It seems to me that the Bill provides an obvious opportunity to introduce equality between humanists in Wales, England and Scotland sooner rather than later. I do not see that as a problem.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. He made fun of the advice given to us by the House’s most senior Law Officer. I obviously do not sit on the Government Benches, but I have the highest regard for the Attorney-General’s advice, and he told us clearly that supporting an extension only to humanists would be discriminatory. We have the European convention on human rights, and I say hooray for that—I am in favour of it—but how does the hon. Gentleman excuse the fact that the new clause applies only to humanists rather than having broader coverage? It is discriminatory.
Geraint Davies
The status quo is discriminatory in any case, which is why we are asking for equality for same-sex couples. Humanist marriages occur in Scotland without being challenged in the European Court, so there have been test cases. Like others, I am free to make jokes about the Attorney-General; he has no planet-sized brain that should intimidate us, and his reference to tiddlywinks invited scorn and ridicule, which I thought it was reasonable to supply. On that hilarious note, I will bring my comments to a close.
Mr Blunt
I rise to reassure the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) that there is support for him on the Government Benches and to encourage the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) to press the new clause to a vote and not be put off by the blandishments that she may hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I say that because I am suspicious when I cannot hear a single argument against the principle of a proposal—there is agreement that it is absolutely reasonable and a proper extension of rights to humanists—but we get a barrow load of technical or legal difficulties and risks, and the idea that there has not been time for consultation. The idea that we do not have the opportunity during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament to sit down and address the technical objections to this suggestion and others, and to get the Bill right before it finally hits the statute book, does not reflect terribly well on us as legislators or on the advice that we can command.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) said that the Bill was not the right vehicle for addressing the matter, but I do not think that we will see another marriage Bill coming down the track any time soon. Ministers’ enthusiasm for re-engaging with the issue, after going through the joy of the past 18 months of consultation and processes, will be a little limited. That was why, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested a five-year time bar before the issue would be reconsidered. That was overturned at the insistence of the Opposition, whose amendment she accepted. I rather suspect that that time-limitation arrangement was suggested because Ministers have been somewhat scarred by the process of the Bill.
That makes it more important for us to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with some fundamental points that seem glaringly obvious to me. It seems glaringly obvious that humanists ought to be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies and that the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has put forward yesterday and today ought to be addressed. We should take this opportunity to have a fundamental look at how marriage is delivered and to divide civil and religious marriage properly, so that we have dealt with all the problems that we are now wrestling with.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) prayed in aid the advice that we heard from the Attorney-General, but I have to say that although I am a very great friend of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and have huge admiration for his work and his intellect, I have never heard such nonsense on stilts put forward under the guise of independent and wise advice. It was certainly not the product of careful consideration, because it has come to the House at rather short notice. On reflection, his rather strange division between secular people and religious people, with the former not deserving the same consideration for the protection of their rights, would itself fall foul of any convention on human rights worth its name.
My right hon. and learned Friend ought to have the opportunity to give rather more considered advice as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. I am sure that when it is considered in another place and then comes back to this House, if there is satisfaction that his arguments hold water, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and her colleagues who tabled the new clause will be happy to consider them again. We need to address the technical and legal objections that are being made to a measure to which I have heard no Member put forward principled opposition.
Lady Hermon
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. I am not making this up; I am reading in black and white article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention—”
that includes the right to marry, which is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the convention—
“shall be secured without discrimination on any ground”
within the United Kingdom. It could not be clearer. The advice of the Attorney-General is that if new clause 15 is accepted and extends only to those who are humanists, that is discrimination and in breach of article 14. Will the hon. Gentleman address that point?
Mr Blunt
If the Attorney-General’s advice is correct, there is a slight problem because existing laws are already discriminatory in that respect and vulnerable to challenge by the European Court of Human Rights. As I said earlier, it is preposterous to make the point that extending human rights and the right to marry to a group of people will somehow fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights, if our existing laws—which are more restrictive—do not already fall foul of that Court and would be challengeable in that regard. That is why I have a problem with that point. Humanists have a proper belief system and deserve protection under the charter and our laws, just like anyone else.
Sir Tony Baldry
That is characteristically generous of my hon. Friend. He said that there were no principled objections to the new clause, but may I try him on this one? He supports the Bill and wants there to be same-sex marriages, which is its purpose. I am sure that he also wants to ensure that no faith group that does not wish to conduct same-sex marriages is obliged to do so. The Bill sets in place a number of protections, and moving from a buildings-based system of marriage to a celebrant-based system, which the new clause would introduce, would simply unpick all the protections that have been built up through the course of the proposed legislation. If the protection of other groups is not a principled objection, I am not sure what is.
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend speaks for the Church of England in this House and his principled objection is that it should have special protections. I frankly do not think that a quadruple lock is necessary; for me a single lock ought to be perfectly satisfactory. He and I will therefore differ on the practicalities of the protections that need to be given to religious organisations. He does not object to the principle that humanists ought to be allowed to carry out marriages—I have not heard him say that—but he is concerned that the consequences might pose a risk to protections for other religious groups to carry out marriages in the way that they want. I hear and understand that argument, but I think that it is probably technically deficient.
In the time that the Bill will take to be considered in another place, and before it returns to the House, it is perfectly possible for all of us who want the Bill to proceed to test these propositions and see whether they undermine the protections that we seek to put in place. I do not believe that they do, and simply asserting that they would does not satisfy me. I want to understand that such arguments have merit. I do not believe that they do, but I am open to considering the arguments further, which is what we should do.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but may I help him with the tiddlywinks issue? The Attorney-General has referred to this issue as a comparator for humanism, but there is settled legal opinion in the European Court of Human Rights, the British judicial system and the Equality Act 2010 that the protected characteristic of a religion or a belief applies not to an individual belief or the fact that a few people get together, but to a whole belief system that has a structure and is organised and settled. That is why I am certain that the Attorney-General is wrong in the advice that he has given.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech and is generous in giving way. There is an issue of how to deal with legal advice. Does he agree that the law is capable of being constructive and not just a constraint and that it would therefore behove the Attorney-General and the Government to come up with ways to change the new clause to make it compatible with the law, rather than saying, “This doesn’t work; try again.”?
Mr Blunt
To be fair to the Attorney-General, that is precisely what he said. He thought it would be perfectly possible to address these issues. He raised objections to the House. I happen not to agree with or believe them, but he said that it should be possible to address the issues being raised. Unless Members are prepared to stand up in the House and say that they oppose humanists being allowed to carry out marriages in principle and explain to me and the rest of the country what their reasons are, we owe it to humanists to do our damndest during the passage of the Bill to enable them to enjoy the ability to marry under their belief system with the same rights that we give to others.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Earlier in my political life I was Minister of Finance and Personnel in the Northern Ireland Executive, and in that capacity, bizarrely, I had responsibility for the Office of Law Reform and for registration. I worked to bring forward measures that were about changing how civil registration and civil law on marriage related to the different religions in Northern Ireland, because it related very differently. Unlike what the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said in his description of the law on marriage in England, which was that it is entirely related to premises or property, the situation in Northern Ireland meant that for Catholics, as long as a marriage was conducted by an episcopally-ordained priest—it did not matter where—the state recognised it. For the Church of Ireland, only the premises mattered.
Under powers that came from the old position of Lord Lieutenant General in Ireland from the 17th century, I had to sign if a new Church of Ireland church was created. There was a wonderful vellum scroll and illuminated manuscript—so much so that I was able to tell my wife that I felt like a lay bishop in the Church of Ireland. For Presbyterians it was different again: the persons were recognised, for the conduct of marriage, within the geography of a given presbytery, and marriage was not confined to a particular building or anything else.
We brought forward measures to try to equalise things, and in many ways we borrowed from changes made in Scotland. Some of the Churches were shaky on it at the time, but the smaller Protestant Churches were glad of our changes, because many that could conduct marriages on their premises only if a civil registrar was also present to verify it, were then able to conduct them under their own auspices and integrity of their rites and rituals.
At that time I made it clear to my officials that if demand emerged in relation to humanists or another belief system, we would have to address that. It did not emerge during the debates at the time, but I support the principle of it. I have said about other aspects of the Bill that all equality should be equal; the problem that some of us have with this Bill is that it is not equal in all cases in its central thrust of extending equality to same-sex couples. I supported the Bill on Second Reading and continue to support it, but I appeal to colleagues to stop jumping and hopping about here and there on the issue of when they want equality, and when they support and respect belief systems.
I have no problem with this Bill or any other measure respecting the belief system of humanism, and ensuring that people can achieve that. That is happening with legislation in the south of Ireland. I represent a border constituency. I am a Catholic who is part of a cross-border diocese. As a result of the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill which passed the Oireachtas, later this year and certainly next year humanist marriages will be conducted in Ireland just over the border from my constituency. Just as many people who are married in church go over the border for those weddings, so too will people from my city for humanist weddings. I therefore have no principled opposition to new clause 15.
The legislation in Ireland gives the registrar general the capacity to recognise a secular body, which can in turn appoint people who would be registered to solemnise marriages. Like new clause 15, the Irish measure defines a secular body as one that must exist for at least five years and as a charity. The body cannot have profit making as one of its purposes. The legislation also describes such a body as
“an organised group of people who have secular, ethical and humanist beliefs in common.”
The Irish Attorney-General felt that that term would cover against any allegation that the provision was so specific that it related to one existing organisation only—the Humanist Association of Ireland. The Irish Attorney-General therefore found a way around—there is a specific and clear definition, but it is not open to the challenge that it is exclusively defined, which seems to be what the UK Attorney-General was saying. Those who support the principle of new clause 15 might want to look at the Irish wording as things progress.
It is right that hon. Members should be accommodating of a belief system that is not properly recognised in our marriage system and that they want such a belief system to be recognised in the Bill, but they should think about the speed with which they rejected emblematic, conscience amendments yesterday. People with other distinct belief systems feel a wee bit under threat and are concerned about slippery slopes. There was an attempt yesterday to make a concession and offer comfort by recognising such belief systems, but hon. Members decided they would not do so. Today, there is an opportunity to accommodate another belief system. Many hon. Members who rejected the accommodation of people’s belief systems yesterday back today’s proposal. I wish they would have supported both measures.
Greg Mulholland
As ever, the hon. Gentleman brings an interesting perspective from his experience. Regardless of the many different views—it is important to say that there are not just two views—it is incredibly disappointing that the Government, despite saying they would engage and listen, have accepted not a single amendment in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I am afraid that that is not an appropriate way in which to make a big change of this nature. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern?
Mark Durkan
I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. That will be one of the difficulties. The fewer amendments that are accepted in the House, the bigger the excuse for the other place to take longer, and to go more deeply and more wide ranging with amendments. People should be able to see that the House has given the Bill due consideration and added to it in a number of respects. If people wanted belt-and-braces protections in the Bill, and apps and widgets, to make them feel more secure and comfortable, why not give them? We should want people to feel more comfortable with the passage of the Bill, no matter what their reservations about its provenance. That is why I support amendments that make more people, such as humanists, feel included in the equality that the Bill extends.
Hon. Members should remember that we had a choice yesterday on civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples. The issue was ducked. We were told that the matter could be complicated and that there could be a review. I would like the people who supported that measure to feel included in the effort to extend equality in the Bill. I hope that that happens if the matter is raised in the other place. I do not believe that this will be the last the House sees of the Bill. The Bill will come back to us, because people are saying that we are being selective in adding to the Bill and widening its scope.
Some hon. Members argued against the civil partnerships amendments yesterday even though they support the principle of equality in civil partnerships. They argued that such a measure was not germane to the Bill, and that it took us beyond the Bill’s scope. However, the same people want an extension for humanist marriage—I agree with them—even though other hon. Members say that there is a risk and that it could raise far more complicated issues. The Attorney-General and the Government are not the only ones who must answer questions as to the inconsistency or strength of their argument. I have noted a lot of inconsistency in the House on how far we go to respect belief systems.
Simon Hughes
I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I agree with a huge number of his comments. He and I have voted similarly pretty well throughout the passage of the Bill.
I want to pick up on a comment the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his speech. He and I voted for new clause 10 on the implementation of civil partnerships for straight couples. I voted for the new clause not because it was a wrecking amendment but because I believe in the principle. I signed it before the Government tabled their new clause proposing a review and before Labour tabled its amendment. If people look at my record, they will see that I have argued for that position over many years, yet it is suggested that I was trying to block the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has a similar view to mine.
Stephen Williams
I originally proposed a version of new clause 10 in Committee. I did not see it as an attempt to wreck the Bill; I genuinely felt it was an opportunity to close that loophole.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are obviously not going to reopen yesterday’s debate. We are discussing other amendments today.
Simon Hughes
The proposals appear to be linked, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for that proposal and many others he has made, and for his much-respected work. We do not agree on every single item, but his record is one of which the Liberal Democrats and Parliament should be proud.
Let me put my position on the record. I believe, have believed and was brought up to believe that marriage is ordained by God. I believe that marriage is traditionally ordained by God to be between one man and one woman. I believe that marriage was set up by God for the creation of children. I believe that it was to link the biological needs of children with their biological parents. I believe that it was for biological complementarity. I believe that it was for gender complementarity, and that it was a gift of God in creation. That is why I have taken a traditional Christian and other-faith view on how marriage has traditionally been—for one man and one woman—which was the case long before we legislated for such things in this country and made them the law of the land.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes
I will give way, but I anticipate being able to deal with the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are not talking about infertile couples. Unfortunately, we are on the humanist part of the Bill, and that is what we will discuss. Fortunately or unfortunately—depending on which way we look at it—we must try to speak to the amendments if we can. I hope, Mr Hughes, that you are not going to tempt many others down another track.
Simon Hughes
I will not, but with respect I want to say a word about humanism and speak to my new clause 18, which is in this group, on the difference between the church and the state.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that of course marriage is never only for the production of children. Many people get married without that intention, and it might be impossible for some. That is not the argument. In the theological tradition, one purpose of marriage is to have children, and that is not possible, biologically, between two men or between two women. Some churches believe that marriage is a sacrament or holds another special position.
We move from that position of faith to one where we legislate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) intervened earlier to make it clear that Methodists, Quakers, Jews and the Free Churches had to fight for the right to perform marriages in their churches. Now, places that have nothing to do with churches or faiths are licensed to carry out marriages—civil marriages became possible. The position of registrar was set up and people are able to have entirely civil marriages in a registry office. That is still the case. Marriages can be held in a place that is entirely civil—in a state-authorised location—or in a place of worship, which can also include the legislative provisions that the state requires.
In all my time in the House, I have argued that we should try to separate those two things. New clause 18 suggests a way of doing that, just as new clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), does. I believe in the disestablishment of the Church of England. I am a member of the Church, but I believe in its disestablishment. Just as the Church in Wales has been disestablished, I have always believed that in England we should separate as much as possible the activities of the Church and the activities of the state. Marriage, therefore, between a man and a woman in a Christian or religious sense is different from marriages, partnerships or unions that are secular, or between people of the same sex.
I pray in aid the view, which has been quoted already, of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). It was referred to in the Public Bill Committee and goes back to what he said in 2004. When he was asked whether he agreed with the proposition about same-sex marriage, which is at the heart of the Bill, he answered:
“I do not support that; I believe that marriage is an institution that is ordained of God and should be celebrated between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that two men or two women can have a relationship that in many ways mirrors that between a man and a woman but is not identical. Therefore, I believe that we should have in law separate institutions that reflect that reality.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 October 2004; c. 68-70.]
That has always been my position too. We should give equal rights to gay and straight couples to form partnerships, unions or relationships that give the same pension rights and status, but are not the same as the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
Colloquially, people talk of equal marriage, and I understand that. People who are in civil partnerships talk of being married, and of their husbands and wives. We are not going to be able to put the clock back, which is why new clause 18 talks about “civil marriage” and not civil union. Many of my Christian friends say that that is an unacceptable compromise, because the Christian view of marriage cannot be changed by calling it civil marriage. We have to wrestle with that issue and sort it out, because we could have civil marriage that is different from faith, Christian or religious marriage, and I think that people would reasonably understand the difference.
Dr Huppert
I respect my right hon. Friend on many things, but I disagree with quite a lot of what he is saying. Is he genuinely saying that he would deny faith groups, which believe marriage should truly be equal, the ability to do that, because of his personal belief? Is he refusing to allow them to call it a proper marriage or a faith marriage?
Simon Hughes
If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I do not believe that and I am not arguing that. They should of course be entitled to hold that view.
This group of amendments seeks to give humanists the right to have humanist weddings. I support that proposal. I understand the objection to the technical drafting, and perhaps that needs to be considered. However, the principle—my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) made the point—of allowing humanist weddings seems to me to be the right one. The hon. Member for Foyle argued that that is what happens over the border in Ireland. Humanists have a belief, and therefore they should be entitled to have weddings according to their belief. Constituents have argued for that, it happens already in Scotland, and, like other people, I too have been to a humanist ceremony—not a wedding, but a funeral.
As a light intervention, we should not be overly afraid of the word “pagan”. My dear late mother, who lived in a village in Herefordshire, in her latter years went to a pagan wedding in the orchard in Hampton Bishop. She said it was one of the most enjoyable weddings she ever attended. Of course, there was a civil ceremony beforehand. People should be allowed to have the practice they want, including humanist weddings.
Susan Elan Jones
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what his proposal would mean to a Nigerian couple on Old Kent road who want to get married in their large, African, black majority church? Would they have to have a separate civil wedding?
Simon Hughes
That is a good question. The hon. Lady, as a former Southwark councillor, knows well the communities I represent. The short answer is that we could do it one of two ways. We could either do what is done in many countries on the mainland of Europe, which is to require everybody to have a civic ceremony first. In France or Belgium, people go the town hall, have the civil ceremony and then go to their church, mosque, temple or synagogue and have their faith ceremony. Secondly, one could separate, in the place of worship—the black-led church on the Old Kent road, my own church or any other—the civic part of the ceremony from the faith part. That is not done in the same way at the moment. In my church in Bermondsey people do not see clearly the distinction between the two parts. The couple going to the church on the Old Kent road would believe they were being married in the eyes of God. They would also want to be married in the eyes of the law. It could be done in either of those ways.
What do I want new clause 18 to achieve? For heterosexual couples, I want us to allow a humanist wedding, a civil marriage or a civil union, and civil partnerships. For same-sex couples, I want full, equal civil rights as a married couple, to be called either a civil marriage or a civil union. I want them to have civil partnerships, too. I hope also that we will not allow the easy transfer between civil partnerships and civil marriage, going from one to the other by signing a form, which is the weakness of clause 9.
New clauses 18 and 14 seek to address an issue that the House has not so far wrestled with: would it not be better to seek to address the need to separate, for these purposes, the faith and belief of people of faith that marriage is ordained by God, and the civil responsibility of the state to provide a place where people can come together and perform a ceremony in the eyes of the law? It is pity that we have not addressed it. I will judge the mood of the House on whether to put that to a vote. I am sure it will be addressed in the other place. I hope we can give everybody equal status in the eyes of the law, and, coming back to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the right for each faith group to decide whether to regard heterosexual couples and same-sex couples as able to be married in the context of their faith, which we should allow to all faiths, as well as to those with no faith at all.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for having to leave the Chamber earlier.
On Second Reading, I was in a minority among Labour Members in voting against the Bill. I voted against it not because I did not want to see equality, but because, as some saw it, people’s faith and beliefs were being challenged. Again, today, I acknowledge the need to respect people’s faiths and beliefs, but I feel that that should extend to humanist beliefs and that humanists should have the option of a humanist marriage ceremony.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech, and I think we can all identify with what he says about the change between generations, but change happens. Only yesterday, we heard that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland voted to allow gay ministers to be ordained, if the congregations so choose. That is a major change illustrating that equality is now regarded as important even by the national Church of Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) are making valid points, but they are Third Reading points and not relevant to the new clauses on recognising humanism, which we need to deal with before we get to Third Reading. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not get teased down the route the hon. Lady wants him to go down and instead referred specifically to the new clauses.
Mr McKenzie
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take your direction and end by simply saying that respecting faith and belief and equality are essential and must be extended to humanist marriages.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), I wish to speak in favour of new clause 15, although I will try not to duplicate the points he made so very well.
As many in the Chamber will know, I have been a strong supporter of equal marriage from the outset. Indeed, in 2010 I wrote to the Prime Minister asking for legislation to be laid before the House. While we are talking about equal marriage rights, it seems logical that we should address the issue of humanist marriages at the same time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, it could be a decade before we revisit this issue. There has been talk about the percentage of various people in the last census, but in a recent YouGov poll, 67% of people—two thirds of the population—said they had no religion. Those in a huge section of our society in England are being denied the opportunity to make a full-scale commitment to one another. Their only option is a register office marriage.
As we have said before, that is not so in Scotland, where it has been legal to have a humanist marriage since 2005. Indeed, last year more people took that route than entered into Roman Catholic marriages, and the expectation is that the figure will pass the number of Church of Scotland marriages in 2014. Clearly there is a huge demand for this change in the law. If my postbag is any indication, I would expect similar numbers to be reflected in England; I can report that I have had many letters in support of humanistic marriages and none against. As has been mentioned, it is also possible to have a humanist funeral—just not a marriage, in the eyes of the law.
For those who are opposed, there is often a fundamental misunderstanding about what humanism is. I did not know much about the definition either until a few years ago. My father was diagnosed with cancer and was told he had six months to live. He calmly set about putting his affairs in order, which included his funeral arrangements. I was surprised when he put down the details of the humanist funeral he wanted. He was an exceptionally honest, hard-working man, well respected in the community and living by what we all know as Christian values. He did not go to church, but then again the majority of people do not.
Throughout recorded history, there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and have placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making. Today, people who share these beliefs and values are called humanists and this combination of attitudes is called humanism. Many millions of people in Britain share this way of living and of looking at the world, but many of them have not heard the word “humanist” and do not realise that it describes what they believe.
Just to be clear, a humanist, roughly speaking, has come to mean someone who trusts the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works; rejects the idea of the supernatural, and is therefore probably an atheist or agnostic; makes ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and concern for human beings and other animals; and believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same. That definition is important, because we have heard a lot about how Jedi knights and so on will be able to do this. We have also heard other definitions and talked about tiddlywinks, but it is important to realise that these are real, strong, belief cultures.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech in favour of humanist weddings. I agree with him in principle, but is he not concerned, being a believer in equal marriage—as I know he is—about the Attorney-General’s advice that if we accepted the new clause, we would threaten the religious guarantees that we have given the Church of England?
Mike Weatherley
Of course I have total respect for the Attorney-General’s opinions, but as we all know, in law and legal advice, there is no firm decision or certainty until something goes to court. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, I have yet to hear a cohesive argument for why what my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) describes would be the case. Just saying it time and time again does not make it right. If someone can say why that would happen, we would of course listen. The last thing I want to do is delay the implementation of same-sex marriage, as my hon. Friend will know, but we are in danger of missing a huge opportunity to extend equal marriage to a huge section of our population who at the moment are being ignored.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should ignore the advice and legal opinion offered by the Attorney-General? Does he think that we should just put that aside and push ahead with this provision?
Mike Weatherley
People ignore legal advice for all sorts of reasons. I am saying that I would like that legal opinion to be put to the test. We should not simply say, “Oh well, if that is the case, we will just sit back and not do this.” It is up to us to find a way of doing it. I do not happen to think that that interpretation is the correct one, and I would like to see it put to the test, as would many other people.
It is evident from what is happening in Scotland that there is a huge latent demand for humanist marriages, as well as for equal marriages. If humanism was right for my father, I for one would like to see equal marriages extended to include humanist marriage ceremonies. I would find it odd if those who supported same sex equal marriage did not also support equal marriage for others, which is why I am supporting the new clause.
Dr Huppert
It is a great pleasure to follow the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). I also want to pay huge tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). It has been a great pleasure to work with her during the passage of the Bill, and her speech today set the scene extremely well. I pay tribute to her, although I am not sure whether that will help or hinder her future plans. I thought that she did extremely well.
There are two issues that we need to debate today. One is the principle of whether we should allow humanists to conduct weddings; the other relates to the process of how we might get there. This is all made much more complicated because our marriage laws are incredibly complicated. They have exceptions and exemptions all over the place. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who speaks for the Church of England, and who I imagine knows the Marriage Act 1949 quite well, has spoken of how the rules are all tied to places. Section 26 of the Act states that marriages may be solemnised in
“a registered building…in the office of a superintendent registrar”,
and
“on approved premises”.
It also permits
“a marriage according to the usages of the Society of Friends (commonly called Quakers)”
and
“a marriage between two persons professing the Jewish religion according to the usages of the Jews”.
So we already have an exception and, as far as I can tell, the world has not fallen apart since those provisions were passed in 1949. They have worked without any problems. There are other areas of marriage law that are just complicated. We do not have a simple, clear system, and we are not going to get one as a result of any legislation that we pass today. That will involve further work.
Let me turn first to the question of principle. Is there a desire to allow humanists to conduct weddings? This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt). If any Member here in the Chamber disagrees with the principle of humanists being allowed to conduct weddings, I would be grateful if they intervened on me to say so. If no one expresses such a view, we will take it that there is no dissent on that principle.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is presuming; the fact those people who are currently in the Chamber do not express disagreement with him does not mean that he is right or that they all agree. That is blatantly obvious.
Mike Weatherley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. He is absolutely right to suggest that we cannot speculate accurately about the views of the people who are not in the Chamber. It is clear, however, that no strong views have been expressed that challenge the principle of holding humanist weddings, and I hope that that will be useful if this is discussed further in another place. There has not been a strong chorus of speeches here expressing disagreement with the principle. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the views of all 650 Members have not been taken into account, however. It would be helpful to know whether the Secretary of State supports humanist weddings in principle. She is welcome to intervene on me to give me her view on that. There is a desire for this change among the general public. Indeed, most people I have spoken to have been surprised to learn that humanist weddings are not allowed.
There are problems with how the process would work. People who had a humanist wedding would have to have a register office wedding first. Some registrars are very helpful, and make it easy for that to happen. They make it a seamless experience. Others, however, are difficult. They ensure, for example, that the events take place in different locations, thus breaking up the ceremony, to the detriment of people who should be having one of the happiest moments of their life. Some people who have a humanist wedding celebration do not have a legal wedding. I presume they know that they are not legally married, but that can cause problems for them. So there are concerns about the way in which the process works at the moment.
We know that this is a pro-marriage step. We have heard a lot from the Government and the Minister to say that the aim of the whole Bill is to support marriage. We know that that is what it does. We know that in Scotland between 2005 and 2011 there was a very large increase in the number of humanist weddings—the figure I have for the increase is 2,404—and there was a small decrease of 418 in civil weddings. Overall, that is a very large number of extra weddings. That is surely something that a pro-marriage Government would thoroughly want to support.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making some strong points. Anecdotally, in my constituency, a former member of the Welsh Assembly who is a humanist celebrant tells me that from her experience, if the provisions were made legal, the numbers would increase. She certainly sees a demand from the people of Cardiff South and Penarth.
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I should declare that I am a member of the British Humanist Association and an officer of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, and I have spoken to a number of people who have confirmed that there is a demand for this to happen. People wish to do humanist marriage and there does not have to be a majority before we think that it is the right thing to do.
What are the problems? This takes us to the process of how to get there. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury, and others have asserted that this would unpick the lock. What I never heard—perhaps we will hear it from the Minister—is exactly why the locks that protect faith groups would be unpicked by allowing humanists to act as registrars for a wedding. It is really not clear. I have heard it implied that it is because this would involve celebrants and it would not happen at a registered place. We have heard that Jews and Quakers are already exempt from the requirement to have a registered place. If the lock has already been unpicked by that, why should it be a problem? We have simply not heard any detailed analysis; it seems that people are saying things because they have been told that they are true. That is not really good enough.
I am concerned about the process that has brought us here. The Second Church Estates Commissioner—sadly, he is not in his place—suggested that the proposal was put through at the last minute and there was not enough time to deal with it adequately. I tabled my amendment initially on 5 February, immediately after Second Reading. I vividly remember it because I was slightly annoyed that somebody else had tabled another amendment before I had even got to the Table for mine. I was delighted that it received support from across the House and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) led on it in Committee with the support of the Labour Front-Bench team.
There was time from 5 February to make comments, and comments were made. There was detailed discussion, for example, between the British Humanist Association and Government officials. A couple of comments were made about how the provision would fit in with the locks and, interestingly, about its breadth. My original amendment would have allowed all approved organisations to participate, with a few safeguards, and did not specify humanism. The Government advice from the meetings with officials was that that should be changed. I know that the Minister disagrees, but it is entirely consistent with the letter and I was very specifically told by the BHA that it was given the advice to limit the provision to humanism.
I am happy to read out again the relevant section from the Minister’s letter:
“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”
The letter went on to say that
“we remain of the view that”
humanist ceremonies
“cannot be dealt with in isolation”.
That is simply not consistent with the idea that the Government had no role in this.
Maria Miller
I am sorry, but I must complete what the letter sent by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said. It went on to state clearly that
“the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is the wrong mechanism to effect the changes to marriage law that you desire. Therefore the Government is unable to support your amendments.”
I am quoting directly from the letter. That clearly shows no opaqueness in the situation. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s previous comments were not entirely consistent with what is written in the letter.
Dr Huppert
I thank the right hon. Lady for reading out the rest of the letter, and I am happy for anybody to see it; I see that her Parliamentary Private Secretary has copies of it. She is right that it did not say that the Government supported the amendment or that they had another way of delivering it; it does not say, “Here are amendments that could make it work.” It says that the Government do not support the change because it is the wrong mechanism; it does not say, “We see you have now reduced the scope and we are very worried about this because we think you should broaden it back out again to be ECHR-compliant.” It is quite clear that the strong impression formed by the BHA from the meetings—I am sure there will be minutes—is that it was given strong advice to tighten the amendment. If that is not the case, it is hard to understand why it would choose to change the original version, which is obviously available for anyone to read. There has been ample time for the Attorney-General to consider the new clause, to be consulted on it and to be asked for his ruling on whether it would accord with the European convention on human rights. Strangely, however, that did not happen until the very last moment.
There have been other meetings. For instance, we had a detailed discussion with the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), and I thank him for his time. As he will no doubt recall, the objections that were expressed did not centre on the fact that the new clause would make the whole Bill non-compliant with the convention, but there was talk of the cost of updating the computer system to allow an extra field for humanist weddings. He is nodding. A number of other issues were raised: for example, concern was expressed about the possibility that the measure would allow humanists to conduct weddings out of doors, which members of other faiths are not allowed to do under our marriage law unless they are Jews or Quakers.
I find it truly bizarre that if there is concern about challenges with regard to the proposals before us, there is not fundamental concern about challenges to legislation under which the rules governing Jews and Quakers differ from those governing any other group. We have plenty of legislation that singles out the Church of England and the Church of Wales, because they are, or were, connected to the state. I would be grateful if the Minister, or anyone else, could tell me how many times the fact that Jews and Quakers are listed, but not Hindus, Sikhs or any other group, has been subject to a legal challenge. In fact, that simply has not happened.
I respect the Attorney-General’s position, but I do not understand how he can have formed his opinions. I hope that we will be able to see a detailed analysis, from him or from the Minister via him, explaining exactly what the objections are. Above all, however, I believe passionately that the law could be constructive. The Government do not have to agree with humanist weddings, and they do not have to agree that this is the best way to legislate, but if they are acting in good faith in relation to the concerns that are being raised, I hope that they will say not just what the problems are but how they could be fixed, because many of us want them to be fixed.
I do not mind whether this wording is retained or other wording is introduced. I do not mind if an amendment is tabled that merely adds an extra line specifying humanists beneath the words
“professing the Jewish religion according to the usages of the Jews”.
I do not mind if the Government present, or find time for, another Bill to deal with the issue. I simply want humanist weddings to take place. I hope that the Minister and the Attorney-General will not just erect barriers, but will help this Parliament to do what it clearly wants to do.
Stephen Williams
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in paying tribute to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). In Committee, the debate took place the other way around: I spoke to the amendment first, and she spoke second.
It has been a pleasure to work across and among parties on this issue, because it is not a divisive issue. We all genuinely want to correct what we consider an anomaly in the law. I am, however, deeply disappointed that we have found ourselves where we are today. As my hon. Friend said, the Second Reading debate took place on 5 February, and the sitting of the Bill Committee during which I proposed the original amendment took place on 12 March. I know that two Departments are considering the Bill, and that No. 10 and the Deputy Prime Minister have been involved as well, but there has been quite a lot of time for the issues to be resolved.
It is disappointing that today, almost at the eleventh hour and 59 minutes, the magic bullet, or nuclear weapon, of the Attorney-General has been wheeled out to tell us that the new clause falls foul of the European convention on human rights. That was never put to us on Second Reading or in Committee, or during the many bilateral private discussions which have taken place between the various parties and Ministries that have been involved in putting the new clause together.
Other, spurious, objections have been made at various times. It has been said, for instance, that the new clause would create an exception. However, as a number of people have pointed out, the law in England and Wales already makes exceptions for the Jewish community and for Quakers. Even more spurious objections have been presented, and leaked to the Daily Mail. Another thing that I find deeply disappointing is that both the Daily Mail and The Sun specifically named both the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and me as being in favour of Jedi weddings—or the pagan ceremonies in Scotland about which we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who speaks for the Church of England.
Stephen Williams
Indeed; the force is not with those arguments!
The other argument that has been put forward is that this Bill is the wrong vehicle at the wrong time. I ask this of the Government Front-Bench team: if not now, when? Marriage Bills are not introduced in this place very often. I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will correct me if my chronology is wrong, but I think that since the Reformation there was a marriage Bill in the reign of George III to deal with clandestine marriages, there was civil registration in 1837, divorce was legalised in 1857 and there was one marriage law in the 20th century, which was in 1949—and that is it in the whole sweep of hundreds of years of history of this Parliament debating law. This is our opportunity in the first decade of this century to try to get it right.
Chris Bryant
There was more legislation before that as well, not least the Book of Common Prayer, which lays down specific aspects. My main point, however, is that the Hardwicke Act of 1753 tried to rectify the situation that people did not need a Church of England vicar, a minister of religion or a building in order to get married, and that all they needed to do was plight their troth. That is why the situation was tidied up. Unfortunately, a near-monopoly was then given to one religion, and the Quakers and the Jews were allowed in at that point.
Stephen Williams
I suppose I did tempt the hon. Gentleman to intervene, although I did also say “since the Reformation”. As a genealogist in my spare time, I am also very familiar with the Hardwicke Act of 1753.
So, to return to my point, if not now, when? The Government have not addressed that question to our satisfaction. Instead, we are left with a suspicion that there is no good will and no intention to allow a clear pathway towards humanist weddings being given legal status.
The new clause has been very carefully drafted and redrafted since the Committee stage to take account of the objections, of which we were aware at that time. It clearly says that this right will only be granted to an organisation that is a
“registered charity…advancing…the non-religious belief known as humanism”.
It also says the registered charity must have existed for five years and the Registrar-General must be satisfied it is “of good repute.” We have heard of many other locks in the course of our discussions of this Bill, but this is surely a triple-lock that ought to satisfy everyone.
When we were considering whether opposite-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil partnerships, it was asked where the evidence was that people would want to do that. In the context of this new clause, there is clear evidence that there is demand for humanist weddings north of the border, where they are now the third most popular means of getting married, and some of the people who are getting married in Scotland are from England and Wales, because they cannot legally do so in Bristol or anywhere else in England or Wales. This new clause certainly meets a need, therefore.
Our current law is completely out of step with society. Sometimes Parliament has to give a lead and bring the public with it. In this instance, however, we are in danger of being seen as behind the grain of public opinion and of public demand for humanist marriage to be legalised. I hope that at the last minute, when the Secretary of State speaks in a few moments, we will grasp victory out of the jaws of defeat.
What I do not want to hear from the Secretary of State is the same old situation from the Government of “Heads we win, tails you lose.” I hope we do not get into that situation. There is good will among parliamentarians of all parties to legalise humanist weddings, and I hope we will take a step towards achieving that today.
Maria Miller
We have had a robust and impassioned debate on a subject about which people feel very strongly. I must make it clear from the start that it is not, and continues not to be, the objective of this Bill to extend marriage to belief groups, which is, to all intents and purposes, what many of the amendments in this group would do. I do, however, join other Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is representing the Opposition on these proposals, because she spoke with passion and eloquence about the importance of humanist ceremonies in celebrating marriage.
The hon. Lady is right to say that for many people who undertake such ceremonies, they can be an important way of marking and celebrating such an event, but it is important to make the point that neither is this the time nor is the Bill the place to make the sorts of changes she is advocating, unless she wants to risk the objective of the Bill, which is to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Humanists can already marry, but same-sex couples cannot, and that is the unfairness that the Bill is designed to remove.
Dr Huppert
There are many points on which I would love to tackle the Secretary of State, including the idea that the amendments are allowing everybody in one version, and not enough people in another, and that either way they fail the Goldilocks test. She makes the case, as I understand it, that if we allowed a route that was not premises-based, it would mean completely redoing marriage law. Does she accept that marriage law already has routes for Jews and for Quakers that are not premises-based, and that to have a route that is not premises-based simply cannot fundamentally weaken marriage law, as it would have done so since 1949 and before then?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend reads my mind, because I was about to go on to that very point. He is right: it is important that we recognise that those of the Jewish faith and Quakers have a particular position, and we have been accommodating their needs since marriage was first regulated in this country back in 1753, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. That is a long-standing historical arrangement designed to respect and accommodate ancient and religious traditions. My hon. Friend will understand that because it has been established in time, it cannot be changed retrospectively and it is therefore entirely consistent with the position set out by the Attorney-General.
Kelvin Hopkins
I do not follow the right hon. Lady’s logic. She says that the Jews and the Quakers have a particular position, which has been accommodated. Why cannot we have a particular position, which is accommodated too?
Maria Miller
Because the existing arrangement pre-dates the European convention on human rights, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is the anomaly. Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict—
Maria Miller
May I make a tiny bit of progress before taking my hon. Friend’s intervention?
Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict the approved organisations approach only to humanism. There can be no basis to justify a difference of treatment between one belief organisation and another, and if we did so we would be vulnerable to legal challenge—the very point that the Attorney-General made. If the amendment were accepted, I would have to consider whether I could sign a section 19(1)(a) statement, indicating that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, on the introduction of the Bill in another place. I would probably have to sign a section 19(1)(b) statement that I cannot state that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention, because of the different treatment of humanists and other belief organisations. That is clear, it is a statement of fact and it is entirely consistent with the situation outlined by the Attorney-General.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, the amendment would clearly make the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights. This is a complicated issue that could be looked at further in the other place, but I want to make it clear to the House today that if the issue is discussed in the Lords, further information can be provided if that is requested and required. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and to place a copy of my letter in the Library, setting out the legal objections offered to the House today. I hope that would help to inform proceedings in the other place. I would be happy to copy the letter to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
Kate Green
May we ask that that letter sets out in detail the Government’s objections in the context of the convention on human rights, and that there will be no gaps? It seems to us that new objections have emerged even in the course of the debate this afternoon, so I would be grateful for the right hon. Lady’s assurance that that will be a comprehensive statement of the Government’s concerns in relation to the European convention on human rights.
Maria Miller
I am happy to say that the letter would be a comprehensive statement of the concerns that I have. I have covered many of those today, but I will consider whether there are any that I have not included for reasons of time. I am happy to be as helpful as I can.
Mr Blunt
My right hon. Friend has advanced the rather preposterous proposition that the United Kingdom’s accession to the European convention on human rights is now acting to limit the rights of members of our population—humanists—to conduct marriages. That goes to the central point. I will be happy if she can give the House the assurance that the Government are in principle in favour of humanists conducting marriage, and that they will use the resources at their disposal to find a way of getting that on to the statute book. If it is not going to happen in the course of the Bill—I do not want the Bill delayed, any more than anyone else—at least the Government can make that statement of policy intent.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend may not have fully understood the argument being put forward by the Attorney-General. The issue is that the amendments discriminate in favour of one group over another. Humanists are being singled out for particular treatment. I am very happy to set out the argument fully. This is a different situation from—
Maria Miller
Will my hon. Friend allow me to respond to his intervention before he intervenes on me again?
This is a particularly difficult area. Marriage law and the principles behind it have evolved over many centuries, as the hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out. Yes, there are anomalies in some areas, but we are talking about a particular set of amendments relating to humanists and the problem that would be faced if they were incorporated in the Bill. It is not the Government’s policy to extend marriage in the way that my hon. Friend is talking about. Humanists can already get married. The Bill is all about ensuring that people who cannot currently get married—same-sex couples—are able to do so. That should be the focus of our discussions.
I also draw hon. Members’ attention to the confusing and contradictory nature of the amendments. Is humanism non-religious, as suggested in the definition of approved organisations in new clause 15? If so, would the protections in the Bill for religious organisations apply? There was some confusion about that, particularly as to whether this would allow the marriage of same-sex couples. Or is humanism religious, as suggested in amendments 20 and 21, which add reference to approved organisations to the definition of a “relevant religious organisation”? Are we clear what humanism means in legislative terms, and who the definition would catch? The amendments simply highlight some of the problems that would arise from trying to shoehorn a new category of marriage into the current legal framework.
Dr Huppert
I do not think that the Secretary of State quite addressed the question put by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), which was whether in principle—if there was a way that did not involve the Bill, did not have ECHR problems and did not cause any other problems—she and the Government would support the concept of humanist weddings.
I am really rising because I am so shocked at the concerns about the extra amendments, which again were inserted at the suggestion of Government officials. The BHA has changed this to suit the Government, and the Government then complain about the changes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Mr. Huppert, it is not necessary to restate at length a previous question. I remind you that interventions should be brief, not a series of questions. It would help enormously if we stuck to those conventions.
Maria Miller
I can be very clear. It is not coalition policy to undertake the actions that the hon. Gentleman outlines. I have already dealt with the comments made about the work of my officials. Most individuals who have been dealing with my officials have found their work incredibly diligent and helpful. I am sorry that he does not feel that that has been the case in this instance.
New clause 14 would create a new status of civil union and repeal the Marriage Act 1949. That would prevent the creation of any new marriages: put simply, England and Wales would no longer recognise marriage within the law. It seems that the intention here is that civil unions would replace marriages—a change that would affect everyone who wants to marry in England and Wales in the future. That is simply not a position that the Government can support.
Conversely, the Bill is about strengthening marriage, and the Government strongly oppose any measure that would undermine marriage. New clause 14 would damage the important institution of marriage beyond repair. It would to all intents and purposes abolish it. I therefore note and welcome the intention of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) not to press the new clause to a vote. It is not something that we could support if he were to do so.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my right hon. Friend for that kind acknowledgment. The new clause was very much an attempt to show that we should be separating the state recognition of marriage from the religious. That is the point, not what it is called in the end. We are changing the institution of marriage through the Bill anyway, so to do so properly and more succinctly is something that should be explored in the other place.
Maria Miller
I do not believe that we are changing marriage. Marriage is one state, which we are enabling a new set of individuals to access, so I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. This is not about changing marriage; it is about ensuring that more people can get into it.
Maria Miller
I will make some progress, because we have another string of amendments to get through.
The effect of new clause 18 and amendments 58 and 59 would be to require all marriages not conducted through a religious ceremony to be called civil marriages. The intention seems to be to separate marriage conducted through civil and religious ceremonies into two distinct institutions. Let me be clear that there is one legal institution of marriage in England and Wales that couples —all couples, we hope, as a result of the Bill—can join through either a religious or a civil ceremony. The new clause would create a separate type of marriage without any consideration of the legal impact. The legal consequences of such a new distinction are completely unclear.
New clause 18 contains no reference to same-sex couples, so it does not seem to require that such couples should be limited to access to civil marriage only, which might be thought to have been the purpose of distinguishing between religious and civil marriage for legal purposes. That is simply not something the Government can support. We all want couples to be able to access the important and single institution of marriage, and that is what the Bill is about. The Bill has one clear and straightforward purpose: opening up the existing institution of marriage to same-sex couples. It is not designed for the sort of fundamental changes proposed in the new clause.
Simon Hughes
Does the Minister not accept, however, that there are many people who believe that the civil status of coming together in marriage should be open to straight and gay couples alike, but that people of faith and faith groups should be free to define what they understand as marriage? Some of them would permit same-sex marriage, but some of them take a different view and would not.
Maria Miller
I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says and think that is what the Bill delivers. It delivers the ability of civil marriage to accommodate same-sex couples and enables religious organisations that wish to opt into that to do so, but allows others not to if that is what they choose. That is an important and fundamental principle of the Bill that I think reflects what he has just said.
I believe that the changes proposed in the amendments are an unnecessary and potentially unhelpful diversion from the important objective we are trying to achieve: removing the unfairness that excludes same-sex couples from being able to marry. We must remain focused on that objective and not be sidelined into discussions on other issues at this point. I ask hon. Members not to press these amendments, so that we can proceed to discuss the next group.
Kate Green
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this interesting and, at times, passionate debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who tabled the amendment that led us to new clause 15, and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who first tabled it in Committee, for the work we have been able to do across parties to bring the proposal to the Floor of the House this afternoon.
Despite the fact that the proposal has been before the House in some form or other since 5 February, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out, it seems that the legal doubts expressed this afternoon by the Attorney-General have come to us rather late in the day. That does not mean that we do not take them extremely seriously; of course we do, but it would have been helpful to know that discussions were taking place with officials, whether or not they were proactively suggesting that such changes to the original proposal would help to strengthen it. The fact that discussions took place some weeks ago means that it is a matter of particular regret that the legal difficulties with the proposal were not highlighted earlier.
The Secretary of State said that my amendment and, I think, others in the group were unnecessary. For humanists, it is not unnecessary at all. Yes, they can choose to have a civil marriage and a humanist ceremony, but they do not have available to them a ceremony that they feel would properly recognise them as marrying one another and making that public commitment in front of family and friends. That is the discrimination that we seek to address. However, I take very seriously her wish, which she knows we share very strongly, to see this Bill proceed. We do not want it to be delayed or have its development and progress inhibited by arguments about these proposals.
I want to pick up on one or two of the objections that were raised not only by Ministers but by other hon. Members around the Chamber, suggesting that there are still genuine uncertainties about what is and is not provided for in current law and what we now seek to achieve. If the Secretary of State is willing to come forward with a statement of the Government’s legal concerns, that would be extremely helpful in properly facing off all the objections that have been raised in time for them to be understood and considered before the Bill is debated in the House of Lords. We do not want a re-run of objections arriving late or being raised without justification. It is clear from what has been said today that many hon. Members would like the Government’s position to be fully argued in good time for a fully informed debate in the House of Lords.
Some Members, particularly the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the Secretary of State, have said repeatedly that these proposals in some way undermine the quadruple lock that has been put in place. The Secretary of State suggested that that is because it is not clear whether the protections that it affords would apply to humanists, and if so, that might undermine the protections for religious organisations. If so, it would be extremely helpful to understand exactly how that is. We would be grateful if the Secretary of State fully clarified that in the letter that she says she will make available to the House.
A misunderstanding has come up repeatedly this afternoon. We recognise that the system in England is different from the system in Scotland, which registers celebrants. The system in England is not based only on the registration of premises for Jews and Quakers, for example. There is no requirement for them to hold their ceremonies in certain premises, but they are required to hold ceremonies in accordance with their usages. What is more, the amendment would not attach registration to celebrants. It is about registering organisations, and one form of organisation in particular—that which is a belief organisation, a charitable organisation or a humanist organisation that secures the approval and authorisation of the Registrar General. It is very clear which kind of institution we are trying to cover.
The most serious objection is the human rights objection, which, sadly, only emerged at the beginning of this afternoon. I would be grateful if any hon. Member who participated during the earlier stages of the Bill and who remembers differently could correct me, but I do not recall the human rights objection being raised at any point before this afternoon. Of course it is vital that we take account of the Attorney-General’s concerns and advice on this matter; it would be utterly irresponsible of us not to do so. However, even the Attorney-General’s advice changed over the course of this afternoon. At the beginning of the afternoon, he said that there was a problem with the proposal because it could apply so widely that any organisation, including a society for the promotion of tiddlywinks, might potentially be discriminated against if it were not authorised to carry out marriages as well. I think that he rowed back from that later on and acknowledged that only belief organisations would be authorised. He was right to say that the possibility of discrimination between different belief organisations is the central human rights issue that must be addressed.
The Attorney-General
Let me make it quite clear that it has to be a belief organisation because unless there are some grounds for belief, I assume that there is no reason for carrying out a ceremony. I am sorry if my point sounded flippant, because it was not intended to be. My point was that belief organisations can be very wide in their scope and are certainly not confined to humanism.
Kate Green
I appreciate the Attorney-General’s concern that there could be human rights challenges on those grounds. It would be useful to know how he assesses the chances of such a challenge being successful and to understand on what basis a challenge might be argued. It would also be useful to know what precedent there is of such challenges being successful elsewhere.
I am prepared to wait for the fully analysed opinion to be presented to the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to provide that in good time before the Bill proceeds through the House of Lords. I hope that she will take note of our interest in having a proactive opinion, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) said, that identifies how any defects in the proposal could be cured, as the Attorney-General has mentioned. Given the commitment from the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9
Conversion of civil partnership into marriage
Dr Huppert
I beg to move amendment 15, page 10, line 24, at end add—
‘(9) Where a civil partnership formed under part 1, section 96 of the Civil Partnership Act (Civil Partnership with former spouse) is converted into a marriage under this section—
(a) the civil partnership ends on the conversion, and
(b) if both partners so elect, the resulting marriage is to be treated as having subsisted since the marriage dissolved under Schedule 2 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was formed.’.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 25 to 39.
Amendment 49, in schedule 4, page 33, leave out from line 42 to line 4 on page 34 and insert—
‘(2) Omit sub-paragraph (1).’.
Government amendments 40 to 47.
Amendment 13, in schedule 5, page 36, leave out lines 10 to 37 and insert—
‘Section 4 (successful applications): for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
“(2) The certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate if—
(a) the applicant is not a civil partner and does not request an interim gender recognition certificate,
(b) or the applicant is a civil partner who does not request an interim gender recognition certificate and the Panel has deceided to issue a full gender recognition certificate to the other party to the civil partnership.
(3) The certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate if either—
(a) the applicant is a party to a protected civil partnership and the other party to the civil partnership has not made an application under section 1(1).
(b) the applicant is a party to a protected civil partnership and the Panel had decided not to issue a full gender recognition certificate to the other party to the civil partnership,
(c) or the applicants is party to a protected marriage, requests an interim gender recognition certificate and the application includes a statutory declaration of consent from the applicant’s spouse.
(3A) If a gender recognition panel issues a full gender recognition certificate under this section to an applicant who is a party to a marriage or civil partnership, the panel must give the applicant’s spouse notice of the issue of the certificate.”.’.
Amendment 14, schedule 5, page 39, line 39, leave out
‘(by virtue of section 4(2)(b) or (4A)’.
Amendment 18, in schedule 5, page 40, line 18, at end insert—
‘One-off compensation payment to couples whose marriages were annulled to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate
9A Schedule 4 (Effect on Marriage): at beginning insert—
“(1) This section applies to a formerly married couple whose marriage was annulled in order to permit one or both partners to that marriage to obtain a full gender recognition certificate, provided that—
(a) the marriage was annulled following the coming into force of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
(b) the formerly married couple either—
(a) (i) formed a civil partnership with each other within six months of the annulment of their marriage, and continue to maintain their civil partnership, or
(ii) have continued to live together as a couple in the same household since the annulment of their marriage.
(2) The couple shall be compensated from public funds to the amount of £1,000 by way of apology for the distress and costs incurred as a result of the annulment of their marriage.”.’.
Amendment 22, in schedule 5, page 40, line 18, at end insert—
‘Reinstatement of marriages annulled to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate
9A Schedule 4 (Effect on Marriage): at beginning insert—
“(1) This section applies to a formerly married couple whose marriage was annulled in order to permit one or both partners to that marriage to obtain a full gender recognition certificate, provided that—
(a) the couple have continued to live together in the same household since the annulment of their marriage, and
(b) both partners to the former marriage give notice to a registrar that they wish their marriage to be reinstated.
(2) When notice is given under (1)(b), the marriage shall be reinstated with effect from the date the couple give notice to have it reinstated.”.’.
Amendment 16, in schedule 5, page 40, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
‘(a) the registration of qualifying marriages,
(b) the registration of qualifying civil partnerships,
(c) the issue of replacement marriage certificates displaying the new details of the parties to the marriage but maintaining the original date,
(d) the issue of replacement birth certificates where the application is shown on the certificate, with the consent of the other parent named and—
(i) where the child has reached 16 years of age, the consent of the child to whom the birth certificate relates,
(ii) where the child has not yet reached the age of 16 years, the consent of the other parent named on the birth certificate, where present.’.
Government amendment 48.
Amendment 12, schedule 7, page 50, line 37, at end insert—
‘24A Section 12 (grounds on which a marriage is voidable): omit paragraph (h).’.
Dr Huppert
We now move on to a rather different subject, but it is still an important one that affects a number of people greatly. A range of issues apply specifically to people who change their gender, who transition between genders or who are transgender. There may not be a huge number of people in that category and they may be a small minority, but they have been subject to some of the worst discrimination over many years and decades. Indeed, that has happened partly because there are not as many people in that group as in other groups.
Another group that we will not talk about specifically today is that of people who are intersex and who do not associate with one gender for a range of reasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has tabled some amendments to clarify the position for such people. I assume that it is clear that the Government’s intention is that marriage will be equal and will not exclude those who do not identify as male or female. I assume that there is no intention to discriminate. We therefore need to focus on the specific issues for the small group of people who are transgender.
Last Friday was IDAHO—the international day against homophobia and transphobia—and I spoke to people who have suffered such discrimination at an event in my constituency. My constituency is perhaps uniquely blessed in having not only a number of people who are out about the fact that they are transgender—many people, for understandable reasons, are cagey about admitting that they are transgender—but a number of transgender people who have been elected to the local council. Indeed, we had the first transgender mayor in the country. She was very proud of that role.
There is far too much transphobia, which many people have to face. Like other hon. Members, I have worked with Trans Media Watch, which keeps an eye on the truly disgusting articles that appear in the press about people who are transgender. I heard a number of awful stories at a recent event. To give one of the many examples, Lucy Meadows, a primary school teacher, killed herself after a very nasty article came out in the Daily Mail shortly after she transitioned. That is not acceptable in society, and we need to make a stand against it.
Sometimes, such things happen because people wish to be actively nasty. Sometimes, problems are caused for people who are transgender because of problems with the legislation that we produce. We do not always think of people who are transgender when we are writing legislation and there can be unintended consequences. I do not believe that this Government or the last Government have ever intended to discriminate against people who are transgender, but it has happened by accident.
We have had a few specialist debates—for instance, about which gender of police officer should search people who are transgender. I proposed that we should just ask people whom they wished to be search by, which would resolve the problem.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree it is bizarre that a man or woman who is transitioning can have surgery and change their name but cannot have a gender realignment certificate without spousal approval?
Dr Huppert
I find it very bizarre. There are a number of anomalies in the whole process because of how it is set up, but a gender recognition certificate may be applied for only two years after someone has transitioned into the acquired gender full time, so there has already been quite a long time to try to sort out other issues. Amendments 13 and 14 would simply end the spousal veto, so that people who transition do not have to rely on their spouses to give approval. Some spouses will not give permission for that to happen.
Amendment 16 deals with marriage and birth certificates when there are transgender issues. It argues that replacement marriage certificates should be available for people who have transitioned, so that we do not force them to be outed every time they have to show a marriage certificate. We would reissue a marriage certificate with the original date and new names. That is a simple thing, but it will make a big difference. Not everybody who has transitioned wants to be known as somebody who transitioned. Many people just want to be known by their new name and new gender, and they do not wish to explain their past in every case. They already face that often enough when dealing with various institutions and medical issues. We should not force people to out themselves every time that they need to present a marriage certificate.
Bob Stewart
There will be problems with police records, for example, if people change names like that, and that will cause a big problem.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. In many cases, of course, there is no problem, and there are technical ways in which the issue has been resolved. It is already possible for people to transition and the state manages to cope—income tax, HMRC and other systems manage to cope and each have detailed arrangements. I do not think that would pose a problem for somebody transitioning to avoid their previous criminal record, but it would avoid their being outed inadvertently or accidently, which is a genuine fear for a large number of transgender people.
At the moment, a child’s birth certificate cannot be reissued on the parent’s transition. Again, that raises concerns about privacy and outing, not just for the transperson but for their families, for example, when applying for school places. Under the amendment, replacement birth certificates could be issued with the new gender and with the consent of the child once they have reached an age at which they are able to consent. Older children should clearly have some say in this. Such a provision would protect the privacy of the person who has transitioned where such information should not be revealed.
Clause 12 relates to an interesting aspect of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which gives grounds to void a marriage. It states that a marriage can be voided if
“the respondent is a person whose gender at the time of the marriage had become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”
If somebody marries somebody who has already transitioned, they can at any point cancel the marriage on that ground. Technically, that applies only if the person did not know that their partner had transitioned, but the problem is that, if someone is not public about the fact that they have transitioned, they are at risk of their partner, at any time, saying, “I did not realise.” There would be little proof, unless we expect transpeople always to tell others.
We could get rid of that anomaly and still allow normal divorce proceedings to be started. The marriage could still be ended if there was an incompatible breakdown when a person discovers the history of their partner—there would still be a way out for them if they feel they cannot continue—but we should remove the automatic sense that somebody has done something wrong simply by being transgender. That is a real concern. There have been such cases in Scotland—they were not to do with marriage, but with other sexual interactions—and there have been sex-by-fraud cases simply because somebody was transgender. We simply should not allow that to happen. Those are small and specific issues, but the proposals will make a difference to a persecuted minority within our country.
Government amendments on pensions and transgender people are welcome. I thank the Government for making that step, which is welcomed by the trans community and is to be supported.
Before I conclude, I want to highlight amendment 49, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I hope she does not mind my speaking to it before she does. The amendment would end a bizarre anomaly. If I marry somebody and die, they get a survivor’s pension related to the amount of time that I have spent in work. However, if I have a civil partnership with somebody and die, the payment they receive is related not to the time when I started work, but to the time when civil partnerships came into existence. That is bizarre. Any insurer would not know whether I would choose a marriage or civil partnership. It seems odd that one pension is backdated to when I started work, and the other goes only part way. It would make sense if both pensions dated back to the date of the marriage—I can understand the logic, although I do not believe that that is the right solution—but there is a blatant and odd inequality.
Most employers pay no attention to the anomaly because they are keen to be helpful to their employees. Many of them can nominate people to whom they are not married to receive the survivor’s pension. However, we should not have such inequality written in law. I apologise to the hon. Lady for saying that before she has had a chance to do so.
I hope that the Government take those issues seriously, because we can fix anomalies of the past and avoid making further ones in the present.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I will address many of the issues he has raised. As he said powerfully, the amendments seek to provide some small right to the dreadful wrong that has been done to those couples who were forced by the state to annul marriages in order for one of them to avail themselves of their most basic civil rights.
Amendments 18 and 22 are in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who is unable to be in the Chamber today because he is attending the spring session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I gladly agreed to speak to the amendments as the second signatory, because I have long been concerned to see that injustice rectified.
I shall provide the House with the case example that led the hon. Gentleman to table the amendments. His constituents have been married for 35 years as man and wife. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 forced them to annul their marriage, which they did in 2007, so that the male-to-female transsexual in the relationship could obtain a gender recognition certificate in her acquired gender and get on with her life. The legislation did not allow the couple to continue to be married even though they wanted that. Both were extremely clear that they wished to stay together and did not want a divorce. They had cared for, supported and loved each other as a married couple for more than 30 years, and wanted the care and support they mutually offered each other to continue in the years ahead. They wanted to keep their family together for their own sake and for the sake of their children.
Since being forced to annul their marriage, the couple have lived together as two women in a civil partnership. They entered into a civil partnership on the very same day their marriage ended and still live together, but they should never have been made to annul their marriage, even if an alternative legal mechanism was available in the form of a civil partnership. They have lived together continuously for 44 years and it is their marriage anniversary that they still celebrate. For many couples, annulment was deeply distressing and not something of mere technical and legal significance.
As I think we would all recognise, reasons for marrying and making a public commitment are intensely personal and varied. For some, marriage is not just about legal practicalities, and the blunt replacement of one legal mechanism with another is not the end of the matter. Other hon. Members will have similar cases. The number of people involved is not large—a point I will come on to in a moment—but the injustice done to them is real. We ought to take this opportunity to go some way to righting the wrong done.
What can the Government do to make amends? Amendment 18 proposes to require the Government to make a one-off compensation payment from public funds to couples whose marriages were annulled, to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate and enter into or continue to maintain a civil partnership; or to those who have continued to live together as a couple in the same household since the annulment of their marriage, but who did not choose to go down the route of a civil partnership. It is a simple principle: married couples forced by the state to have an annulment that they did not want should be compensated by the Government by way of an apology for the distress and cost incurred as a result of the annulment of their marriage. The amendment proposes a nominal sum of £1,000. The public expenditure implications would be negligible—we know the numbers are small, as I will go on to explain in a moment. The £1,000 compensation payment would be far less than the cost for couples who have had to pay for a divorce and a civil partnership ceremony.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene on what is a very interesting contribution. Will she clarify a small point, but one that is of great significance to those in Northern Ireland? I am following the logic of her argument. Under schedule 2 to the Bill, those in England and Wales can avail themselves of same-sex marriage. As soon as they go to Northern Ireland, however, that marriage would have to be treated as a civil partnership. Is the logic of her argument that the state that passed the legislation must also compensate those who regard themselves as married couples in England and Wales, but become civil partners again in Northern Ireland?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Given that we are talking about a symbolic apology, it would be generous and appropriate for it to be offered in Northern Ireland too. My argument is not a narrow legal argument. A wrong was done. To the extent that the wrong was done by the Government, one can make an argument that the measure is relevant only to those who were living in the country at that time.
Lady Hermon
It is very generous of the hon. Lady to take a second intervention. Just to be clear, I was not making a recommendation that compensation be paid by the state. I was simply asking the hon. Lady whether her amendments would oblige the Government to pay compensation in the circumstances she outlined. Is the logic of her argument that she would advocate compensation in Northern Ireland? I certainly am not doing so.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. In that case, my answer is simple: yes, I would.
Amendment 22 would remove any reference to compensation and deal specifically with the reinstatement of marriages in cases where couples had their marriages annulled, so that a person could obtain a gender recognition certificate and continue to live together without forming a civil partnership. In cases where civil partnerships were formed after forced annulment, I am pleased that the Bill provides some assistance. Under clause 9, a couple are permitted to convert their civil partnership into a marriage to be treated as having subsisted since the date the civil partnership was formed.
Couples who were forced to annul a marriage and enter into a civil partnership will not be able to rewrite history—at least not legally—but it will almost be as if there was no break in their marriage, which of course they never wanted to annul in the first place. These are not the only cases, however, and we must ensure that all cases are covered. As a result, amendment 22 is designed to help couples who annulled their marriages so that one person could get a gender certificate, but who did not then enter into a civil partnership. As far as possible, the injustice that they have also faced must be addressed.
When the issue was discussed in Committee, the Minister expressed sympathy for couples who had been required to make the difficult choice of whether to end their marriage to enable one of the parties to obtain gender recognition, but she said that she could not support an amendment that sought to reinstate marriages from the date they were annulled because of the difficulties that could be caused with any rights and responsibilities that the couple had accrued since their marriage was annulled—for example, retrospective entitlements to benefits and taxation.
In order to help the Government and make some progress, in this version of the amendment, I and the hon. Member for York Central are proposing that reinstatement of the marriage be from the date that the couple gave notice to have it reinstated. This would address Ministers’ concern about retrospective legislation. It is not ideal. I would much prefer a fully retrospective measure, but given what the Minister said in Committee, it would be better than nothing for this small but greatly wronged—I still believe—group of people. Couples were forced to make a distressing and appalling choice, largely because policy on same-sex marriage was lagging so far behind what was right and just. I hope that we can use the window of opportunity in this historic Bill to do the right thing.
Margot James
I congratulate the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on their work in this important area. A couple in Stourbridge came to me two years ago, one of them having undergone gender reassignment treatment and surgery. They were very distressed that their marriage had been annulled and did not want to enter into a civil partnership, for their own reasons. Does this not underline the benefit of the Bill? People who are in this position having had gender reassignment surgery will have the choice, whether they are gay or heterosexual.
Caroline Lucas
Yes, I think it does underline the benefit. As we have said, the numbers are not huge, but for the individuals involved, it was very distressing, so I think it appropriate that we take this opportunity to address the situation.
My amendment 49 would address the continuing discriminatory hurdle in the Bill around pensions. The Bill allows employers and pension providers to award gay spouses and civil partners a fraction of the survivor benefits payable to a partner in a mixed-sex marriage. It is an unnecessary and counter-productive anomaly in a Bill that otherwise makes landmark progress in furthering the fundamental human rights of gay people. The amendment would give same sex couples entering into a gay marriage entitlement to the same pension rights as married opposite-sex couples. It removes both existing discriminatory provisions in the Equality Act 2010 and the subsequent extension of that discrimination in this Bill.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
In tabling amendment 49, the hon. Lady has identified an anomaly that deserves to be rectified in the way she suggests. If the Government and the House want to give complete equality to same-sex relationships, they must address the pension question, otherwise we will have this extraordinary anomaly that if a person in a same-sex relationship today chooses to enter into a heterosexual marriage tomorrow, their new spouse would have full pension entitlement, whereas their former same-sex partner, whom they might have had a relationship with for many years, would get a fraction of that pension entitlement. If the Government and the House want same-sex relationships to have full equal rights, her amendment must be the right course of action.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. I know he has had first-hand experience in his constituency of exactly this issue.
Paragraph 18 of schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 allows employers and pension providers to ignore the service and contributions of gay employees made before 5 December 2005 when it comes to assessing survivor benefits for their civil partners and occupational pension schemes. Paragraph 15 of schedule 4 to the Bill would extend that discriminatory provision to same-sex spouses.
As we saw in yesterday’s debate on opening civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, the Government are comfortable arguing that unforeseen costs to pension schemes are a legitimate justification for sanctioning discrimination, yet their warning that the equalisation of treatment in the provision of occupational pension benefits will cost too much simply cannot be substantiated. No pension provider can accurately predict how many individuals in a pension scheme will be gay, never mind how many of them will marry or form a civil partnership with an individual who outlives them by a significant period of time.
Dealing with uncertainties around length of life, the possibility of illness, the decision to marry and many other issues is second nature to pension providers. Gay married people pose no more uncertainty than their straight counterparts. What is more, according to the Government’s figures, two thirds of pension providers already do the right thing, so any additional liability to pension schemes will surely be minimal. The financial implications of perpetuating discrimination could be very grave indeed, though, for those individuals who have paid into their pension schemes in the same way as other employees, yet will be denied the survivor benefits available to married mixed-sex couples.
One recent employment tribunal found that an occupational pension scheme was directly discriminatory because it provided a civil partner with only the benefit from pension rights accrued since 2004—in other words, when civil partnerships became available in the UK. John Walker and his civil partner have been together for 20 years and registered their civil partnership at the first possible opportunity, yet the pension scheme sought to restrict the survivor benefits available to John’s partner to just £500 a year. If John dissolved his civil partnership and married a woman today, she would be entitled to £41,000 per annum in the event of his death.
With the help of Liberty, John challenged that discrimination and recently won his legal battle to secure equal pension benefits for his civil partner. The employment tribunal relied on European Court of Justice rulings, which concluded that treating married and same-sex couples differently over the pensions payable to a survivor when national law recognises the relationships as equivalent in other respects breached the framework directive on equal treatment in employment. My amendment 49 would ensure full compliance with that directive and, crucially, ensure that the equality rulings made by the courts are applicable to all marriage relationships.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that if people are to have parity before the law, they must have not just emotional parity, but financial parity? Anything less would not be equality in any shape or form.
Caroline Lucas
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We are talking about genuine equality. That means legal equality, as well as symbolic or any other kind of equality.
That tribunal was a landmark case. Interestingly, the Government lost the case, so one could argue that agreeing to my amendment 49 might save them money, as they would not need to pay out in future legal cases that might go against them. If the law remains as it is for civil partners and that inequality is extended to those in same-sex marriages, it could be several decades before gay couples achieve real equality in pension provision. I see no justification for continuing to permit discrimination in this area. I hope very much that colleagues will support amendment 49 and join me in overturning an anomalous and discriminatory provision.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate on this group of amendments.
I have been quite conflicted over this entire subject. I am a godfather to a lovely little boy who has been adopted. His parents are in a partnership and they are both gay. I see myself very much as a progressive Conservative, and I certainly recognise that society’s attitudes have advanced, which is reflected in the fact that we are debating the amendments in such detail today. Of course we do not send children up chimneys any more, or allow only privileged landowners to vote, and we got rid of slavery long ago.
Mike Freer
Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Speaking as a gay man in a civil partnership, I had no idea that my pension rights could be curtailed until someone wrote to me about it. The reason my hon. Friend might not have had much about that in his postbag could be that most gay people in a civil partnership have no idea that they are being discriminated against if they are in a contracted-in scheme.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The question is whether the Bill should be the vehicle for making those changes, but I very much respect his views.
I represent the beautiful, very diverse constituency of Bournemouth East. It has a substantial elderly population—some Members of Parliament have chosen to call Bournemouth “God’s waiting room”—as well as a vibrant town centre with a huge gay population. It is also a university town. So it has an elderly population and a young generation, as well as a large gay community. I have talked to members of the gay community about the Bill. I have also made an effort to speak to religious groups, individuals and organisations across the town, not only about pensions but about matters such as gender recognition. We debated those matters in schools as well. I have to say that I heard no significant call for these proposals generally, and certainly not for the provision in amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). There were no planned demonstrations or pent-up anger because the issues had not been addressed.
Many people in the gay community like the general proposals in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) has just pointed out, certain aspects in life need to be corrected, and this debate has been helpful in that regard. In general terms, however, most of the people I spoke to said, “Go away and focus on the economy.” They suggested that this was an important issue, but wondered why we were dealing with it right now.
The Bill was not mentioned in any Queen’s Speech, and I believe that the Government could have helped themselves by following the normal protocol of announcing that the measures would be introduced in a particular legislative period. Given that backdrop, I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and her Ministers for their stamina in pursuing the amendments they have tabled. They must have known from the start how controversial the amendments and the Bill as a whole would be. I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s assurances, especially on Government amendment 25.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, as I always do. The Bill as a whole has certainly been controversial—it has divided the parties and the country—but does he agree that amendment 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is not controversial and should attract widespread support across the House and outside in the country? It represents a bit of unfinished business from the Civil Partnerships Act 2004.
Mr Ellwood
I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I step back and wonder whether all these amendments are required right now and whether this is where society wants to go right now. Many Members have been forced to make a decision, and there is naturally a tendency to want to support the Bill and not to view it as out of place. My question is why these issues are being brought to our attention at this moment in time. As I say, I did not see the deluge of calls for this measure, although the trajectory of society moving forward means that this is very much how we would anticipate the Bill and its amendments.
I am pleased that we have this opportunity to conduct this debate, which has prompted us to think about the wider issues of the role, purpose and values of marriage in our society. We are debating amendments relating to gender recognition and so forth, which has educated us about the historic role of the state in respect of the Church.
The Bible is full of commands that are unknown or ignored by many Christians today. That reflects how society is very much moving forward. Wives used to be subject to their husbands; children arguing with their parents used to be taken out and stoned to death; women used to have to cover their heads in church. Those things are either unknown by Christians today or simply ignored because they have no place in modern society. The Church has changed its views over the years—indeed, the Bill has changed as we have debated it over these last few months.
The Church remains divided on many subjects: the burning of witches, abortion, contraception, the status of illegitimate children and so forth. On a wider perspective, it is the role of Parliament to challenge the Church on these issues and through the Bill and amendments, as we did on the grander issues in the past. Slavery was indeed defended by many bishops because of the Bible; the Old Testament regulated for slavery; divorce was clearly condemned by Jesus in the Gospels, and those who had divorced were not permitted to remarry. In the Church of England, marriage was “Till death us do part”; it was long thought to be lifelong and indissoluble, yet divorce was formally introduced in this place in 1857.
What, then, are my thoughts on this Bill? I am absolutely supportive of the concept, but, like many of the Government amendments, it is ahead of its time. That puts many of us in an awkward position. Do we support the Government amendments and the Bill, which I believe to be somewhat messy and not well handled, albeit on a subject to which I do not object. Should I vote against the Bill and the amendments for which many of my constituents have called? A significant number of them were moved enough to call me to make sure that I did not support specific amendments or indeed the Bill as a whole. Then there is the final option, which is to abstain on the amendments and the Bill, thus honouring many of the calls not to support the Bill’s proposals while ensuring that my vote is honest to myself.
I shall conclude because I know others wish to participate in this important Report debate. I hope I shall not digress too far from the subject matter by mentioning that the FTSE 100 yesterday recorded its highest value in 24 years; despite being a significant economic indicator, it got no mention in this place. I hope that after Third Reading later today, we can back to considering the economy. The subject of gay marriage is significant and should be brought into law, but I remain to be convinced that it should be a priority for now. Those who will benefit from the change in the law are calling for the change now.
Jim Shannon
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to amendments 27 and 28. It will not be a surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear that I am deeply unhappy about the Bill. I have said that in Public Bill Committee and in this Chamber in the earlier debate, I said it yesterday and I will reiterate it today.
I want to thank the Government for at least listening to me and my party on one issue. The Bill proposes that same-sex marriages formed in England and Wales should be recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is consistent with the way in which overseas same-sex marriages are currently recognised in the House.
I was a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Bill. When I say “scrutinised”, I mean that the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) scrutinised it very thoroughly. Most of the Committee’s members, however, sat in silence throughout the five days of our debates on the clauses, and most of them tabled precious few amendments. They seemed to see themselves as cheerleaders for the Bill, rather than the scrutinisers that they should have been. Never before, during my short time in the House of Commons, have I known members of the official Opposition to abdicate their responsibility to hold the Government to account quite so thoroughly.
Some of us did table amendments, and took the time and the trouble to speak. I pointed out to the Committee that Scottish Ministers were to be asked to give their consent to legal changes allowing recognition of English same-sex marriages, whereas Northern Ireland Ministers were merely to be consulted. Amendments 27 and 28 give us an opportunity to align the law with that in Scotland, which is good news.
As I said in Committee and have said in the Chamber, the Bill has generated the biggest single postbag I have received on any issue in all my years as an elected representative—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am trying to be as tolerant as possible, but we are discussing this group of amendments, not previous amendments and what happened in Committee. I am trying to be fair, but we are in danger of not remaining where we should be.
Jim Shannon
Amendments 27 and 28 provide for “consent”, Mr Deputy Speaker, and remove the reference to consultation. Why is that important? It is important to the people whom I represent in Northern Ireland because it introduces accountability to the process. Some 1,700 of my constituents have contacted me about the issue: members of the Church of Ireland, Presbyterians, Methodists, members of the Elim Pentacostal Church, Baptist Brethren, evangelical groups, Roman Catholics, Sikhs and Muslims. Members of faith groups throughout Northern Ireland have asked us, as Members of Parliament, to push for consent rather than consultation, and we have done so.
I believe that when we convey opinions about the importance of faith and religious persuasions, as we have in the House today and as we did in Committee, those opinions cannot be ignored. It has grieved me when some members of the Committee, and perhaps some Members in the House, have brushed aside the opinions of those with hard-held religious views.
Several of my fellow Northern Ireland Members have received similar amounts of correspondence from constituents, all of them pushing for consent rather than consultation. Only 17 of my constituents who contacted me were in favour of the changes. Theirs was very much a minority view, but it is one that we must respect and take on board.
The Northern Ireland Assembly will make the final decision on the issue, which is why amendments 27 and 28 are important. The Assembly has rejected same-sex marriage on two occasions under the consultation process. The first occasion was on 1 October 2012, when it was rejected by 50 votes to 45. Then, on 29 April this year, it was rejected by 53 votes to 42.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I have been generous, and have allowed what I thought was a kind of preamble, but we are actually discussing a group of amendments entitled “Gender, benefits and miscellaneous”. That is the problem that I am facing. I thought that the hon. Gentleman must be getting there. I am sure that he is, and will confine himself to the subjects under discussion from now on.
Jim Shannon
I may have been a wee bit over-ambitious in trying to express some of my points of view, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate your generosity. I will return to the issues directly.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), confirmed to me, in a letter that I received yesterday, that
“Amendments 27 and 28 to clause 15(6) of the Bill make all orders and regulations made under the Bill subject to the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel if those amendments would otherwise fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
The amendments have clearly given the Assembly the authority to make a final decision on the issue. That is very significant, and I thank both Ministers for what they have done.
This issue is immensely important to us in Northern Ireland, and has given rise to a massive postbag. I thank Ministers again for enabling consent rather than consultation to be enshrined in legislation.
Mike Freer
May I return to the topic of amendment 49, which I was very pleased to co-sign with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)?
Let me start by reassuring my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that building a stable and cohesive society is one of the most fundamental roles of Government, so to be doing that today through debating this Bill is a highly appropriate use of parliamentary time. To those who ask whether we should be doing something else, I say that I can, perhaps unusually for a man, multi-task, so I think I can manage both to speak in this debate and to deal with other pressing issues.
Turning specifically to the amendment, it is important to distinguish between contracted-in and contracted-out pensions. This is quite a technical change and it does not apply to contracted-out pensions; it applies only to contracted-in pensions. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, two-thirds of pension schemes already allow spousal survivors in civil partnerships equivalent widow or widower benefits without having to be forced to do so by the law, but one-third of them are discriminating. What is worse, that is an optional discrimination; they are choosing to discriminate against surviving civil partners in contracted-in pension schemes.
Let me try to explain why that is so fundamentally wrong. The hon. Lady gave the example of John Walker. Had he married a woman, she would have got a pension on his death of £41,000, but his civil partner got a pension of just £500 per annum. That diversity is the wrong kind of diversity; that is pure discrimination. Let us assume two men or two women join a pension scheme on the same day, and they both have the same level of service, and they both enter into some form of partnership, but one gets married and the other goes into a civil partnership, and let us also assume that the day after they get married or enter their civil partnership, they are both, by some quirk of fate, killed in a car accident. The pension of the widow in marriage will be go back to the date her former husband joined the pension scheme, let us say some 20 years previously, but the civil partner only gets to go as far back as when civil partnerships came into law. That cannot be right by any stretch of the imagination.
When researching why the Government were resisting this amendment, I was told that one of the issues is the cost factor. Everything we as a Government do has a cost, so I thought there must be some huge cost—perhaps £4 billion, which was a ready price-tag yesterday. In fact, the cost of giving equal pension rights on contracted-in pensions to civil partners is £18 million—not £80 million or £80 billion, but £18 million. It is true that that is a lot of money, and I certainly would not mind having £18 million in my bank account, but let me put that into perspective. The assets under management of the pension industry amount to £360 billion, so the cost of removing this anomaly is 0.006% of assets under management. I do not think that is a price we cannot afford.
I was also told that it is wrong to force pension providers to make retrospective calculations on which they did not base their pension actuarial decisions. That, too, is a flawed argument. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, the actuaries behind a pension scheme make a whole variety of assumptions about longevity, how many of their pensioners will die in service and how many of them will die as a pensioner, and how long they will stay in the pension, and the accrual rate will be based on an assumption that most of their members will get married. It is complete nonsense to suggest that pension providers cannot allow civil partners who survive to get the same benefit as a widow or widower because it has not been accrued, as there is absolutely no evidence that the actuaries have not been able to make that calculation. If they made the calculation that X% of their pensioners would get married, they could simply make assumptions about a man in a civil partnership. They will have had no knowledge of whether that man or woman would have decided to get married or to enter a civil partnership and there is no logical or financial reason why the anomaly cannot be removed.
I hope that the Minister will give some commitment from the Government that the anomaly will be reconsidered. I know it was mentioned in Committee and that the Government are resisting the amendments, but I urge my ministerial colleagues to address the issue.
James Duddridge
I totally support the comments my hon. Friend is making about removing the anomaly. Is there a list of companies that are already doing the right thing and, crucially, those that are doing the wrong thing? Are those companies named and shamed? Often, when we flick through the glossy corporate reports they say lots of glowing things and that the company is doing the right thing, but are they putting their money where their mouth is and supporting equal rights?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have tried to dig around to find out the size of liabilities and which companies are doing this, but unfortunately I cannot find that information. It is fair to say that many corporates take great pleasure in trumpeting in their annual reports what they would regard as their social responsibility, but I think that they should be saying loud and proud—to coin a phrase—that they are treating civil partners in the same way as heterosexual widows and widowers.
I hope that my ministerial colleagues can give some ground and say that the Government are willing to reconsider the matter. The cost is not even a rounding error in the Government accounts or for the pension industry, but the benefit to the recipients is beyond value.
Kate Green
It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), whose contributions to our debates on this Bill at every stage have been exemplary, moving, powerful and reasoned.
I am very pleased to welcome warmly many of the amendments on transgender issues. I particularly welcome Government amendments 40 to 47, and I thank Ministers, who I know have taken on board issues raised in Committee about pension protections for transgender couples. I am pleased that the concerns raised in Committee have been addressed in the amendments. They will create no new liability for pension funds and will remove for some couples the hideous decision about whether a member of the couple should proceed with gender reassignment and, in the process, remove the pension rights of a much-loved spouse. I know that following the debate in Committee, transgender people and their partners are pleased by the Government’s response and I want to put on record my thanks to Ministers for that.
I also welcome the other amendments on transgender issues in the group. Although I have some concerns about the compensation provision, the calculation given to us by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) suggests that there is relatively—indeed, microscopically—little cause for any Chancellor to be concerned. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully the whole package of amendments on transgender issues proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others. As I think the hon. Gentleman said, many of the injustices that the amendments seek to address are probably inadvertent injustices, but they are none the less deeply wrong injustices suffered by transgender couples. I invite Ministers to look, even as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, at ways in which we might put rectifying action in place.
On amendment 49, on pensions, I too recognise the anomaly that exists between the treatment of pension rights for married couples and same-sex civil partners. I also recognise that resolving this anomaly is not without difficulty. We have always accepted the estimate of £18 million potential additional cost to private contracted-in occupational pension schemes, and I agree with hon. Members who have already said that in the scheme of overall funds under management for pension companies, that seems a very small amount indeed, although I also accept the concern that extending pension rights to civil partners could have a disproportionate impact in a very small number of cases, particularly in small and often charity employer schemes.
In relation to other schemes and the possible wider effect, for example on contracted-out occupational pensions, where Ministers have suggested a potential impact of £90 million, or in relation to public sector schemes, I must say that I am still puzzled as to why we think there is any further implication. In February I obtained a note from the House of Commons Library which pointed out that civil partners are already entitled to survivor benefits in contracted-out and public sector schemes in relation to benefits going back to 1988. That is a result of the Civil Partnership (Contracted-out and Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) (Surviving Civil Partners) Order 2005. The Library said that the same was true of public sector schemes, as I say. So I am not clear how the exemption would affect those contracted-out and public sector schemes.
Although I have great sympathy for the amendment, the Government should come forward with a full analysis in order for Parliament to take an informed decision on what the cost implications would be. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which was not selected for debate. I understand the reasons for that, but it would have asked for the full report of the pensions costs implications for all forms of occupational pension and the impact on pension funds and pensioner poverty to be presented to Parliament. Although the new clause has not been selected for debate, I join the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green in asking Ministers to present the fullest possible information to Parliament so that we can make a proper decision. I recognise that if we get it wrong, we could drive very small pension schemes out of business, which would exacerbate inequalities in other ways.
As things stand, we are without a proper review of the cost. Ministers have expressed concerns that it could be more—potentially considerably more—than £18 million, and on the basis of the information before us, I regret that I cannot support amendment 49 today. However, I want to place on record my strong support for the principle that underpins it, and I very much hope that information that will enable us to move forward will be available to the House as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is nice to be able to make a contribution at last to this important debate, after sitting on the Front Bench for quite a few hours.
I will first speak to Government amendments in the group. This is a large group of amendments that, in broad terms, concern pension entitlements, gender reassignment, devolution and a number of miscellaneous matters. Government amendment 25 ensures that the protection for the Church of England in the Bill is both full and clear. We have been continuing our discussions with the Church since we knew that it had doubts about whether the power provided in clause 11(5)(c) would be sufficient to enable us to provide full protection for Church of England ecclesiastical law from the effect of clauses 11(1) and 11(2). It is an important part of the protection that Church of England canon law should not be affected by the provisions in the Bill and that references to marriage shall continue to mean marriage between a man with a woman only. Having consulted the Church of England, we have decided to provide further protection by referring to ecclesiastical law in the Bill. The amendment affects only law applying to the Church of England in the limited cases where the effect of marriage is at issue.
Lady Hermon
My intervention relates specifically to Northern Ireland and harks back to the useful advice given at the beginning of the debate by the Attorney-General in relation to the risk of discrimination. The Minister will know that under the Bill as drafted, if it is enacted, schedule 2 means that a couple who avail of the facility of a same-sex marriage will be fine in England and Wales, but as soon as they go to Northern Ireland it reverts to a civil partnership. My concern, mirrored by the Attorney-General’s intervention in relation to an earlier amendment, is that within the United Kingdom, surely that is discrimination on grounds of different status in Northern Ireland as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon
Perhaps the Minister’s correspondence could clarify the matter. I believe that the authority lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps she might like to reply, if that is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on these devolution matters and for the work the Government have done to ensure that we have our own separate legislation for same-sex marriage. Can she assure me that she will do all she can to work with Scottish Ministers and ensure that everything required for a legislative consent motion will be approved by the UK Government so that we can go ahead with our own process in Scotland?
Mrs Grant
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will certainly work very hard on that together.
I turn now to Government amendments 30 to 32, which are purely technical and simply ensure that the use of the phrase “existing England and Wales legislation” is entirely coherent, so as to remove any possible doubt as to its meaning. Government amendments 33 to 39 are technical and make changes to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 to ensure that it works entirely properly for same-sex marriages. Amendment 33 makes changes to the 1973 Act in relation to what applies to opposite-sex and same-sex marriages and to give effect to schedule A1.
Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 38 make changes to ensure consistency of language with the 1973 Act. Amendment 37 inserts a provision into schedule A1 to enable applications for an order to end a marriage because one of the couple is dead to be made under the Presumption of Death Act 2013. Amendment 39 enables schedule A1 to work using the presumption of death provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 if the 2013 Act is not in force when the Bill comes into force. Amendment 39 also amends schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 provisions on staying—meaning halting—matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales when there are other court proceedings at the same time outside England and Wales about that same-sex marriage. That will ensure that such proceedings on the same divorce, judicial separation or annulment do not give rise to conflicting decisions, which would prevent resolution of the issue.
Lady Hermon
I am listening intently to the Minister and am sorry to interrupt her at this stage, but I must bring her back to Northern Ireland. I really want an assurance from the Government that we in Northern Ireland will not see legal challenges on the grounds of breaches of the European convention on human rights by those who, if the Bill becomes law, avail of same-sex marriage in England and Wales. It is specifically paragraph 2 of schedule 2 that concerns me. It states:
“Under the law of Northern Ireland, a marriage of a same sex couple under the law of England and Wales is to be treated as a civil partnership… (and accordingly, the spouses are to be treated as civil partners).”
I just need reassurance from the Minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are getting to Third Reading points and I would not want the hon. Lady to use up the points that would be better made then.
Mrs Grant
I am afraid that, as this is a devolved matter, it is impossible for me to give the assurance that the hon. Lady is asking for. Northern Ireland, rightly, has to look at the issue itself.
Government amendments 40 to 47 deal with pension entitlements. They amend part 6 of schedule 4, which provides for same-sex married couples to be treated in the same manner and to be entitled to the same survivor benefits as civil partners. As drafted, that includes couples in same-sex marriages who have preserved their marriage following the change of legal gender of one of the spouses, and it is designed to ensure that all same-sex couples are treated alike for this purpose. We recognise that our policy of treating same-sex marriages in the same way as civil partnerships for occupational pension survivor benefits may create a problem in relation to survivor benefits for a very small group of individuals whose spouses change gender during their marriage. We understand that this could deter a transsexual person from seeking to change their legal gender because of the financial impact on their husband or wife. If the amendments are made, widows of marriages that become same-sex as a result of the husband’s change of legal gender during the marriage will still be treated as widows for the purpose of calculating survivor benefits in a contracted-out occupational pension scheme; and for schemes that are not contracted out, in calculating any entitlement to survivor benefits, the marriage will continue to be treated as opposite-sex marriage.
Mike Freer
If I heard the Minister correctly, she said that any transgender couple who transition will keep their full entitlement from the date of joining the pension scheme, but a civil partner survivor will still be restricted to the point at which civil partnerships became law. Does not that create yet another anomaly?
Mrs Grant
I think that I have made the position clear. The concession is intended to target a very small group of people, and we do not intend to open it up any further. The main reason for giving the concession is that there has been no break in the marriage.
Amendment 49 would remove the exception in the Equality Act 2010 that allows occupational pension schemes to take into consideration only accruals from 2005 for the purpose of survivor benefits for those in a civil partnership. It would also remove the provision in the Bill that extends the exception to same-sex married couples. When civil partnerships were introduced, an exception was added to equality legislation that allowed schemes to restrict access to survivor benefits for those in civil partnerships, so that schemes are required, when calculating survivor benefits, to take into account only accruals from 2005, when civil partnerships were implemented.
We have a responsibility to balance the interests of all parties involved in a pension, so while we are of course absolutely committed to equality for same-sex couples, we do not believe that it would be right to put on schemes the significant additional and retrospective financial burdens that would arise from removing the Equality Act exception. We are very conscious that defined-benefit schemes already face difficult economic conditions.
Mrs Grant
I would like to make a little headway, as I have a fair way to go.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to the recent case of Walker, which was supported by Liberty, in which an employment tribunal found that a pension scheme had discriminated against a member by using that exception. The Government do not agree with that finding. The decision of the tribunal is not binding and there is nothing in it that leads us to question our policy. We intend to challenge the decision robustly. The Government have recently been added as an interested party in the appeal. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion not to press the amendment.
Caroline Lucas
Will the Minister explain what the situation will be if the Government lose the appeal, which seems entirely likely given the legal case?
Mrs Grant
As an optimist, I would prefer to decide what action is appropriate if that happens. I do not want to prejudge the appeal.
I shall now deal with the non-Government amendments on gender reassignment. Amendment 15 would enable a marriage to be held to be continuously valid from the date of the original marriage solemnisation, effectively restoring the original marriage. Amendment 22 would allow couples who have continued to live together following the annulment to apply to have their marriage reinstated from the date on which they notify the registrar of their wish to have their marriage reinstated.
I understand the concerns that prompted hon. Members to propose those amendments, and the Government have great sympathy for couples who felt required to make the difficult choice to end their marriage to enable one party to obtain gender recognition. However, it is not possible to reinstate a marriage that has been lawfully ended by an order of the court. It will be possible to backdate converted marriages to the date of registration of the civil partnership, as the civil partnership will not have been lawfully ended.
Couples who have continued to live together will be able to marry by virtue of the changes in the Bill. I realise that that will not be a reinstatement of the original marriage, but I sincerely hope that couples will feel able to make use of these important provisions. I realise that some transsexual people in this situation may be disappointed, but we need to ensure that a person’s legal relationship status is completely clear at all times in the eyes of the law.
Amendment 18 would enable a one-off payment of £1,000 from public funds to be made as compensation for the distress caused to and costs incurred by couples who had their marriages annulled to enable one or both parties to get gender recognition. I cannot support that amendment because we have to take the law as we find it. It is not fair arbitrarily to compensate couples who decided to end their marriage under the law that applied at the time. There will be other couples who felt unable to end their marriage and who may have suffered distress as a result of not being able to obtain gender recognition. We have taken on board the issues that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) have raised, and we will continue to listen carefully.
The first part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General to make regulations about the issuing of new marriage certificates to couples in which one or both parties have obtained gender recognition that reflect the trans party’s acquired gender, but retain the original date of registration. That could include the date of registration of a marriage that had been annulled. I assure the House that that part of the amendment is unnecessary because the power provided in the Bill is wide enough to deal with those matters. We will give serious consideration to the registration date that should be referred to on any new marriage certificate issued to a couple who are to stay married following gender recognition. We will also need to ensure that the certificate does not inadvertently reveal that one party has gender recognition.
The second part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General of England and Wales to make regulations providing for amended birth certificates for transsexual people’s children to reflect the transsexual person’s acquired gender. The amendment does not seem to be directly related to equal marriage, and in any event I cannot accept it as section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 makes it clear that gender recognition does not affect the status of a transsexual person as the father or mother of a child. That section is necessary to ensure the continuity of parental rights and responsibilities and to protect the right of children to know the details of their biological parents.
Amendment 12 is intended to remove the provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that makes a marriage voidable when a transsexual person marries a non-trans person but does not inform that person of their trans status prior to the marriage or at the time when it takes place. I cannot accept the amendment, because the current provision in the 1973 Act and the corresponding provision in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 provide important protection for the non-trans spouse. If a non-trans person finds themselves in a marriage to which they did not fully consent, it is only right that they should be able to apply to annul the marriage rather than have to wait to bring time-consuming and often costly divorce proceedings.
Amendments 13 and 14 would require the Gender Recognition Panel to issue full gender recognition certificates to all applicants in protected marriages, irrespective of the non-trans spouse’s views. It would then be open to the non-trans spouse to issue divorce proceedings. I understand that the amendments are intended to remove the so-called “spousal veto” in schedule 5. However, let me be clear that non-trans spouses will not be able to veto their spouses obtaining gender recognition. I also understand that the amendments are intended to deal with the problem of hostile or obstructive non-trans spouses who deliberately seek to delay nullity proceedings. I have not seen any evidence that that is a widespread problem. If the grounds for the marriage being voidable are met, the hostility or absence of the non-trans spouse should not delay a court in issuing a decree of nullity. If there is evidence that unnecessary delays are occurring, we believe that it should be a matter for the court.
It must be remembered that a marriage is contracted between two people who should have an equal say in the future of that marriage. We consider that it would be unfair to remove the right of every non-trans spouse to have a say in the future of their marriage before gender recognition takes place. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments relating to gender reassignment.
Finally, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. I am conscious of time and know that I need to leave a little time for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) to respond, so I will conclude my remarks.
Dr Huppert
We have discussed some important and detailed issues that matter intensely to a range of people. I am grateful for the tone in which the debate has been conducted by almost everybody; it has been productive. I know that people from the trans community and other minority sexual communities who have been watching are impressed that Parliament is able to discuss these matters.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is no longer in his place, said that there is no pent-up anger about some of these issues. I would quote comments sent to me by some of my transgender colleagues, but I suspect the language would be rather unparliamentary. There is certainly pent-up anger among people about their stolen marriages.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, I disagree on some of the detail about these amendments and I maintain that there are some concerns. I was worried by some of the language about not fully consenting to a marriage, although I am sure the Minister did not mean to imply that people need to be protected from transgender spouses or transgender people—I am sure that is not what was intended. I was grateful to hear her say that the Government will continue to listen carefully on such issues. I hope there will be further discussion in another place and that the Government will reflect on what more they are able to do.
There has been some progress and I acknowledge some of the Government amendments. On stolen marriages, amendment 15 was always an ideal, and I am well aware of the Government’s objection to backdating. It would be wonderful if it were possible to do so, and I am sure the Attorney-General is a good enough lawyer to find a way to do that. The Minister highlighted the fact that couples will be able to backdate their new marriage to the date on which their civil partnership was formed, so there is some form of backdating, which is welcome. In many cases, there will be a one-day gap between two otherwise identical marriages, which is slightly odd, but I am grateful for that progress. Amendment 15 was always somewhat optimistic, but I hope we can make progress on some of the other issues.
Amendment 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is critical. It has been noted that the current position gives rise to some truly odd anomalies. We are introducing—quite correctly—protection for someone who is transgender and transitions, so that they do not lose out on pensions by virtue of that, but we are leaving in place a slightly bizarre anomaly, mentioned by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), regarding people who have a same-sex relationship, because we are not backdating that to before 2005. That seems deeply anomalous and I am sure the Attorney-General will give clear advice about discrimination on that basis.
Mike Freer
I raised that question because of the anomaly that a gay man or a straight man joining the pension scheme will pay contributions at the same rate but receive different benefits, which is discrimination.
Dr Huppert
It is absolutely discriminatory. It is also the case that a bisexual man or woman would pay at the same rate and would get a different pension transferred depending who they happen to end up with. That seems truly bizarre. The position is not at all sustainable and if the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion presses her amendment to the vote, I expect that I and my colleagues will support her. It is a free vote but I promise my support. However, given that Opposition Front Benchers have said they will not support the proposal, I will understand if the hon. Lady wants to leave her amendment for consideration in another place. The situation is completely unsustainable and it should not last the passage of this Bill. Amendment 15 is right in principle, but I accept that it will not win support, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11
Effect of extension of marriage
Amendment made: 25, page 11, line 8, leave out from ‘other’ to end of line 10 and insert
‘ecclesiastical law (whether or not contained in England and Wales legislation, and, if contained in England and Wales legislation, whenever passed or made).’.—(Maria Miller.)
Clause 15
Orders and regulations
Amendments made: 26, page 12, line 36, leave out from ‘order’ to ‘would’ in line 38 and insert
‘or regulations under this Act, except an order under section18(3), containing provision which’.
Amendment 27, in clause 15, page 12, line 40, leave out ‘consult’ and insert ‘obtain the consent of’.
Amendment 28, in clause 15, page 12, line 41, leave out from ‘order’ to ‘would’ in line 42 and insert
‘or regulations under this Act, except an order under section18(3), containing provision which’.—(Maria Miller.)
Clause 17
Extent
Amendments made: 51, page 14, line 1, at end insert
‘, except for section (Review of civil partnership)’.
Amendment 52, in clause 17, page 14, line 5, at end insert
‘, except for section (Review of civil partnership)’.—(Maria Miller.)
Schedule 2
Extra-territorial matters
Amendment made: 29, page 21, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Maria Miller.)
Schedule 3
Interpretation of legislation
Amendments made: 30, page 23, line 30, leave out from beginning to ‘legislation’ in line 32 and insert
‘In existing England and Wales’.
Amendment 31, page 24, line 7, leave out
‘which has effect as indicated in section 11(2)’.
Amendment 32, page 24, line 21, leave out
‘which has effect as indicated in section 11(2) and’.—(Maria Miller.)
Schedule 4
Effect of extension of marriage: further provision
Amendments made: 33, page 26, line 28, leave out from ‘courts)’ to end of line 30 on page 27 and insert
‘is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
‘(2) Subsection (1): after “entertain” insert “any of the following proceedings in relation to a marriage of a man and a woman”.
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) Schedule A1 (jurisdiction in relation to marriage of same sex couples) has effect.”.
(4) Subsection (6): after “Wales” insert “(whether the proceedings are in respect of the marriage of a man and a woman or the marriage of a same sex couple)”.
7 Section 6 (miscellaneous amendments, transitional provision and savings), subsection (3): after “Act” (in the first place) insert “, or by virtue of Schedule A1 to this Act,”.
8 Before Schedule 1 insert—
“SCHEDULE A1
Jurisdiction in relation to marriage of same sex couples
Introduction
1 This Schedule shall have effect, subject to section 6(3) and (4), with respect to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain any of the following proceedings in relation to a marriage of a same sex couple—
(a) proceedings for divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage;
(b) proceedings for an order which ends a marriage on the ground that one of the couple is dead; and
(c) proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage.’.
Amendment 34, page 27, line 32, leave out ‘a divorce order’ and insert ‘divorce’.
Amendment 35, page 28, line 3, leave out ‘a nullity order’ and insert ‘nullity of marriage’.
Amendment 36, page 28, line 28, leave out from ‘for’ to ‘even’ in line 29 and insert
‘divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage’.
Amendment 37, page 28, line 32, leave out from ‘for’ to end of line 38 and insert
‘an order which ends a marriage on the ground that one of the couple is dead on an application made by the other of the couple (“the applicant”) if (and only if)—
(a) at the time the application is made, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application by the applicant under section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 for a declaration that the applicant’s spouse is presumed to be dead, and’.
Amendment 38, page 28, line 44, leave out ‘of validity’ and insert
‘as to the validity of a marriage’.
Amendment 39, page 29, line 47, at end insert—
8A (1) Schedule 1 (staying of matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales: interpretation), paragraph 2: after “kinds” insert “(whether relating to a marriage of a man and a woman or a marriage of a same sex couple)”.
Transitory provision until commencement of Presumption of Death Act 2013
8B (1) This paragraph applies if section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 has not come into force at the time when the amendments of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 made by the other provisions of this Part of this Schedule come into force.
(2) Schedule A1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 has effect with the following modifications until section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 comes into force.
(3) Paragraph 1 has effect with the following provision substituted for paragraph (b)—
(b) proceedings for death to be presumed and a marriage to be dissolved in pursuance of section 19 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; and”.
(4) Schedule A1 has effect with the following provision substituted for paragraph 3—
3 The court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for death to be presumed and a marriage to be dissolved if (and only if)—
(a) the applicant is domiciled in England and Wales on the date when the proceedings are begun,
(b) the applicant was habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of 1 year ending with that date, or
(c) the two people concerned married each other under the law of England and Wales and it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case.”.’.
Amendment 40, page 34, line 4, at end insert ‘, or
(c) married to a person of the same sex in a relevant gender change case.
“(1B) The reference in sub-paragraph (1A)(c) to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
(a) the married couple were of the opposite sex at the time of their marriage, and
(b) a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to one of the couple under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”.’.
Amendment 41, page 34, line 13, after ‘(2)’ insert ‘—
(a) paragraph (a): after “man” insert “, or a woman in a relevant gender change case,”;
(b) ’.
Amendment 42, page 34, line 18, after ‘woman’ insert
‘(other than in a relevant gender change case)’.
Amendment 43, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
‘( ) After subsection (9) insert—
(10) In relation to an earner who is a woman, a reference in this section to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.
(11) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.’.
Amendment 44, page 34, line 29, after ‘woman’ insert
‘or a woman married to a woman in a relevant gender change case’.
Amendment 45, page 34, line 32, after ‘woman’ insert
‘(other than in a relevant gender change case)’.
Amendment 46, page 34, line 34, at end insert—
‘( ) After subsection (3) insert—
(4) In relation to an earner who is a woman, a reference in this section to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.
(5) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.’.
Amendment 47, page 34, line 35, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—
20 (1) Section 37 (alteration of rules of contracted-out schemes) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (4) substitute—
(4) The reference in subsection (3) to a person entitled to receive benefits under a scheme includes a person who is so entitled by virtue of a qualifying relationship only in such cases as may be prescribed.
(5) For that purpose a person is entitled to receive benefits by virtue of a qualifying relationship if the person is so entitled by virtue of being—
(a) the widower of a female earner;
(b) the widower of a male earner;
(c) the widow of a female earner, except where it is a relevant gender change case; or
(d) the survivor of a civil partnership with an earner.
(6) In relation to a widow of a female earner, the reference in subsection (5)(c) to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—
(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and
(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.
(7) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.
20A Before section 39 insert—
“38A Regulations about relevant gender change cases
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for—
(a) section 17,
(b) section 24D, or
(c) section 37,
to have its special effect in relevant gender change cases only if conditions prescribed in the regulations are met.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, prescribe conditions that relate to the provision of information by—
(a) one or both of the members of married same sex couples, or
(b) the survivors of such couples.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provision about cases where (because of regulations under subsection (1))—
(a) section 17,
(b) section 24D, or
(c) section 37,
does not have its special effect in relevant gender change cases.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, provide for the section in question to have its ordinary effect in relevant gender change cases.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) or (3) may, in particular, modify or disapply any enactment that concerns information relating to—
(a) the gender or sex of a person, or
(b) the change of gender or sex of a person,
including any enactment that concerns requests for, or disclosure of, such information.
(6) In this section, in relation to section 17, 24D or 37—
(a) “relevant gender change case” has the same meaning as in that section;
(b) “special effect” means the effect which the section has (if regulations under subsection (1) of this section are ignored) in relation to relevant gender change cases, insofar as that effect is different from the section’s ordinary effect;
(c) “ordinary effect” means the effect which the section has in relation to same sex married couples in cases that are not relevant gender change cases.”.’.—(Maria Miller.)
Schedule 6
Marriage overseas
Amendment made: 48, page 45, line 31, at end insert—
‘(2) In the case of an Order in Council containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament) be within the legislative competence of that Parliament, no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty under this paragraph unless the Scottish Ministers have been consulted.
(3) In the case of an Order in Council containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly) be within the legislative competence of that Assembly, no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty under this paragraph unless the Department of Finance and Personnel has been consulted.’.—(Maria Miller.)
Title
Amendment made: 54, title, line 4 after ‘overseas,’ insert
‘and for the review of civil partnership,’.—(Maria Miller.)
Mr Speaker
It is always so encouraging to see such a display of enthusiasm at this hour.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.
Maria Miller
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I start by thanking the Front Bench speakers from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as those from other parties located in their area of the House, who are too numerous to mention, for the good natured way in which the Bill has been discussed, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Bill has excited many different views, but we have always conducted ourselves in the best ways of this House.
While I am giving thanks, I also thank the officials who have worked very long hours to ensure that the proceedings of the House took place in a seamless manner, that questions were answered, and that papers were made available. My heartfelt thanks go out to them all for the hard work they have put into the Bill.
I have spent some time thinking about how I would address the House on Third Reading. As I have said, for many reasons, the subject draws strong opinion from Members on both sides of the House. Just as the Civil Partnership 2004 Act was discussed in pubs, homes, church halls and communities throughout the country, so has the Bill. Over the past few months, I have listened carefully to many different voices within and outside Parliament. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had passionate but fair debates. In the best traditions of the House, we have maintained respect for one another’s views, and had open and constructive discussions with all involved.
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend makes an important point on discussions with constituents. It might be wrong to generalise, but does she agree that there is a generational aspect to approaches to the Bill—the younger generation very much supports it, but the older generation is concerned about the society in which they have grown up?
Maria Miller
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am not sure whether he puts me into the older generation —I hope not. There are differences in views across the generations, and differences in views in different parts of the country and different communities. We must accept that people have different views for whatever reason. The most important thing is that we maintain respect for people’s different views. Such an open approach, which we have taken throughout proceedings on the Bill, has meant that the Government have been able to take action to improve the Bill, and to reassure hon. Members on some of the issues they have raised.
The Government have throughout remained committed to the principle that people should not be excluded from marriage simply because of who they love. The institution of marriage underpins our society. Over the years, as society has evolved, so has marriage. As such, it has remained our bedrock. The values of love, commitment and stability underpin marriage—they are the values on which our society is built. Despite our differences in opinion, no hon. Member would dispute that those are the values we should promote. If the values of marriage are the values on which we want to build our society, they must be available to all, and they must underpin an institution that is available to all couples. Our country is renowned the world over for its tolerance. We have a rich tapestry of faith, belief and culture. That is unique—it is part of what makes us British. Those strong traditions will enable same-sex couples to marry.
In no way will the measure undermine those who believe—for whatever reason, whether religious or philosophical—that marriage should be between a man and woman. They can continue to believe that. That is their right. No religious organisation or individual minister will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they choose not to do so, and nor will religious organisations or individual ministers be forced to have same-sex marriages conducted on their premises. The quadruple lock that the Government have designed provides robust and effective protections. The Government are also clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right. Teachers will still be able to express their personal beliefs about marriage as long as they do so sensitively and appropriately. Employers will be unable to dismiss or discipline a person simply because they say they do not believe in same-sex marriage.
I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed on those issues. The right for people legitimately to express their beliefs is why we have committed to do all we can to clarify or strengthen the protections on freedom of expression. I understand the importance that right hon. and hon. Members place on that.
If, through the Bill, we can strengthen marriage and protect it as the bedrock of our society in these changing times for the decades to come, provide protection for those religious organisations and their representatives who do not want to marry same-sex couples, and reassure those who disagree with same-sex marriage that their right to express such a belief is protected, then we should do so confidently and assertively. I am confident that we have struck the right balance. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and we have made changes on the basis of those concerns.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Secretary of State speaks of changes. Will she clarify how many Acts of Parliament will have to be amended as a result of the Bill?
Maria Miller
Many pieces of legislation will have to be amended, which is why we have provisions in the Bill, particularly on ecclesiastical law, to ensure that all required amendments are made. My hon. Friend is right that this is complex. That is why I have been at pains, particularly yesterday and today, to ensure that we do not introduce new concepts into the Bill. We want to keep clarity and focus, and ensure that we do the job. I believe that in the years ahead we will look back on the passage of the Bill, as we now look back on the introduction of civil partnerships: we will be in no doubt that equal marriage is right and we will be proud that we made it happen.
It is important that we debated in detail some difficult and challenging issues. Yesterday, we talked about civil partnership. Equal marriage will correct something that is fundamentally unfair, and remove a barrier that prevents a whole group of people from access to an institution that underpins society. Civil partnerships were created to give same-sex couples equivalent legal rights to marriage at a time when society was not ready to give them access to marriage. Although I am clear that taking a decision on the future of civil partnerships now would not be a responsible thing to do, I have listened to Members’ clear concerns, particularly in the comments expressed yesterday. As such, we have agreed to undertake an immediate review of civil partnerships. That will be an important way to ensure clarity on how that aspect of legal recognition of relationships is taken forward.
We have had further discussions today, with Members drawing on issues concerning humanist ceremonies. The system of marriage in England and Wales, as we discussed in great detail, is based on a system of premises, and not, as in Scotland, celebrants. A change of the nature proposed in today’s amendments would, as we heard from the Attorney-General, be a fundamental change to the current structure of marriage. As has happened in Scotland, it would also open to the door to a range of other belief organisations being able to conduct marriages. Such decisions are a matter for Scotland—this is a devolved matter—but if we are to discuss these matters it is only right that Members are aware that the amendments tabled could not preclude opening up the ability to conduct marriages to belief organisations other than humanists. The Attorney-General made an important contribution to the debate. New clause 15 would have given preferential treatment to one particular belief group and made the Bill incompatible with the convention on human rights, so I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for not pressing the new clause. I welcome that decision.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the provisions of the European convention on human rights will not be compromised by the fact that the Bill makes unequal provision for civil partnerships?
Maria Miller
Yes, I can. I am glad that I can make that clear for my hon. Friend, and may I apologise to him for not taking his intervention yesterday? I could not quite hear who it was. Had I known, I would definitely have accepted it. I sincerely apologise to him.
I accept that for some colleagues their beliefs are an insurmountable barrier to supporting the change, but to other colleagues I say, “Now is the time”. Let us not be sidetracked or distracted; let us not expand the remit of the Bill beyond its original intention; let us make equal marriage possible because it is the right thing to do; and then let us move on. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I should point out to the House that I have had indication of no fewer than 14 right hon. and hon. Members seeking to contribute on Third Reading, in consequence of which I am imposing a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I am proud that the Commons has reached the Third Reading of this Bill, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House also feel proud to support it and to be on the right side of history. I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for introducing the Bill. I am proud, too, that Labour votes passed the Bill on Second Reading and will do so again this week. We are strongly committed to the Bill.
The Opposition have, of course, disagreed with the Government on some issues, including on the Bill’s handling of humanism, which we hope will be discussed further in the Lords. We also wanted early progress on opposite sex civil partnerships as an issue of equality before the law, but I hope that we have now agreed progress there. Nevertheless, the Minister will know that we have approached each of these issues, even when we have disagreed, in a considered way to ensure that the Bill can make progress, and I am glad that votes from Labour and across the House have ensured that no one now has any excuse to ditch or delay an important Bill that I think will bring happiness to many people.
I thank, too, all Members who, because it is the right thing to do, have championed the Bill even when they have faced pressure in their constituencies not to do so. I thank hon. Members who sat on the Committee and worked hard at every stage to get the Bill through. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who have done immense work on the Opposition Front Bench, and my hon. Friends who supported them in Committee. I think that they, and certainly the Government, will agree that nothing makes us more grateful for the normal presence of the Whips—I am glad they join us today—than being charged with taking through Bills that depend on free votes.
This is the right thing to do. This Parliament can now join Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguay, France, which has just passed its own legislation, and New Zealand, whose MPs last month celebrated their gay marriage legislation in fabulous style by breaking into song. We can only wonder what would happen if the Minister and I leapt up and started leading a Eurovision-style chorus of “Congratulations” or perhaps Abba-style—probably not “One Man, One Woman”, but certainly, “I do, I do, I do, I do, I do.”
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Yvette Cooper
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will begin with an appropriate Abba song.
Daniel Kawczynski
The shadow Minister highlights other countries that have already introduced similar legislation. If we did not pass this legislation, would we not have to recognise the marriages of citizens from those countries who came to live or work in the United Kingdom or those who came here on holiday anyway?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We should recognise those people’s marriages. We should be proud to do so, and we hope that other countries across the world will join us, including countries where there is still terrible homophobic discrimination, which we should be fighting against. I hope we can lead the way by championing this Bill. We should remind people why we are doing this. It is time to give same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples to get married. It is time for equality in marriage.
Mike Freer
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for taking a chance on me. This week alone, two more countries and six states in America have approved same-sex marriage. Is not the tide of history with us and not against us?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right. I pay tribute to the work he has done to champion this legislation. I think we are on the right side of history by taking it forward. It is time to celebrate, not discriminate, when a couple decide they want to make a promise to stick together for as long as they both shall live.
I have had many letters and e-mails since Second Reading; I want to share some briefly with the House. One man wrote to me describing the difficulties he had had being accepted by his family because of his sexuality. He said:
“'My partner of 14 years is neither recognised nor accepted. It is however fantastic to hear politicians…standing up for people like me, ensuring that we can become equals at least in the eyes of the state, if not in the eyes of our parents and our religions.”
Another wrote to me to say:
“I’m a 23 year old gay man…I’ve had people tell me all my life that I am less worthy, wrong and sinful because of my sexuality, and although I’ve been incredibly lucky to have supportive family and friends throughout, it does grind you down. And it can hurt, really and truly hurt.”
He, too, described the importance of seeing politicians in this House
“so publicly and passionately support the rights of people like myself and many others to have a more equal standing in society is really one of the most empowering things that can be done—political leaders standing up for those whose voices so often get silenced. I truly feel it is an historic moment in Britain and all I can say is thank you.”
That is what this Bill is all about. Rarely is legislation so personal. Rarely does this House have the chance strongly to reaffirm the equal respect we have for every human being, regardless of their sexuality, and the equal respect we have for their loving, long-term relationships.
We have heard strong objections to the Bill in the course of these debates. In this House we show respect for each other’s views, even though we disagree with them. Some have been concerned about the impact of the Bill on their faith and some have objected to aspects of it on grounds of their faith. It is important for us to respect freedom of religion, and I believe that the Bill has done exactly that. I hope those Members will feel reassured that their concerns have been respected. Of course, no religious organisation or priest can be required to conduct same-sex marriage and there are multiple locks in the Bill to prevent that from happening.
It is also important to remember that many people with strong faith, of all faiths, strongly support this Bill. We should not see it as something that promotes a secular-faith divide, because it does not. I am pleased, too, that Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Judaism have said that they want to be able to celebrate same-sex marriages. I am pleased that they will be able to do so as a result of this Bill. I hope that other faiths will change their minds over time, because that is freedom of religion too.
We have heard other objections to the Bill in these debates. We have heard people claim that allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married will somehow undermine the marriage of heterosexual couples, but how will it? There are MPs in this House who want to get married who will be able to do so as a result of this Bill: excellent—I personally hope I get an invitation to the reception—but does that undermine my marriage? How could it—unless, of course, they want to marry the shadow Chancellor, which could pose a few challenges. This Bill does not undermine the marriage of anybody in this House or across the country. The idea that two brides tying the knot says anything about the relationship of their neighbours next door is simply ludicrous. Nor is it good enough to say that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, because marriage has rightly changed before and it can do so again. That is not a definition; it is discrimination.
We have seen this subject become part of the internal debates within the Conservative party. To Conservative Members I would simply say that fighting over Europe is one thing—they are welcome to that—but I hope that they will stop fighting over this. I hope that they will join Members across the House in being proud of this Bill. I have heard many Conservative Members talk about the anger in their constituencies and the anger among their party members. I hope that they will now feel able to stop talking about the anger and to start talking about the joy. This is about the joy that we can deliver for those who want to get married just as their parents did, the joy that we can make possible for the couple who want to get married just as their sister or brother did last year, and the joy that we can provide by saying to couples across Britain, “We won’t discriminate against you on the ground of your sexuality. We respect, support and celebrate your relationship.”
Members might recall that I argued on Second Reading that marriage was about the joy and the sorrow, about the excitement and the tragedy, and about the romance of the wedding day as well as the deeper romance of growing old and grey together, even once the party has faded. I gave the example of an elderly couple, one of whom was caring for the other who had dementia. I described the love, commitment and duty that that showed, and said how powerful that was, whether it was between a man and a woman, two men or two women. In response to that, I received an e-mail from a man who wrote:
“I was particularly touched at your reference to a couple enduring dementia. This is precisely what my parents are now facing after 54 years of marriage. The example they have shown me over my lifetime and now that my mother suffers with the disease is precisely what marriage is all about. I try every day to live up to their example, as I enjoy a wonderful relationship with my partner whom I love very much. I expect in this day and age, and for generations to come, that we should be able to have our commitment to each other acknowledged in law in an equal way with our straight friends. Your argument is truly Christian in nature, entirely humanist and on the right side of history. My partner and I, our families, and our future children thank you from the bottom of our hearts.”
I thank all those who are supporting the Bill. Let us be loud and proud. Let us start the singing. Let us celebrate, not discriminate. Let us pass this Bill. Let us put aside the anger, and let us hear it for the joy.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Earlier today, while the Health Secretary was responding to an urgent question on accident and emergency departments, I had to take myself along to the A and E department at St Thomas’s hospital because something was wrong with my eyes. I am told that everything is fine, but I had some drops put into my eyes and, as a result, I am now unable to see the official Opposition. The only thing I can see, and have sought to remark on, is the loud and proud and typically revolting tie of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). However, I notice that you are wearing the same tie, Mr Speaker. I therefore unreservedly withdraw my remark.
The most serious concern that has been advanced about the Bill relates to ensuring that religious freedom is protected. The concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) are surely genuine, and we were right to pay attention to them. I would not support any measure in this House that would force a Church to conduct a same-sex marriage against its will. That principle of religious liberty is immensely important. The fact that the Bill protects Church organisations and that the Church of England has expressed its confidence in the locks that have been put into the Bill should give the House confidence that we can proceed with this measure. Of course there are other aspects of religious freedom that we need to protect. They were discussed yesterday and will be the subject of further discussion in the House of Lords.
The essence is that no church will be forced to conduct a same-sex marriage against its will. Religious freedom cuts both ways, and those who have rightly spoken on behalf of religious freedom cannot ignore the cause of religious freedom for Churches that do wish to conduct same-sex marriages. What about the Quakers, the Unitarians or the liberal Jews; what about their religious freedom? My argument is that the Bill extends religious freedom and does not restrict it and that those who are concerned about religious freedom should support it. Those advancing these arguments need to say why they have not been interested in Churches such as the Quakers and why they believe that the law of the land should prevent those Churches from doing what they seek to do.
Other arguments have been put against this legislation—that it redefines marriage for everyone, so that even if Churches are protected, the concern remains that it changes the definition of marriage for others, too. As has been said on a number of occasions here, how exactly does it harm or affect those who enter into a heterosexual marriage if a same-sex couple enter into a marriage, too? How does it devalue, change or alter the marriage they have? The truth is that this is not a measure that can remotely be held to do any harm to people at all. Absolutely no harm is done by this measure and a very great deal of good can be done by it.
Less impressive arguments have been advanced in respect of this legislation. It has been said that because same-sex marriages cannot be consummated, there is some problem or lack of equivalence, or that because adultery provisions will not apply directly, there is a lack of equivalence. Actually, most heterosexual marriages are, sadly, ended by the cause of unreasonable behaviour, which could apply just as easily to same-sex couples. I think there was an unfortunate implication behind that criticism, which was that somehow same-sex couples were seeking a licence to enter a marriage in respect of which they sought to escape or avoid the vows undertaken. Of course, the absolute opposite is the case. It is right to extend same-sex marriage to gay couples precisely because it is a good thing if they enter into a loving and permanent commitment to each other. That is a good thing for them, for society and for families, and we should celebrate and support it.
Daniel Kawczynski
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a consensus across the country that this legislation is important and that we should back it? Even in my rural county of Shropshire, a recent opinion poll taken by the local media showed a majority in favour of this legislation.
Nick Herbert
I thank my hon. Friend and strongly agree with him.
I was about to say that it has been suggested that the public are not with this legislation. Of course an element of the public are concerned about it. That much is clear, but it is also clear from all the independently conducted opinion polls—not those conducted by the pressure groups opposed to the Bill—that a majority of the public support this legislation and that the majority is increasing, as we have seen throughout the world. As for the idea of holding a referendum on such measures at any time, apart from being a bad idea in itself because the House of Commons decides these matters, such a referendum would be likely to pass this measure in any case because the public are in favour of it.
When homosexuality was decriminalised, some Members of Parliament objected. When civil partnerships were introduced, some Members of Parliament objected. They were found to be wrong because society moved on. Attitudes change and attitudes to gay people have changed. The Bill will do no harm and a very great deal of good by celebrating love and commitment and by treating a minority equally. That is why we should welcome it.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
As is well known in this House, the Democratic Unionist party opposes this legislation and continues to oppose the Bill in principle. I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who served in Committee and faithfully put forward the perspective that we hold on the need to protect the traditional definition of marriage. I also want to thank other hon. Members who share that view, including the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who also served in Committee and did a commendable job in putting forward our perspective.
I believe that marriage is foundational, that it is for one man and one woman, and that it ought not to be redefined. I believe that marriage is universal and not just for Christians, although I am a Christian and my stance on this issue, like that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is influenced by our Christian faith. I believe that marriage is for everyone, man and woman, who wants to take up that right in law. I believe that the definition of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman should stand. I believe that marriage is beneficial, and that it is for the mutual help and support of husband and wife and for the procreation of children.
Our opposition to the redefinition of marriage is not born of prejudice. It is not born of homophobia. It is born of a deep sense of our Christian faith, and I hope that that can be respected. Our Christian faith is important to us. It is what motivates us to take the stances that we take on many issues. It is shared by many people in our native Northern Ireland, where a high proportion of the population still go to church and more than half our children attend faith schools.
The Northern Ireland Assembly recently voted not to introduce same-sex marriage in our part of the United Kingdom. I welcome the commitment that the Minister has given to seek the consent of the Department for Finance and Personnel, which is responsible for this matter in Northern Ireland, before implementing any amendments that would have an impact there. Notwithstanding that, however, we remain opposed to the legislation in principle. I was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill that became the Civil Partnership Act 2004. I remember pointing out at that time that civil partnerships would inevitably lead to a demand for same-sex marriage and being told by the then Government that that was nonsense, that we were scaremongering and that it would not happen.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) tells us that marriage has changed and will change in the future. When we talk about equality in marriage, where do we draw the line? There are some in this country who believe that marriage should be between a man and more than one woman. Will we not, in time, hear another demand for equality—the demand that a man who wants to be married to more than one woman should have that right enshrined in law? If marriage is to change in the future, will not the House, in time, be presented with proposals to give effect to the demand for equality for those who want to be married to more than one partner?
We are told that we are on the wrong side of history. Well, time will tell whether those of us who take the stand that we are taking are on the wrong side of history. I have heard that argument many times in the past, and I have watched as the House has legislated time and again to undermine some of the fundamental building blocks of our society. I look around me, and I see the harm that that does to our society.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Who would the right hon. Gentleman say was on the right side of history as a result of the 1967 legislation that decriminalised homosexuality?
Mr Donaldson
I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. In respect of the Abortion Act 1967, I know that Northern Ireland is on the right side of history, because we refused to accept that legislation. The fact is that 8 million unborn children have not had the opportunity of life because of bad legislation in this House.
I think that, when it comes to the wrong side of history, time will tell, and the judgment will come. I am happy, and my party is happy, to stand on our beliefs, and we ask for them to be respected. We may, in the end, lose the vote in this House, but that does not alter our opinion that this is bad legislation and that it is wrong.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
Some of the arguments about the right side and the wrong side of history were advanced at the time when civil partnerships were introduced. I was not in the House then, so I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman made the case or whether other members of his party did, but the case was made by some that the introduction of civil partnerships would lead to the decline of society in some way. In my urban constituency in Battersea, it is not people coming together in love to form committed relationships who cause a problem; it is families breaking up in rancour who cause real distress in my community.
Mr Donaldson
I hear the hon. Lady’s point, but in the context of this Bill, I simply do not agree that when we tamper with the fundamentals of our society, the result is necessarily a good thing for our society and beneficial in the long run. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage; I believe in the traditional concept of marriage and I believe that the Bill undermines that. I therefore believe that the House is making a mistake in pressing ahead with it.
The stance that my party takes is not without support out there across this nation. We may be a small party in a small region of the United Kingdom, but on this issue we speak for millions of people across the United Kingdom who share our view. We tamper with these things and change these laws, and we may well come to regret the things that we sometimes do in this House and the legislation that we pass. Our party makes no apology for taking this stance, therefore.
This evening, we stood outside with some of the Christian people who have gathered outside this building. They are very hurt. We talk about pain and hurt. There are a lot of Christians across this country, and also Muslims and Jews—people of strong faith—who are hurt by this Bill. I hope that will be borne in mind.
I want to thank the hundreds and thousands of my constituents who have written to me in support of the stance I and my colleagues have taken on this issue. Tonight, they will feel very sad indeed.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
First, I want to thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office for their patience, diligence and fairness in dealing with all the draft amendments that were submitted in the Bill Committee and the remaining stages.
We are in an extraordinary situation for what is the Third Reading of a Bill that redefines marriage, and I never thought our Government would have done this. There was no clear manifesto commitment, no coalition agreement on it and no Green Paper—there was just a sham consultation—and there are no significant amendments to the Bill beyond the civil partnerships review. We have had programme motions that have denied all MPs the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail. Consciences have been constrained. Indeed, a recent private poll of MPs showed that at least one third of Members did not believe they had a free vote on Second Reading. Let us see what happens on Third Reading, but that will no doubt create a concern in the other place when it comes to discuss the Bill on 3 June, if it passes its Third Reading tonight.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their diligence in Committee. If we had not served on the Committee, there would have been almost no scrutiny of the Bill at all.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
We find ourselves in the unusual situation that none of the political parties put this in their manifesto. Does my hon. Friend agree that the other place will have complete legitimacy if it chooses to reject the Bill because the Salisbury convention should not apply here?
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and the other place is certainly looking in great detail at the way we have handled the Bill.
I welcome, however, the fact that, after the 13 sittings of the Bill Committee and yesterday’s debates, the Government have finally recognised the concern that the impact of the Bill will go beyond the marriage ceremony. My constituents need an explicit assurance that the Bill will not curtail their reasonable expression of their belief in traditional marriage, so I welcome the Government’s late undertaking last night in relation to schools and free speech. We must go further than that, however. If Members believe in traditional marriage and in liberty, they should vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
Jim Shannon
I, in turn, want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his hard work in the Bill Committee. Was he encouraged by the Christian ladies and gentlemen who attended the Bill Committee over a period of five or six meetings and energetically supported us as members of it and by those who took part in the prayer vigil outside over the past two days and who prayed hard?
Mr Burrowes
I do indeed welcome their prayerful support and, indeed, the fact that there has been engagement from those who are on all sides of the argument.
There has been much tolerance and respect in the debate from those on both sides of the House, but I must take this opportunity to say—I have informed the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) of my intention to do so—that there have been comments that have gone beyond tolerance. There have been intolerant comments that were, frankly, offensive to my constituents and many of his. How dare the right hon. Gentleman equate the position of Christian Members of Parliament such as me and others with the slave traders of Wilberforce’s time? Wilberforce supported traditional marriage and would, I am sure, have been on the side of the dissenters on the Bill.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by playing the race card and accusing the Bill’s opponents of being in step with the racists and traffickers of years gone by, he is offending not just me—that does not matter—but the majority of the black and minority ethnic communities who are opposed to the Bill? He has offended the black majority Church leaders in his constituency and mine who wrote to The Times recently and said:
“If the Government gets its way, it will not be a victory for equality. Equality requires diversity, and diversity requires distinctiveness, and marriage is and always will be distinctively a union between a man and a woman… The Government is not respecting difference, and it is not promoting a plural society.”
Mr Burrowes
Unfortunately, we are running out of time.
What is pernicious is equating hon. Members’ opposition to redefining marriage with previous discrimination on the basis of race. That plays into the hands of those who have accused me and many hon. Members of being homophobic or bigoted simply for standing up for marriage—[Interruption.] I will give way to the right hon. Member for Tottenham shortly. Such intolerant reaction to our belief in marriage runs the risk of being fomented by the state orthodoxy in the Bill about the new gender-neutral meaning of marriage. For our constituents—those who really matter—those who disagree risk vilification and discrimination and they certainly will not get the protection they deserve under the Equality Act 2010.
Mr Lammy
I am greatly saddened that the hon. Gentleman chose to use the term “playing the race card”. My comments were merely sited in an understanding of equality. There have been many battles on equality in this House. The battles against slavery, racism and sexism were noble, and many people outside the House will recognise that the fight for gay rights is one of equality; it is not playing—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) must have a chance to finish his speech.
Mr Burrowes
The Bill is triumphed over as being all about inclusivity, when what it has done has caused division, not just in the Conservative party—that is not the most relevant point—but in the country. The settled, respected position on supporting civil partnerships and the previously united concept of marriage between Church and state have now had a wedge driven between them by the Bill. Indeed, we had late resolutions to try to deal with the inequalities that are still apparent. What unites the opposition to the Bill is an unshakeable belief that will not accept the state’s redefinition of marriage and will recognise only the distinctive value of marriage as the bringing together of one man and one woman.
Throughout its passage through the House, the Bill has lacked legitimacy and scrutiny. I urge all hon. Members to exercise their consciences, listen to the real concerns of their constituents and join me in voting no on Third Reading.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
This is a great day for Parliament and for the country, and I pay tribute to the Government and the Prime Minister for showing the political courage necessary to prioritise this legislation. I pay tribute to those on my Front Bench for their constructive approach, which will make it more likely that the Bill will eventually become an Act.
My only regret is that the debate is taking place in the absence of David Cairns, the late Member for Inverclyde, who was known, liked and respected by Members from all parts of the House. David was never defined by his sexuality, but he certainly found happiness and completion in his relationship with his partner, Dermot. I have no doubt at all that were he alive today he would be voting enthusiastically for the measure before us. Even though his name no longer appears on the list of voting Members of this House, I will feel David beside me as I walk through the Aye Lobby at 7 o’clock.
Mr Speaker
Order. In view of the level of interest, I am reducing the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes with immediate effect.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
On Second Reading, I talked about many of the letters of concern that I had received from constituents and reflected that that conflict was one that I had had in my life. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) talked movingly yesterday about the freezing effect, and she is right about that period. To realise that you were gay in that climate was difficult, to say the least, but I was one of the lucky ones. I had two great parents who supported me through that difficult time.
Religious faith is not just the preserve of heterosexuals. One of my hardest challenges was balancing my sexuality with my faith. It has taken me years to do that, and as I said at the time, some of those battles were the hardest and darkest in my life.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming the vote in the Church of Scotland this week to allow gay ministers?
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful for that intervention and yes, I certainly welcome that.
In the context of the Bill, I understand the anxieties of people involved in religious organisations, but I am convinced by the evidence sessions and the questioning that the locks in place secure and protect those religious freedoms. We have heard a great deal about the Church of England in these debates; there are debates within the Church of England too. I went to my own church and was a little anxious about facing people there and discussing this issue, but the majority in the room supported the Bill.
Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I disagree, I pay tribute to him for his diligence in his analysis and scrutiny of the Bill. I sincerely appreciate his calm and measured tone. I just wish that that tone could have been adopted by everyone. The extremes on both sides of the cause have not acted well, and it has been disappointing, to say the least, over the past few months to hear some of the phrases used. Yesterday, the term “aggressive homosexuals” was just one such phrase.
To that I say this: I am not an aggressive man, but I have had the misfortune of facing aggression in a violent, physical form, and no, I am not referring to that incident. [Interruption.] In 1997, I was attacked and beaten unconscious by three men because of who and what I am. That had a profound effect on me at that time, but in time I fought back, and what helped were the decisions taken in this place. Through a series of Acts, this House brought equality nearer. Where legislation led, society followed, and over time that balance changed and our society became more tolerant. Each small step forward felt like a huge leap forward for me personally.
I joined the Conservative party for a host of reasons, two of them being a belief in freedom of choice and in allowing people to live their lives as they choose. This Bill has the protections for religious organisations that mean that they have the freedom to choose not to marry same-sex couples, but people like me and many others have the freedom to choose to marry the person they love. It therefore strikes the right balance.
Caroline Lucas
So much has been said about same-sex marriage over the past couple of days. It is important on the occasion of Third Reading to return to the fundamental principle that underpins what we are trying to achieve. That principle is equality. Ultimately, this is about basic human rights. Nobody should be denied on the basis of their sexuality the opportunity to be legally married.
We are righting a wrong and I urge Members in the other place to remember that when they consider the Bill. Peers, including some but not all bishops, recognised the justice of introducing civil partnerships back in 2004, and I hope they will also recognise the justice of now granting same-sex couples the choice to enter into marriage, especially as the Bill has gone to great lengths to protect important religious freedoms.
Colleagues have remarked on the historic nature of the decisions being taken, and I agree. We live in a world where 85 United Nations member states still have repressive laws against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, where same-sex marriage is still a distant dream, and where being L,G, B or T can in some cases be a death sentence. But some dreams come true, and today is an important symbolic as well as practical step forward for equality and human rights.
I met a very inspiring campaigner at a trans networking event in Parliament the other day whose business card carried the strapline, “Tolerance is not good enough”. That neatly sums up what I want to say. Tolerance is important, yes, but we need to carry on for more than that. We need to fight for true justice, for true equality, for true LGBT rights, as well as for tolerance. For me, that also has to include the issue of equal pension rights for those in same-sex marriages and civil partnerships. I am saddened that we have not made more progress on that here today, but I hope very much that it will be taken forward in the other place, as I hope will righting some of the injustices that still remain for the trans community.
But today on Third Reading is a time for celebration. For many hundreds of constituents from Brighton, Pavilion who have written to me in support of same-sex marriage, this Bill is about their lives, their loves and their futures together. I have heard many stories about why this legislation is important, including from one constituent who simply said, “Everyone should have the right to marry the person they are in love with.” Another told me that she hopes Brighton and Hove will be the first city to perform a gay marriage. To her I say, “Watch this space.”
I also thank those people against changing the law who have lobbied me, all of whom have been respectful of my position and my right to support same-sex marriage. I know it is difficult for some to square the Bill with their understanding of marriage, but I maintain that it is wrong for gay couples to continue to pay the price for that by being denied equality. Equality and justice must underpin everything else—a principle and a priority, not just something tacked on to existing pledges to try to attract more votes. The majority view in the House today has reflected that, and I hope that it will continue to do so as we vote on Third Reading.
Mr Bone
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) who puts her case, as usual, with great sincerity. I will be voting against Third Reading tonight, partly because I think that the Bill is wrong; marriage is between a man and a woman. My real motive for voting against Third Reading, however, is the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. We are yet again dealing with an amazing piece of important legislation that owing to the programme motion is going through without proper scrutiny in the House. Yesterday, whole parts of the Bill could not be amended because consideration of the amendments were not reached. I cannot even talk about those amendments tonight because I would be out of order. So we have again to allow the other place to decide on the amendments to a hugely important constitutional Bill.
It seems extraordinary to me that for the Third Reading debate Back Benchers have been allowed 40 minutes, and you, Mr. Speaker, have had to impose a three-minute limit to allow as many as possible to speak. The idea that we can compare this to the days of Wilberforce, when he would talk for three, four or five hours, is absolutely ridiculous. I would go back to that system, and I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) might agree. We should not have had the closure every evening. Why could we not have talked until 10 or 11 o’clock tonight on Third Reading so that Members could have made their points? I would then have been much happier when the Division came that all the differences had been properly considered. I will end there, because other hon. Members want to speak, but I urge all hon. Members, for the sake of Parliament, to oppose Third Reading.
Ms Abbott
I simply wanted to say what a momentous piece of legislation this is. Some things we do in the House of Commons do not affect ordinary people at all; some things we do in the House of Commons are best ignored; but this Bill will make a lot of people’s lives much better. I have supported this cause all my political life, long before it was fashionable on the Labour Benches, and I never thought I would live to see the day when the Bill would approach its Third Reading.
Members have talked about their constituents. I remind the House that I represent some people who are troubled by the Bill. Some of them come from countries where homosexuality is illegal. Some of them come from countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. I have had to say to them, “I respect your views, but I have stood for human rights all my life and I stand for human rights on this issue too.”
We could not let this debate pass without mentioning all the ordinary people, all the grass-roots campaigners, who made it possible for us to reach this point. I think not just of people involved in their local or national campaign, but of the ordinary people who have showed kindness and decency and who accepted a child when that child was not expecting acceptance. They all played their part. We could not have this debate without mentioning Peter Tatchell, not always the easiest of comrades, but someone who has devoted his life to human rights. We could not have this debate without mentioning Ken Livingstone, who was the first local authority leader to bring in civil partnerships and show the wider political world that we could have civil partnership without the end of the world as we knew it. And of course there is Tony Blair, who brought in civil partnerships in the last Parliament.
Some people listening to this debate will be thinking, “This is all very well, but there is war in Syria, climate change and a huge economic crisis, so why does this matter?” Let me tell the House why it matters. When this legislation finally goes through, there will be adolescents going to bed that night who are struggling with their sexuality and who, knowing that the law has gone through, will think as they go to sleep, “Maybe it’s not so bad. Maybe my life isn’t ruined. Maybe I can find some acceptance. Maybe I can come out to my friends, and maybe even to my mother and father.” If this debate and this legislation makes the lives of so many hundreds of thousands of young people just a little better, we will have done great work in the House tonight.
Mr Speaker
Order. I call Dr Julian Huppert. If he can speak more briefly—he does not have to—more Members will get in.
Dr Huppert
I will try, Mr Speaker.
On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we believe that the state should not bar a couple who love each other from marrying just because of their gender or sexuality, whether they are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex or whatever, and that the state should not ban groups who wish to conduct same-sex marriages from doing so.
This is an important day, and it is a day to celebrate. When my party passed a motion on equal marriage in the UK three years ago, I did not think that we would be able to get to this legislation so quickly. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), the previous Equalities Minister, for her determination which has transformed the issue and made sure that we could get here. I also pay tribute to the two Stephens, my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who served on the Bill Committee. The Bill is right today and will seem even more right in future. In five, 10 and 20 years’ time, we will look back and see that it was the right thing to do.
I am proud of the Bill as it is, although it could be better, and we have discussed some of the possible improvements over the past two days. Equal civil partnership is the right thing in theory and in practice, so we need to find the right opportunity and the right vehicle for introducing that. We have heard no good reason why in principle humanists should not be allowed to conduct weddings. The Attorney-General is an excellent lawyer, so I am sure that he will be able to find a way to ensure that we allow that to happen legally.
This is a very positive day, but we should remember that there is still homophobia and transphobia in the UK, and it is even worse in other parts of the world, where people fear for their lives and it is illegal for them to be who they are. We must take steps to ensure that that finally ends. We must not send people back to places where they will be persecuted for who they are. I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
This is not the most important thing to come before the House in this Parliament, or even this year, but it is a really good thing. I am delighted that the most celebrated friend in my household, loved by me, my wife and my three children, will have the chance, if he wants, to marry the man he loves. I did not come into politics to be defined by what I am against; I want to be defined by what I am for. Tonight is a good night.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I know that for some this is a day for self-congratulation. Others in our society and our country are deeply wounded. I humbly and unashamedly confess that I am a born-again, Bible-believing Christian. I fear that in many ways our nation is swiftly turning its back on many of the great principles it was built upon. Some suggest that we hold on to our traditional views of marriage because of culture or tradition, but I do not believe that that is so. I believe the biblical definition of marriage. I did not make it up; God gave it to us in his precious word.
Some have suggested that over the years religious organisations and church councils have changed their mind on a number if issues, and indeed some have already changed their opinion on the definition of marriage. That might be so, but the word of God, by which all men and women shall be judged on the day of judgment, and the standards revealed therein have not changed. Man may have changed, but God’s word has not. We may be a nation that seeks to go back to the days of Judges, when
“every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
I suggest that this legislation will bring our nation many problems, whether for teachers or in our day schools. Indeed, I certainly pray that God will deliver us even when the Bill goes to another place.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We are on the edge of a profound social change. What a pity there was nothing in the manifesto. What a pity we did not have a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. What a pity we had only two hours to discuss the protection of people in the workplace. This change has been made tonight without full discussion; now it is over to the other place.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The Bill passed its Second Reading by 400 votes to 175. The amendments wrecking it were rejected by seven to one.
We last redefined marriage in 1973 when we brought in the prohibition on same-sex marriage. I think it is time to undo that and define marriage as being between two people who are qualified to marry.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
Syria (EU Restrictive Measures)
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of EU Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP amending Decision 2012/739/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria; takes note of the deteriorating situation in Syria that has led to the deaths of more than 70,000 people at the hands of the Assad regime; and supports the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to agree with Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of Syrian sanctions. In addition to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my appearance today, the Government have sought to keep the House and the European Scrutiny Committee updated through statements, answers in the House and correspondence, including between the European Scrutiny Committee, which has called this debate, and the Minister for Europe.
Today’s debate is the result of the European Scrutiny Committee report dated 13 March, which referred for debate on the Floor of the House the Council decision agreed by member states on 28 February. The decision amended the EU arms embargo to allow for the provision of non-lethal equipment and technical assistance for the protection of civilians. I apologise to the House that on that occasion the Government had to override the normal scrutiny process due to negotiations on the Council decision in Brussels going to the wire. I appreciate the House’s forbearance on that, and I welcome the opportunity today to debate issues around that Council decision and subsequent developments on Syria.
Syria is one of our greatest foreign policy challenges, not least as it has brought about a humanitarian crisis on a scale not seen in decades. The enormity of death and destruction is horrifying. More than 80,000 people have died, a quarter of the country’s population has been displaced and more than 1 million Syrians have sought refuge in neighbouring countries.
A year ago, 1 million people inside Syria needed humanitarian aid. That figure is now nearly 7 million, and the United Nations forecasts that it will reach 10 million by the end of this year—10 million people displaced by the Syrian conflict. To put that number in context, it is the combined populations of the cities of London, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool, and all are in dire need of shelter, water, food, health care and other basic supplies.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly made clear, most recently in his statement to the House yesterday, our objective is to achieve a political solution to the conflict in Syria and bring an end to the terrible violence and human suffering. Sanctions are an important tool in achieving that objective, but as with any tool, they must be used intelligently to make maximum impact.
Our initial aim in imposing sanctions was to cut off the flow of funds and arms to the Syrian regime, choking off its ability to continue to wage war against its people, and to increase pressure on individuals in the regime to end the violence. Those sanctions have had a profound impact on the regime’s financial flows and put it under increasing pressure, but they have not proved decisive. The Syrian regime has continued to receive material and financial support from its international backers and been able to continue its brutality. I am proud of the leading role that Britain has played in using sanctions to put pressure on the Assad regime. We must now play a leading role in refining those sanctions to ensure that they continue to support our overall goal of achieving a political solution and ending the violence and suffering.
As the conflict in Syria deteriorated, it became clear earlier this year that elements of the existing sanctions package had become an obstacle to our efforts to help the opposition National Coalition to deliver life-saving support to civilians inside Syria, and an obstacle to our efforts to increase the pressure on the regime to end the violence. The Syrian regime has shown no remorse in targeting civilians, including those involved in distributing essential assistance. That is why we pushed to achieve an amendment to the EU arms embargo in February to allow the opposition to receive much-needed technical advice and assistance in addition to a greater range of non-lethal equipment.
The breakthrough achieved by the UK in February has allowed us and other European partners to consider a greater range of measures to help to protect civilians in Syria. The Syrian opposition needs to be appropriately trained to respect the principle of international humanitarian law. The technical assistance includes advice to the opposition to help it to get on with the business of governance and saving the lives of ordinary Syrians.
Since the amendment achieved in February, the situation in Syria has continued to deteriorate. Syria is an unmitigated humanitarian disaster. The Assad regime continues to use heavy weaponry and ballistic missiles on its own people, and there is increasingly persuasive evidence that chemical weapons have been used by the regime.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
The House is well aware of the dreadful situation in Syria, and of the atrocities allegedly committed by the Assad regime, but will my hon. Friend tell us more about the atrocities committed by the people to whom he wishes us to send arms? The House and the country need to be clear on whether the good boys are on one side and the evil boys are on the other, or whether there are faults on both sides.
Alistair Burt
As my hon. Friend is aware, it is clear that there are faults on all sides, but all the evidence collected so far by the UN indicates that a greater degree of atrocities have been committed by the regime than by elements of those opposed to it. He is correct to draw attention to the latter, as the Government do. Abuse of human rights is incompatible with our values and we condemn it everywhere. However, the opposition is divided into different elements. We wish to support and are supporting those who we believe are moderate, and those who have declared their adherence to democratic principles, most recently in April. They are under pressure from the more extreme elements, but we condemn atrocities on either side. We are working with those who we believe have the right values. Those are the ones we wish to continue to be supported.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
In the strategy that the Government appear to be adopting in contemplating giving arms supplies to one opposition group, are we not in danger of fuelling a civil war within a civil war? The only solution is a political one involving all countries, including Iran.
Alistair Burt
It remains absolutely clear that the UK objective is to seek that political solution. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is on his way to Jordan today to take part in talks. The UK has made no decision on the release of any arms or any lethal weapons to any part of the conflict. The purpose of seeking to lift the arms embargo is to increase pressure on the regime and to give the moderate opposition a sense that it has extra backing, but no decision has been made on sending any arms into the conflict.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Minister has rightly spoken of the atrocities committed by Assad and acknowledged the atrocities committed by rebel forces. Will he expand on the links between certain groups of rebel forces, such as al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda? Will he give the House an up-to-date sitrep on that?
Alistair Burt
Yes, indeed. Al-Nusra has declared some allegiance to al-Qaeda, which is one of the reasons why the United Kingdom has no contact with it. From what we know, there are a variety of different groups opposed to the regime and there are loose links between many of them. However, those in the National Council, with which we are working most closely—it has evolved in the past two years—do not want to be connected with those who have an allegiance elsewhere. They have declared their principles and values, which is why we wish to work with them. It is true that a variety of forces are now ranged against the Assad regime, but in seeking to support some of them, the House should recognise that there are those with good values who deserve to be supported as they seek to protect civilians against the barrage from the regime.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard the recent observation by a well-known commentator, who said, “If you’re not confused about Syria, you don’t really understand it,” emphasising the complexity of the issues with which we are dealing. May I offer him a parallel from the past? When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, those who were resisting them were supplied with a great deal of weapons. After the Russians left, and when it was necessary for the allies to take military action in Afghanistan, many of those same weapons were used against the allies. How can we ensure that what we give to the so-called good people does not fall into the hands of the bad people?
Alistair Burt
My right hon. and learned Friend is anticipating something that is not before the House. No decision has been made to introduce new arms into the situation. As we know, plenty of weaponry is already in the region. Our work has been to support the elements in the National Coalition who adhere to the values they have declared, and to provide non-lethal support and encourage them in looking after civilian areas. The dangers are real, as he makes clear. However, the point is not that no weapons are currently going in and that a change in the arms embargo would suddenly introduce them; weapons are already going in. The issue we are concerned with is how to stop the conflict. That is why we come back to the urgent need for a political solution.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It must surely be the Government’s prime objective to ensure that VX gas and weapons of mass destruction do not get into the hands of al-Qaeda. Is that not more likely if we give more support to the forces that oppose the Government, which include al-Qaeda? This is not just a civil war; it is a war by proxy between Sunni and Shi’a, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Russia and the west. Surely the Minister can see that if those weapons of mass destruction get to al-Qaeda it will make this country more vulnerable?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman raises two separate points. First, I seek to make it clear that there is no support going to al-Qaeda elements in Syria from the United Kingdom. All our support is channelled through the National Coalition, which does not have a contact to supply any matériel to forces aligned with al-Qaeda. It is precisely to encourage and support moderate elements that the United Kingdom has been working so hard, with others, in the past couple of years to ensure that those elements have the means to protect the population they are looking after.
Secondly, securing any chemical weapons that may be there is a live issue today that concerns all the nations surrounding Syria. The responsibility for securing chemical weapon stocks lies squarely with the regime. My point is that these issues are already ongoing; there are already risks and nothing we are seeking to do will add to those risks. The most important thing is to continue the work on political transition, and to take advantage of the opportunity that has been created in recent days and of the efforts that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is now engaged in. That is what needs to happen. Risks in relation to weapons are already there no matter what happens to the lifting of the arms embargo that we are discussing.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this matter. Is it not the case that 25 years ago in Iraq another Ba’athist party dropped chemical weapons on Halabja, and does he not agree that the Ba’athist party in Syria has now reached that red line? I welcome these EU sanctions, but NATO and the free world need to do much more to intervene to prevent a chemical holocaust.
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We remember with horror the events of 25 years ago, which heighten our concern about the stocks of chemical weapons. As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, and I have repeated today, that we have plausible evidence of their use, but we have not yet got definitive evidence of where they have been used or who might have used them. That work is now in the hands of the UN; we are pressing it to get on with the work, and we encourage all nations to comply and work with the UN in order to get a definitive answer. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that the House’s concern about chemical weapons is absolutely shared by Her Majesty’s Government.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Following on from all the points about atrocities, will my hon. Friend make every effort at every opportunity to make it clear to those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, on both sides, that the international community will make every effort in due course to bring them to trial either before the International Criminal Court or a UN special court, such as happened after Sierra Leone? We need to make it clear that eventually justice will catch up with them.
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the House can be proud of the part that the UK has already played, not only in making it clear that there will be that accountability, but in providing the means to ensure that that accountability happens. Providing the opportunity for training, collecting material, instructing people on what evidence to look for and the like have been an important part of what we have contributed up to now. He is correct, however, that without fear or favour those who take part in atrocities, no matter on which side they range themselves during this conflict, should be subject to the rule of law and international justice.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
If we are concerned about the civilian deaths from air attacks by the regime, would it not be better to do something about stopping the regime using aircraft and helicopters to attack civilian areas, rather than give sophisticated weaponry to people who might then hand it on to others to use against us in the future?
Alistair Burt
I repeat again, at the risk of riling the House, that we are not discussing whether the UK is providing weaponry. That point has been well made. The question of air cover has been discussed before. As the House knows, the Syrian air defences are not weak, and up till now no one has considered there to be a practical way of dealing with them, but part of what I will say is about all options being open. Lifting the arms embargo will increase the flexibility available to those who might need to protect civilians, or supply those who are protecting them, in the future. It offers that necessary flexibility, but no such decision has been taken.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I recognise that the Minister is held in high esteem in the House for his response to humanitarian issues across the world. He refers to the relaxation of the arms embargo. One of the great concerns among Members is the 3.5 million refugees and displaced persons, many of them children. Can he assure people inside and outside the House that the provision of humanitarian aid—clean water, sanitation, clothing, food, blood, medicines—will continue and that the people who are really feeling the pain of this conflict will be helped?
Alistair Burt
Absolutely. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that remains a matter of the utmost priority to us. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the situation is immensely complex. There is a humanitarian disaster not only within Syria but outside, with, it is reckoned, 1.5 million refugees scattered throughout Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and surrounding areas, and we are working to provide support both outside and inside the country. Some 71% of the latest UN plea for support has been provided, but the rest is urgently needed. We have fulfilled our pledges, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the situation in the camps and for those being hospitable to people in their homes is dire.
The hospitality being given in people’s homes is important—we think of this going on in Lebanon, Jordan and other places. It creates pressure on the domestic population, as rents go up and the local economy becomes distorted, and after a time hospitality becomes stretched and strained, so it is essential that we continue to provide support. I am proud of the way in which the United Kingdom, as the second largest bilateral donor, has been able to do that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister knows that my greatest concern is about the dangerous folly of doing anything to assist an alliance of groups that contain thousands of al-Qaeda fighters to get their hands on Assad’s chemical weapons. Rather than reiterate that, may I ask for an assurance that before there is any lifting of the arms embargo, there will be a full debate, with a vote, in this House?
Alistair Burt
In response to my hon. Friend’s first point, let me again make it clear that the efforts of the United Kingdom Government—this should not be left unsaid—are directed to supporting those who do not have the ideology and the declared aims of al-Qaeda. It is very important that that distinction is made, because those moderate forces are looking for recognition. They want to be able to say that they can hold areas and provide support to civilian populations, because they want to be able to provide a contrast with those who might not have Syria’s long-term interests at heart. That is why our support for the National Coalition is so important.
In response to my hon. Friend’s second point, I can do no better than repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said yesterday:
“I regularly come back to the House whenever there is the slightest variation in the situation, so if there are any developments in the Government’s policy I would certainly seek to do so.”
He later said:
“If we come to a choice about that, it is a very important foreign policy and moral choice, which of course should be discussed fully in this House.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 908-909.]
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Jabhat al-Nusra and the Salafists were a fairly small group about 12 months ago. Part of the problem is that they have been much better armed and are much better fighters, so that elements in the Free Syria army, which is not as well armed as the Islamists, are flaking away to them. That is one area that my hon. Friend needs to consider. Another is that the UK has the chair of the UN Security Council— the presidency—next month. That presents us with an opportunity to pursue a radical agenda of engagement with all parties, perhaps including Iran, which has elections next month.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Minister replies, may I remind all Members that this is a timed debate? The Minister has been generous in giving way, but this debate needs to end at 8.46 pm. At least nine Members, if not more, wish to participate, so we need to make a little more progress through the Minister’s speech if we are to get everybody in—unless those who are making interventions but are on the list plan to withdraw their names.
Alistair Burt
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is always difficult: it is important to answer questions as they come up, but I entirely understand the point of trying to move the debate on. I am very much in the hands of colleagues. I will answer questions, but I know we must move on to the speeches. My remarks will not be not terribly long after this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I thought there might be a number of questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am only trying to be helpful to the House. I did not set the time limit for this debate; I am only trying to be fair to Back Benchers. I do not wish to chastise the Minister; I am merely pointing out the facts before me this evening.
Alistair Burt
I did not for a second take it that I was being chastised; I was only trying to be helpful to all colleagues—but let’s not go there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) makes two points, and I absolutely agree with him. His understanding of the situation is clear. He makes an entirely fair point about how al-Nusra has been able to garner support at the expense of more moderate elements. He makes an absolutely valid point, which I hope I have also made in my speech. He is also absolutely correct to say that we will be leading the UN Security Council next month. The Foreign Secretary set out the situation in relation to Iran yesterday. Of course Iran has influence and an interest in the area. My right hon. Friend is keen that those who get round the table for Geneva II should probably be the original cast, but my hon. Friend’s point is well made.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
In any peace talks or conferences that might take place, has the coalition sorted out the leadership question? It is not clear to the public which members of the leadership will be involved in those peace talks.
Alistair Burt
We have worked closely with the Syrian National Coalition over the past couple of years, and there are recognised figures in it. The actual group that will attend the talks in Geneva—if indeed they take place there—has not been decided, but there are recognisable leadership figures in the coalition with whom we deal.
Alistair Burt
I should like to make a little more progress. I will then be happy to answer more questions, and perhaps wrap up at the end if there is time.
In light of the developments that I referred to earlier, we need to consider again how best to use sanctions to find a swift and enduring resolution to the crisis. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House in his statement yesterday:
“The case for further amendments to the EU arms embargo on Syria is compelling, in order to increase the pressure on the regime and give us the flexibility to respond to continued radicalisation and conflict. We have to be open to every way of strengthening moderates and saving lives, rather than the current trajectory of extremism and murder.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 905.]
There is a glimmer of hope. The United Kingdom and France are working closely with President Obama and President Putin to try to find a political solution to the crisis. As I have said, we all want that more than anything else, but this is a fragile and fleeting chance. The Assad regime has made a lot of promises to negotiate but has never delivered on them, and the moderate opposition in Syria, the National Coalition, is losing faith.
We and our partners in the European Union must play our part to make the talks a success. That means building leverage on both parties—the regime and the opposition—to do a deal. We must send a message to the regime that we will not stand by while it kills its people in increasing numbers and in increasingly appalling ways. We must make it clear that, if the regime does not ensure that these talks are a success, no option is off the table. We must also show the opposition that we will support their search for a just outcome that they can sell to the fighters in Syria and to the wider population.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend is saying about the importance of working with our European allies and with the United Nations to put pressure on Russia in particular, because it is key to securing peace in Syria.
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Recent conversations between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, President Putin, Secretary of State Kerry and the Russian Foreign Minister have indicated a degree of involvement with Russia. Talking with Russia has never been off the table. Russia has great significance through its relationship with the regime in Syria, and we believe that it should now use that relationship to bring the regime to the table.
We and key allies, including the US and France, believe that lifting the arms embargo will help us to achieve the goals that I have just described. It will strengthen the hand of opposition politicians in relation to the fighters, and the hand of the moderates in relation to the extremists. It will also show that we are committed to supporting them and have the flexibility to consider further action if the regime makes a mockery of this chance for a political solution.
I want to make this Government’s position clear: no decision on arming the Syrian opposition has been taken. Amending the embargo on opposition forces would not mean that we would automatically and immediately begin arming them, although we cannot rule that out in the future; but even without acting on it, providing an exemption from the current arms embargo for opposition forces would send a powerful and timely signal to both sides. It would say to the Assad regime that a political solution is the only option, as there will be no military victory. It would tell moderate opposition forces and politicians not to lose faith in their fight against oppression or against the extremists who are seeking to capitalise on the continued instability.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Is the Minister saying that the message to the regime is that if talks do not succeed, nothing will be off the table? Some people in the opposition might interpret that as giving them a stake in ensuring that talks do not succeed, because guns and other collateral would then come into the equation. That would not help the moderates. Instead, it would help those who have a mindset of, “We’re going to be top dog, and top gun.”
Alistair Burt
If there were a realistic assumption on either side that the balance of arms could change sufficiently to give one side an advantage over the other so that there was a point to continuing the slaughter, the hon. Gentleman’s point would be well made, but the assessment that more and more people are making, on the ground and outside, is that a military solution is not possible. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, there are only two scenarios here: one is long drawn-out killing and humanitarian suffering on a massive scale, with no decisive result; the other is the peace opportunity that is now before us. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but our argument is that, because of that assessment that there can be no military victory, let us give the moderates the sense of support and protection they might need to be flexible if conditions change. The important point is to press both sides to negotiations and talks, because that must be successful.
We make no mistake: the regime is trying to change the balance of forces on the ground even as we talk, and will do so even as negotiators meet in Geneva. Lifting the embargo for the opposition will give us the flexibility to protect civilians, save lives and respond to a major escalation in the conflict, such as the use of chemical weapons. Even if the embargo were to be lifted, we are clear that lethal supplies would be considered only if they were a necessary, proportionate and lawful response to extreme humanitarian suffering and there was no practicable alternative. Any supplies would be carefully calibrated and monitored, as well as legal; they would be aimed at saving lives, alleviating the human catastrophe and supporting moderate groups. Our policy on Syria will continue to focus on bringing an end to the bloodshed.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
It is obviously a very difficult situation and I respect what the Minister is trying to do. No one believes that the UK Government are going to give arms to an organisation linked to al-Qaeda. The point is that in Syria, given what we have already heard about the strength of extremist groups, there is no way we could guarantee that such weaponry would not fall into the hands of extreme elements.
Alistair Burt
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, there are no guarantees, but over time we have established a series of links with moderate groups who would have no vested interest in allowing equipment that might be used against them to fall into the wrong hands. The hon. Gentleman anticipates a situation that we are not in, but I hope I can reassure him that the risk of diversion is very much on the Government’s mind. Pathways have been found for equipment and support, which are already going in, but I say again that Members need not suppose for a moment that stuff is not already ending up in the wrong hands. That is why finding a political answer is urgent; that is why the Foreign Secretary has gone to Jordan; that is why people are gathering now to seek that. The longer this goes on, the worse it gets, and diversion becomes even more likely.
Let me conclude by saying that in both bilateral and multilateral efforts, including our vital co-ordinated efforts through the EU, we will continue to respect the rule of law for which the Assad regime has shown so little regard. At all times, our overriding objective will remain encouraging the parties to come together to agree a transitional Government who can start to build a stable, inclusive and peaceful Syria, which the people of Syria so much deserve. I commend the motion to the House.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the ongoing conflict in Syria and specifically amendments to the EU arms embargo. I commend the European Scrutiny Committee for calling this important debate.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned and horrified by the violent and brutal conflict and loss of life in Syria. The death toll has now reached 80,000 people, and the refugee crisis is intensifying, with more than 1.3 million people having fled to neighbouring countries. As the Minister outlined, this is a humanitarian crisis on a scale not seen in decades.
I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for giving the House an opportunity to consider specifically, in detail, the decision made by the Council of Ministers in February to amend the existing EU arms embargo to allow the transfer of non-lethal military equipment to certain groups in Syria.
The debate is timely, given that the EU-wide embargo is due for renewal at the meeting of the Council of Ministers next week. As a result of the Council’s agreement in February, the Foreign Secretary announced to the House on 6 March that the British Government would increase their support for the Syrian opposition and that that would include equipment that had previously been banned under the EU embargo. The change in both the scale and the type of material support from the United Kingdom clearly marked a new stage in the Government’s engagement with the opposition forces.
Since that date, and specifically on 15 April, the Government have informed the House that, among other items, a number of vehicles with ballistic protection, packs of body armour and hundreds of radios have been transferred to the Syrian opposition as gifts from the Government. Equally important, we have received details about the ongoing training of Syrian opposition members in which the UK has been involved. I am grateful for further details provided by the Minister today and by the Foreign Secretary in his statement yesterday.
We welcome measures taken by the Government that help to unite members of the fragmented opposition in Syria, help them to communicate better with each other, help them to gain a better understanding of international law and help them to protect themselves and civilians from the violence being inflicted on them by the Assad regime. However, we are extremely concerned about the suggestion that the EU arms embargo should be amended further, or rolled back completely.
In the light of the February Council decision and the forthcoming Council discussion early next week, I seek further clarification of the Government’s position from the Minister. Will he tell us precisely what the Government will be calling for with respect to any alteration in the embargo next week? It has been suggested that they are considering two options. The first is to seek an exemption from the embargo for the national coalition of Syrian and opposition forces, and the second is to remove the “non-lethal” language to allow lethal equipment. That would effectively render the embargo null and void. Which of those options will the Government seek to secure on Monday and Tuesday next week in Brussels?
What support, beyond that of France, have the Government secured in the other 25 member states of the European Union? It seems clear that Germany and Austria, among others, are opposed to the lifting of the embargo. If no agreement is forthcoming, will the Government veto the continuation of the embargo? Yesterday, in response to an excellent question from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) about the possible use of the veto, the Foreign Secretary said:
“We will meet as Foreign Ministers in Brussels next Monday to look at those discussions in detail. I can say to my hon. Friend that we are prepared to do that if necessary, but of course we are looking for agreement with other EU member states.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 911.]
Will the Minister confirm that the Government are prepared to veto the renewal of the arms embargo next week? I think that, if they intend to do so, there are further fundamental questions that they need to answer.
First, the Government have spoken of the need to tip the balance in favour of the opposition. Can the Minister give us his assessment of the amount of weaponry that would be required to tip the balance against Assad, taking into account the support that we believe that he continues to receive from other states? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the weapons supplied do not fall into the hands of extremists groups such as al-Nusra, which is aligned with al-Qaeda? Thirdly, given that the Foreign Secretary said that he could only offer his “best endeavours” to prevent British-supplied matérial from going to groups in Syria for which it is not intended, will the Minister tell us whether the Government would be willing to supply arms without any end-use guarantees? I am sure that the whole House would be cautious—several Members have demonstrated their concern today—about any step towards arming Syria’s opposition without a range of solid assessments and analyses from the Minister and his colleagues in the Foreign Office in regard to the end users of any British-supplied arms.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Is not the weakness in the argument that the arms may fall into the hands of the wrong people the fact not just that we can never give such guarantees, but, above all, that the wrong people already have plenty of sophisticated arms, which are being supplied perfectly legally from Russia, Qatar, Iran and everywhere else because there is no UN arms embargo?
Emma Reynolds
History teaches us to be extremely cautious. In the past, the west—ourselves, the US and others—has supplied arms to forces that then turned against us, so we need to learn the lessons of history and be extremely cautious.
Mr Newmark
I totally respect the hon. Lady’s position, but history has also taught us that when we stood aside and did nothing in Rwanda, 800,000 people got slaughtered, and it took us four years to go into Bosnia, while, again, hundreds of thousands of people got slaughtered.
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the loss of life in Syria. The problem with the solution that the Government seem to be offering us is that it could lead to an escalation, not a de-escalation, of the conflict by fuelling the fires of the conflict, rather than encouraging a solution.
The opposition in Syria is fragmented. What more can the Government do to help the moderate elements of the opposition unite and work together?
If the Government believe that arming the opposition in Syria is now the best option available to the EU, how will that help halt the violence and secure a peace that lasts? Are there not significant risks now and in post-conflict Syria, and what would be the implications for peace and reconciliation between the country’s diverse religious and ethnic groups after the conflict?
The Prime Minister was in Washington last week, yet in yesterday’s statement by the Foreign Secretary, we heard little detail about what the Prime Minister has discovered about President Obama’s thinking on arming the opposition. Can the Minister enlighten the House on that point? Moreover, can the Minister provide the House with more detail about the format of the US-Russian peace conference and what role our Government will play in it?
Finally, if the Government veto the continuation of the arms embargo next week and after that decide to arm the opposition, will the Minister commit to bringing that future decision before the House, so Members on both sides can vote on what the Foreign Secretary yesterday called a moral issue?
Sir Menzies Campbell
The hon. Lady has returned to the veto. Has she, like me, sought to establish whether on any previous occasion the United Kingdom has exercised a veto within the European Union in relation to the imposition of sanctions? If we were to do so in this case, what does she think the political outcome would be?
Emma Reynolds
I do not know of any circumstance in which the veto has been used in this area. I agree with the implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question and his concern: there could be implications for other parts of the world, such as, perhaps, Iran, where we have EU sanctions. That is a point worth making.
I hope what is said in today’s debate and the caution urged by Members across the House will be reflected in the approach the Government take at the Council meetings on Monday and Tuesday. There is real concern across the House that arming the opposition will not guarantee peace in a country where sectarian, tribal and democratic impulses are all present. We are all united in our wish to see an end to the bloodshed in Syria, but serious questions remain about whether the Government’s change in policy will secure that peace. The test of the Government’s action will be whether it leads to a de-escalation, rather than an escalation, of the ongoing conflict and bloodshed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Eight Members are seeking to catch my eye to take part in tonight’s debate. I am not going to set a time limit. Instead, I ask Members to work it out among themselves. If each of them speaks for five minutes, including interventions, that will leave a few minutes at the end for the Minister to address any outstanding questions, so watch the clock, please.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I support the decision made at the last EU Foreign Ministers’ Council. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has raised no objection to the decision to provide further non-lethal equipment to the rebels or to the subsequent decision to supply further equipment to the state of Jordan.
This is a dire situation, and there are no easy answers. We are right to have stood back, and the EU arms embargo has been the right policy to date. Last March, however, the Foreign Affairs Committee raised questions for the Government about their intentions. The Foreign Secretary, in his letter to me dated 20 April, said that the policy was not “static” and that
“We cannot stand by why the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate at an ever more rapid pace.”
From that and from the Foreign Secretary’s statement yesterday, in which he said that he was quite prepared to veto the renewal of the EU arms embargo, one must conclude that although the Government might not have made a decision to arm the rebels they are seriously considering whether to do so.
For me, that prompts three questions: is it legal; is it wise; and how will Parliament be kept informed? To impose military force against a sovereign state is contrary to the UN charter, but we are not looking at quite that state of affairs. There is no precedent for an intervention in what is essentially a civil war. The letter of 20 April also set out the legal basis for a humanitarian intervention, stating that any such intervention would have to be a
“necessary, proportionate, and lawful response to a situation of extreme humanitarian suffering and…there is no practical alternative”.
That clearly follows out the doctrine set out in the 2005 world summit that established the principle of the responsibility to protect, but the responsibility to protect has always required a Security Council resolution, which will clearly not happen on this occasion.
There have been past interventions without a Security Council resolution—namely, in northern Iraq, Kosovo and Sierra Leone—but they were all pre-2005 and the new doctrine and they all involved repressed populations that were not in a civil war. I submit that Syria is different. This is a civil war. It is also, arguably, a breach of Syrian sovereignty. The Government have recognised the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as
“the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people”,
but that is not the same as recognising it as a Government. The definition of a Government is whether they are sufficiently in control of a territory and exercising governmental authority to constitute a Government. That is not the case here. That all adds up to a very large question mark, in the absence of a Security Council resolution, over the legal legitimacy of such an intervention.
Secondly, is it wise? As Members have intervened to point out, this is now a regional conflagration. The Arab world is split, with the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan determined not to let the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Syria, and Qatar and Turkey backing a Muslim Brotherhood constitution. Hezbollah is now engaged and Iran has indicated that a defeat for Syria is a defeat for them, too. That all adds up to its being highly unlikely that there will be a diplomatic breakthrough. Russia, clearly, remains as entrenched as it ever was.
The dilemma for the Government and the Minister is that if they arm the rebels, it will clearly lead to a huge loss of life and a possible subsequent proxy war. Not to arm them, however, will see the Assad regime continue its barbarous regime. Either way, there will be a huge loss of life. I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister will rush this, and they are wise not to do so. Frankly, I do not envy them in the judgment that they have to make.
I have concluded that the EU arms embargo has been the right policy, but that it has now outlived its usefulness. In the absence of a UN embargo, it is a very difficult situation in a complex arena. I do not believe it is sensible for the Government to have their arms tied by the EU embargo. I wish them well in seeking agreement to amend it and agree with the Minister that it sends a timely signal to the Assad regime. If he cannot reach agreement, he should be prepared to veto the renewal.
Finally, on Parliament, the Foreign Secretary said yesterday:
“Our assessment is that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is very likely to have been by the regime.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 906.]
For those of us who were here in 2003, when we went to war on the strength of an intelligence assessment that none of us had seen, that rings alarm bells. If the use of chemical weapons is used as a justification for further intervention, I invite the Minister and the Government to ensure that that intelligence is made available either to the Intelligence and Security Committee or to a committee of privy councillors. Either way, it is essential that the House is kept fully informed.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on his contribution. I agree with everything he said, with one exception. I do not support the lifting of the EU arms embargo, and it is very important that we recognise that Britain and France are outliers in the European Union. Many other countries have been resisting moves by the UK and French Governments over recent months and there will be a decisive split in the European Union on this issue if the Government persist in the approach that they are taking. Perhaps that is what the coalition Government want, or perhaps it is what part of the coalition Government want, but it is not in our long-term interests or in the interests of future European co-operation on this issue.
I have enormous sympathy for the Minister. He is a good man and he has been put up today to defend an extremely difficult position. He has to justify a very bad policy. It is a bad policy, because the prospect of our Government providing sophisticated weaponry at some point in the future, which is the intention and which is what this is all about and has been about incrementally over the past few weeks, means that surface-to-air missiles could be used to shoot down civilian aircraft in the region—missiles which might ultimately be found to have been supplied by the UK and France to elements in the Syrian opposition, and which might then have been sold, captured or handed over by people who defected from one faction to another.
If we are going to put sophisticated weaponry into the region to deal with the brutality of the Assad regime, that sophisticated weaponry should be in the hands of people, first, who are trained to use it, and secondly, who will operate according to the laws of war and who are ultimately controlled by NATO powers—either through Turkey, our NATO ally, or through the UK, the French and the United States working collectively to bring in a no-fly zone.
Two years ago, because of the threat to Benghazi, the coalition Government said that we needed to intervene with a no-fly zone. I supported them, as did most Members in the House. Now we have seen the deaths of tens of thousands or perhaps 100,000 people in Syria already and all the other consequences—the millions of displaced people and the refugees—yet we are not prepared to act. We are, of course, waiting for Obama, and Obama is not coming. He is not prepared to move. I asked the Foreign Secretary yesterday what his understanding was of the position of the US Government with regard to arming the opposition or a no-fly zone, and I got no answer.
The real tragedy in this situation is that countries that could make a difference to end the conflict relatively quickly are sitting back, while other countries, particularly the Qataris, and Hezbollah supported by Iran, are fuelling the process—and Russia, because it wants to keep the Tartus naval base, is prepared to do almost anything to back the Assad regime. I am not holding my breath for success at the forthcoming conference. Either there will be no agreement on who will participate, or agreement will not be reached unless it is a Dayton-style process and everybody is put in a room and kept there, with international forces putting pressure on them until an agreement is reached.
The prospect is that we will perhaps start arming elements in the opposition, but the conflict will continue for a very long time, with the sponsors of the Assad regime continuing to provide more and more weaponry. Russia will strengthen the air defences and the whole outcome will be a disaster. We need to be trying not to give arms to the Syrian opposition, and instead to be battering on the doors of the White House and the Kremlin and doing far more to get the countries that really can make a difference to stop the process before it is too late.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome this evening’s debate on the Council’s decision and commend the Government on securing the flexibility that we and other countries need to step up the pressure on the Assad regime. I am especially pleased that the Council document explicitly sets out the humanitarian context that underlies our rationale for action. The urgency for a political or, reluctantly, a military solution is the humanitarian imperative on which I want to focus for a few moments. We cannot talk of aiding the Syrian opposition without stressing the urgent need and plight of the Syrian people, who live in constant fear for their lives and who in their hundreds and thousands are fleeing every day.
The Syrian crisis is entering its third year, and while we hope for a political solution, a humanitarian tragedy continues to unfold before our eyes. The situation for Syrians is desperate. Life for those caught up in the spiralling violence is unbearable. As ordinary civilians fall into ever deeper despair, the humanitarian need is growing more urgent by the day. According to the United Nations’ estimates, the death toll is now 80,000; 8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance; and more than 4.25 million people have been driven from their homes by the fighting to other areas of Syria, with now well over 1.3 million refugees in neighbouring countries. The majority of these refugees are women, children and the elderly, more than half of whom are children below the age of 11, suffering first and foremost from psychological trauma. These figures are alarming, but from my own experience having visited two camps in Turkey, I can say that they do not capture or convey the full extent of the crisis.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees conceded that the total numbers are far higher than have officially been accounted for. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate rapidly as increased fighting and changing of control of towns and villages, in particular in the conflict areas, is driving more and more people out of the country.
Beyond Syria’s borders, the problems continue. For the countries that have taken in those refugees—Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey—the burden that they face in economic, security and social terms, on their energy, water, health and educational facilities, is huge and proving a serious challenge that far exceeds their capabilities to cope with.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says about the burdens put on Jordan in particular. Does he agree that more pressure should be put on the United Arab Emirates to contribute more to humanitarian relief?
Mr Walter
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I want to make a point about the international community’s responsibility, and that includes the Gulf states.
If the scale of the humanitarian needs continues to outstrip the support available, the risks will only soar. The pressure on Jordan’s already scarce water, energy and education resources is enormous. Approximately 40,000 Syrian students have started attending classes in Jordanian schools, and health services are strained by the average daily influx of 3,000 refugees into Jordan alone. If that influx continues at that pace, we will be looking at 1 million refugees in Jordan by the end of the year.
Where is the European Union and the rest of the international community in this devastating and desperate hour? Many promises have been made, but not enough have been delivered. I find it dispiriting that we have collectively fallen so far short of our obligations to help the Syrian people caught up in the turmoil and to alleviate the burdens borne by the neighbouring host countries. Appeals for funding to provide food, water and other humanitarian aid inside Syria have received only meagre support, while the UN Refugee Agency says that its appeal for half a billion dollars was only one-third funded. As a result of the woeful state of funding, the UN and other aid organisations can reach only 1.5 million of the people in desperate need, of whom there are probably around 3 million.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Walter
I am very conscious of the time limit that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have placed upon me and so will take no more interventions.
There was a conference in January at which $1.5 billion was pledged. The Foreign Secretary reported yesterday that payments have now reached 71% of the amount pledged, but that is still nearly half a billion dollars short. I think that we can be proud of honouring our financial commitments, but we know that there are still countries that have not done so. That is not good enough. When the Foreign Secretary goes to Brussels on Monday, there must be progress on dialogue. In the long term, the whole international community will have to pull together to find a solution to the conflict.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I am pleased that we are having this debate and hope that at the meeting in Brussels the Government will not use their veto and lead us into the danger of supplying arms to Syria. For some time now the Foreign Office has been chatting quite openly about the possibility of supplying arms. Indeed, in a letter to me of 22 April the Minister stated:
“As things stand today, there is going to be a strong case as we come towards the end of May, for the lifting of the arms embargo on the Syrian National Coalition, or some very serious amendment of the EU arms embargo”.
I just make the point, as others have, that we would be supplying arms to people we do not know. We do not know where those arms would end up or how much worse the conflict would get as a result. Anyone who doubts the leakage of arms should think carefully about the way the USA raced to supply any amount of arms to any opposition in Afghanistan in 1979, which gave birth to the Taliban and, ultimately, al-Qaeda. We should think very seriously before doing that. I hope that we do not end up with any arms supplies, or indeed any UK involvement in the conflict.
There is obviously a horrific situation in Syria, with tens of thousands dead already and hundreds of thousands of refugees in neighbouring countries, and the situation will probably get far worse for them all. That is not to say, however, that there are not huge internal conflicts within Syria or that the Assad regime has not committed enormous human rights abuses, but the west has a very selective memory on this. There was a time when western Governments were happy to co-operate with President Assad on many issues. The Assad regime received very large numbers of refugees from Iraq—mainly Palestinians driven out of Iraq after the US invasion. One thinks of the plight of Palestinian people who have been driven from country to country for the past 60 years. The anger in those refugee camps will be the start of the conflicts and wars of tomorrow. There has to be a recognition of human rights and human justice.
However, this war is becoming a proxy war for all kinds of interests. Let us just think of the countries and organisations already involved, by supplying arms, funding or what is euphemistically called non-lethal assistance. The European Union is clearly very involved, as is the United States, and Russia is clearly involved in supplying arms to the Assad Government and protecting its own base there. The Gulf Co-operation Council countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are supplying vast amounts of money and arms to the area. Iran feels under threat and thinks that it is next on the western countries’ hit list, so it is presumably helping the Assad regime in some form. Turkey is a neighbouring country that is both receiving refugees and supplying some weaponry and assistance. Israel has now got involved, with reports of the bombing that took place last week. In today’s edition of The Guardian there is a report of a land incursion near the Golan Heights that was beaten off by certain forces, we know not which.
This is a time, surely, to reflect on the western strategy in dealing with all the issues with which we have been confronted since 2001. In Afghanistan, we have spent a lot of money and lost a lot of soldiers. Lots of civilians have died, and the country remains poor, corrupt and divided. Iraq is a place that can hardly be called at peace. In Libya, we went in with the no-fly zone and spent an awful lot of money and time bombing large numbers of people, and one could hardly say that there is a western-style liberal democracy there at present. Syria was a colonial creation. The French were very good at oppressing Syrian nationalism in the 1920s, and now the country is in danger of splitting apart altogether.
If there is to be a political solution, which the Minister says that he wants, the conference that is being planned looks increasingly like a conference to impose some kind of victorious solution. A conference must include all the countries of the region and all the parties that are in any way involved in this conflict, obviously including Iran, and must recognise the role that Israel is playing. The west was incapable of getting the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference for a nuclear-free middle east going, so I hope that it is more successful in getting this conference going.
Finally, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that there will be a debate and a vote in this House before any precipitate action is taken and before any arms are supplied to anybody, so that those of us who disagree with that proposal will get the chance to express our dissent?
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Let me start with a note of criticism that relates not to our policy on Syria but to the scrutiny of European documents in this place. The Council decision was taken on 28 February and referred to this Chamber by the European Scrutiny Committee back in March. It is now nearly June; in fact, the three-month arms embargo to which the decision referred has nearly finished. This is not a criticism of the Minister, and certainly not of the Chair. I am afraid that Government business managers must address the issue, and we must all try collectively to carry out European scrutiny in a much more timely and effective fashion.
I strongly welcome much of what the Minister said, particularly his strong emphasis on the main focus of British policy being the achievement of a peaceful political solution. That has to be right, and it has to be our main objective in every decision we take. The Geneva peace process that we hope will develop over the coming months is central to this, and the role of Russia and other countries in the region is a crucial part of that process.
Some slightly ill-judged questions have been asked during the debate. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who made a very wise speech, asked at one stage whether it would be legal for us to intervene in the dispute in Syria, yet I have not heard anyone on the Government Benches saying that we should intervene. We are, in the end, talking only about the possible partial lifting or changing of an arms embargo in a country in which there is no universal arms embargo. In fact, arms are flowing into the country, funded, in the case of the regime, by Russia, supported by Iran and by Hezbollah. The arms that are flowing to the jihadi elements such as Jabhat al-Nusra and possibly al-Qaeda are, by all accounts, funded from within the Gulf. Those arms are flowing in completely legally because of the lack of a UN arms embargo.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked whether we were fuelling the fire. It is quite difficult to see how it could be fuelled any more—there is already an inferno. In effect, the EU arms embargo is a little like a sticking plaster floating in a flood. The country is already awash with arms. The most sophisticated arms are going to the regime and, I am afraid, to the jihadis, who are gaining ground against other elements.
As I said, I am worried about the tone of some Members’ speeches. I admire in many respects the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but he fell foul of this trap. To talk as though no democratic or moderate force is present in the country—to simply ignore its existence—is to make a fatal error. We have fallen into that trap in many parts of the world over the decades. We have assumed that democracy, moderation and the rule of law could never exist in Latin America, eastern Europe or Africa, but one after another, the peoples of those continents and regions have shown that they are capable of fighting for freedom and democracy without falling into the hands of extremism. If the Arab spring taught us anything, it was that Arabs too can be moderate, Arabs too can fight for democracy and Arabs too can resist the temptations of extremism.
The Syrian conflict did not begin with western intervention. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Islington North did strongly imply that, but we will both have to check the record. The Syrian conflict began with Syrian people rising up against a dictatorship, in exactly the same way as the conflicts in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and the conflicts that are still tentatively going on in other countries. If we talk as if this is an endless and inevitable bloodbath carried out by wild-eyed foreigners, we do a grave injustice to those who are trying to promote values that we would recognise. The Syrian National Coalition has endorsed the values of democracy, pluralism and the rule of law. [Interruption.] There is laughter behind me. I am surprised that Members think that this is funny.
The Syrian National Coalition and the Free Syrian army are implicated in crimes. Those should be investigated and we should put intense pressure on the coalition to clean up its act and ensure that its fighters respect civilian populations. We must do our best to make these people, who are clearly no angels, behave in a way that would make us proud to support them. To simply ignore them and assume that the conflict will end up as a Sunni-Shi’a battle between the Assad regime and jihadis could be an historic mistake.
As I have said, the most important thing is that we do everything we can to support the Geneva process and a regional, political solution. That has to involve Russia because it is critical to the process. It will inevitably draw in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, although I am not sure whether it is practical to have those two countries at the Geneva peace conference because it might end up as more of a Sunni-Shi’a fight than it was before. We have not only a political and diplomatic duty, but a moral obligation to ensure that the peace process works. Provided that they have not been annihilated in the meantime, present as partners in that peace process must be those who are fighting for freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Although this debate is somewhat retrospective, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out, it raises important questions about our current and prospective roles in the conflict in Syria.
I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). I have spent seven years travelling to Syria and have had the opportunity to meet Bashar Assad and other members of the regime several times. The tragedy that is unfolding for the silent middle in Syria is terrible to behold. It is a beautiful country that is being dismembered day by day. We must think very carefully about our next steps.
What is the situation today? On one side is the Assad regime, which is responsible, as we have heard, for more than 80,000 deaths, more than 1 million refugees and more than 4 million internally displaced people. The regime has 300,000 soldiers plus the dreaded Shabiha, 16,000 pieces of heavy artillery and an air force. It has the Russians on its side, who are providing hardware such as S300s, Yakhont surface-to-ship missiles and the most robust air defence system in the middle east other than Israel’s, as well as military advisers who are increasing in number day by day. It also has the Iranians on its side, who are providing the Revolutionary Guard and strategic advice, and it has Hezbollah on its side. It has electronic intelligence, money and arms provided by the Iranians, and it even has the Shabiha being formed into a national defence brigade by the Iranians, who are giving direction.
What does the opposition side have? Simply, it has two groups that are highly fragmented—the FSA, which has about 30,000 people, led by General Idris, who essentially have just small arms at their disposal; and on the other side, as many colleagues have said, the Salafis, who have about 3,000 to 5,000 people and are themselves fragmented. We have heard about Jabhat al-Nusra, but there is also Liwa al-Islam, Liwa Saqour and Kata’ib Ahrar al-Sham, among other Islamist groups that are fighting there.
So we have an asymmetric war in which Bashar Assad has no incentive whatever to negotiate seriously. What are our options? They are fourfold. One is a containment strategy that would prevent the conflict from spreading, but unfortunately it would merely lead to more death. Another is a no-fly zone, as proposed by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). That would indeed tip the balance, but it would put the lives of our Air Force pilots at risk, and I do not believe that after Iraq and Afghanistan, the military establishment in this country has any appetite for that.
The third option is lifting the arms embargo, which I believe would put pressure on Bashar Assad. However, as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said—I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) will also make this point when he gets his opportunity to speak—there is a risk that arms may fall into the wrong hands. However, the signal that we would send by lifting the arms embargo would put pressure on the regime.
The final option is a radical diplomatic engagement strategy. In that regard, we have two opportunities before us. One is the fact that the UK holds the presidency of the UN Security Council next month, and the other is that there are Iranian elections next month, which may provide an opportunity for us to press the reset button regarding engagement with Iran. As the hon. Member for Islington North said, we need to engage with all parties—the Gulf states, Turkey, the EU and the US as well as Syria, Russia and Iran.
Time is running out. We must show Bashar Assad at Geneva that he is at the last chance saloon. I encourage the Foreign Secretary to exert pressure through a two-pronged strategy of radical diplomatic engagement with all parties and a real threat of lethal support to the FSA. Only then will there be a real prospect of ending the tragedy unfolding in Syria.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We have two more speakers. If each takes five minutes and no more, we will have a few minutes for the Minister at the end. I call Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to raise three points. First, I welcome the renewal of restrictive measures against Syria and any amendments that increase pressure on the Assad regime, but I fear that they do not go far enough. Secondly, the Government and the EU need to take further action against groups, particularly Hezbollah, that support the Syrian regime. Thirdly, this is not about intervention but about muscular enlightenment, and we must act now. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said that the Government’s actions were fuelling the conflict, because they have taken every diplomatic course, yet 80,000 people have been killed in the past three years.
I strongly support the McCain plan, which states that we need to work together as an international community to protect civilians by suppressing Assad’s air defences. The advantages of following that policy are plentiful. It would give us safe space where essential humanitarian aid could be given out, especially medical supplies, food and water, and a valuable area where the anti-Assad forces could train and become a more effective fighting force.
We talk about the problem with arming the opposition, but the fact is that because we have done nothing over the past two years—I am talking not about our country but about the free world—the Islamists have inevitably filled the vacuum. We must not forget that organisations such as Hezbollah are arming the Islamist groups, which is why we have to identify the correct opposition groups that believe in a more democratic and free Syria. I believe that we can do that.
I mentioned chemical weapons in my intervention on the Minister, and we must find out which companies have supplied the Assad regime with chemical materials. We know that up to 500 companies supplied Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons that allowed him to attack Halabja, and I hope that the Government will look into the issue. We must proscribe Hezbollah—not just the armed wing but the political wing—because of its activities in supporting the Assad regime and the suppression of the people.
No. 10 Downing street said in April 2013 that there is “growing evidence” that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) said that we need evidence for that, but we have seen it on BBC television. I do not want to go back 25 years and let another Halabja happen, and it looks like that is coming. We must take action now.
Robert Halfon
I will not give way because my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) wants to speak. We have done everything possible diplomatically, and it is right that we take further action in supporting the right opposition groups, creating safe havens, and showing people that we want to stop mass genocide.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that Syria is a melting pot for a proxy war that is being fought out either directly or indirectly at various levels, whether it is Sunni versus Shi’a Muslims; the west versus China or Russia; concerned minorities within the country, such as Alawites and Christians, against what could follow; or Iran versus Saudi Arabia. It is a crossing point for conflict, and I urge the Minister and the coalition Government to think carefully before they pour more arms into a conflict that could not only escalate the violence within the civil war, but lead to an escalation of an arms race beyond Syria’s borders which, at the end of the day, could be a mistake of historic proportions.
History is very important. Our track record of arming groups or individuals is not good, no matter what anybody says. We armed the mujaheddin, and there is a fair chance that a good number of those weapons were used against us. We armed Saddam Hussein and supported him in his war against Iran—again, some of those weapons were probably pointed at us. History is important because it teaches us that if we support, arm and intervene in regimes, civil wars and conflicts, often what we are trying to remove or put right becomes embedded even further.
Look at our efforts since the second world war to take on communist regimes around the world—in Korea, China or Vietnam. Despite western interventions, those regimes are essentially still in place. If our goal is to create a sort of stability and liberal democracy of our making, we have only to look at what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, where democracy is not flourishing, despite the high cost in lives and treasure. It is flourishing in north Africa and other regions of the middle east where the west has played a much more minor role.
I urge the Government to think carefully before going down the road of arming the rebels. The Minister was right to say that that is not the narrow debate we are having tonight, but he must accept that we are debating an EU Council decision made on 28 February which is up for renewal—or certainly revisiting—on 1 June, and he cannot deny that the Government have been flying kites on this issue. We are therefore right to raise it on the Floor of the House tonight, particularly given that the decision will be revisited shortly—on 1 June, I understand.
I ask the Minister to consider one or two other points. We do not know much about the rebel forces, but we do know that some are linked to al-Qaeda and some have committed atrocities. Tracking and tracing weaponry that we put into Syria because we would deal only with the moderate elements is beyond the capability of any western Government, unless we had troops on the ground to monitor the situation more closely, and I am sure the Minister will not suggest that course of action.
There can be little doubt that the more weapons we put into a conflict, the more the violence escalates. The idea that we can put weapons into a civil war and not inflate or escalate the violence beggars belief. Of course putting more weapons in will increase the violence. That is why Oxfam and a number of charities that have people on the ground have come out publicly in the past week or two to say, “Do not do it. Do not go down that road, because bad things will happen.” There is already a humanitarian crisis in Syria. Pouring more weapons into the conflict cannot do any good; it can only escalate the violence within the country.
In the minute I have left, I urge the Government instead to focus on diplomacy. Diplomacy has not yet run its course. We have the conference suggested by the Russians, which we should pursue to the very end. We should also do what we can on the humanitarian side, where more can be done. Hon. Members have made a number of suggestions that we should explore, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) made the point that we could do more from a humanitarian point of view.
One last time, I urge the Government to refrain from exploring the view that we should arm the rebels. Syria is the crossing point of a conflict that arming the rebels could escalate. We could be very sorry for what follows.
Alistair Burt
I thank all colleagues for their contributions to this short debate. We have covered a lot of ground, and I appreciate how colleagues have handled it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) reminded me of the line from “Argo”, which could have been used in a number of other films. There are no good choices. They are all bad choices. What we are trying to do is make the best of a very difficult situation. Virtually every colleague understood the complexity and difficulty of the situation, and that, after two years of unrelenting killing by the regime, we are left with very difficult choices.
I will do my best to cover a number of points made in the debate, but colleagues will appreciate that I might be unable to cover every point made. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) raised a number of questions. If she looks back on my responses to interventions, she will see a number of the answers, such as on the balance of weaponry and diversion. I understand the issues and try to do my best to deal with them.
The Government are seeking consensus with our EU partners. The sanctions stand or fall by consensus. Clearly, the Government are determined to try to get consensus within the EU. If consensus is not possible and the sanctions fall, we would be prepared to introduce domestic sanctions to cover the gap, but our intention and determination is to do things by consensus.
I have sought to reiterate to the House that our policy remains to seek a political solution. A number of speakers were anticipating a point that we have not reached. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said, that is not illegitimate in this debate, but I firmly counsel colleagues that questions about whether we should arm people are not on the table. He and other colleagues cannot believe for a second that the risks and the dangers, such as diversion, are not top among the concerns of colleagues in the Foreign Office and throughout the Government. As a number of speakers said, however, the situation is already dire. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and other colleagues spoke of what is already happening and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) and others spoke of the humanitarian situation. Changing the EU arms embargo will not suddenly make the situation worse. It is already horrendous. We are trying to do something different.
The purpose of seeking to lift the arms embargo is to give the flexibility to which my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for Braintree (Mr Newmark) referred. Lifting the embargo gives flexibility, assists the moderates against the extremists, assists the politicians against those who wish to see solely a military solution, and gives flexibility in circumstances we do not know. Unless it is lifted, the process of lifting it in difficult circumstances would be almost impossible. Decisions after that will be of enormous complexity and difficulty, and the Government are well seized of that.
I cannot stress often enough to the House the importance the Government place on the current political process, and its urgency. That is foremost in all our minds. Colleagues across the House have spoken about the impossibility of the military situation, and that is why it is so important that the Foreign Secretary is backed wholeheartedly in the efforts that he and others are making to achieve peace.
Finally, on the point about coming to the House, it is important to repeat the remarks the Foreign Secretary made yesterday:
“men, women and children…suffering virtually every kind of weapon that man has ever invented being dropped on them while most of the world denies them the means to defend themselves. If we come to a choice about that, it is a very important foreign policy and moral choice, which of course should be discussed fully in this House.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 909.]
He drew attention both to the urgency of the situation, what is happening at the moment, and his determination to have the matter fully discussed.
Business without Debate
delegated legislation
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 8 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)).
Financial Assistance to Industry
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of Beechbrook Capital as part of the Business Finance Partnership, sums exceeding £10 million and up to a cumulative total of £20 million.
Education
That the draft Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Consequential Amendments to Part 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 14 March, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Duty to Participate in Education or Training (Alternative Ways of Working) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 14 March, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
Question agreed to.
welsh grand committee
Financial assistance to industry
petitions
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Hendon, and specifically on behalf of the Broadfields Estate residents association.
The petition states:
The Petition of Residents of Hendon,
Declares that the Petitioners oppose the Avanti House School development on Broadfields, Edgware; further that the petitioners note that Avanti House School have identified land between Hartland Drive and Broadfields Primary School for a new school which would accommodate 1680 pupils and that sport pitches are planned to be placed on green belt land; further that the petitioners do not believe that the area can accommodate this and the proposed school will not actually serve the Broadfields area or even the Borough of Barnet; further that pupils would arrive by cars and buses adding to already congested roads and that the north part of Broadfields is surrounded by green belt land and access is possible via only two roads meaning the area is only able to handle residential traffic. This development threatens to cause traffic chaos and ruin the lives of our local community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government not to support the relocation of Avanti House School to the Broadfields site in Edgware, and draw attention to this petition and to a second submitted to Barnet council, containing 1,002 signatures.
And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[P001179]
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I wish to present the following petition to Parliament on behalf of the residents of Rhyl and the Vale of Clwyd, who are totally opposed to the proposal by Post Office Ltd to franchise Rhyl Crown Post Office. They believe that the proposal will severely damage the provision of services in Rhyl, especially to the elderly, and they call on Post Office Ltd to withdraw its proposal and to retain Rhyl Crown Post Office.
The petition states:
The Petition of those concerned about the proposed closure of Rhyl Crown Post Office,
Declares that Rhyl Crown Post Office should remain within the Crown Network and not become a franchise. The Petitioners believe that the proposal for a franchise will severely damage the provision of services in Rhyl.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Minister of State for Business and Enterprise to protect much-loved public services.
And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[P001180]
Planning (Mottingham)
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to raise this issue in the Chamber, and I am delighted to see several hon. Members still here as we approach closing time—an appropriate metaphor, perhaps, given the subject of this debate.
Robert Neill
No, I hope not for the Porcupine.
I want briefly to set out what seems to be the particularly worrying pattern of behaviour that the proposal to demolish the Porcupine public house in Mottingham in my constituency highlights. It is obviously of great concern to residents of Mottingham, which, it is worth saying, is not an amorphous part of London suburbia, but a genuine village with a real sense of identity, and the Porcupine pub is a central part of that village community. It is also worrying because the behaviour of the two substantial companies involved has potential impacts beyond this case.
Perhaps I can put that into some context. There has been an inn on the site of the Porcupine public house since 1688. It is not, I accept, locally or statutorily listed, but it is steeped in history. There has always been a pub there in the middle of the village, and it is virtually the one remaining bit of community space left in the village, so it is of real significance to the people of the Mottingham area. It has a long local history. I am told that Tom Cribb, the 19th century world bare-knuckle boxing champion, trained in the Porcupine inn and that it has been called that since the days when a spiked machine was used to crush oats and barley in alehouses, so it has a long heritage and, as I say, is dearly loved by people in the Mottingham area. We have seen, however, a shabby and underhand means of closing this public house against the community’s wishes.
I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) here to respond to the debate and I want to thank him personally for the trouble that he took to come down to Mottingham, visit the site and meet some of its residents—more of that in a moment. First, however, I want to thank some other people, because the campaign to save the Porcupine public house has seen many people doing a lot of hard work. It is worth mentioning Liz Keable and all the other committee officers of the Mottingham residents association, who have worked very hard; Emily Bailey, who started an online petition that has gathered more than 1,600 signatures; the local councillors, including my Conservative colleagues Charles Rideout and Roger Charsley, who represent the Mottingham ward of the London borough of Bromley, and Councillor John Hills, who represents the adjoining ward in the neighbouring London borough of Greenwich, just the other side of the road from the public house; hundreds of residents who have written in and e-mailed to support the campaign; and the 250-plus people who turned out when the Minister came to visit last week. I also wish to say special thank you to David Bingley, who started the campaign. Sadly, his ongoing hospital treatment means that he cannot be here to watch the debate from the Gallery, but I know he will be watching from his hospital bed, and I am sure that you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I say that we thank him for his efforts and wish him a speedy recovery.
That is the history of this public house and the strength of feeling surrounding it. The Porcupine was knocked down once before, in 1922, and on that occasion the brewery provided a temporary pub for people to use while it was rebuilt, but I am afraid that a very different attitude has been adopted now. In essence, the owner of the Porcupine pub, Enterprise Inns, has in my judgment deliberately let the pub run down and then sought to dispose of it for development. I am afraid Enterprise Inns has a bad track record in that regard. It is becoming frankly notorious for such behaviour. Its four annual reports show an alarming decline in the total number of pubs it operates, from 7,399 in September 2009 down to 5,902 in September 2012. Enterprise Inns seems to have a deliberate policy of running down its estate. It is quite clear from its annual report that, having disposed of more than 400 pubs in the last year, Enterprise Inns is disposing of assets to pay down debt. It is a company that, frankly, has not had good trading results. To my mind, it seems to be behaving more like a property company than a brewing company.
What Enterprise Inns has done in this case adds insult to injury. Not only did it dispose of the site, but it did so without giving any notice to the population. The site was never advertised. There was no sign that this public house was going to be closed. It closed literally overnight, having been sold through a commercial deal to Lidl supermarket, with no notice given to anyone. Lidl UK now proposes to demolish the public house and erect a non-descript supermarket on the site. It is reprehensible that this pattern of conduct by Enterprise Inns seems to be designed to circumvent the Government’s work to give greater protection to public houses. The Government have taken important steps, by creating the ability to list places such as the Porcupine as assets of community value and by giving greater protections in the national planning policy framework.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the campaign that he is running with the local community. As he knows, the Porcupine in Mottingham village is just across the road from my constituency, so my constituents are concerned, too. He has the full support of those who are trying to save the Dutch House pub in my constituency. This is very much about a local community coming together to save both community assets. Does he agree that this case is a test for the NPPF? We should be listening to local people, as against huge businesses such as McDonald’s, Lidl and Enterprise Inns.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I welcome his support for the campaign, and I agree.
Enterprise Inns has a debt of £296 million and is running down its estate to pay it off. It does not seem to be interested in running its pubs, as they can be run, as going concerns. The community in Mottingham was denied the opportunity to make an application to have the Porcupine listed as an asset of community value in advance, because it was given no notice. By the time the pub closed, it had already changed hands and Lidl had already moved in and boarded it up. Ironically, it did so with a hoarding that was beyond the size permitted under the planning regulations—a breach of development control, which says something about Lidl’s attitude. When my hon. Friend the Minister responds, I should be grateful if he considered what more we might do about the behaviour of Enterprise Inns in seeking to circumvent the legislation that the House put in place to protect such assets.
Greg Mulholland
The all-party save the pub group is entirely behind my hon. Friend’s community campaign and will offer him any support we can. The simple answer—I hope we will hear this from the Minister—is twofold. First, as my hon. Friend will know, the great news is that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting on finally dealing with the property scam that is the pubco model, which includes Enterprise Inns. I hope that we will hear later this year that that will be dealt with. Secondly, I hope that we will start to get it through to the community pubs Minister—my hon. Friend and I had debates when he used to be the community pubs Minister—that although the provisions in the Localism Act 2011 are positive, we cannot accept a planning framework that allows such behaviour. We must have a change, so that pubs cannot become supermarkets behind communities’ backs and without any consultation with those communities. That cannot be right.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman would almost have had time to consume a pint in the course of his intervention.
Robert Neill
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I am grateful to him for his intervention. You will know of the importance that all communities attach to their local public house, Mr Speaker, and this behaviour is particularly reprehensible. It has denied people the opportunity to step in, unlike what has happened at other places nearby, such as the Baring Hall public house near Grove Park station, where notice was given and the community was able to get the asset listed. That opportunity was denied in the case of the Porcupine as a result of the underhand behaviour of Enterprise Inns.
The situation has been made worse by the behaviour of Lidl. It is becoming apparent that the company’s business model is one of acquiring public house sites and turning them into supermarkets in a secretive and predatory fashion—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) says that this is about collusion, and I have to say that a lot of people in Mottingham would agree.
As I have said, the situation has been made worse by Lidl’s behaviour. Representatives of the company came to a public meeting organised by the Mottingham residents association and, to put it charitably, gave misleading information about the status of the planning application. They claimed that they already had permission to demolish the public house, when in fact they had not even made an application. Since then, although they claim that they wish to consult the community, they have done no more than board up the public house. They want to demolish it so that, in effect, the pass will have been sold and it will be impossible to rebuild a pub on the site, but I am pleased to say that Bromley council will have to consider a section 31 application. I am sure that it will deal with such an application in an appropriate fashion. My hon. Friend the Minister cannot prejudge planning cases, but I would simply observe that I believe that there are very strong planning grounds for deciding that this is not an appropriate place for a supermarket.
Lidl’s poor behaviour did not stop there, however. Until I secured this debate—as well as earning a rebuke from you, Mr Speaker, for making an intervention on the matter at business questions that was perhaps a little less crisp than I try to be—Lidl had refused to engage at senior level with me or any other elected representative. Lidl is a privately owned, German-based company, and it is now buying up pubs around London and turning them into supermarkets. Ironically, there is a Lidl just 10 minutes away from this site, in Eltham, as well as branches of Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and Sainsbury’s within easy reach of it.
I find it extraordinary that, having misled residents over the status of the application, Lidl took no steps to correct that. It put in an application, then forgot to pay the fee for about seven days, which says something about the company. When I sought a meeting with a Lidl board director, the company refused to give my office the names of its directors. We had to go to Companies House to find out who they were. It refused to give me the names, and refused to meet me until it heard about the publicity generated by this debate. That is a contemptuous way in which to treat the public.
There are two messages for people in all this. First, they should know how Lidl is behaving in this case. Secondly, the Campaign for Real Ale is actively promoting its “List your Local” campaign, and my message to anyone with a pub owned by Enterprise Inns in their community is that they should get it listed as an asset of community value now, because they cannot trust Enterprise Inns not to sell it from under them without telling them. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. As things are, a demolition application has now been submitted and will have to be considered by Bromley council. I am happy that it will take whatever steps are appropriate, but this case demonstrates an attitude that is damaging for the community in that area.
This is not the only occasion on which Lidl has behaved in this way. In Warlingham, it destroyed the former Good Companions public house. It knocked it down, but it has yet to submit an application to redevelop the site. It demolished a former police station in Dartford as soon as it acquired it, and the residents of Dartford have had to live with a derelict site for the subsequent 15 months. That is predatory behaviour. It is unacceptable and unbecoming of a public company. I hope that the directors on the board of Lidl will realise the reputational damage that their conduct is doing. I say that more in hope than in expectation, but we can at least use the engine of publicity to flag up their behaviour and that of Enterprise Inns. The Minister might be aware that an application has now been submitted for the Porcupine public house to be listed as an asset of community value, and I hope that it will give it some protection in due course.
Clive Efford
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way to me again. My constituents added their names to that application and were told that because they lived in neither the ward nor the borough, they could not have their application registered as an asset, despite the fact that it is happening in the middle of their village, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. They are very disappointed and asked me to express their view here tonight.
Robert Neill
I understand that, and it is an issue that we may need to think about, particularly given that the local authority boundaries in some urban areas do not necessarily follow the community ties with an area. I hope that even though Bromley council is not statutorily obliged to do so, it will none the less be aware of the strength of feeling from across the other side of Mottingham.
The other option is to consider an article 4 direction, and I understand that an application to Bromley council for such a direction has been made. The one thing that we need to bear in mind is that there is sometimes a tendency for owners of properties that are subject to an article 4 direction to make excessive claims on compensation in an endeavour to deter local authorities from using the article 4 powers. That happened with the Baring Hall hotel in Grove park, where I understand a claim for compensation of about £1 million was initially made, but has now been significantly reduced. There is, of course, an onus on the owner who seeks compensation for article 4 actually to prove loss. I wonder whether the Minister can say more about the guidance that we can give to local authorities, so that they are not intimidated against using article 4 directions by the behaviour of large, well-funded commercial organisations.
I hope that I have now had the chance to ventilate on a subject that is hugely important to my constituents. I end by saying that the porcupine is a seemingly harmless animal until provoked. Well, the residents of Mottingham have been thoroughly and justifiably provoked by the threat to their Porcupine. I hope that this debate has given us the chance to flag up what amounts to troubling behaviour not just for residents of Mottingham, but for anyone concerned about protecting valued local pubs across the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. It is important to the people of Mottingham and the Porcupine pub, but it also gives us a chance—as we have heard from the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), the chairman of the all-party parliamentary save the pub group and from the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), the member for the Dutch House—to outline some of the rules affecting pubs and their acquisition by some of the companies mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is aware that on 29 April, Lidl UK submitted a part 31 notification to the London borough of Bromley council of its intention to demolish the Porcupine pub. I know that my hon. Friend has expressed his concerns directly to the council about the implications of the notification, so that his views and those of his constituents can rightly be taken into account when the council considers the case, which it has to do before 28 May. I also know that local residents recently submitted, as my hon. Friend has said, a request to the council for an article 4 direction for the removal of permitted development rights for both demolition and change of use on the site, which I am advised is still being considered by the council. The council will need to notify the Secretary of State if and when a direction has been drafted.
As my hon. Friend has outlined, the Porcupine pub ceased trading in March and the site was sold to Lidl UK at around the same time. It is still the case that no formal planning application has been submitted to the council regarding the proposals. I know that my hon. Friend knows from his time in the Department for Communities and Local Government that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the notification or the proposed article 4 direction, or indeed on the possible success or otherwise of any planning application for the erection of a retail unit on the site, as I would not wish to prejudice the Secretary of State’s position, should any of these matters come before him. I nevertheless note one of my hon. Friend’s closing comments about the value of guidelines for councils’ use of article 4 directions, which might provide councillors with greater knowledge.
When I visited the Porcupine with my hon. Friend, councillors asked me about the article 4 direction and about the compensation issue. I think that we need to look into just how guarded council officers are being about the advice that they are giving members about the risk of compensation. We need to ensure that there is a proper understanding of the risk and that it is not overstated, so that councils do not overestimate it and fail to take an opportunity that could be used in many cases to protect pubs under article 4.
I know that my hon. Friend is well versed in the planning system, to which he has referred in detail this evening. However, for the record, I will explain the position relating to, in particular, part 31 notifications and article 4.
The demolition of most buildings is permitted development, which means that specific planning permission is not required. However, that is subject to a requirement to notify the local planning authority concerned through a part 31 notification, so it can decide whether to prescribe the method of demolition and restoration of the site. That often gives a community a brief opportunity to become aware of an issue and do something about it, as has happened in the case of the Porcupine.
As for article 4 directions under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, public houses and shops are classed as separate uses under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. That recognises the different land use impacts of their particular uses, and would ordinarily mean that planning permission would be required to change from one class to another. When issues arise, however, local authorities, working with their communities, can restrict the use of permitted development rights by means of an article 4 direction, and, as my hon. Friend said, that is being considered in this case.
As soon as the direction has been drafted, notice is served locally for 21 days, and the Secretary of State is notified at the same time. Having considered the local consultation responses, the local authority then considers whether to confirm the direction. It can do that by serving a further notice locally and notifying the Secretary of State.
There have been calls in the House recently for the removal of permitted development rights that allow pubs to convert to other uses at a national level. The hon. Member for Leeds North West, representing the save the pub group, has spoken about that on a number of occasions. However, the Government are clear about the fact that localism should be at the heart of planning. We need to avoid any disproportionate restrictions on change of use that might result in more empty buildings, spoiling the local environment and holding back economic development. However, that does not prevent us from doing what we can to protect our community pubs.
As my hon. Friend said, we should encourage communities to ensure that their locals are listed as community assets. CAMRA is running a fantastic campaign, and I urge Members to look at its website, which gives clear and simple directions about how to list a pub. It is good to hear that the people of Mottingham are adopting that route while there is still a building to protect. I sensed the public feeling there the other day, when at least 200 of them turned out. Listing a pub is a simple process. It is necessary to be on the electoral roll, but I noted my hon. Friend’s comments on that requirement, and I will look into it. Only 21 people in the area need to propose the listing, and I encourage people to do it.
Greg Mulholland
I thank the Minister for listening to what has been said about this issue. However, he is now a CAMRA member—I am delighted about that—and he knows that CAMRA does not agree with him and believes that we need more protection. It is great that he visited the pub, but, having heard the case, does he honestly think that it is in the interests of localism or pubs to retain a national planning framework that allows the conversion of wanted, full, busy, profitable pubs to branches of McDonald’s, supermarkets or flats without the community’s having a say? That is not in the interests of localism. It is undermining what the Minister and I both believe in.
Brandon Lewis
I was about to say something about that. There is sometimes a gap when a company buys a property that was not already listed and does not need to demolish it. The first a resident may know about it is when the boarding goes up advertising whichever company that happens to be. That may be the first indication that Enterprise Inns, or whoever, has sold it off.
As I have said, we do not intend to change planning laws per se, but we do need to ensure that whatever we do is proportionate. The listing of a community asset is a simple, light-touch, but effective way of protecting a pub. However, I accept that there may be an opportunity to take that a step further in order to prevent circumstances in which a resident does not know that a property has been sold or has become a Tesco, a Lidl or a McDonald’s until the store opens or the boarding goes up. I am prepared to look at that, but I must make it clear that, as I have outlined, we are not going to make any substantive changes to change of use and general planning that are disproportionate.
I want to stress again that communities that value their pubs should do what they can to have them listed. The Government have done a great deal to help to protect pubs through our work on planning, under the national planning framework, and through providing the ability to list a pub as a community asset. That has had a great impact. We have also helped to protect pubs by developing the Plunkett Foundation so our communities can buy pubs, and we have put funding into Pub is the Hub. There is also the Chancellor’s fantastic move to cut the beer duty escalator and beer duty itself.
In conclusion, I am not in a position to comment on the specific case of the Porcupine pub, although I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on the fantastic work he is doing in highlighting what is happening and on the action he has taken. I cannot go any further at present without being prejudicial to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, so I will leave it there, and wish my hon. Friend and the residents of Mottingham well in their endeavours.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Communities and Local Government
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Pamela Nash
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which private finance initiative projects under his Department have been refinanced in each year since May 2010; what the value is of each such project; what the refinancing gain has been in each such case; and how much of any such gain the relevant Government body received through a (a) lump sum and (b) reduction in the unitary charge.
[Official Report, 13 May 2013, Vol. 563, c. 55W.]
Letter of correction from Brandon Lewis:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on 13 May 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Brandon Lewis
The following DCLG sponsored private finance initiative projects are reported by their authorities to have been refinanced since May 2010: Derby Housing Non-Housing Revenue Account; Bolton Community Learning Resource Centre; Tyne and Wear Fire Headquarters and Community Fire Stations; and Newham Canning Town Housing Revenue Account. Details of their capital values are held on HM Treasury's current private finance initiative projects list:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pfi_current_projects_list_march_2012.xls
The Department does not carry information relating to the refinancing of the projects managed by local authorities. This is because there is no obligation for local authorities to inform Departments in the event of a refinancing.
The correct answer should have been:
Brandon Lewis
The following DCLG sponsored private finance initiative projects are reported by their authorities to have been refinanced since May 2010: Derby Housing Non-Housing Revenue Account; Tyne and Wear Fire Headquarters and Community Fire Stations; and Newham Canning Town Housing Revenue Account. Details of their capital values are held on HM Treasury's current private finance initiative projects list:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pfi_current_projects_list_march_2012.xls
The Department does not carry information relating to the refinancing of the projects managed by local authorities. This is because there is no obligation for local authorities to inform Departments in the event of a refinancing.
Petition
Decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK City of Culture 2017
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk about the merits of Southend being chosen as the city of culture in 2017, but it would be remiss of me to claim credit for securing the debate, which was entirely the idea of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). I am truly pleased with the number of colleagues who have turned up this morning. I had intended to speak for about 20 minutes, depending on interventions, but I think that everyone here wants to contribute so I might have to shorten the speech a little. I want to give everyone the opportunity to talk about their own area.
I will start with a quote from Gandhi. He is not someone I have quoted before, other than on dieting. Gandhi said:
“No culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive.”
That is true, and certainly so of the 11 areas and towns bidding to become UK city of culture in 2017. None of the areas bidding would have much culture at all if it were not for the fact that they belong to the United Kingdom. Every part of our country, of which we are all so proud, is rich in culture.
I must warn Members that the building is, at this very moment, surrounded by people. The good residents of Southend are peace-loving people. They want to encourage people peacefully, so right now the building is surrounded by the thoughts of Southend residents, who are urging the judges to choose Southend as the city of culture. If colleagues feel unwell during the debate, it might be because they are having unkind thoughts about Southend, which are being attacked by the powerful thoughts of Southend residents.
That leads me on to a number of remarks, with which I have been charged, about the 10 competing cities. As far as I am concerned, the United Kingdom is a wonderful country, and I will not have a bad word said about any part of it. When I look around this Chamber, I feel that the idea that any part of the United Kingdom could be called a dump is absolutely disgraceful. The idea that any part of the United Kingdom would not know what culture was is also absolutely disgraceful.
When the remarks were reported, it was suggested that I tour the United Kingdom to see the competition at first hand, and I am delighted to say that I have started on a tour. It is a big area to get around, and it was suggested that I visit places by helicopter—I was not too keen on that—and then someone proposed that I borrow Nigel Farage’s light aeroplane, the one he used during the general election campaign. If using it was as successful as it was in 2010 it would no doubt cause a bit of publicity, but it would be the end of me.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, and whoever else was responsible, on securing the debate. As part of his grand tour of prospective second UK cities of culture, will he respond to an invitation from me—and, I am sure, from my colleague, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—to visit the first UK city of culture, Londonderry, which is currently enjoying its year of culture? We would be delighted to see the hon. Gentleman, perhaps at the tattoo in August.
Mr Amess
Absolutely. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) will certainly be visiting that city.
I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). I had a wonderful visit to Hastings—if I had the money, I might even buy a little holiday home there—and I was very impressed with the hospitality that I was afforded by her good self.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
We very much enjoyed my hon. Friend’s visit. He saw around the Jerwood, which is a fantastic new gallery. Is he not now reconsidering some of his earlier phrases? He must be rather anxious about the high level of competition from other places, such as Hastings.
Mr Amess
As politicians, we all suffer from misreporting. I think that Hastings has a splendid bid.
Moving on to Kent, which will be my next visit, we know that it is the garden of England. I absolutely condemn all the rumours about the roses being infested with black fly, greenfly and rust, and I very much look forward to visiting Kent shortly.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
My hon. Friend rightly says that the garden of England is in full bloom—it is as beautiful as ever—but on his tour around the country he should take advantage of the unrivalled high-speed rail link, to get swiftly from London down to east Kent and see the cultural attractions for himself.
Mr Amess
That is a controversial path down which I will not go.
Moving on to Wales, I have had some very unkind remarks made about Wales on my website. I think that the people there are absolutely fine. I have a number of relatives living in Wales, and they seem all right. What we know about the Welsh is that they have magnificent voices and produce some wonderful actors and actresses.
Moving on to Scotland, I had a very nice letter from the Lord Provost, and I think that all the suggestions I have had on my website about Scottish people being mean and that some of them conduct interviews while chewing gum are very unfair indeed. I very much look forward to visiting Scotland, not least to sample the whisky and the haggis.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
It is indeed a very polite and kind letter from the Lord Provost. I hope that the hon. Gentleman makes it to Aberdeen, because he will then realise that the competition is really on.
Mr Amess
I am looking forward to my visit.
Moving on to Leicester, we all know what a strong bid it has. It has a wonderful cricket ground, but I have to say that I had no idea about its secret weapon, in the form of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Anyone who has not seen him perform on YouTube is missing a joy. I, for one, think that we need not spend any more money on finding someone to represent us in the Eurovision song contest next year because it must be the right hon. Member for Leicester East.
Then we move on to Hull.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I am pleased to hear him make these points, which I think can be summed up by saying, “You don’t promote your own bid better by denigrating other bids.” Indeed, would he go a little further and say that anyone who described other towns and places in the UK as dumps would be hindering rather than helping their campaign?
Mr Amess
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and that is why, when various individuals suggested on my blog that Hull was the riviera of the north, I had no hesitation in agreeing with them. Hull is a wonderful place, and I have many relatives living there as well.
Then, I have, of course, been to Chester, which has a wonderful race track and some iconic buildings. Jessie J is supporting Chester, and I will come shortly to the fact that I hope that will.i.am will support Southend’s bit.
Then we come to Plymouth. Again, I have rebutted all the suggestions on my website that whenever someone goes to wonderful Plymouth the clotted cream seems to be curdled. I am very much looking forward to my visit to Plymouth, which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) has suggested I make.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend will be coming. He will, of course, have the opportunity to come to one of the finest theatre production companies—one of five such companies in the whole country. He will also be very welcome to meet his fellow Southend Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), whose father-in-law was, as it happens, a councillor on Plymouth city council and is backing our bid.
Mr Amess
That was a blow below the belt, of which I was not warned. I shall not cancel my visit—I suppose I shall still go. I look forward to it. Plymouth is where my mother always took her holidays, and it is wonderful there.
The competition is potentially very lucrative to the winner in two ways: it brings cultural benefits as well as tremendous economic ones. Londonderry, the current United Kingdom city of culture, and Liverpool, European city of culture in 2008, can certainly support that view.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter before the House. I am surrounded by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), and we are very aware of the good that comes from being city of culture. This year, the 2017 city of culture will be announced in Londonderry. The jobs and the opportunities are there, as is the focus of the world, but although Londonderry may be the city of culture for the United Kingdom, it is for the whole of Northern Ireland in particular, and we will all benefit from that.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the spin-offs from being the city of culture go across not only the whole of Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom? May I also invite him to come to Londonderry for the historical event on about 12 August. It will be a very good event that I know he will enjoy, as everybody else does.
Mr Amess
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s invitation with enthusiasm. Given that Derry is a similar size to Southend, there is much encouragement for us in how the unbiased judges will look at the 11 competitors.
It is difficult to measure cultural benefits, but the Royal Ballet has performed in Londonderry, the National Youth Orchestra has held concerts in the homes of ordinary people and—I hope that I am not ruining the Minister’s speech—the Turner prize exhibition and award ceremony will be held there, which is the first time that it has been held outside England. Those are just a few of the events, but there are many more.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I must say that I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s pinball tour of the country, as he visits the other bidding cities. Does he appreciate that one reason why the Derry/Londonderry bid succeeded was that people concentrated on what we had to do to get our bid right, and did not bother much about what other people were or were not doing?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the impact of the city of culture achievement on the city this year, which includes the fact that the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann is being held for the first time in a city anywhere in Ireland. It is the biggest Irish event in the world and is being held north of the border for the first time, just after the tattoo that other hon. Members have mentioned.
Mr Amess
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice. Southend borough council and Evolution Squared are doing a first-class job in promoting our bid, but I do thank him. The events in Derry that we have heard about will inspire the youth of Londonderry to take up instruments, and will be things to tell their grandchildren about. Liverpool saw record numbers of visitors to its museums throughout 2008, and I am sure that the end-of-year figures will be similar in Derry, so the cultural benefits are absolutely clear.
Economic benefits are slightly more measurable. At a conservative estimate, Derry/Londonderry expects 600,000 extra visitors to the city over the course of 2013. Three thousand new jobs have been created in the city, and £100 million has been invested in its infrastructure. I am advised that for every £1 invested, the city of culture is expected to generate £5. Those facts are all the more staggering given its relatively small area. The competition is not a joke, but a prize that is well worth winning for each of our constituencies or areas. Although the analogy with Liverpool is less perfect, because it won a pan-European competition, it is worth noting that it generated an extra £176 million in tourism spending alone in 2008, so there is an economic benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East and I believe that being the city of culture will be vital to the continued regeneration of Southend.
I want to say some words about Southend. I am biased: I think that Southend has the strongest bid. If anyone agrees, the hashtag to use is “Southend on Culture”, although I advise the House that I do not use Twitter. Our bid is themed—quite beautifully, if I may say so—around the Thames estuary, which flanks our town and is at the end of one of the most famous waterways in the world. Fittingly, if Southend wins the bid, a museum of the Thames estuary would be developed, and we would continue to partner other estuarial areas across the world, such as the River Plate—if that happens, we will not discuss the Falklands.
That, of course, is just the start of what we have to offer. Saxon remains have been found in Prittlewell. They are very valuable, being similar to finding Edward underneath the car park—[Hon. Members: “Richard!] Well, a king who deserved better. We, too, have royalty in Prittlewell. The remains were uncovered during a road-widening exercise. Archaeologists discovered an undisturbed 7th-century chamber grave beneath a mound, which has been described as
“the most spectacular discovery of its kind made during the past 60 years.”
Professor Christopher Scull said:
“The Prittlewell Prince Burial is one of the most significant archaeological discoveries bearing on Anglo Saxon England. As such it is a find of international significance for early Medieval Europe.”
Some 110 objects were excavated, ranging from bowls to a sword and a lyre. That is just one example of our rich history in Southend.
Equally detailed is the work of the UK Hand Engravers Association in Southend, which is quite simply exquisite high culture. I am well informed that Southend is a hotbed of metal culture, which was created initially in Liverpool. That modern art form celebrates interdisciplinary artwork and art in civic space. It will be celebrated at the village green festival in Chalkwell park on the 13 July. When the torch came to Southend last year, a famous composer worked on the anthem and we had the biggest choir in the country. The people following the torch around the United Kingdom said that the Southend welcome was the best in the country. We are blessed with a great host of artists—Paul Karslake, Mark Wallinger, Benjamin Grosvenor, Mary Flanagan and Elizabeth Price, to name just a few—so we have a strong bid.
I do not know whether this event is being held in conjunction with my celebration—or commiseration—of having been a Member for 30 years, but on 8 and 9 June, a festival in Southend will give people just a taste of what they can expect if we win the bid for 2017. There are plans to have a fashion show on the iconic pier—it is the longest pier in the world—and we hope to set a world record for the longest catwalk. I do not know whether supermodels will turn up, but I think that some very famous people will support that event. There will be live music, and the Wiggles dance club will perform—we must borrow the hon. Member for Leicester South for that performance. That diverse group loves all forms of dance: body popping, swing, jazz, tap and Latin-American. Furthermore, East 15, which offers the world’s only stage fighting degree, will be in attendance, as will various local world-class jewellery makers. Not only will all that be on offer, but a song called “I love Southend” will be written specially for our bid.
On the topic of festivals, it should not be forgotten that Southend has a film festival and a jazz festival, and I will appear in a comedy festival. Our jazz festival was supported by none other than Sir Michael Parkinson last year, and our comedy festival is set to be opened by Russell Kane this year. I recently attended our film festival, which was very enjoyable, and I met many famous actors and actresses. Most festival goers no doubt take the opportunity to sample Rossi ice cream while in Southend, which is the finest ice cream in the world. The company has existed for more than 80 years, and lucky members of the public will be served with it—we may even keep some for hon. Members.
Finally, Southend has a contestant in “X Factor” and a contestant in “The Voice”. Leanne Jarvis, who is being tutored by will.i.am, went to Earls Hall infant and junior school and Chase High secondary school. She and I went to No. 10 yesterday to offer the Prime Minister some further advice and encouragement on how to run the country, but after hearing her sing, we decided that we would just support her bid to win “The Voice”. She is a fabulous singer, and I hope that everyone will support her.
The UK city of culture contest is undoubtedly very important. All the bids are excellent. The judges will have a very tough time deciding which city wins the bid and which cities should be in the last four. I very much hope that Southend makes it.
Some people look at the word “Southend” and pronounce it as it is written. In actual fact, it stands for “Sou the ND”, which means “sue the national detractors”. Southend very much condemns all those people who have made disparaging remarks about every other part of the United Kingdom; we could not be more patriotic and proud of our country. I simply think that Southend deserves to win the bid, and I hope that, in 2017, we will be the city of culture.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. A large number of Members wish to speak. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers no later than 10.40. If Members stick to five minutes, we might get everyone in. If they do not, we will have a problem. Those wanting to intervene should also bear that in mind.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Weir, for your words, and the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and other colleagues for securing this debate. As one of those who also put in for this debate, I am absolutely delighted that it is taking place this morning. I appreciate the difficulties that you have, Mr Weir, because when I tried to lobby you to support the Aberdeen bid, I discovered that you were supporting Dundee.
Dame Anne Begg
Unfortunately, Mr Weir, your position this morning does not allow you to speak in the debate.
Aberdeen is an important economic driver not just of the Scottish economy but of the British one, too. We have a thriving offshore oil and gas industry, which is doing extremely well and is now moving into renewables. We like to call ourselves the “energy capital of Europe”. Aberdeen is a vibrant city that is full of life and energy, so why on earth do we want it to become the city of culture? It is because the one thing that is missing in our city is a strong cultural identity. Unfortunately, the participation rate in cultural activities by the people of Aberdeen is lower than the national average—both in Scotland and in the UK as a whole. We want to use the bid to build up the part of our community that has perhaps not always got the attention that it deserves because we have been too busy making money and running the energy sector.
The emphasis has always been on the economic side of Aberdeen and not so much on the cultural side or on making the city a much more attractive place to live. Many agencies say that it is difficult to attract staff to Aberdeen because everyone thinks that it is much too far north—it is quite far north—and too cold. They come up with all the negative things about Aberdeen. Indeed, it is also said that the locals themselves take after the grey granite of the buildings. However, when people move and make a life in Aberdeen, they discover what a wonderful place it is, and it is then difficult to move them somewhere else if their job demands it.
What we want to build on and what we want to use the bid for is the cultural offer that will be there for the people of Aberdeen. Although Aberdeen is far north, it is not too far north, and that is another reason why the city of culture bid would be so great for the city; it would bring us more into the centre of the UK. Hopefully, it would help us to create a centre that people would be prepared to travel to in order to take up the cultural offer.
Aberdeen already has great buildings that deliver aspects of culture. His Majesty’s theatre, for example, is incredibly grand. It was only when I went to theatres in London that I discovered just how grand it is, because the ones in London are quite pathetic in comparison. We have an art gallery on which we are about to spend a few million pounds, refurbishing and extending it. We have Peacock Visual Arts, which has a world-famous print works, the Gray’s School of Arts, the Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and two universities that also do cultural things. Indeed the Aberdeen university festival is just finishing at the moment. It is perhaps worth pointing out here that we had two universities in Aberdeen when there were only two universities in the whole of England—in Oxford and Cambridge.
We have a strong cultural history, but we would like to build on the cultural involvement in our communities. Although we are a rich and vibrant city, the wealth does not always trickle down to the poorer areas. We hope the culture bid might be able to reach the parts of our communities in Aberdeen that the oil wealth has not necessarily reached, and we are keen to build up localised events that will involve people more than the local galleries. We know that there is an appetite there and that people want to be involved, but we need something that will pull it all together and act as a dynamic force on the city council and on Aberdeenshire council to bring the cultural offers together.
Finally, when the tall ships came to Aberdeen in 1997, the whole town turned out for the event; it was fantastic. We had Vikings from Shetland wandering about the town, which was bizarre. They turned up in the local pubs and restaurants. That was a wonderful example of what Aberdeen could do if it got the opportunity to become the UK city of culture in 2017.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the beautiful city of Chester: our world-famous Roman city walls; our historic cathedral; the unique mediaeval shopping galleries, the Rows; our beautiful River Dee; and the Eastgate clock, which is the most photographed clock in the world after the clock that stands above this House. All are key features in our city, and all are known across the globe. My hon. Friend the Minister recently described Chester as
“a jewel in the crown in the north-west”.—[Official Report, 18 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 466.]
He was wrong, because Chester is much more than that. It is a unique city, and if it qualifies and wins the city of culture, it will be a national treasure. However, we are not resting on our laurels. Chester is not merely a museum, but a living, thriving city. It is a city that is facing up to the challenges of the modern day, adapting and constantly changing, and our heritage and culture play a massive role in that.
Culture is being used as a key catalyst for change. For hundreds of years, Chester has been a market town and a shopping centre for north Wales and Cheshire. As shopping habits change, it is essential that our high street offerings change too. Chester is embracing that change, ensuring that our city offers a unique and complete experience—whether that is through street festivals, music and dramatic art in our unique historic public realm or through guiding shoppers to visit some of our many cultural attractions. We recognise that culture is essential to our economic growth and to ensuring that Chester can compete with our larger metropolitan neighbours.
The council is investing heavily in our heritage and our culture. Millions have been pumped into our historic environment: restoring our city walls; creating a unique interactive heritage trail; renovating the town hall, to bring it back to its Victorian splendour and create a new performance venue; restoring the Roman gardens; refreshing the riverside promenade; and reinterpreting Chester’s Roman amphitheatre, to allow visitors to see what it would have been like and to bring it back into use as a city centre performance venue, not for gladiatorial combat but for modern film and music festivals.
All the time, new festivals are being introduced, such as the film festival in the amphitheatre, a new Chester fringe, theatre in the park or Chester Rocks, which makes use of Chester’s race course, the oldest in the country, and which this year will feature one of my daughter’s favourites, Jessie J, who has already been mentioned in the debate. At the same time, our traditional festivals, such as the food festival, the music festival, Theatre in the Quarter and the literary festival, are now making a real impact on the national stage and attracting an ever-increasing number of visitors.
Chester mystery plays, the mediaeval passion plays, were first performed more than 600 years ago by the guilds of the city. They continue to grow and are a highlight of the city’s 2013 cultural calendar. Although they are traditionally only performed once every five years, they will be performed in 2017 if we are successful in our bid to be city of culture. The council also has massively ambitious plans to build a new first-class theatre in the city. Work has recently started on the site, and the new theatre is due to open in 2016.
Culture in Chester is back on the scene and back with a bang, and the reaction from the people of Chester has been fantastic. The local newspapers have been backing the bid, claiming that the city’s cultural offering is at a historic high, and their letter pages have been filled with residents saying how proud they are of our city and our culture. Social media are also playing a part, allowing Cestrians to engage with and support the city’s bid in new and exciting ways.
Our bid to be the city of culture 2017 harnesses that public enthusiasm. The council is hoping to create a cadre of community volunteers, similar to the hugely successful volunteers programme at the London Olympic games. These volunteering opportunities will allow young people to become involved with culture, art and music, and to further their own skills and enthusiasm. Part of the aim is to encourage unemployed people to become volunteers, giving them opportunities of responsibility, boosting their self-esteem and allowing them to learn new skills that can be transferred into the jobs market.
The fact that we have been long-listed to be the city of culture 2017 is a massive boost for Chester, and the changes in expectation and attitude in our city during the past few years show that we are able to compete and to show Britain and the world what a fantastic city of culture Chester would be. I am not the only one who thinks that. The bookies agree, with Chester the 4-1 favourite to win the bid according to William Hill. I am delighted to back Chester’s bid to be city of culture.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. To get everybody in, I am now imposing a formal time limit of four minutes for each speech.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this very important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) on securing the debate and I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), because I know he has been trying to secure such a debate for many weeks.My hon. Friend will probably mention the fact that a king has been found in Leicester recently. In Hull, we cannot boast of finding a king under a car park, but we can say that in 1642 Hull Corporation declared support for Parliament by denying Charles I entry into the city.
I support and welcome the bid that Hull city council has submitted for this prestigious title. In economic terms, Hull—like many areas—is having a tough time, but winning this title would hugely boost the city’s morale. More importantly, it would create a great number of social and economic benefits, as we have seen in other cities that have previously held the title. It would be the tipping point for the council’s 10-year plan, which hopes to deliver 7,500 new jobs, many of them focused on culture and tourism.
I think that I am right in saying that in Hull as many as 50 people are chasing every single vacancy, so it is important to emphasise how winning the bid might benefit the city. Hull often gets a bad press, but we have an awful lot to boast about. We have contemporary festivals and modern cultural attractions that would challenge those on offer in any European capital. We have some beautiful buildings built at the height of Hull’s prosperity, which was in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Mr Weir, I had intended to speak for about 10 or 15 minutes, but I am afraid that when I saw the number of right hon. and hon. Members here in Westminster Hall today I had to cut down my speech considerably.
Alan Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for Hull. Does he agree that one of the most exciting things about Hull and the Humber area is the opportunity that exists for digital creation? We have artists, graphic designers, musicians and technicians from Grimsby institute and Hull university creating a real opportunity, both to make digital creation part of the redevelopment of Hull and to provide jobs for our future.
Karl Turner
I absolutely agree—my right hon. Friend is completely right about that. I was going to address the issue of digital creation, but now I need not say any more about it.
There seems to be an imbalance whereby other northern cities have capitalised on cash for arts, and I hope that a successful bid for the prestigious city of culture title will rebalance that situation a little for Hull.
I will finish by quoting Rupert Creed, the famous playwright from Brighton who moved to Hull and settled in the city. He argued that Hull has always been a creative city and a place prepared to try new things, saying:
“There’s this blank canvas, this willingness to make things happen.”
We want to come out of the shadows, shine and become the gateway to the world, as we once were.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) for securing this debate, and it is fantastic to hear from so many Members about the benefits of their own constituencies. I know from conversations with colleagues that for many people Hastings summons up three things. First, there is our famous battle—I am happy to say that there is no historical confusion about that—as well as the Norman conquest and the castle on the hill, which was built just four years after the conquest. Secondly, there is the fishing port, which is still a major issue economically in the town and in terms of fairness: we are always campaigning to get higher quotas for our fishermen and I hope that this Government will be able to deliver them. Thirdly, there is our famous seaside, which attracts so many visitors.
However, Hastings has recently become a cultural storm of activity in art, music and literature. We have both a history of culture and modern cultural initiatives being established in the town. Historically, we have had the International Chess Congress, which has been going since 1920, and to bring us right up to date we now have the Jerwood gallery, which has recently been built and which has a fantastic exhibition of modern art. Also, it has recently been announced that our pier, which sadly burned down just over two years ago, is to receive £13.5 million of lottery grant, and during the next few years it will rise like the phoenix to invigorate the town.
However, the strongest cultural base that Hastings has is its events. It seems that every other weekend, particularly during the summer, there is some fabulous event, which is inclusive and open to everybody, to liven up the weekend and to attract tourism and investment. We have just had the May day bank holiday, including the Jack in the Green event. There was also marching, drums and our famous Morris dancers. Incidentally, two years ago our Morris dancers came up to London to protest against the proposed changing of the May day bank holiday; they performed outside Parliament and were fantastic. In August, Hastings has old town week, which includes parades, bike races, street races and—perhaps more unusually—a pram race. In September, we have a month-long arts festival, Coastal Currents, and a seafood and wine festival that now runs for two days. In October, in common with local tradition, at the end of a week’s events the Hastings Borough Bonfire Society burns an effigy of someone it really dislikes. That always causes nervous tremors in elected officials locally.
My favourite event is the recently introduced pirate day, which has been going for four years. It was set up to beat the “Guinness Book of Records” entry for the largest number of pirates to congregate on a beach. It has to be taken seriously: a cutlass and an eye patch will not do. This time last year 14,231 people were there. I warn people coming to Hastings on 21 July that they will look out of place if they are not dressed as a pirate.
Hastings, city of culture, has the right ring to it and is something that we could build on. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said, it is also about trying to move people who are not so familiar with culture into having a cultural experience, and that is what our bid does. Supported by the Hastings and St. Leonards Observer, we are planning a marvellous march, if we succeed, from France, up to York, along Harold’s journey, exhibiting the cultural strengths of the whole area. Between us, we feel that we could make a huge impact. We are, by the way, supported by Bexhill as well. This is an opportunity for Hastings and the country to see the fantastic cultural centre that our town has become.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
When people think of Swansea, naturally they think of Dylan Thomas, who was born there 100 years ago next year, when we celebrate the centenary. Of course, Dylan Thomas is the most translated poet of all time, second only to Shakespeare. I am putting forward this bid on behalf of Swansea bay city region, which includes Carmarthen and Neath Port Talbot.
There is a glistening array of stars from Swansea, both past and present. One only has to think of Sir Anthony Hopkins, Michael Sheen and Catherine Zeta-Jones—I am sure that Michael Douglas is applying for a visa as we speak—and many more.
The industrial revolution, in many senses, started in Swansea. Swansea was the first globally connected location for heavy industry, with the price of copper being set there. Indeed, Copperopolis is the latest idea: a museum of metallurgy in an environment, that will attract an international audience.
We have thriving universities, which are at the forefront of innovation, both in metallurgy—for instance, working with Tata Steel—and with modern connected creative works, such as 3D imagery, interactive, animation, etc. We are very much on the cusp of the future.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Copperopolis, the nickname we give to Swansea, is well supported in its cultural bid by Tinopolis, the name we give Llanelli, which has a tremendous tradition in south Carmarthenshire of cultural and industrial heritage? Its latest venture, the state-of-the-art Furnace theatre and associated venues, offers fantastic opportunities, from the more traditional male voice choirs and Llanelli proms, to avant-garde groups, such as Llanelli Youth Theatre, performing “Tomorrow I’ll Be Happy”. Does he agree that the support from that industrial base in Llanelli, with its bilingual cultural heritage, will add a great deal to Swansea’s bid for cultural city 2017.
Geraint Davies
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. The tin, steel, copper and coal, the Welsh and English languages, the land and the sea, and the urban and the rural together provide diversity and a global reach. Choirs and the history of singing and music are also important for our bid, as is the setting of Swansea bay city region. We have some “pier” pressure from Southend, but Mumbles pier is a great pier and Joe’s ice cream is fantastic, and I confess that I would prefer it to the ice cream that can be found in Southend.
The brand of Swansea is now on the world map, thanks to Swansea football. We are an emerging sports city: the Ospreys rugby team is an example of that. We have just had the Olympic kit brought to Swansea bay for beach volleyball. I hope and expect that we will be a national venue for a national beach volleyball competition.
Swansea university is now the closest in the world to the sea, having previously been second only to California, as I understand it. We are a diverse and multicultural emerging city with a global reach. We hope that a lot of our celebrations—for example, the Dylan Thomas celebration next year—will be globally networked, including people from Bollywood as well as traditional literature. We need to build on the wider Dylan Thomas brand. Of course, Dylan Thomas enjoyed a couple of beers, as well as a quite exciting lifestyle. We hope, over time, to bring a sustainable festival, a bit like the Hay or Edinburgh festivals, alongside other assets, such as Copperopolis. We also have the National Waterfront museum for Wales, which, again, celebrates and builds on industrial heritage. Swansea market is the largest of its type in Wales, with a great heritage over hundreds of years.
Obviously, Swansea has borne the scars of its industrial past, plus the tragic three nights of the blitz that we suffered under the Luftwaffe, but we hope to move forward, with further development of the port, which, historically, was industrially geared for trade. There are new, emerging opportunities, from the cultural point of view, for ferries and for cruise-borne people to visit Swansea and Swansea bay city region.
The news, following our campaign, of electrification of the railways will increase the connectivity and the opportunity for people to see wonderful Swansea and Swansea bay and the Gower, with beautiful golden sands, where people can enjoy culture, the sun and environment, and the good food of Swansea. I hope, later this year, to have a Swansea food day in Parliament, to celebrate some of the great foods created across Swansea bay city region.
We have been the forge for generating steel and various sorts of metallurgy and now I hope that the basic resilience and creativity of the community will help hurtle us forward to the celebration next year and onwards to 2017, so that we have a sustainable cultural legacy that will underpin our position as the true cultural centre of south Wales.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess)—my very fine hon. Friend—on securing this debate. I am delighted that he did not try to rubbish Plymouth during the past few months and delighted, too, that Plymouth did not appear in “The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy”, in which Arthur Dent, as my hon. Friend may recall, thought he had died and gone to hell, but in reality had gone to Southend. Ford Prefect, another character in that story, said that he was surprised about Southend, because although the sea remained where it was, the buildings and the rocks went up and down.
I support Plymouth’s city of culture bid. I am looking forward to my hon. Friend visiting Plymouth in the next few weeks. Our bid for the city of culture in 2017 will help regenerate parts of our city, including our inner city. In the Efford ward, during the past 10 years, the local community, through the Heart of Efford and the city council, has used grants and the arts to regenerate a council estate, built immediately after the last war in an area previously decimated during the blitz.
My hon. Friend will also have the opportunity to see where my mother’s acting career started, in Devonport, probably at the age of five. She went on to act at Birmingham Repertory before the war.
By making Plymouth the city of culture in 2017, the authorities will build on its cultural heritage and reputation. Plymouth has the Theatre Royal, one of the five UK production companies; the Drum theatre, often used by Plymouth’s vibrant amateur dramatic societies; TR2, which manufactures many of the sets for theatrical productions throughout the country; Plymouth university’s Peninsula Arts; Plymouth College of Arts, one of the UK’s five independent arts schools; and a proposed new arts free school, which is to be sponsored by the college and the Theatre Royal, and which has attracted Government funding and support.
Plymouth was also home to the late Robert Lenkiewicz, Beryl Cook and Joshua Reynolds. We have some of the UK’s finest post-war architecture, following the devastation of the blitz. In addition, we have a large number of Georgian buildings, including Admiralty house, which was the home of Nelson’s deputy, Lord Collingwood; the royal naval hospital; the home of Captain Hardy—also of Nelson fame; and Conan Doyle’s home, where he wrote “The Hounds of the Baskervilles”. Furthermore, we have the Barbican theatre, a community-based theatre company; the New Palace theatre, where Laurel and Hardy put on their last performance, and which we are keen to rebuild; and the Ten Tors orchestra, which put on a brilliant proms concert on Saturday.
This is a unique opportunity, and I very much hope the Arts Council will listen to Plymouth’s case and give us its support.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who put in a tremendous performance in opening the debate. Earlier this morning, I was looking at the betting odds, and the bookies have Southend second from bottom, at 14:1, but it will certainly be worth a flutter after the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I also noticed that Leicester is the second favourite, at 5:1, and I hope we do not go down the betting league tables after my speech.
As hon. Members would expect, I want to focus on Leicester. I come with the support of the two other Leicester MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), as well as the support of Leicester city council and Leicestershire county council. I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) in her place a few moments ago, because she is also very supportive of the bid.
We have heard much about the history of different cities and towns this morning, and Leicester, too, has a great history. We can trace our origins back to the iron age. We have Roman settlements, as well as Saxon and Norman influences. We have tremendous architecture and historical buildings, such as the Roman Jewry wall and the Guildhall. We hosted Shakespeare’s company, and there are suggestions that Shakespeare himself may have been in Leicester.
In recent years, of course, we have found and dug up Richard III. He was buried in Leicester for 500 years, and we recently found him in a Leicester city council social services car park. We therefore have royalty in Leicester, and I say to hon. Friends from Yorkshire, “We are holding on to him. Keep your hands off!” Cardinal Wolsey is also buried somewhere in Abbey park, and it is perhaps time we dug him up, too.
For the benefit of Opposition colleagues, I should say that Leicester has a history of radical politics. As Members might expect from a city that was built on textiles in the past 200 years or so, we had a luddite tradition. At one point, of course, Ramsay MacDonald also sat for a Leicester constituency—may he be a reminder to any Liberal Democrats of the fate of leaders who go into coalitions.
Leicester is a city of tremendous diversity. Forty years ago, families from Uganda made their home in Leicester. They were followed by families from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. We have many Hindu temples, gurdwaras and mosques, all within yards of each other. We had the first Jain temple in Europe. In Leicester, Members could be greeted with the words, “Assalamu alaikum”, “Namaste”, “Sat sri akaal” or, more simply, “Alreet, ma duck.” That is very much part of Leicester. We all celebrate our faiths, and we all come together to celebrate Diwali, in the biggest such celebration outside India. We all celebrate Vaisakhi and Eid, and we all join in the lighting of the Hannukkah candles in Victoria park, as well as celebrating all the Christian festivals.
There are not just religious festivals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West would have said had she been here, we have the biggest comedy festival in Europe after that in Edinburgh. After his performance today, I hope we can book the hon. Member for Southend West for our comedy festival. We also have lots of community festivals. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East organised a mango festival. Ours is therefore the only bid that can guarantee that it will have the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee handing out mangoes to those who come to the city to celebrate.
Across the city, we have different community events. ITV did a documentary saying that crime and antisocial behaviour on one of our estates was terrible. People on the estate came together and put on a tremendous summer community event, showing that they were not prepared to take what an outside TV documentary was saying about them. That is our trump card: the people of Leicester coming together, whether to support our football team and Leicester Tigers or to join in the various religious festivals we organise. That is what Leicester is about, and that is why our case is overwhelming—we have the best people.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. The fact that you chose to chair the debate, and the bids from Scottish cities, including Aberdeen, underlines your confidence in the fact that Scotland will be fully part of the United Kingdom in 2017, when the city of culture year starts.
We have heard wonderful presentations from different Members of Parliament about the cultural and creative merits of their areas. Surely, the purpose of the UK city of culture year is not just to change perceptions in the community about the importance of culture and art and the incredible contribution they make to economic regeneration, but to change perceptions about the cultural offer among people outside our home areas, across the UK. One of the great successes of the Derry/Londonderry city of culture year must surely be that it has not only inspired people in Northern Ireland, but brought in many new visitors to the city who had not previously had the chance to experience its delights.
That is very much at the heart of the east Kent bid, which is about what the city of culture year has to offer not only east Kent, but the rest of the UK. Kent is on the frontier of the UK, facing our European neighbours, so we have a chance not only to bring in people from the UK, but to show the rest of Europe what the UK has to offer in a new, challenging, surprising and creative location.
East Kent’s is a unique bid, because it is not based on one city. Instead, as the bid says, it is based on “a city imagined”—a city drawn from a diverse collection of communities and towns, as well as the city of Canterbury, all of which make up the east Kent area. From Whitstable and Margate, around the coast to Dover, Folkestone and Romney marsh, and inland to Ashford, we have a new creative area, which is at heart of the east Kent bid.
The area has a terrific cultural heritage. We have a King, in the form of Henry IV; he is not under a car park, but buried safely in Canterbury cathedral. In the early days of English literature, Chaucer wrote the tales of the pilgrims making their journey to Canterbury. The area was the inspiration for many of Charles Dickens’s books. He wrote “Little Dorrit” while staying in Folkestone. Many will be familiar with the dramatic scene from the recent dramatisation of “Great Expectations”, when Pip meets Magwitch on the coast, which is set in Romney marsh, in my constituency.
The area is also a vibrant centre for the cotemporary arts, with the Turner Contemporary gallery in Margate the home of that great international artist Tracey Emin. The Folkestone Triennial arts festival is one of Europe’s leading festivals of sculpture and contemporary art, and the last festival was opened by the Minister. He has seen first hand the impressive work of Roger De Haan and the Creative Foundation in Folkestone. They hold fantastic creative events, making creative regeneration part of the economy. By making east Kent the centre of the UK creative world in 2017, we are seeking to acknowledge what has been done so far, to build on the important work of creative regeneration in the economy and to celebrate the work of local artists.
Derry/Londonderry put ambassadors at the heart of its bid, and we have many fantastic ambassadors, drawn from the sons and daughters of east Kent. We have people such as Tracey Emin and Orlando Bloom, who is from Canterbury, as well as Jools Holland, who now lives in Kent, and Mark Sargeant, who came back to Kent to open his fantastic new restaurant, Rocksalt, in Folkestone, which has been a great success.
We want to build on the experience of the sons and daughters of east Kent and the fantastic network of creative and innovative businesses and cultural centres which already exists. East Kent will make a tremendous ambassador for our country in 2017. If we are successful in our bid, I would urge all Members to come and be part of it.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
It is a huge honour for any city to win the title of UK city of culture, and I am sure all the bids will be strong. The value and kudos involved in winning are enormous. Sarah Shortland, who was vox-popped in The Herald in Plymouth, said:
“It would be good for Plymouth—I visited Liverpool after they won European Capital of Culture and they’ve changed lots there.”
We all know just how important winning the bid will be.
Although I am sure that everywhere we have heard spoken about today is lovely, those places cannot compare with Plymouth. As TripAdvisor points out, there are more things to do in Plymouth than in cities such as Bath, Oxford and Cambridge. Its setting alone is breathtaking: the third largest natural harbour in the world—a magnificent backdrop for cultural and sporting events, such as the America’s cup and the British fireworks championships.
Plymouth’s heritage and cultural links are many and varied, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) has touched on some of them; but I want to consider it from the perspective of its maritime history, and use that as a starting point, to whet people’s appetites. It was important in Tudor times. Francis Drake of course set off from Plymouth to circumnavigate the globe. The church where he was married is in St Budeaux in Plymouth. There is a wealth of archive material that would certainly be brought out and displayed during a city of culture year. The pilgrim fathers left England for a place that they named Plymouth. They did not name it Southampton, or after anywhere in Essex; so Plymouth is known globally. Charles Darwin, in HMS Beagle, left from Plymouth. Captain Cook is also associated with it; and Francis Chichester returned to Plymouth in Gipsy Moth. Napoleon spent time on board a British warship in Plymouth harbour.
Of course, there is also wartime history. At the time of the D-day landings many troops, particularly Americans, left for Normandy from Plymouth. The civilian history of those dark days is also interesting, and many memories and much history could be brought out during a city of culture year. Jill Craigie’s film “The Way We Live”, about the post-war reconstruction of Plymouth, stands out. It set out the Watson-Abercrombie plan for rebuilding the city centre, which was so special architecturally. Jill Craigie was of course the wife of Michael Foot—politician, journalist and writer—and we are launching a fund to build a memorial for Michael, a man of so many talents.
We have the Royal William yard and Twofour Productions, which is the largest independent production company outside London. It was a pleasure to invite my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) to visit it recently. The south-west media are wholly behind our bid, including Ian Wood, the editor of the Plymouth Herald. We have heard about the theatres in Plymouth, but we also have museums. We have the oldest Ashkenazi synagogue in the English-speaking world, which is still in regular use. We hold regular multicultural events to celebrate Diwali, Eid and the Chinese new year. The new chief executive of Destination Plymouth sums it up:
“Plymouth has assets most cities can only dream of—a stunning waterfront, a city surrounded by outstanding countryside; it’s fast becoming a foodie heaven and is the cultural arts and entertainment capital for the region.”
We are going to use Smeaton’s tower and the lighthouse—the model for modern lighthouses, which sits proudly on Plymouth Hoe. That will be the beacon for our city of culture bid for 2017.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
In many ways this debate is wrongly named. As I have listened I have felt it should clearly be named “Cities of Culture” as it is not about a single city of culture. I urge the Minister to consider the possibility that, although there will be only one city of culture, some of the other bids should be recognised additionally. The Southend bid, rather like the Kent one, has considered not just Southend-on-Sea but the region as a whole, in the country as a whole. In fact, the front page of the bid documentation positioning Southend for city of culture in 2017 states that it would explore the heritage, landscape and character not just of Southend but of the Thames estuary, and the way it has defined the culture of the whole United Kingdom. Perhaps the status of city of culture would be used not just to showcase a city or town, and a region and county, but all our constituencies. If people flood in from overseas to visit Southend I am sure they will also have time to visit one or two of the other places mentioned by hon. Members today.
I congratulate Southend council, and particularly Rob Tinlin, the chief executive, as well as the leader of the council, on pulling the bid together. It is not simply a detailed 30-page document. It is a movement within the town; that movement and the enthusiasm for the culture are building. It feels almost embarrassing that we have been given three opportunities in relation to the bid. Not only has my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) secured the debate, despite Leicester’s good work, but now that he has introduced it, I can bookend it. If there are any constituencies or areas that he has not yet offended, time will unfortunately not allow me to mop up.
There are a few things to do with Southend that I want to talk about—specifically education and its role in culture. I went to the Colchester campus of the university of Essex in the 1990s, and now we have a campus in Southend. We have a wonderful college with many cultural programmes and degrees, which add to the fabric of society. All too often in the past, young, talented people moved away and did not come back. Now they want to stay in Southend. There are truly many opportunities. It may be that when people think of Southend they think of the pier—the longest pleasure pier in the world—Rossi ice cream, and the sea front; but perhaps we should also recognise the art galleries with fabulous Constable paintings, and the history that goes far beyond the town’s boom time of the 18th and 19th centuries. There is a monastery built in the 11th century, with 45 acres of park land, right in the middle of the town. That is a wonderful resource. We have Porters, a 16th century house that is the mayoral residence, which was visited by Disraeli, and by Churchill during the war, on his way to Shoebury ranges. In fact it was Disraeli who called Southend the riviera of Essex.
Some hon. Members have made literary references. I found a whole book in my office about authors with Southend connections, rather than just one or two references. Southend has a strong bid, and is doing well. I suggest to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that since the debate started the odds have shortened and Southend is in an even stronger position to win.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), not only on securing this important debate, but on the strong case he has made for Southend-on-Sea to be named as the UK city of culture in 2017. I agree with him that it is a town that offers many cultural opportunities. Last year it opened the new cultural centre that can be found at the tip of the world’s longest pleasure pier. The Focal Point gallery houses the town’s contemporary art, and Priory park bandstand provides the town with music throughout the summer months. In its own words, it is “Town, shore and so much more”.
The debate comes at an opportune time as 11 areas—Aberdeen, Chester, Dundee, east Kent, Hastings and Bexhill-on-Sea, Hull, Leicester, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Southampton, Southend-on-Sea and Swansea bay have all applied to be the next UK city of culture in 2017. I am delighted that so many towns and cities from regions across Britain are competing for that important title. It is a testament to what culture means to our country and the value it brings to our communities, but importantly it also means that each of those communities will place culture at the heart of their agenda in the coming months and years.
The cultural sector of this country is hugely successful. It creates jobs, generates revenue, attracts inward investment and enriches the lives of individuals, families and communities. We are a creative nation. Our cultural sector is the lifeblood of the creative industries, which provide 1.5 million jobs and are a major contributor to our economy. Last year’s Olympic opening ceremony and the Cultural Olympiad reminded people across the world that Britain is a cultural world leader—that our artistic traditions are strong and we are rightly proud of them. However, that success happened not by chance but by choice. The previous Labour Government invested in the arts, and that investment enabled culture to revitalise some of our previously grey city and town centres. As the cultural scene has developed, so too have jobs, growth and the social well-being of the people who live there. Labour introduced free access to museums and galleries, ensuring that the number of visitors increased year on year.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the former Ford plant in Neath Port Talbot is now hosting “Da Vinci’s Demons.” There is a huge film set for an American-geared production that will bring vital jobs and income. Does he agree that such evolution from traditional industry to creative industries can bring jobs and added value to our communities?
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely agree. I am particularly interested to hear about the transition that the industrial base has made to some degree in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for me to visit at some point in the future.
I was talking about some of the things that the Labour Government did. We introduced creative partnerships, which gave more children than ever before the opportunity to take part in cultural activities, thereby developing an interest and a passion for the arts that will hopefully serve them well in the future. Nowhere are those benefits more clear than in those cities that have been named cities of culture: Liverpool, which held the European title in 2008; and Londonderry, which held the first UK title this year.
In 2009, following the success of Liverpool’s status as European city of culture, the then Labour Culture Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), launched the UK city of culture. Today, that vision has become a reality, with Londonderry being transformed to unlock creativity and ensure that thousands of people flock to visit the city in the coming months. The immediate and lasting impact of a city that embraces culture in that way is clear. The effect in Liverpool in 2008 was striking. In that year alone, visitors voted with their feet, ensuring that the city had almost 15 million cultural visits. Some 67,000 schoolchildren in the city were involved. There was an £800 million economic benefit, and the number of residents who visited a city attraction was 10% above the national average. Liverpool has been transformed and is now known throughout Britain as a cultural hub.
Today, we are debating the UK city of culture bid for 2017. In our country we have the appetite, the skills, the talent and the tradition, but many organisations within the cultural sector exist on a complex funding stream of public investment, commercial revenue and private giving. That ecology ensures creative independence, freedom of artistic innovation and, in good times, stability, but some decisions currently being made by the Government are putting it at risk.
Since 2010, the Government have cut the budget of Arts Council England by more than 30%. Local councils across the country are dealing with devastating cuts to their funding streams. They are struggling to balance those cuts, and the Local Government Association has warned that, by 2019-20, 90% of discretionary funding streams, such as culture, leisure and libraries, may be cut.
It is not all bad news. Many local authorities are innovatively working in partnership to minimise the damage caused by the funding crisis, but that is a result of new thinking from councils. The cuts come without any real Government guidance for local community arts organisations or any real national Government support for local councils. Today, I ask the Minister to pledge to work with councils, which are leading the way, and to provide all towns and cities with guidance on how culture can be protected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Given the hon. Gentleman’s criticism, what are Labour’s proposals to increase the arts budget? Will he use this opportunity to apologise for the last Labour Government’s slashing of the lottery budget?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, which I will use as an opportunity to respond to a point he has made elsewhere on a number of occasions on the Labour-run local authority in Newcastle.
Newcastle is losing £100 million over the next three years, which is a 6.8% cut, whereas the Secretary of State’s local authority is gaining 4.4%. I want to put the record straight. In those unfair circumstances, I took the decision to visit Newcastle and instigate dialogue between the local authority, Arts Council England and local cultural institutions. As a result, the arts cut has been revised downwards from 100% and the cultural sector will now receive £600,000 a year and have access to a £6 million capital fund. That represents a very good example of what we are doing in opposition to work constructively with local authorities in these difficult times. Perhaps the Minister will give some indication of the conversations he has had and the work he has been doing with local authorities to safeguard the arts in these difficult times.
Mr Vaizey
I notice that the hon. Gentleman takes all the credit, having initially supported Newcastle’s 100% arts cut, and gives no credit to the hard work of Arts Council England, which works closely with Newcastle city council. Will he take this opportunity to praise the Arts Council’s work with Newcastle city council?
Dan Jarvis
The Minister may have missed my reference to Arts Council England, and I pay warm tribute to it and its work. We should be careful about the tone of this debate. We have all come here in good faith to talk about the relative merits of a number of bids, which is the tone at which we should pitch this debate.
Amber Rudd
Newcastle has not bid for the city of culture, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to give his views on the city of culture process. In the spirit of cross-party engagement, I ask him to observe that my borough council, which is Labour-run, has been leading on its bid, with which I have been involved. Now is not the time to make so many political comments; instead, we should celebrate how, together, we can do city of culture bids for the best of this country.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. She might note that I was actually conducting this debate in a manner of which she would approve until the Minister intervened, which is when I felt the need to respond. I suggest that we move on and raise the tone of the debate.
Mark Durkan
As the MP representing Derry/Londonderry, I put on record our huge thanks to Arts Council England, which got behind our city once the bid was won. It shared funding, insight and key introductions. Whichever city wins the 2017 bid will get huge, positive and key support from the Arts Council.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention. I completely agree. Arts Council England is doing important work in these challenging times. It has recently published a significant report that clearly articulates and reflects on the economic benefit of the arts within our country. I will highlight a couple of the points that the Arts Council has made recently.
The report states that 0.1% of Government funding is spent on the arts, yet the arts make up 0.4% of the economy. That, of course, does not account for the creative industries or for tourism. The arts provide 0.5% of total UK employment, and at least £856 million a year of spending by tourists visiting this country can be attributed directly to the arts and to culture. Those points were recently made in the important report of Arts Council England, and I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to its important work on preserving our arts in these difficult economic times.
Beyond doubt, the cultural sector is a driver of jobs and growth in the UK. It is clear that public money invested in the cultural sector represents good value and offers a good return, which is an incredibly important point in the context of this debate.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the huge debate on growth versus cuts to reduce the deficit, and given the enormous emerging middle class in English-speaking markets in China, India, south America and so on, investment in the arts now will be paid back many times over?
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. Before the shadow Minister responds to that intervention, I remind him that we need to give the Minister time to reply to the debate. I urge him to bring his speech to a close.
Dan Jarvis
Okay. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for his intervention. Unfortunately, there will not necessarily be time to address it. Let me move on briefly—because I know that the Minister will wish to conclude the debate—and say some things on which I hope we can all agree.
I believe that the cultural sector provides unlimited opportunities for young people, invoking imagination and creativity while ensuring that they learn the dedication, commitment and dexterity that come with playing a musical instrument, singing in a choir or performing in a theatre or dance group. I see in my constituency the value that young people get from those kinds of activity. I saw that on Saturday night, when I attended a concert by the brilliant Barnsley youth choir, and I very much look forward to that choir hosting the world-famous Aurin choir from Hungary, who will be coming next month to sing alongside our own choir. The value that young people get from such opportunities is hugely important.
Mr Weir, I am conscious that we are running short of time, so I will conclude by saying that Labour Members believe that our creative sector deserves creative thinking and that that is exactly what we should be providing to ensure that the arts continue to thrive in these tough times. The hon. Member for Southend West has, in his typically ebullient way, made an excellent case for Southend-on-Sea. I wish him and Southend-on-Sea the very best with their bid, as I wish all the other cities that are competing to be the UK city of culture in 2017 the very best. I hope that the appetite to hold this title will provide further proof to the Minister and to the Government as a whole that culture is worth supporting for 2017 and beyond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I thank the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for his 15-minute speech. In the eight minutes remaining to me, I will try to pay tribute to the many interventions and contributions made by hon. Members.
The debate was framed by an elegant Southend sandwich—my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West (Mr Amess) and for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). I confess that of the many cities bidding to be the UK city of culture, I have not yet visited Southend. That is something that I will remedy over the summer, because I know that Southend is “Town, shore and so much more”. The “so much more” must refer to my two hon. Friends, who represent it so well in Parliament, but perhaps also to the Focal Point gallery, the Beecroft art gallery, the Old Leigh studios, the Southend Pier cultural centre, the Priory Park bandstand and, indeed, the Cliffs pavilion, where this Sunday Tony Stockwell, the psychic medium, will be appearing and will no doubt be able to tell us who will win the title of UK city of culture.
We also heard a fantastic contribution from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). I visited Aberdeen with Ken Baker many years ago when he was Conservative party chairman, and what a cultured chairman he was, because before we went to the Scottish Conservative conference, we made a beeline for the Aberdeen art gallery and saw the wonderful Richard Long sculptures. It is the granite city, and what better adornment to its cultural heritage could it have than being the birthplace of our brilliant Secretary of State for Education?
Of course, there is also Hull, which I visited on the way to the by-election caused by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), a former Minister for Europe. Hull has eight museums. It also has the Hull Truck theatre company. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) could tell the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who is no longer in his seat, that I also said that of course Hull is now the home of the author of the best political memoirs for a generation. It is my birthday on 5 June, and I intend to ask my mother for a copy, but I will not do so if a signed copy appears in my office in the next few days.
Swansea, too, is a city that I have not yet visited, but I will remedy that over the summer. As we learned today, it is the home of beach volleyball, the national waterfront museum and, of course, the filming of “Da Vinci’s Demons”. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for pointing out that tax reliefs for film and now for television and animation—and soon, we hope, for video games—are supporting our creative industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) pointed out the adornments of that fair city—a city that I visited recently, that is building a new library and new theatre and that understands the importance of culture.
I failed to mention properly the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, who again made a fantastic intervention on behalf of his city. Of course, we also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). That, too, is a town that I have visited. I have gone with her to visit the Jerwood gallery. That is another good example of lottery money being used to regenerate culture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) was ably supported by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). I gather that they are working in tandem. That picks up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that the support for culture and for the UK city of culture transcends political divides. Plymouth, too, is a city that I have visited. Its bid is backed by Tom Daley. I have visited the Theatre Royal. The original building was built 200 years ago this year; unfortunately it was demolished in 1937. I have visited TR2, the Drum theatre and Plymouth art school. They are all fantastic adornments to that city.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) was bigging up the virtues of Leicester—a city that I visited recently to speak at the vibrant Leicester Conservatives’ annual dinner. I also visited recently its newly built Curve theatre—another arts building built with lottery funding. Of course, there is also the amazing story of the discovery of Richard III’s skeleton—a story that has captured the public imagination.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am delighted that the Minister visited Leicester and that he has referenced Richard III. Does he agree that Richard III should remain in Leicester?
Mr Vaizey
I am staying out of that one.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). East Kent is a place that I visit frequently. I spent my summer holidays in Ramsgate, where my aunt lived. I am to open the Deal music festival. I pay tribute to the work of Roger De Haan and his support for Folkestone and of course Turner Contemporary. The area is also the location of the Romney marshes, where my own father is buried. We have no idea why he wanted to be buried there and we got lost on the way to the burial, but it is a very beautiful place for him to be buried.
This is probably the first proper debate that we have had in this House on culture in general, rather than a specific issue, since I have been the Culture Minister.
Dan Jarvis
What does that say about the priority that this Government place on the arts?
Mr Vaizey
We have not had an Opposition debate yet. I yearn for the hon. Gentleman to use his influence—to call an Opposition debate on arts and culture and we can talk about how we have restored the money lost in the lottery cuts by the last Government in order to support our culture. Of course, the lottery, which was brought in by the Major Government and supported by the last Labour Government, has invested a huge amount in our cultural infrastructure. I want to talk about that. I want to talk about the fact that I am passionate about our culture. I want to talk about the fact that the UK city of culture, a concept introduced by the last Labour Culture Secretary and supported by the Conservative Culture Secretary—it has cross-party support—is incredibly important. It has shown how important culture is to cities and towns throughout the country. There is no public money invested in this; it has come from the grass roots up, supported by hon. Members and by their towns and cities.
James Duddridge
In terms of the origins of cities of culture, I recall that back in the 1980s—was it in 1988?—Glasgow was a city of culture. Was that something that the UK Government supported or was it European?
Mr Vaizey
This is exactly the point. Glasgow was European city of culture. That was 23 years ago, but I can still remember the slogan: “Glasgow’s miles better”. If people go to Glasgow now, they will see that the legacy is still there. People can also go to Liverpool, which, five years ago, was the city of culture. The economic benefit was £800 million. I visited a video games developer there who had previously lived in Liverpool but had left the city. He said, “I came back to Liverpool because when it became the city of culture, I knew there was stuff going on. That’s why I’m back in Liverpool.”
Derry/Londonderry will have an extra 600,000 visitors this year. That is twice as many as normal. We are talking about 150 events, 75% of them free. We are talking about the Royal Ballet, the Turner prize, the Ulster orchestra and Seamus Heaney. This is what it is all about, and culture has cross-party support in this House. That is why we are doing our best to support—
Dame Anne Begg
In relation to cross-party support, I do not know whether the Minister realises, but it is a Scottish National party council in Dundee that is behind the bid putting forward Dundee as the UK city of culture 2017. Does the Minister have any observation to make on whether it knows something that we do not know about the outcome of the referendum next year on Scottish independence?
Geraint Davies
Will the Minister be promoting the centenary of the birth of Dylan Thomas? Does he regard him as an iconic UK poet and literary person as well as a Welsh one?
Mr Vaizey
Yes, I regard Dylan Thomas as a Welsh poet, a British poet and a poet of the world.
I want to end on this note. I am proud that this Government have restored the money lost in Labour’s lottery cuts, that we continue to support arts and culture and that the Arts Council is working so effectively with local authorities up and down the country. People who do down culture in our local areas outside London—
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. Time is up. We now move on to the final debate this morning.
Planning (Broughton)
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 Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this special parliamentary debate to highlight the planning issues affecting the important village of Broughton in my constituency.
I welcome the planning Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), to his place. He takes such issues extremely seriously and I know that he will listen with an attentive ear to what I have to say on behalf of my constituents. My aim is to relay to him the feelings from a recent public meeting that was held in the village of Broughton on 11 May, attended by significantly more than 200 villagers. I wish to relay to him what they were telling me and other local elected representatives about their concerns to do with the development of their village.
I want to pay particular tribute to local borough councillors, Jim Hakewill, who stepped down as mayor of Kettering last year, and Cliff Moreton, who have been effectively representing local residents’ concerns on the issue. Likewise, the Broughton parish councillors, including Mary Rust and Hilary Bull, and Mr Gary Duthie, the clerk to the parish council, have all been doing sterling work.
The problem is that national planning policies are allowing inappropriate housing development to take place in the village of Broughton. For those who are unfamiliar with Kettering, it is middle England at its very best. Geographically situated in the heart of England, it represents all the best that middle England has to offer. Broughton has about 2,500 people, making it one of the largest villages in the borough of Kettering; it is located in the south-west of the borough, just off the A43 which links Kettering to Northampton. Before the completion and approval of a neighbourhood plan for the village, however, building developers are able to use national planning policy guidelines and the lack of a demonstrable rolling five-year housing delivery target from Kettering borough council to submit planning applications for housing developments around the village, confident that the applications will meet with approval from the borough council or be won on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
The developments are in unsuitable locations that are unlikely to be included as preferred development sites in the village’s neighbourhood plan, once it has been produced, and as a result there will be unacceptable pressure on the local infrastructure used by existing residents. Broughton parish council is firmly committed to the development of a neighbourhood plan for the village, but before such a plan is signed off, there is in effect carte blanche for developers to choose sites around the village, put in a planning application for housing development and get it approved.
The problem started with a planning application from Redrow Homes South Midlands—the Kettering borough council planning reference is KET/2012/0709— for the development of 65 dwellings at Cransley Hill in Broughton. There are to be 46 homes, 19 affordable homes and a substation. On 12 February, the application was put before the borough council—I have the privilege of being a member—and 67 comments were received from local residents, 65 of which objected to the application.
The site in question is to the north-west of the village, on a parcel of land between the built-up part and the A43. It is adjacent to but outside the village envelope and on a greenfield site. Objections included: the site is greenfield and good farmland; sewerage and electricity supply are at capacity; there is a problem with water pressure in the village; there is pressure on school places; the village does not have a doctor, dentist or chemist’s; there will be traffic congestion as a result of the development, on top of the existing parking problems in the village; there is not enough local public transport, and the bus service is often inadequate; many of the local footpaths are unlit; lanes in the village are unsuitable for construction traffic, and the density of the development is too great. That is a flavour of some of the objections to the application.
However, Kettering borough council granted approval for the application. It did so not because it wanted to, but because of the Government’s national planning policies, which insist that, if the council cannot demonstrate a rolling five-year housing delivery target, it must grant permission to such sites. If it does not do so, the Planning Inspectorate will, charging costs to Kettering borough council.
According to a statement from Kettering borough council:
“The five year land supply is pretty simple—the Council has to be able to demonstrate that there are enough housing sites with a realistic prospect of being built out to satisfy the targets in the Core Spatial Strategy over the coming five years, and if we cannot do that, then there is a presumption in the national planning framework that consents will be given to new applications, unless there are sound planning reasons for refusal. Because of the slow down in the national economy, we can no longer argue that we have a five year land supply but the government have not changed the rules; indeed they have strengthened them.”
That is right, because the present Government have enhanced the policy adopted by the previous Government in insisting on a rolling five-year housing delivery target for each authority—it is now plus 20%.
There were good reasons for the council to refuse the application. It was contrary to: policy 1 of the local core spatial strategy, “Strengthening the Network of Settlements”; policy 7, on housing delivery; policy 9, “Distribution & Location of Development”, and policy 10, “Distribution of Housing”. It was also contrary to the local plan, to policy RA/3, about restricted infill villages, and to RA/5, “Housing in the Open Countryside”. According to the council:
“Saved policy RA/3 of the Local Plan defines Broughton as a Restricted Infill Village. Policy RA/3 states that where development is proposed outside of the defined boundaries of a Restricted Infill Village, open countryside policies will apply (policy RA/5). Saved policy RA/5 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for residential development in the open countryside, and sets out several exceptions. The development proposed does not meet any of the exceptions in the policy.
Therefore, the adopted Development Plan position is that the village is not a priority for development, and development outside the boundary is contrary to policy unless the development is required to meet local needs”,
which it clearly is not.
Kettering borough council cannot be accused of developing its planning policies slowly. Indeed, Kettering is part of the north Northamptonshire core spatial strategy, which was adopted in June 2008. It was the first core spatial strategy of its type in the whole of the country. That was as a result of the planning policies of the previous Government, but Kettering was not slow in coming forward—it ticked all the boxes and in pretty smart fashion. In policy 10 of the core spatial strategy, there is a housing requirement of 1,640 new dwellings in the rural area of Kettering during 2001 to 2021. Just over half way through, in March 2012, there had been 1,421 housing completions in the rural area, with a further 41 soon to be constructed. That left an outstanding requirement of just 178 dwellings over the best part of 10 years. The council cannot be accused of not building houses in the local area, and it seems extremely punitive that, as a result of the Government’s planning policies, this application for 65 houses in Broughton was approved. I am not blaming Kettering borough council for that. It is doing only what it has been told to do by the national Government, but I blame the national Government’s policies.
Redrow Homes has set an example, and another application has just been submitted, this time by Glanmoor Investments Ltd, for development of 67 dwellings with associated parking at Glebe avenue, Broughton on the other side of the village, again in an area unsuitable for development. There is every likelihood that that planning application, under the same criteria, will be approved. The village of Broughton is likely to find itself with an additional 130 houses, and will find it difficult to cope with such a scale of development.
Councillor Jim Hakewill has highlighted the problem effectively. He was so cross on behalf of local residents about what is emerging in Broughton that he delivered a letter to the Prime Minister at No. 10. On 12 March, he wrote:
“The desperate problem we have is that developers…are seeking to exploit the fact that, whilst Kettering Borough Council have gone through the pain of approving permission for some 7,500 homes, some of those are unable to be built until the A14…has a new junction”—
junction 10a. Kettering borough council
“has done all it can to create a five year supply, making hard, sometimes unpopular decisions.”
He continued:
“The Borough Council are well on their way to creating the Local Plan framework under which the communities will have their Neighbourhood plans tested.”
Broughton
“Parish Council are desperately keen to engage with the Borough to create a Plan to be proud of, a positive independent inspection and a referendum to support it. All of this will be of no consequence whatsoever should this current application be formally approved. It will be imposing development that has no local support; it will set a precedent for uncontrolled development and disillusionment for local people, who would normally be prepared to get involved with their community’s future. Worse than that by pre-empting the decisions about where best development would suit Broughton the applicant will have no obligation to deliver”
community infrastructure levy
“funding for the benefit and mitigation of development that a Neighbourhood Plan would demand. The application contravenes all the current Local Plan and Core Spatial Strategy policies we are used to relying on. Indeed it has significant highway implications for the safety of villagers, present and future, using the village centre shops and particularly the primary school.”
Councillor Hakewill continued:
“Our request is simple: Stop the current permission from being issued, give a clear lead that the development and completion of a Neighbourhood Plan must happen before applications will be approved, and that Government Inspectors will uphold that right, dismissing appeals in advance of”
an
“approved Neighbourhood Plan. Don't let random development spoil”
villages like Broughton.
That sums up the position well. I invite the Minister to come to Broughton, to speak to and listen to local residents who are worried about the future of their lovely village. Broughton is not against any development, but it does not want inappropriately large development on inappropriate sites, especially when Kettering borough council has a very good record of working with central Government to provide local homes for local people. Indeed, it approved 5,500 homes under the previous Government on the outskirts of Kettering at Kettering East. Those homes cannot be included in the rolling five-year housing delivery target because, for the development to go ahead on that site, the Highways Agency must approve a new junction—junction 10a—on the A14.
Many housing starts are waiting to happen, dependent on a Government decision on highways. Kettering borough council is doing its best to unblock that blockage, but while it is in place, those houses cannot be counted against the borough council’s rolling five-year housing delivery target and that exposes villages like Broughton to inappropriate development. Developers know that, which is why they are coming forward.
Through you, Mr Weir, I appeal to the Minister for help. Kettering borough council is trying to be helpful, but it is in a difficult position with the Government’s national planning policy framework on rolling five-year targets. I appeal to the Minister on behalf of my constituents in Broughton and all those who live in rural communities in Kettering. He is welcome to come and listen to local concerns, but will he please use his authority to allow authorities such as Kettering to say no to such development when neighbourhood plans are being worked up and will be in place soon? We need his help in the interim.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate on an important local issue. He is, as you know, Mr Weir, the living embodiment of localism, being a representative of his constituents not just in this Parliament as a Member of Parliament but as a borough councillor. I am in awe of his work ethic in taking on two such testing roles.
I strongly welcome Broughton’s interest in pursuing a neighbourhood plan. It is probably the most transformative of the Government’s planning innovations, and I am delighted that it is making particularly good progress with the first three referendums on neighbourhood plans, which were passed with overwhelming majorities. Thame in Oxfordshire secured a higher turnout than the county council elections that took place on the same day. People went to the polls to vote for the neighbourhood plan, but did not vote for a county council candidate. There is a huge amount of popular interest in neighbourhood planning, and I strongly welcome any community that wants to pursue one.
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot discuss individual applications, past or prospective, but I hope that I can explain to him how the balance of planning policy works and offer to engage with him and Broughton’s residents in future. At the heart of the Localism Act 2011 and the national planning policy framework that it introduced is our wish to devolve to local communities responsibility for making provision for future development as well as the power to plan how those development needs should be met. It is important to understand the combination of the power and the responsibility.
This country has an intense housing need; that is true in Northamptonshire, in my county of Lincolnshire and certainly to the south of both. Every year, the country has built many fewer houses than we need just to meet the growth in our population as a result of ageing and other social changes. That is why we placed at the heart of the framework the idea that discharging responsibility to the local community involves providing sufficient sites to meet the five-year land supply need. That means having sites that are available for development now that could satisfy the area’s housing needs over the next five years. The framework then says that if a local authority does not have the five-year land supply in place, its housing policies will not be considered robust, and applications for housing developments will therefore have to be judged against the national framework policies, which cover a wide range of planning issues, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
To reassure my hon. Friend, it is important to understand that it is not a presumption in favour of all development—it is not a free-for-all. The presumption is in favour of sustainable development. The sustainability policies, which are clearly set out in the national planning policy framework, relate to environmental protections and to the importance of sufficient infrastructure. Sustainability captures not only environmental concerns, but economic sustainability and physical sustainability, in terms of the infrastructure supporting development. I am well aware of other decisions by inspectors. They regularly turn down proposals for development when authorities do not have a five-year land supply, because they accept that those development proposals are not sustainable and would conflict with important policies in the framework.
The presumption kicks in when there is no five-year land supply. As my hon. Friend has accepted, that is unfortunately, at the moment, the case for Kettering borough council, although he makes a good argument about why that is, in part, a result of problems with the A14 and its new junction. I would like to reassure him that, as somebody served indirectly by the A14, I am very keen for the A14 improvements to be brought forward. Just yesterday, I met the Minister in the Treasury with responsibility for infrastructure, Lord Deighton, to discuss major national infrastructure projects, and I know that improvements to the A14 are absolutely at the top of the Government’s list of priorities for such projects.
I hope that together we can work to try and accelerate those improvements and the creation of the junction, which my hon. Friend supports. I hope, however, that he also accepts that national policy must be made to apply equally everywhere. Having a policy that requires boroughs to have a five-year land supply means that his borough then needs to find alternative sites while the sites off the A14 are not available, knowing that there will continue to be development needs, and perhaps at the back end of the 15-year plan, those sites will come on stream and other sites will not need to be provided, once the A14 development is complete.
My hon. Friend quoted Councillor Jim Hakewill’s eloquent letter, which I read and replied to on the Prime Minister’s behalf, and which asked, importantly, whether it would be possible to call some kind of moratorium on development applications while neighbourhood plans are under way. That case has been made by other Members of Parliament and by a number of organisations, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The difficulty with that proposal is that, first—of course, Parliament could change this—there is no legal basis for introducing a moratorium on development applications while plans are under way.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly—because we can change the law any time if we are persuaded of the merits of doing so—it would, unfortunately, create a perverse incentive that I fear communities less responsible and less proactive than my hon. Friend’s would be inclined to abuse. If we said that once work had started on a neighbourhood plan, there would then be a moratorium on all development applications until the plan process was complete, every single community in the country that wanted to stop development would have a clear incentive to start a neighbourhood plan and take their own sweet time to conclude it, as they would know that they could see off any application in the meantime.
Unfortunately therefore, we need to have, embedded in the system, a dynamic incentive for communities to get a move on and put their plans in place, whether at neighbourhood or local level. The fact is that only through having a robust plan can the community make decisions about speculative applications and know that they will stick. That provides the incentive to take the difficult decisions involved in drawing up a plan, and for the borough council, of which my hon. Friend is a member, to put in place its five-year land supply. That same incentive puts a tiger in the tank of people working as volunteers in neighbourhoods to do their community plan, because they will then know that if they want to control the future development of their community, the plan is urgent, important, and worth getting on with.
In the meantime, I accept that a few applications may be made that will ultimately be accepted, either by the planning authority or by a planning inspector on appeal, that the community would rather not see happen. I completely understand that, but planning is a long game. My hon. Friend has been representing his constituents and residents for a very long time at different levels, and I hope that he will carry on doing so for an even longer time in future. Even if an application that a community does not like gets through in the next year or two, the game is over the next 10 or 20 years. If, 15 years ago, there was the possibility of having neighbourhood plans in all those communities, they would have been able to shape such developments in a way that they were never able to.
I hope that the community of Broughton, which my hon. Friend is representing so well today, will see that even if they cannot control the application that he referred to, they have the possibility, through plan making, of controlling developments for the next 15 years. That applies not only to housing developments, but to the development of community facilities, green spaces and design codes, and to lots of other issues that are vital to people growing up and living in a community.
Mr Hollobone
I have been listening to what the Minister is saying. He has obviously spent a lot of time on the brief and is explaining the policy clearly. On the way home to his constituency, I have a feeling that he probably comes very close to Kettering. Would he be kind enough to call in at Broughton, at a meeting that Councillor Hakewill and I would be pleased to arrange, so that he could listen to residents’ views on the issue and explain the policy?
Nick Boles
I would be delighted to. There is nothing I enjoy more than getting out of Westminster and talking to people. I was in Worcestershire and Shropshire last week, and next week I am in Devon and Cornwall—it is rather quicker and easier to get to Kettering and Broughton. I would be delighted to come and talk to residents, and hopefully explain to them the benefits of neighbourhood planning.
It is not that there are no frustrations—there are. It is not that there are no disappointments—there are. It is not that it is easy or quick—it is not. It is a long, painful process that requires volunteers and local councillors to undertake exhaustive efforts on behalf of the common interest, which is a thoroughly admirable thing that I applaud. However, we have a support contract in place to offer communities such as Broughton direct support. There is the possibility of securing a grant of £7,000 towards the out-of-pocket costs of organising a neighbourhood plan. I would be happy to explain that to them, and hopefully, to share the experience of other communities that have done neighbourhood plans successfully. Neighbourhood plans, such as that in Thame, have had to wrestle with substantial development. A plan has been backed that includes plans for 775 additional houses in Thame; nevertheless, it secured the support of more than 70% of the people who voted.
I believe that neighbourhood planning is the answer. I hope that the people of Broughton will not be downcast or put off this important initiative, and I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in meeting them to discuss how we can make their neighbourhood plan come to reality.
The High Street
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
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on the future of our high streets. Let me start by saying that, as it is a widely recognised barometer for the performance of our economy, it is especially worrying to have seen more retail chains go into insolvency in the past 12 months than ever before. Yesterday’s British Retail Consortium report, showing that the number of empty shops has reached a new high, adds to a growing sense that our high streets are experiencing a short and painful decline, which the Government, I will argue, are not doing enough to address. First, however, I want to put into context the value of our high streets in terms of retail, as a focal point for communities and as a generator of social capital and civic pride.
As retail is the traditional home of Britain’s biggest private sector employer, it is worth noting that the latest figures from the House of Commons Library show that the retail sector employs 4.2 million people—more than 15% of our work force. It accounts for 34% of all turnover in the UK and, according to the British Retail Consortium, employs 40% of all those aged under 20. UK retail sector sales were worth more than £311 billion in 2012. It is a massive sector and an important rung on the employment ladder for young people.
However, high streets are more than just a place of commerce. They are dynamic hubs of social activity where enduring social bonds are formed that help to create strong and vibrant communities. Local high streets are also a strong source of civic pride; they can help shape a keen sense of local identity, common heritage and local values.
If we take all that into account, it is hard to imagine a future in Britain without the high street playing a substantive role in community life, but as we all know, high streets currently face enormous challenges and many local high streets are fighting for their lives. Faced with that threat to such an important economic and social driver, it is incumbent on Government to act. In the early days of the coalition, Ministers at least gave the impression that they recognised that. The Minister responsible for high streets—the Minister for Housing—said in November 2010:
“My colleagues and I are committed to tackling these challenges head on. After all, our high streets need to be centres for economic growth as we move towards the recovery.”
Two and a half years later, those words have a distinctly hollow ring. Instead of commitment to tackling the problems, Ministers have shown indifference. Indeed, their actions have made things worse. They have not only failed even to give a full response to Mary Portas’s 2011 review, but, year after year, they continue to ignore calls from business groups for some respite on business rates. Every year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps piling millions of pounds on to the bills of retailers, which is causing insolvencies everywhere. And whereas Mary Portas, the Government’s high street tsar, said in her report that the high street had reached “crisis point”, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills blithely claims that there is no crisis on the high street. Those are not the actions of a Government committed to tackling a serious problem. They are the actions of Ministers with their heads in the sand.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making powerful points. Does he agree that the biggest boost that the high street could get would be to be on a level playing field with Amazon, which is not paying taxes in this country at the moment?
Simon Danczuk
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will come to the point about Amazon, and not just in relation to business rates; corporation tax is also an issue.
Let me examine the flagship Government policy to tackle the problems facing our high streets—the much talked about Portas pilots. I was an initial supporter of the Portas review and I thought that the pilots were a good idea, but that was before the previous Minister responsible for high streets, who is now the Minister without Portfolio, turned what should have been a serious policy exercise into a farcical circus. Further help was on hand from Optomen Television, which managed to hijack a Government policy and turn it into a reality TV series.
I should like at this point to praise the current Minister responsible for high streets for distancing himself from the antics of his predecessor. He has had the good sense to change the ridiculously titled Future High Street X-Fund to something that is more appropriate to public policy, instead of trying to ape Peter Kay’s last spoof reality TV show. The High Street Renewal Fund sounds much more dignified, but the damage has been done.
It is a year this Sunday since the first wave of Portas pilots was announced. The retail grade magazine, The Grocer, reports that an “emerging findings” report was supposed to be published this April, but has now been shelved. People close to the situation are quoted as saying that there have been
“teething problems including concerns over corporate governance.”
They go on to say that
“having a formal audit-style report may not have been worth the paper it was written on.”
When will the Government’s “emerging findings” report be published, and when will the Government respond to Mary Portas’s recommendations?
Ministers called the Portas pilots the
“vanguard of a high street revolution”.
However, they have been not so much a revolution as a revelation—the revelation that we need substance, not just public relations, to deliver real change.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. Does he agree that there is a very important role for local authorities and local business groups in helping to encourage businesses? For example, in Hackney, we are trying to develop outlet retail, to boost the local high street, on Mare street. That one-to-one engagement with businesses is very important at local level, in addition to whatever might happen nationally.
Simon Danczuk
I could not agree more. However, the engagement of businesses has been successful in some areas, but very unsuccessful in others, not least in terms of some of the pilots.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Local people in Houghton tell me that they are concerned about the growing number of fast-food and takeaway outlets on the high street there. They want a better retail offer; they are concerned about the damage that that is doing. Should local people not be offered a greater say in the planning of high streets? In the current circumstance, local people feel powerless to stop that and feel as though they do not have a say on the offer available to them on their town centre high street.
Simon Danczuk
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is one that the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Labour party, addressed just before the county council elections in terms of planning abilities for local authorities so that they can shape their town centres and high streets more effectively.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Surely customers currently dictate that, because market forces will determine which shops are viable.
Simon Danczuk
My response to the hon. Gentleman’s point is that the high street is too important to communities simply to be left to the free market. There is a requirement for intervention both nationally and locally.
It has been widely reported that many of the first and second-wave Portas pilots have spent hardly any money and some have spent nothing at all. Did Ministers not award the pilots to towns that already had ready-to-go plans to transform their high streets? At a time when urgent action was needed, everyone anticipated that the pilots would hit the ground running. Instead, most of them have withdrawn into a shell and are in a state of paralysis. It now looks as though some of the plans had been drawn up on the back of an envelope and were nowhere near viable. Can the Minister explain how long those pilots are supposed to last? Will they carry on struggling to put plans together indefinitely?
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and I praise the work that he has done in Rochdale. The debate has been quite partisan so far. I am a bit more favourable towards what the Government have done so far. I think that the Portas review was quite a good piece of work. However, I share my hon. Friend’s concern about where the money has been spent and the fact that it has not been spent in some towns. Our experience in Stalybridge is the opposite. We have done some great work, but without any resources. I just wonder whether the Government will be able to say something about how they might get resources to town teams who are doing very good jobs in their areas if places that have been pilots have not been able to do the things that they wanted to do already.
Simon Danczuk
That is an interesting intervention: if money is not being spent in some pilot areas, surely it could be moved to areas with more innovative approaches that are ready to hit the ground running. It would not be fair to tar all pilots with the same brush. I am aware of excellent work that is making a real difference in Market Rasen and Nelson, both of which have shown strong leadership and rich community engagement.
Given the problems, it is no wonder that the Co-operative Group recently—just this week—demanded a review of the Portas pilots. If ever a programme illustrated the disconnect between Whitehall and local communities, this is it. The e-mail exchange that has come to light between Mary Portas’s team and officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government serves to highlight the problems. An example of how Government officials let TV companies set public policy can be seen in an e-mail about local councillors and residents arguing over their high street. A member of Mary Portas’s team e-mailed the DCLG stating:
“In TV terms the fight between the bureaucrats and the passionate citizens could be great”.
That Government officials were having such a conversation beggars belief. The Portas pilots were supposed to be about improving local high streets, not creating arguments for argument’s sake to make good TV. Robin Vaughan-Lyons, chairman of the Margate town team said that people had been left in tears by the antics of Mary Portas’s film crew. He told The Grocer, not a publication given to sensationalist reporting, that they
“are a group of people who are more interested in publicity and being on TV than they are in helping Margate and they have been deliberately encouraged by the film crew to make personal attacks on us.”
We should all celebrate bringing together volunteers to form town teams, for which people give up their time freely to help make their community a better place to live. Surely that is what the Prime Minister envisaged as the big society in action. How disgraceful that Government officials colluded with a TV company to sow seeds of division in communities and stoke up resentment simply to create a dramatic storyline for an hour of tawdry TV. That is not the government by citizens for society that the Prime Minister promised us, but government for television. As one soap opera inspires another, the Minister who was responsible for high streets made sure that the Portas pilots spawned other funds and initiatives. The Government’s high street innovation fund is one such example.
In her review of December 2011, Mary Portas underlined what she wanted councils to do:
“This should be game-changing stuff and thoughtful engagement, not just the usual suspects round a table planning the Christmas decorations.”
How do Ministers square that, I wonder, with the fact that many thousands of pounds from the high street innovation fund has been spent by councils on Christmas lights and hiring Santa Claus and reindeer? Last month was the launch of high street champions, an initiative to support high streets by partnering them with large businesses, but only in the pilot towns. Obviously, it is good to see businesses working together, but I am not convinced that matching big national chains with independent businesses is the best approach.
Meg Hillier
There can be exceptions. Tesco was born in Hackney on a market stall in Well street, which has great challenges. The local manager had the freedom, after, it has to be said, some negotiations with headquarters, to refuse to have a fresh meat counter because there was a butcher outside the door and to refuse to have a fried chicken counter because of the number of fried chicken shops in the street. Where partnership works, it works well, but, as my hon. Friend highlights, it is challenging for the individual managers of big stores.
Simon Danczuk
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The question is about how Government can affect the situation locally. There are lots of examples of good practice at a local level, but we have not had a strong sense of direction or leadership from the Government on town centres and high streets.
Rather than talking about high street champions, I would like the Government to consider funding digital champions: experts in multichannel retail, who can make a real difference and work with the independent retail community to help it embrace multichannel retail to supplement shops and safeguard its future. Independents make up 69% of all shops, and we need to do everything we can to safeguard their presence on our high streets.
When we look back on high street policy carried out by the coalition Government, we see that the multitude of headline grabbing initiatives have blinded us to the elephant in the room that is causing the most damage on the high street. I refer of course to business rates. The Government have collected an extra £500 million over the past two years through increased business rates, and yet they have spent only £20 million on the Portas pilots. Week in, week out, businesses in Rochdale tell me that the tax is far too high and is dragging them close to the brink. Research published this year by the Forum of Private Business shows that 94% of small business owners think that business rates are far too high. There is a growing sense that the Government see the high street only as a cash cow to milk to exhaustion.
The sense of injustice is further embedded by the Government’s decision to postpone next year’s business rates revaluation. While London property prices continue to rise, business owners in more affluent metropolitan areas can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that the Government will keep their rates artificially low, but many northern businesses, which have seen property prices fall by 40% in some areas, have to pay the top-of-the-market 2008 rates until 2017. We end up with the absurd scenario of Burnley effectively subsidising Bond street, and Rochdale subsidising Regent street. Business rates for an Amazon fulfilment centre in Doncaster are calculated at £44 per square metre, yet for an out-of-town Comet store in Rochdale, which as we know subsequently closed, they were £125 per square metre. Even worse, the rates for one unit in a Rochdale shopping centre are calculated at £1,080 per square metre—24 times more expensive than the rates Amazon pay in Doncaster.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although business rates show no flexibility, landlords are being flexible over rents? Business rates represent a barrier to trade.
Simon Danczuk
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen properties in Rochdale with business rates that exceed the price of the rent; that cannot be right. There is a significant and serious problem with business rates. There is no doubt that they are past their sell-by date. Will the Minister use today’s debate to acknowledge that this prehistoric tax regime is unfairly holding businesses back and is not fit for purpose? The Valuation Office Agency needs an urgent overhaul and business rates desperately need reform.
Many people are of course already doing their bit to try to reform our high streets and move away from the chain stores’ monopoly, to give a new generation of people the skills to set up new and diverse businesses. I pay tribute to Retail Ready People, an initiative led by vInspired and the Retail Trust, which works with young people in Rochdale to help them set up a pop-up shop on the high street. It is working all over the country to give young people the skills and confidence to take over empty shops.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on his attempt to blame the coalition for many of the problems with our high streets—it is inventive, if nothing else. Amazon is a big employer of my constituents. Last year I tried to help secure transport for people from my constituency to work there. It is an important local employer that he has bashed a couple of times. Does he want Rochdale business rates to move towards Amazon business rates or does he want Amazon business rates to move towards Rochdale business rates? If it is the former, can he tell us where the money will come from?
Simon Danczuk
It is neither. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made the point that Amazon is not paying full corporation tax, and there is a discrepancy in business rates, so I suggest that we need to overhaul the whole business rates system. It is simply not fit for purpose.
I am aware that many other voices are not locked into the myopic consensus that characterises Government thinking on the high street. One of them is that of Bill Grimsey, a turnaround specialist, who was formerly the chief executive of Wickes, Iceland and other companies. I met Bill recently, and he explained that town centres cannot be saved as pure retail destinations. Technology is already influencing how we shop, and in the future everything will change. What is required, he argued, is a holistic approach to creating vibrant high streets that addresses housing, education, health, entertainment and shopping.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has not yet addressed something that probably costs retailers more than business rates: credit card interchange fees. If they were reduced to what Europe has said the cross-border level should be, £1 million would be put into every MP’s high street. That is an enormous amount of money. Would the hon. Gentleman therefore give the Government credit for acting on credit card interchange fees through the recent consultation, and does he hope that we can make progress? That would make a substantial difference, by putting demand into local economies.
Simon Danczuk
I welcome that intervention. I am not very familiar with the issue, and it has not been raised with me in relation to the high street, but the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point, about which I am keen to learn more.
We need a fully focused, committed approach by Government, not another dose of dilettante PR. Currently, it is hard to know who is in charge of high street policy. Let us just spend a moment trying to make sense of where the change we need is coming from.
The Business Secretary turned up at the recent Retail Week Live conference and talked about accepting Mary Portas’s 38 recommendations, when there were only 28. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is constantly in the newspapers, using emotive language to talk about car parking charges while he continues to cut council budgets to the bone. A Department for Communities and Local Government Minister claims that the unfair business rates revaluation delay is right, despite not one voice in retail supporting the move. The Minister with responsibility for Portas pilots and high streets carries out the role on a part-time basis while he tends to his main duties as housing Minister, and today we have a planning Minister addressing this high street debate.
I say to the Minister that someone needs to get a grip. We need a full-time high streets Minister and clear, strong leadership from the Government. Only then might the Prime Minister’s woolly rhetoric about ensuring that high streets are at the heart of every community start to mean something.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I have six or seven Members wishing to speak, and I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at no later than 3.40 pm. I do not intend to put a fixed time limit on speeches, but if people speak for about seven minutes, everyone should be able to make a decent contribution. I hope that everyone will look to that kind of time scale.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)on having introduced the debate with his usual cheery optimism, in a slightly more partisan way than he needed to. I must apologise to you, Mr Davies, because I am moonlighting from the Finance Bill and might have to return there before the final summing up. I have another colleague here in a similar situation—the Whips should not be informed.
On Sunday I had a very optimistic experience. I was in a small street in Southport called Wesley street, where the traders have suffered for some time, blighted by shops not being filled and worries about custom. They have done a great deal for themselves, including painting their shops in contrasting vibrant colours. On Sunday they had organised a festival. They had put a green swathe down the middle of the street and a series of events was taking place. The place was absolutely buzzing. That group of traders have had the courage and initiative to reinvent themselves, and that is what we need in the high street.
The high street must, in a sense, reinvent itself. Certain pressures are not due just to the coalition Government, as might be supposed from the opening contribution. They are due to fairly long-term things, such as changes in shopping and working habits, the fact that we are living in an age of austerity and there is generally less money around and less profit for companies, and the fact that the drift out of town continues. Overwhelmingly, they are due to the threat of the internet and the fact that people can now shop at any time of the day or night. In some places, including my own constituency, the pressures are also due to the threat from increased mega-retail development—as I call it—such as at Liverpool One, Bluewater and the Trafford centre.
People look at what is happening on their local high street and see it as a kind of blight. They regret the lack of vitality. They look at the empty shops, and believe that something must be done. That is apparent, but what is not is what must be done. Some things clearly will not be done. The clock will not be put back, the internet will not be abandoned—people will use it more—and people will continue to change their habits. We cannot roll back to the 1960s.
Above all, the high street cannot buck the markets. Certain things are thriving. In the high street, things that may be undesirable, such as charity shops, and payday loan and cash register companies, are thriving in the current regime. Nail bars seem to do extraordinarily well in my neck of the woods, and coffee shops are in wild abundance—no one need be short of caffeine in any part of the UK as far as I can see. Building societies are also there, but they are a rather dull and sober presence. Most of the general public do not see that as satisfactory, and they say that something must be done. But it is not obvious what must be done, or who will do it.
Businesses are doing something anyway—they are pulling out. The chains have deserted many of our towns, some by going bust and some by moving to retail in other ways. Councils must do something, but they are desperately short of cash, and I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that metropolitan boroughs in particular are getting a poor deal at the moment with regard to the grant support settlement. Councils also complain about being short of certain necessary powers and levers—the Minister might have something to say about that—and they are also short of options.
Very early in any conversation with retailers we are asked, “What can you do about parking and the onerous charges? What can you do to level the playing field with out-of-town shopping?” Councils can tinker, but they cannot stop rationing parking because people will have just as many cars and there will be no more space in town centres than before. There will need to be some sort of system.
People say that the Government must do something, but the Government do not seem to have a clear or obvious solution. If they had one, I think they would employ it, because there is certainly the public demand, and also demand from other Members of Parliament. They do fund schemes, such as the Portas ones, and they employ advisers, such as Ms Portas. I think that they also employ Terry Leahy, which I am not so sure about. In my view, he is not necessarily the guy who has done the most for the high street over the past few years—certainly not in my town. We have a big out-of-town shopping centre, and Tesco made an unsuccessful bid to increase its area for non-food retail there, which would have hugely damaged the high street.
What I am trying to say is that the solution is elusive, which is probably because there is not just one solution but a range of individual ones. During the Portas phase, the Government did not approach a local authority and say, “You must do this,” or “You must do that,” but rather, “Bid for what you think you can do that will work”. The Government have a positive role. They can spread good practice. If they find that something works in Stockport or Rochdale, they should tell the world about it so that other local authorities and communities can follow suit. They can encourage the reinvention of the high street, through the promotion of business improvement district projects and the like. In my constituency, we hope soon to have a BID of some sort. A business improvement district gives local retailers more control over their immediate environment, and that can only be a good thing.
The Government need to do something, and sometimes it is easier to reduce the retail footprint, where that is sensible. If that means more domestic use in town centres, that is not necessarily a bad thing, as far as the vitality of towns is concerned. It might bring young people to a town who otherwise would not get housed at all.
The Government can do something about out-of-town development. I am told by the Federation of Small Businesses that Tesco often pays no rates on its car parks. It pays rates on its stores, but it has often negotiated an environment in which it pays no rates on its car parks. That is a clear anomaly that could be addressed to level the playing field.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, above all, the Government need to do something about the rates system, or about stimulating and producing some change in the commercial property market.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman touches on an interesting topic when he says that Tesco and other large stores pay rates on their stores, but not their car parks. In examining the possibility of large out-of-town stores paying rates on their car parks, would it not make sense to redeploy and recycle that money into the regeneration of town centres to give them innovation, as well as colour, class and style, and so ensure that they are reinvigorated, even if that costs a bit more for out-of-town centres?
John Pugh
Totally. Out-of-town shopping centres have a duty to the town that they are outside, and with which they are often not engaged.
I understand that, during the pre-Budget negotiations, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills thought it reasonable to investigate whether something might be done about retail business rates, but that the difficulty is how to advantage the people we want to be given an advantage—the small shopkeepers—not the big players, some of whom need no financial support whatever. I could refer again to Tesco.
Where we want to do something about business rates, that is currently more complex than it need be, which I want the Minister to investigate. I have heard reports from small business sources that when they want a downward valuation of their business rates and have a serious case—and when business rates are out of kilter with rents, as the hon. Member for Rochdale suggested—it takes far too long to get a result. By the time that it has all been sorted out, they will be out of business.
My fundamental point is that retailers must adjust to the shock of the new. They need to see their shops not as antagonistic to the internet, but must play along with it and be portals for it, because they have certain advantages. The current system, with white vans constantly going up and down the country and leaving brown parcels in the porches of people who are out, is not frightfully efficient. There is no capacity within internet marketing or sales for much to be done about repair or return, at least not without additional expense. Very little quality control can be exercised when people deal with an internet retailer, as opposed to one whose shop they can walk into to complain about the product. The interesting point—this is why I think that the hon. Gentleman is really on to something—is that some big stores, such as John Lewis, which have used the internet very well, have found that that has not corrupted or reduced their in-store sales, but has enhanced and developed them, so antagonism need not exist.
In conclusion, there is a need for the retail sector and the high streets of this country to pull themselves up by their own boot straps. There is significant help that the Government can get, and I am sure that there will be lots more sensible suggestions.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I reiterate, I hope with more success, the need for brevity from Members to allow everybody to speak.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
This has been a good debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) began it very well by pointing to the sharp and painful decline of the high street, and by drawing attention to the importance of the retail sector for the employment of young people in particular, and for the vibrancy of our communities and culture. As he said, local high streets are now fighting for their lives.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who has reminded us of the obligation on high streets to reinvent themselves. That is something that they have done over the ages. In the 1950s, Scunthorpe high street was dominated by the Co-op. Every store up and down the high street, from the butcher’s and the baker’s to the carpet maker’s, was the Co-op. It has since gone through many changes, and now faces more challenges.
The challenges have been clearly spelled out in this debate. High streets are operating in the worst recession since the 1930s, with people understandably not spending money. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale covered the issue of the rigidity of business rates, which, still set at pre-2008 boom-time levels, act as corsets round the high street in this time of challenge. The Government should have the imagination and ingenuity to respond to that. The predilection for online shopping, which is not going to go away, is also changing habits on the high street. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, it is important to have a level playing field between online retailers and those on the high street.
Car parking is an issue in Scunthorpe in relation to how the high street manages to compete against out-of-town shopping. Scunthorpe has two high streets: one in Ashby, which is a small market centre, and the main one in Scunthorpe itself. Scunthorpe is being challenged by a big development proposal led by a developer called Simons, with an anchor store for Marks & Spencer, which is of course attractive to the area. There is plenty of space in the town centre that would be good for a Marks & Spencer store, but we unfortunately live in a world where the business model is to develop out-of-town retail. If local people had any purchase on the decision making, they would encourage Marks & Spencer to come to the area, but to a town centre retail position.
As Members have said, incentives encourage retailers to go out of town rather than to the high street, which is part of the challenge that we face. The Government might reflect on how best to respond. Planning permission has been agreed for the out-of-town development that I have mentioned, but the developers now want to alter it to allow them to have coffee shops on the site as well, which would further disadvantage the town centre, despite its being made clear in the original application to the planning committee that that was unlikely. Retailers feel that the advantage is moving against them.
What do retailers in Scunthorpe and Ashby say that they need to equalise the playing field? They say, “Give us two hours’ free car parking.” That is the key to the equalisation of the playing field. To be fair to Conservative-controlled North Lincolnshire council, it has gradually moved on that point. There has been a bit of kicking and fighting. I produced a 2,000-person petition in favour of two hours’ free car parking in Scunthorpe and Ashby. Retailers have made it very clear that they need it to transform their chances of staying alive through these difficult times. The Scunthorpe town team, led by Eddie Lodge and colleagues, has done an excellent job in highlighting its value for the Scunthorpe retailer and shopper, as has Keep Scunthorpe Alive, which is led by Des Comerford and town-centre retailers. Two hours’ free car parking is needed to equalise the playing field through these difficult times. It would be helpful if the Government came up with a bag of cash, but I suspect that that will not happen.
As the hon. Member for Southport pointed out, council budgets face very difficult challenges, and North Lincolnshire council is no different, but it has gradually moved towards creating two hours’ free parking. It is obvious to anybody who understands the area that if the Parishes multi-storey car park in the centre of Scunthorpe, which is not heavily utilised, had two hours’ free car parking throughout the day, with payment still being on exit, that would transform opportunities. Perversely, the Conservative-controlled council is flirting with the idea of changing it to a pay-and-display car park, and having two hours’ free car parking from about 2 pm, but that would vitiate the dwell time. When people go into town centres, we want them to spend time there and, if they bump into my colleague the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), to have a coffee with him, without worrying about getting a ticket on leaving the pay-and-display car park—unfortunately, we have very vigilant car park attendants. I am using the debate to spell out the case for two hours’ free car parking in the Parishes multi-storey in Scunthorpe. That would be a shot in the arm for the local economy and the local high street.
I recognise and commend the work of local businesses Primark, BHS, Barclays, the Poundshop, Vodafone, and Coe and Co. They have all made investments in the town centre in the past two years, so this is a changing scene. I also highlight Fallen Hero, which won the Drapers award for young fashion retailer of the year only last year. It is a model of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale called multi-channel retail, in that it has a high street presence and an online presence, and that is a dynamic way forward for the high street.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
The recession; the progression to out-of-town shopping and superstores; the march of the internet; Lord Prescott’s decision to get rid of Tynedale local authority in favour of a Northumberland county council in Morpeth, which is miles away; and the car-parking inequity in Northumberland: those and many other problems bedevil our high streets. Worst of all, however, is our convenience culture: our innate desire to take the easy path or the soft option, and that leads us to the one-stop shop. All of us, in this room and in life, are guilty of taking that option, but if we do not use our high street, we will lose it.
The reports of the death of our high streets are, however, greatly exaggerated. They remain the beating heart of our communities. They are more than just a row of shops; they and their small business are the heart of our local communities. To be fair, the Government are, as I am sure the Minister will outline, doing good work on extending small businesses rate relief until April 2014 and on changing the planning laws to assist the high street. I strongly approve of those policies, which are helping, and I hope to see improvements in the way the Valuation Office Agency goes about its business, and all of us will have had experience of inequities in that respect as constituency MPs.
Meg Hillier
I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. I know Hexham, and I believe it won an award a few years ago for being the best place to shop in England or the UK—I cannot remember which, but I am sure he will tell me. He sounded a bit gloomy, but perhaps he could share some of the secrets of Hexham’s success so that we can take them back to our constituencies.
Guy Opperman
Watch, listen and learn. The truth is that Hexham has a wonderful high street. As the hon. Lady correctly said, Hexham was named market town of the year in 2005, with a mix of charm, accessibility and community spirit that set it apart from its peers. The judging panel said:
“There is a definite sense here of a town with a pride and a purpose. It is friendly and welcoming, where people matter and visitors are made to feel at home.”
I could go further, but time does not allow me to.
The blunt reality is that the town has suffered the same problems as all other towns. It may have an abbey that has been there since 600, it may have Hadrian’s wall on its doorstep, it may have God’s own county around it and it may have a plethora of wonderful independent retailers, book festivals and music festivals—all manner of good things—but it is not immune to the problems that affect other towns.
That brings us to what individual Members of Parliament and the Government can do. What we can do to address the points that have been identified—this is what I would like to think we are doing in Hexham—is roll up our sleeves and come up with a plan to reinvigorate our high street. With the town council, the county council and the proponents of the town plan and the neighbourhood plan, we have formed an action plan, which we have called “In Hexham, For Hexham”. It sets out six key objectives for restoring the town to its former glory. It takes on some of the good ideas from the Portas review, such as free parking. It looks to employ town centre managers to co-ordinate everything on behalf of retailers. It is transforming sites that welcome visitors, such as the bus station, so that they actually look good. We are cleaning the town, painting the town and planting the town. In those three aspects, there is great scope.
Fundamentally, we are inviting all retailers to give us a wish list of what they would like to see changed, and we are actioning those lists through MPs’ offices and the county council. We are also physically rolling up our sleeves. On 6 July, along with all the retailers, I will be going around the town and smartening it up. That is very much what individual retailers have to do: they must come together and work strongly so that there is positive change in their local area. There is much more I could say, but I hope that, over the coming months, we will see significant and real action to transform Hexham town.
To finish, let me take my cue from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and celebrate Hexham. No less a newspaper than The Guardian, which I obviously read every day, said Hexham remains one of the best places to live in Britain. It informed its readers that Hexham is
“as cute as a puppy’s nose”
and
“as handsome as Clark Gable”—
it was not talking about the MP, I hasten to add. It asked whether my humble home is
“the nicest market town in the known universe”.
Finally, it urged its readers on, saying, “Let’s move to Hexham”. I am not sure what that would do to my majority, but I welcome one and all to come and taste the unique retailing and high street blend that is Hexham in Northumberland.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. Five people are seeking to catch my eye. We have less than 25 minutes before I call the Front Benchers. I therefore urge people to show some self-control and consideration for others so that we can get everybody in.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
From Hexham to Hackney. There are some of the same delights, but also some of the same challenges.
I want to focus particularly on the plans for Mare street and the Narrow way, but we also have Dalston shopping centre, which is a little tired, although there are plans to revamp it, and it is a busy, active level B shopping centre. We have the wonderful Broadway market, which was improved as a result of residents and retailers joining forces, and it has very much become a destination where people meet up. We also have Victoria park, and estate agents have dubbed the surrounding area Victoria Park village. The local food retailers, particularly the Ginger Pig butchers and the local fishmongers, act as anchor stores, helping to attract shoppers who will browse in other shops in the area, such as the excellent Victoria Park Books, and in the local art galleries.
There is also Chatsworth road, which is still on the turn from being a high street with many challenges to one where there are now some quite expensive shops and a nice market with expensive goods. There are still some of the lower-end, cheaper goods, and there is a challenge to make sure the local community is served by having affordable as well as destination shops. Then there is Well street, which has faced many challenges, and which still has some way to go, partly because one local charity owns a lot of the premises, and it has been difficult to turn them over to new retailers, for reasons I do not have time to go into. Finally, there is Hoxton Street market, which is very old and famous. Again, it is being revamped, as part of an attempt to improve our markets.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) summed up Hexham in his own way, and I would sum up Hackney in terms of its three main markets. There is Broadway market, where it costs about £2.50 for a loaf of bread, but people have a great time sitting watching the world go by. There is Ridley Road market, where people can buy traditional fruit and veg, and where retailers have been known to sell bush meat and cane rat, which the council clearly clamped down on very quickly. Parts of the Ridley Road feel very much like a Nigerian market. There is also Hoxton Street market, where you can get three pairs of knickers for a pound—I see you are very interested in that, Mr Davies. However, that sums up the many differences in my constituency, which covers a wide range of people. We then have Kingsland Waste market, which is a sad shadow of its former itself, although there are plans to improve the markets generally.
I want to touch particularly on Mare street and the Narrow way. The council is looking at trying to improve the high street. A recent survey measured the footfall and conducted face-to-face interviews with 478 individuals. It showed that the area is popular for shopping, particularly with people who live nearby, but only 5% of those surveyed planned to meet friends there. That is one of the challenges: this is not a destination that people go to do things other than their basic shopping.
Some of the overall strengths and weaknesses highlighted were quite interesting, and they perhaps sum up the challenges facing high streets up and down the country. The strengths were that there was an established local catchment—so people went there because it was convenient —and great good will and loyalty. It is the main local centre for more than 140,000 consumers—so friendly, not frenzy, Mr Davies, is what you get in Hackney shopping streets. There are many reasons to visit. There are still banks and useful shops. Buses are a key strength: people can get there easily by public transport.
On the negative side, customer numbers appear to be in decline, not just in Mare street and the Narrow way; there are few new customers. We are not getting the destination shoppers we need to increase the footfall. There is little new development. The shop fronts are tired, and the area has been left behind for a long time. Trading is down, which is a sign of the times for all of us on our high streets, and the retailers’ offer is limited—particularly on food and beverages, where provision is particularly poor. The study by the Retail Group for Hackney council concluded that people need more reasons to visit, and more trip generators.
What, then, has the council done to try to improve things? The balance between the roles of the council and Government and of retailers is interesting. The Manhattan Loft Corporation has been brought in by the council and is investing significant amounts of money in a fashion outlet retail centre, close to Mare street and the Narrow way. We have had a Burberry outlet store for many years. The way to tell a Hackney councillor was by their smart mac and fold-up Brompton bicycle; but we now have Aquascutum and Pringle outlet stores recruiting local unemployed people—so that is a boost to jobs, and there are great plans for redevelopment there. Anyone who wants cheap, high-end fashion can come to the new outlet store in Hackney when it is fully developed. There will be a range of developments in the railway arches nearby, and they will entice in local designers for pop-up stores. We are a fashion hub, with some top designers interested in coming to the area. That must all filter through to the old Mare street and the Narrow way, however, to ensure that there is change.
I have two key pleas to make to the Minister. The first is about bookies and change of use—and we have the planning Minister here. I am not against high street bookies, but we have 65 in Hackney and five, I think, in that one high street, so they are too concentrated, and the ease of change of use makes it far too easy for them to open next door to each other. Secondly, we need the Government to think seriously about business rates. I shall not repeat the points that my colleagues have made, but it is a big issue. When businesses tell me that they pay more in business rates than in rent, it is a real issue. No wonder high streets are struggling.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on raising this important subject. It is one about which I am passionate, because my parents ran shops, so after school I often played behind the shop counter. We had wool shops—so I wore ill-fitting jumpers well past the time when it was socially acceptable—and a series of hairdresser’s shops, which were ultimately wasted on me. I am also the vice-chair of the all-party groups on town centres and on retail. I am unashamedly a big fan of Mary Portas and her work. In my constituency, I have organised retail forums and I regularly attend the inSwindon business improvement district company board meetings, working with retailers.
Town centre regeneration on the high street is a major issue in Swindon. We were on the cusp of major regeneration when the 2008 economy crashed, and the developers, as they did across the country, went out of business. However, thankfully, the diggers are now in place. We have a brand new cinema, restaurants and all sorts of regeneration, and it is a huge relief to the town—a town with 300,000 people within 20 minutes of its town centre and 3 million within an hour. It is no coincidence that a £65 million rebuild has just been confirmed for our Oasis leisure centre, because it is so easy to get to Swindon.
We have a McArthurGlen outlet village, which is a model of the retail world. It has been hugely successful and continues to expand at an incredible rate. That is the basis of some of the points I want to make: what works so well for the McArthurGlen outlet village is that it is one centre and one point of contact, so a retailer needs to talk to only one person—not the local authority, or so-and-so the landlord. There is one point of contact, with one set of marketing, employing all the staff and ensuring that customer service is good. If any of the retailers fail to conform, they are out. That improves the customer experience. We have the potential, with the proposals for super-BIDs, to give an organisation such as a BID all the powers in a town centre, treating it a bit like one big shopping centre, making it easier for retailers, and consolidating marketing and promotion.
Several hon. Members have rightly highlighted the importance of parking. Probably the biggest disaster under the previous Government was the obsession with green travel plans, under which councils built on car parks, hiked up parking charges and forced shoppers to use buses. Buses have their place but that decimated town centres. Thankfully my local authority recognised that, and after a 22% fall in footfall in five years, car parking charges were cut. There was praise for that in the Mary Portas review. The charge is now £2 for 4 hours, and, unsurprisingly, there has been an 11% increase in footfall. Crucially, the dwell time has also increased. Over time, reversing that policy has meant collecting more income. Flexibility is vital. From a planning perspective, town centres need to change, so local authorities must accept—this will be music to the Minister’s ears—that they need to be absolutely flexible. In Swindon, whenever developers came along and said, “Look, we want to flip the town centre on a 5° axis,” the local authority said, “No problem at all.” That is why we will get major town centre regeneration.
Several hon. Members have highlighted the problem with business rates. I do not want to repeat arguments, but I know that the British Retail Consortium has done fantastic research on that, and it is true that something is terribly wrong when business rates are higher than rent. Landlords are being flexible and lowering costs. In my constituency I think the cost has gone from £180 to £140 per square foot; but business rates are rigid. I know that in theory local authorities can be flexible, but they do not necessarily have the funding for that. I propose that either we need a system linked to the rent being paid, so that if a landlord is flexible, the business rates would be flexible, or—and this will upset my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—we need to deal with Amazon. It is destroying the high street that is its shop window. There should be some form of internet consumer tax, with the revenue ring-fenced to subsidise the traditional high street business rate case. It will not be popular with Amazon. I met its chief executive and he did not share my view, but that suggests it is probably the right thing to do.
We need the next generation of independent consumers, so that we do not have identikit town centres. I have been doing a huge amount of work to encourage opportunity for young entrepreneurs. Some local authorities have not been quick enough about spending the money that the Government have provided for the high street. There should be opportunities, to give young entrepreneurs a go. I have set up several schemes, which have proved very successful. Mary Portas made a relevant point, which was that retailers got lazy and need to sort their game out. Customer service is crucial. That is why John Lewis has been doing so well. In previous debates I have highlighted businesses in my constituency, such as Bloomfields and the Forum. They have set themselves apart and bucked the trend, and are expanding.
I urge the Minister to remain flexible, promote best practice and work with the all-party groups on town centres and on retail and the British Retail Consortium. Let us be proud that we are a nation of shopkeepers.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing the debate.
As the chair of the all-party group on small shops, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the high street. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) I am the child of shopkeepers. I grew up over the shop—and under the till, half the time. I am proud of the small shops heritage that I have, and which our nation has, as a country of small shopkeepers.
Witham town has had several challenges to its high street, as other towns have, but it is an entrepreneurial community. There is phenomenal good will among the residents and the town team group. Despite the occupancy rate—there are about 114 empty premises in Witham town; it is slightly higher than in other parts of the Braintree district—there is no doubt that with the right amount of support from our local authority and the business community and community groups, we are coming together to innovate and address the town centre challenge differently and creatively.
The Government should be commended for many positive schemes, such as the town team partners initiative, StartUp Britain and the high street innovation fund. For entrepreneurs in particular, who will be the next generation of business leaders in the community, such schemes are engaging.
I should like the Minister to comment on several issues. One of our priorities in Witham town is to reinvigorate the high street by renewing interest in the local market. That includes relocating it to the high street. It is all about location. It will expand the offering and make the high street more attractive. Of course we can consider parking and similar issues, too. I should be grateful if the Minister elaborated on the measures that could be used locally to implement changes successfully—to cut through red tape and some of the local government bureaucracy and barriers that hinder the town team.
Like many town centres, Witham needs investment in its public spaces, and our local community groups coming together to do something about them is one of the greatest areas of recent work. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) mentioned painting and tidying up the local community, and I commend the initiative of the Witham Boys Brigade to plant flowers and tidy up what I call the Witham gateway, which is straight off the A12. Small solutions such as that, once they spread across our towns, bring a great sense of community and enhance the aesthetic values of our communities. Getting businesses and local firms to sponsor such community initiatives is also a great way of involving them.
We have touched on business rates, but I want to discuss the impact of crime on our high streets, in particular on small shops. There is no doubt that crime undermines businesses. It is terribly demoralising for business owners who put their lives into their small shops and high-street businesses. Shopkeepers who work hard to earn every single penny are being threatened by criminals and find their lives and livelihoods being put at risk, which is absolutely awful. I want the Minister to join me in calling on the police, prosecutors and courts to do more. While our law enforcement agencies have good intentions, more should be done to support those setting up businesses and investing their livelihoods in our high streets, and to compel offenders to pay more in fines.
I will leave it there owing to the time, but sending a positive message to businesses about crime should be part of the Government’s wider programme to support our high streets, which includes all the successful measures already put in place.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. We will go to the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.40 pm. That leaves the parliamentary neighbours the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) eight minutes to divide between them.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), is more than happy for me to eat into his time as we are such good neighbours. I thank him for the confirmation I just got from the look on his face.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)—apparently that constituency is in Lancashire —on securing the debate and on much of what he said. Like other speakers, I agree with the comments about the need to deal with business rates, so I will not repeat those arguments. Similarly, I am grateful to my flatmate and hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for making some response to comments of the hon. Member for Rochdale about the previous Government’s planning policies. I sat on a local authority for 10 years and I can say that the planning policies of the time seemed to work against our town centres in many ways, so the failures cut across political divides.
I should also point out that we, as consumers, are hypocrites when it comes to our high streets. We all love them, but how many of us have recently ordered online? How many of us have recently ordered from Amazon? The arms are not going up, but I have no doubt that I am not the only one here to have ordered from Amazon in recent months. Of course, Amazon does employ local people, but we have to understand that we are all slightly hypocritical.
I want to focus on what local authorities can do, because they can play a really positive role. Indeed, the local authorities in my constituency—North Lincolnshire council and East Riding of Yorkshire council—are currently playing positive roles. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) made an excellent speech. Scunthorpe’s is probably the most challenging high street in our area in terms of regeneration, and its difficulties are much more complex. He said that the local Conservative council was edging towards free parking, which is slightly disingenuous given that it was the previous Labour administration that scrapped free parking and imposed charges across north Lincolnshire. It was the Conservative council, when it took control in 2011, that scrapped the charges in Brigg and introduced free parking periods in Scunthorpe, which had never been done before. The hon. Gentleman did at least acknowledge that it was the Conservative council that was behind those measures. The introduction of free parking has made a huge difference in Brigg. Talk to retailers and they will say that the two-hour free-parking period has had a massive impact on the number of people coming into the town. In Epworth, the council has worked incredibly hard to provide 40 extra parking spaces, which was a big boost to its town centre.
Councils need to get a bit smarter about their resources. The council in Brigg has tied together its vision for the high street with its vision for tourism, leisure and heritage and has created a new heritage centre. The library has been moved closer to the town centre, which is now becoming a hive of activity that people want to visit for a whole range of reasons. The previous Labour council was going to close the tourist information centre—[Interruption.] It was consulted on. We have not only refurbished it, but have developed that service even further. There is much that councils can do.
Another scheme that should be considered across the country is the creation of wi-fi hotspots in our town centres, something that North Lincolnshire council is committed to funding. Across in the East Riding of Yorkshire, I have managed to get a local company to offer the service for free in Goole town centre. It is another way of drawing people in with a USP that says, “This is a modern centre.” Shops and cafes can also make use of it. They can have a shop front, but they can also generate online sales and promote themselves that way.
A great deal can be done and I ask the Minister, if he wants to, to come and spend some time in north Lincolnshire and look at what we have done on free parking and on trying to put services back into our town centres. We are currently working on another project with another town in my constituency that I hope will come to fruition soon. Even in these tough times, local authorities can do things to help to bring people back into town centres.
I had plenty more to say, but in fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes I am going to sit down and allow him to talk about his constituency. I ask hon. Members to count how many times he says “England’s premier east coast resort.”
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this debate as the third member of the north Lincolnshire trio. This debate provides an opportunity for us all to showcase our high streets, and I will be no exception to that. First, however, I want to touch on the Portas review, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and others.
As I have said in previous debates, I do not regard the Portas review as a panacea for the revival of our high streets. I do not want to pour cold water on it, but as a former member of a town team for many years, I can assure hon. Members that virtually every idea in the review has been discussed, debated and tried not only on the Grimsby town team, on which I was representing the local authority—like this Government, it was at the time a successful Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition —[Interruption.] I take the applause of the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). My point is that we cannot just assume that reducing parking charges, for example, is the absolute answer. I say that not because I am against it—I would have free parking wherever possible—but the reality is that we at North East Lincolnshire council wrestled with how we were going to deal with the £1 million income that we get from parking charges and set that against the obvious attractions of trying to provide cheaper or free parking. As we heard from the other two north Lincolnshire Members, North Lincolnshire council has come up with a good scheme that contributes considerably towards that, but it is not the absolute panacea.
There is a danger that such debates can turn into a round of “knock the supermarkets,” but let us not forget that, as we heard earlier, supermarkets such as Marks and Spencer and Tesco actually grew from market stalls. Meeting the demands of the consumer is the key here. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe mentioned the Co-op, and I can remember being dragged down Grimsby’s Freeman street by my mother to the Co-op, which was an enormous department store in those days. It dominated the whole shopping centre and was the Tesco of its day. So there has always been a department store, as it were, with everything under one roof, but the independent retailers must be able to compete with that.
Let me turn to Cleethorpes, the pre-eminent resort on the east coast. It has a very successful high street, St Peter’s avenue, which is only a mile and a half from Tesco’s out-of-town development. However, having a mix of shops, including independent shops, that meet consumer demand is the key. Those shops in Cleethorpes are thriving and successful.
As I close, I have one point to put to the Minister. We all recognise that, with changing consumer patterns, there are too many retail units, or former retail units, in every high street and every parade of shops in every town up and down the country. I appreciate that the Government are doing some things in terms of planning to help with the reclassification—change of use, and so on—but what is needed is a scheme to regenerate those properties, to bring them back into use and to prevent the dereliction that plagues so many of our high streets.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Davies, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate. The fact that it is timely, necessary and topical is evidenced by the number of Members who are here in Westminster Hall today. I also thank him for his excellent contribution to the debate, which clearly pointed out the lack of appropriate action being taken by the Government to regenerate our high streets.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) for raising the issue of payday loan companies, which is an issue I will return to later, and my hon. Friend for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for reminding us that the retail sector is very important as an employment base in our constituencies and for offering opportunities to young people. I must also say to him that, having heard his contribution, I now feel I know the members of his town team personally; I hope they appreciate that.
At one point, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) were trying to outdo each other in arguing about which place was the best to visit—Hackney or Hexham—and in particular where the best market was. I have noted their comments for future shopping trips.
Of course, other Members pointed to the need to have greater differentiation on our high streets and to the need to invest in public spaces, and we heard lots of other ideas about how to improve the high street. There were also lots of invitations for the Minister, which I hope he is grateful for.
At the outset, I will say that I do not particularly want to criticise Mary Portas and the approach she has taken. She and the Government were right to flag the challenges that our high streets face from the recession, online trading and out-of-town centres. It was right that we had a focus on the high street and I do not blame Mary Portas for being a celebrity or for wanting to make a TV show. However, I am critical of the Government for not taking this issue seriously enough and for not having an approach to the high street that is capable of meeting the challenges that Mary Portas identified.
I feel a bit sorry for the Minister who is here today—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—because of course he is not the Minister who was responsible for setting the Government’s approach. The Minister who was responsible is the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who has been mysteriously quiet on this issue, which is not at all like him. Of course, he is not here today to answer for the lack of action, but the Minister who is here will know that there is much criticism of the Government’s approach.
Retail expert Paul Turner-Mitchell put it perfectly when he said it is
“wrong to call the winning bids Portas pilots when most town teams were left to their own devices to try and turn things round. The problems on the high street are deeply entrenched and they need serious attention, not an off-the-shelf reality TV approach”.
Indeed, we know that only seven of the current round of Portas pilots have spent any money and that in total—across all 27 town teams—only 12% of the budget has been spent. That points to something going seriously wrong with the Government’s approach and we are entitled to ask what they will do to address the more “entrenched” issues.
The fact is that the Government have seriously let down the Portas pilots, and although those pilots may make good TV the communities that submitted winning bids have not received the support they were promised. Even more seriously, the Government have let down the rest of the country’s high streets and town centres. More than 400 towns competed to become Portas pilots. At the time the pilots were announced, the Minister without Portfolio said that the other areas could learn from their example, but that seems scant consolation now. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) pointed out, perhaps the Government should consider how to make the money that has been put into the Portas pilots go further if it is not being spent by the areas that have already been successful. My question to the Minister is this: what is being done to help the many towns and areas up and down the country that simply do not have any means at their disposal to help them turn their high street around?
We know that this problem is very serious, with as many as one in three shops closed in some areas and 14.2% of shops closed in the country as a whole. Surely it is time for the Government to focus on real policies to support our high streets, rather than on helping to make reality TV shows.
Perhaps that was what was in the Government’s mind last week when they announced changes to use class orders. Members could be forgiven for not noticing that announcement, because this huge change to our policy for the high street was sneaked out in a written ministerial statement, accompanied by regulations that the Government are currently proposing to put through by use of the negative procedure. However, what these changes to use classes could do is to allow virtually any class of commercial premises on our high streets to become any type of shop, fast food restaurant or shop in the euphemistically called “financial and professional services” sector, which, alongside banks and estate agents, includes payday lenders or legal loan sharks and betting shops.
Given that this is an area that the Minister who is here today has responsibility for, I hope he can tell us what was going through his mind when he decided that what struggling high streets need is to make it easier to have more bookies and more payday loan companies sprawl across them. I would like to hear the rationale for that decision today.
Nationally, there are now 20% more payday loan shops and 3.3% more betting shops than there were a year ago, and I do not think there is a huge clamour out there in any of our communities to have any more of those shops; we want fewer of them. They are taking the place of independent retailers, clothes shops and health food shops. There are now more than twice as many betting shops on British high streets as all the cinemas, bingo halls, museums, bowling alleys, arcades, galleries and snooker halls combined. I am sure that the owners of the payday loan companies were jumping for joy when they learned that this year they could accelerate the growth of their businesses without even having to ask permission for a change of use of the buildings they intend to occupy.
That policy is so disastrous that I am not at all sure who the Government think it will help. It certainly will not help independent start-ups, which are hampered—as we know—by the lack of available credit. Somewhat belatedly, the Chancellor seems to have recognised that, in that he has set up a new fund to support small and medium-sized businesses to gain access to credit. However, we also know that the current use class system allows a change of use for a premises in the A class from another type of use to use as a shop. So there are already ample opportunities for empty shops to be used in other ways, or for pop-up shops to be created in empty buildings. The Government should be encouraging that process, rather than the creation of yet more payday loan companies.
Indeed, in that regard it is Labour that is being really localist, because the Minister has effectively, for a period of two years, deregulated use classes on the high street. We want to give local authorities real powers to be able to decide what use classes there are and how they operate on the high street, and to give all our communities a real say in shaping their high street, differentiating it and making it something that local people can be proud of. I want to hear why the Minister has taken the route he has.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate. He brings huge authority to all our debates in the House because of his particular life experience and honest common sense. He is a forensic member of the Communities and Local Government Committee and I am already nervous at the prospect of facing him in a Committee sitting relatively soon.
We can start with some common ground—there may not have been a huge amount of it, but there is some—which is that the importance of our high streets is greater than purely economic. They are not simply businesses; they play a role in our communities as the hub of the social and cultural life of our towns. It is, therefore, important for all of us to find ways to help them adjust to change.
We have heard from all hon. Members who participated in the debate a wide range of stories about many situations, including the fact that people can buy three pairs of knickers for a pound in Hoxton market—I shall be taking up that offer soon, though for which purpose we will not describe now—and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is cuter than a puppy’s nose. I think, Mr Davies, that you will agree that that is a fair description. However, it is interesting that, despite the variety of communities, economic circumstances and geographical locations that have been discussed, a number of common themes have emerged. That is because the changes taking place in our high streets and town centres are not just a reflection of the recent recession, devastating though that has been for some businesses, or of particular Government policies, though those policies over the years have had positive and negative effects, which I will go into, but are a result of some dramatic technological and behavioural changes taking place in society, of which I suspect we have seen only the beginning.
My starting proposition to all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate is that we cannot stand Canute-like and command the waves of technological and social change to turn back. That has been the approach of past Labour Governments in response to industrial changes. That has always been a disaster and has always cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money, and it has never saved anybody their jobs or their livelihoods.
We need to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) suggested and help retailers and high streets, and the local authorities that govern them, to adjust to the shock of the new. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned ways that that is happening in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke about how his town is exploring interesting approaches to tempt new retailers, with new formats and new ways of serving the customer and giving them an offer that competes with the convenience of ordering stuff from their sofas.
What can the Government control and what can they not control? We need to mention business rates. The business rates system is simple. A single amount is raised that is uprated every year by inflation, but by no more, and the increase in a business rate on one business has to be matched by the decrease elsewhere on another business, because the total contribution to the Exchequer is the same and simply increases by inflation.
I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale that in the five years of the Labour Government’s last term, the total take from business rates went up by £4 billion and in the five years of this Government’s term it has increased by a bit more than £2 billion, so there has not been the swingeing increase in business rates that he tried to show. In the meantime, we have introduced a doubling of small business rate relief, which is extended until 2014. That is benefiting a huge number of small retailers. Although business rates will need to be taken into account with regard to the changes that we have been talking about—I do not suggest that the business rates system will not need to change over the medium term—there has been no shift under this Government that might explain the problems faced by our high streets.
Parking is a slightly more relevant issue, in terms of changes that have happened. When it is possible for people to buy whatever they need from their sofa, it needs to be easy and comfortable for them to buy something from a shop. I detected from the physical movements of Opposition Members that even they recognised that the last Labour Government’s policies on parking charges were entirely counter-productive. In backing a rise in parking charges to try to drive people out of their cars, they succeeded. People got out of their cars and got on to their laptops, on their sofas, and bought stuff that way. I am glad to hear many examples of far-sighted Conservative authorities cutting parking charges introduced by Labour authorities, thereby benefiting north Lincolnshire, in Brigg, Scunthorpe and other places, and tempting people back into town centres. That is a constructive approach.
Ultimately, central Government, and sometimes even local government, cannot pretend to themselves that they have within their gift the power to conjure a renaissance in our high streets. This Government believe that all we can do is try to anticipate what is happening and try to liberate, so that people can try out new ways of doing business, and back innovation. Through anticipation we can try to understand how the technological sea change that is taking place will affect people in future. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for this area has set up the future high streets forum to explore the longer-term changes—perhaps slightly longer term than those addressed by previous studies of this problem.
It is in an attempt to liberate that we have introduced the temporary changes to the use class orders and will look at further changes to those orders, to make it easier for local authorities to decide that some retail frontages should benefit from greater permitted development rights. We are saying that no national Government, no planning Minister—neither I, nor the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), should she ever succeed me in this position—and no other Minister can possibly determine what is the right use for a particular property. I would even go so far as to suggest that some local authorities are too slow to adapt to change. They would love, as in France, to declare that particular premises had to be preserved for ever for a baker or a butcher, but unfortunately this is not realistic. It does not work and the state of the French economy is proof enough of that fact. We have to liberate so that they can experiment.
That brings me to the various ways in which this Government are backing innovation, through the Portas pilots, the town team partners, the high street innovation fund and the high street renewal awards. All these measures are helping to back innovative ideas. It is no surprise to hear, yet again, from Labour Front Benchers that they consider the best way of measuring the success of a policy to be how quickly public money has been spent. We do not consider that a measure of success. We consider it prudent of those Portas pilots that have received grant from this Government but have not yet convinced themselves that they have a worthwhile investment to wait until they have worked out something that they think will make an impact.
It is simply not good enough to persist with the approach of the last Government, spraying money around, hoping that some of it will stick and make a difference. Every pound and penny is the earnings of a member of the British public and constituent, and that money should be spent only when the innovation it is supporting will deliver real change.
We all want our high streets to revive, but we should recognise that when they do so, that will be in many different forms across the country and will not look anything like anything any of us grew up with. We should not be afraid of that; we should embrace that future and back those who will bring it about.
Armed Forces (Recruitment Age)
(10 years, 11 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
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies, although I wonder whether, in different circumstances, I might hear you use the words “nanny state” after you hear what I have to say.
I am pleased to secure this debate on a topic that most hon. Members will agree is sensitive and important. I have every respect for the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who has served with distinction in our armed forces and who will respond to the debate, but I am disappointed that the Ministry of Defence could not field a Minister to do so.
That said, I do not consider this a party political question, and Governments of all colours have maintained the status quo. In fact, when I raised the issue during the Armed Forces Public Bill Committee in 2011, the challenges from my own colleagues were even more robust than that from the Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence. The purpose of this debate, however, is to raise the profile of the issue and to ask the Government to consider being the one that makes this much-needed change.
Most people know that the armed services in Britain can recruit from the age of 16 upwards. Most accept it as simply the way things are, but I think many have never really considered what it means to enlist 16 and 17-year-olds and whether the needs of the military really justify that position. It strikes me as amazing that in the 21st century we have 16-year-olds deciding to sign up for the UK’s armed forces—and, in time, for combat roles—when the vast majority of nations across the globe have ended the recruitment of children.
It is correct that recruits do not take part in armed conflict until they are 18, but 16-year-old recruits overwhelmingly enlist into combat roles, so as soon as they turn 18 they can be sent to the front line. Those enlisted as adults are less likely to be in front-line combat positions. I am pleased, however, that following the 2011 Public Bill Committee, the Minister amended the terms of service regulations to allow young people up to the age of 18 to leave the armed services, but he now needs to do more.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
I am most interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Having commanded a company of junior leaders and a battalion of more than 1,000 regular soldiers, I seriously challenge his figures. How can he possibly say that the majority of adults do not go into combat roles and that combat roles rest more with those who are recruited at 16? Nothing in my 25 years as an infantry officer supports that.
Alex Cunningham
I respect the hon. Gentleman and his work in the military. Perhaps he has more knowledge of the matter than I do, but my understanding is that it is less likely for a person who enlists as an adult to be in front-line conflict. I will check my facts and ensure that, if I address the situation again, I am correct.
The time has come to heed the advice of Child Soldiers International, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, UNICEF, the United Nations, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Defence and raise the lowest age of recruitment from 16 to 18.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman before this debate. Through my role in the armed forces parliamentary scheme and my contact as a cadet force representative in Parliament for those in Northern Ireland, over the past 20 years I have met some of the most excellent young men and women. They have tremendous qualities and, having been introduced to the Army at 16, are leaders of men today. With great respect, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can advance this point of view when we all have experience of young people who excel at what they do having being inducted at 16.
Alex Cunningham
I have no doubt that there are young people recruited at a very early age who go on to excel, but there are some people who might have chosen a different path had they been given the opportunity. I will address some of that later in my speech.
There is no similar under-age recruitment in other dangerous public service vocations, such as the fire or police services. Young people under 18 are legally restricted from watching violent war films and playing violent video games, yet they can be trained to go to war.
Not many people realise that having 16 as a minimum recruitment age is hardly typical among developed and democratic countries. In fact, the UK is the only member of the European Union and the only permanent member of the Security Council that still recruits at 16. We are one of only 20 countries that continue to recruit at 16, while 37 countries recruit from the age of 17. We receive the same criticism as several countries that I am sure no one here would want to see us lumped in with.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has asked the Government to
“reconsider its active policy of recruitment of children into the armed forces and ensure that it does not occur in a manner which specifically targets ethnic minorities and children of low-income families”.
I am saddened that such language could be used about our country.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman make a clear distinction between those countries that routinely exploit children as young as 10, 11 and 12 and this country, which recruits 16 to 18-year-olds in non-combat roles where they have an opportunity to change their view of what they want to do at 18 and beyond?
Alex Cunningham
There is a tremendous difference between countries that deploy children as young as 12 or 13, or even younger, and what we do in Britain, but we are still recruiting children into our armed services. Although they do have the opportunity to leave the armed services before the age of 18, they do not have to make that specific decision. I will address that later in my speech.
Despite the recommendations from the various groups I have mentioned, no British Government have yet carried out a feasibility study for an all-adult military. I realise the Minister’s representative cannot speak for previous Governments, but is that something on which the Government will keep an open mind? Is it something that will be considered within the MOD?
I certainly do not wish to denigrate the efforts of our troops and those who serve at the age of 16 and 17. They serve our country proudly and should be congratulated, like all armed service recruits, on their bravery and commitment, but these are decisions that should be made on the basis of as much information as possible and with full adult consent—and I do not mean the signature of a parent or guardian, but young people making their own decision when they reach adulthood.
Alex Cunningham
No, I will not.
In most other walks of life, we would not expect 16-year-olds to make commitments that could potentially endanger their life and safety, and I hope hon. Members agree that the armed services should not be any different, although I again acknowledge the change that means recruits now thankfully have the right of discharge up to their 18th birthday. I also hope that Ministers will agree that someone at that young age is not equipped to take such a serious decision that could bind them to fighting on the front line, in some cases many thousands of miles from home.
That commitment to duty is often made when the recruit is 16 years old, with no obligation proactively to reconfirm their enlistment once adulthood is reached and they can be deployed. We ask an awful lot of our recruits. Teenagers are significantly less mature emotionally, psychologically and socially, and young people from deprived backgrounds, who form the majority of under-age recruits, are particularly vulnerable. It can be no coincidence that recruits who sign up as minors suffer higher rates of alcoholism, self-harm and suicide than those who enlist as adults.
Aside from the moral rights and wrongs of tying children to service at a later date, there is a compelling fiscal case for an all-adult military. Based on data from the MOD compiled by ForcesWatch, the cost of recruiting and successfully training those aged 16 to 17-and-a-half is between 75% and 95% higher than for adults. The longer period of initial training, at 23 weeks or 50 weeks, is enormous compared with the 14 weeks for adults.
According to the latest report of Child Soldiers International, “One Step Forward,” the annual saving of increasing the armed services recruitment age could be up to £94 million, which is enough to fund more than 24,000 civilian apprenticeships. I doubt the MOD wants to surrender even more of its budget, so that cash could instead be used elsewhere to offset the cuts that will see it reduce its regular fighting force from 102,000 to 82,000 by 2017.
I do not want to make my case on the basis of cost savings, but I hope that those who are more motivated by fiscal concerns will see the scope for assisting with the MOD’s commitment to cutting its costs. If the Minister’s representative is not convinced by my argument, or interested in the substantial savings, he may be motivated to make changes because of their political appeal. In March 2013, ICM asked respondents what they thought the minimum age should be to join the forces. Some 70% of those who expressed an opinion said it should be 18, so there may well be votes for him and his colleagues in a change.
There are also issues of long-term social mobility and employability to consider. I have no doubt the Minister’s representative will rehearse the well-worn argument that the Department uses of giving employment and training opportunities to young people who may otherwise be unemployed. The fact is, however, that most 16-year-olds are not in the market for work. In 2009-10, 94% of 16-year-olds stayed on in education. Others may argue that the armed forces provide for young people who come from difficult home circumstances, from a background of suffering abuse or simply because they have been thrown out on the streets. As I argued during the Armed Forces Bill Committee nearly three years ago, the armed forces must not be seen as some kind of escape route from abuse or unemployment. As a nation, we need to develop the support and services young people need, rather than holding up the armed forces as an easy option so early in life.
While I am pleased that the Army continues to set targets for functional skills qualifications in literacy and numeracy, the case can be made that young recruits would be much better served by the state education system in developing those skills. A higher minimum recruitment age would mean that young people need not choose between a higher standard of post-16 education and armed service.
Our country would be better served by an all-adult military. Is it right that many soldiers serving in Afghanistan find themselves there due to a decision they took when they were still children? It is a decision that many would have reversed in adult life, had they been given the chance. We should listen to what the United Nations and the Joint Committee on Human Rights are saying, and join with the overwhelming majority of nations worldwide, which have stopped recruiting children—that is what they are: children—and have raised the age to 18 and upwards. We could do it because it would save the Government money or because it would be popular, according to the polls, but I hope we do it because it is the right thing to do and so that we can leave the military to adults.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mark Lancaster)
It is a pleasure to be able to respond to this debate, and I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing it. I acknowledge his genuine concern about the recruitment age for armed forces personnel and, in particular, the recruitment of those under the age of 18. I fondly recall serving with him on the Armed Forces Bill Committee a couple of years ago and to his credit he has been consistent in his view; he raised this issue then.
Let me begin, however, by reminding the House that there is no compulsory recruitment into the armed forces. All those under the age of 18 are volunteers and the Ministry of Defence takes pride in the fact that our armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people while in service, as well as after they leave. The armed forces remain the UK’s largest apprenticeship provider, equipping young people with valuable and transferable skills for life.
I declare an interest, because I applied to join the Army before the age of 18. I went through a regular commissions board, and I made an informed choice to join the Army when I was still a minor. Although I did not attend Sandhurst until shortly after my 18th birthday—a short course for the type of commission I was undertaking—I recall my time in the regular Army while I was a teenager with great pride and a sense of satisfaction. That may in part be due to my posting to Hong Kong, but that is another matter.
I thought it would be useful for the House if I set out our recruitment policy. The minimum age for entry into the UK armed forces reflects the normal minimum school leaving age of 16, and although changes under the Education and Skills Act 2008 are being progressively introduced between 2013 and 2015, the minimum statutory school leaving age will remain at 16. Participation in education or structured training will be mandatory until 18. In the services, all recruits who enlist as minors and do not hold full level 3 qualifications are enrolled on an apprenticeship scheme unless their trade training attracts higher level qualifications. All undertake structured professional education as part of their initial military training and therefore automatically fulfil their duty to participate under the new regulations. No change in policy is required.
Many individuals who join under the age of 18 are not academically high achievers and the duty of care and the training that the armed forces provide enhances their self-esteem and prospects for their whole working life, within or without the services.
Alex Cunningham
I think I omitted this part of my speech, but I wonder whether the actual educational outputs for young soldiers are poor. What will the Government do to drive up the amount of education, so that they have transferable skills when they leave the armed forces? We find that so many of them do not have those skills.
Mark Lancaster
I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In my experience as a Royal Engineer, I commanded some young soldiers. The standard of the training in the secondary skills they obtain, be it in bricklaying or plumbing or as an electrician, was second to none. I experienced that first hand, so I do not agree with his point.
Patrick Mercer
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. While I absolutely applaud many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), not least the financial argument, which I partially buy, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is difficult to recognise the element of despair that the hon. Gentleman brings into his arguments? It is as though these individuals have no choice and their backgrounds are so dreadful that it is either prison or the street. It is as though the Army is a bad alternative to those things. My experience commanding junior soldiers and regular adults was just the opposite. Juniors in particular were treated with kid gloves and not a single soldier in the infantry ever went on operations if they did not want to.
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which I agree with. I fully respect the position of the hon. Member for Stockton North, but, with the greatest respect to him, I am not sure that his concerns are borne out by our experiences of service within the armed forces. I will return shortly to the point, not least the cost-benefit aspect.
We fully recognise the special duty of care that we owe to under-18s, and commanding officers have had that made clear to them. Our recruiting policy is absolutely clear. No-one under the age of 18 can join the armed forces without formal parental consent, which is checked twice during the application process. In addition, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to engage with the recruiting staff during the process. Once accepted into service, under-18s have the right to automatic discharge as of right at any time until their 18th birthday, as the hon. Member for Stockton North said. All new recruits who are under the age of 18 and have completed 28 days’ service have a right to discharge within their first three to six months of service if they decide that the armed forces is not a career for them. All service personnel under the age of 18 have the right to leave the armed forces before their 18th birthday, following an appropriate cooling-off period. It is not in the interests of either the individual or the services to force them to stay where they are not happy.
MOD policy is not to deploy personnel under the age of 18 on operations. Service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on any operation outside the UK, except where the operation does not involve them becoming engaged in or exposed to hostilities. I am aware of instances where minors have inadvertently entered operations, but on those occasions we have taken immediate action to correct any breach of policy as soon as it has been discovered.
The total number of armed forces personnel under the age of 18 was 3,130 in 2011-12. The majority of them were in training. That figure breaks down to 90 in the Navy, 2,930 in the Army and 110 in the Royal Air Force. There is evidence to suggest that those joining at a younger age remain in service for longer and that under-18s in the Army achieve higher performance based on their earlier promotion. For example, when we looked at the 2001 intake of junior entrants, we found that the number still serving after six years was 44%, compared with only 33% of those who joined when they were over the age of 18. For the same intake, 23% of junior entrants reached the rank of lance-corporal or corporal, compared with 16% of the standard entry cohort. Figures for other cohorts reinforce that picture. Evidence clearly shows that junior entrants are likely to serve longer and to achieve higher rank than some senior entrants, so the additional costs incurred in their training reap considerable benefits for the service, the individual and society as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman said, that additional cost is recouped because, generally, the individual remains in service for longer: an additional three years for the infantry, four years for Royal Engineers, Royal Signals and Army Air Corps, and 10 years for the Intelligence Corps and the Corps of Army Music.
I am sure that some Members are aware that the services are among the largest training providers in the UK, with excellent completion and achievement rates. Armed forces personnel are offered genuine progression routes, which allow them to develop, gain qualifications and play a fuller part in society, whether in the armed forces or in the civilian world. In the naval service and the Royal Air Force, initial military training is conducted on single sites and, because of the smaller scale, no distinction need be made in the training provided to those under age 18. In the Army, phase 1 training for under-18s, the basic military training course, is completed at the Army foundation college, where the facilities have been specifically designed for this age group. The training courses last either 23 or 49 weeks, both of which are longer than the basic over-18s course, dependent on the length of subsequent specialist training. Since junior entrants are likely to serve longer and achieve higher rank than some senior entrants, as discussed, the additional costs incurred can reap long-term benefits.
Our duty-of-care policy for under-18 entrants is laid down in a defence instruction and covers the duty-of-care obligations of commanding officers, together with welfare, mentoring and discharge regulations. This is a comprehensive document, setting out for the chain of command the many aspects of a commanding officer’s responsibility for addressing the particular issues that can affect those under the age of 18. It makes clear that the care and welfare of under-18s require particular attention by the chain of command. It refers to the supervisory care directive, through which commanders are to set out for their environment, based on risk assessments, the processes that are to apply in caring for the particular vulnerability of young recruits. Commanders are to ensure that they comply with the wider legislation, which prohibits under-18s from purchasing or consuming alcohol, from gambling or from purchasing cigarettes and tobacco. Commanders are to ensure that they maintain appropriate contact with parents and guardians, and not only when there is the possibility that the recruit wishes to leave the service. The policy is regularly reviewed, to ensure in particular that it keeps pace with changes in legislation as they affect young people.
All recruits enlisted as minors who do not hold full level 3 qualifications are enrolled on an apprenticeship scheme, unless their trade training attracts higher-level qualifications. The time taken to complete the apprenticeship varies according to the programme being followed, but completion rates are high. There are two levels of apprenticeship: intermediate, which is equivalent to GCSEs at grades A to C; or advanced, which is equivalent to A-level. Additionally, while in service, all armed forces personnel, subject to meeting certain qualifying criteria, can claim financial support for education under the standard learning credit scheme and the enhanced learning credit scheme.
Inevitably, some recruits leave the armed forces after a relatively short period. All service leavers, regardless of their length of service, can attend housing and financial management briefings to assist their transition to civilian life. In addition, those with less than four years’ service are entitled to advice on the type of state and voluntary and community sector assistance available to them post-discharge. I am aware of the criticism made of the support available to armed forces personnel who decide to leave. In recognition that we can do more for early service leavers, an enhanced package of resettlement for those having served less than four years has been trialled. Those trials have recently ended and the results are being evaluated. The evaluation will help to decide what resettlement provision for early service leavers should be made available. Furthermore, all service leavers, regardless of how long they have served, are entitled to lifetime job-finding support through either the Officers’ Association or the Regular Forces Employment Association.
In conclusion, it is important to state that under-18s who choose to join the armed forces are an important and valuable cohort among those starting their military career. We invest strongly in them and they repay that investment with longer service and high achievement. The duty of care for that cohort is paramount, and we are regularly inspected by Ofsted. Their training and education are clearly first class, and our policies on under-18s in service are robust and comply with national and international law. We remain fully committed to meeting our obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The armed forces provide prestigious and respected career opportunities for young men and women who may not have achieved the same in civilian life. We shall not deny them that opportunity.
Marine Conservation Zones
(10 years, 11 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
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies. I requested this debate on marine conservation zones so that, in the short time available, other Members may also intervene; one or two have indicated that they would like to do so. My remarks are directed at the consultation on marine conservation zones and in particular at how the proposals affect Hythe bay in my constituency.
Everyone has an interest in a sustainable fishing industry, which can support many generations for decades to come, fishermen most of all, because they require a sustainable industry for their families and themselves to work in. That applies in particular to fishermen who work in areas such as Hythe bay, which is operated by the inshore fishing fleet of boats of less than 10 metres long. They are largely family businesses, and in Hythe bay we have a number of them along the 20 miles or so of the shore, in Dungeness, Hythe and Folkestone. Not only do they employ people directly in the fishing industry—catching in the boats and at sea—but onshore businesses rely on their work as well.
The fishing businesses sell directly to restaurants and food businesses in Kent and throughout the country and to the public. Such businesses include Griggs of Hythe, which was listed among Rick Stein’s food heroes, or M. & M. Richardson of Dungeness, which was on the 2009 national short list for the BBC good food awards for food retailer of the year. Fish landed in Folkestone and sold through Folkestone Trawlers supply many restaurants, in particular Mark Sargeant’s new restaurant in Folkestone, which is popular, and selling locally caught fish is a significant part of what it offers.
Hythe bay has been fished for thousands of years, probably for as long as men have been at sea in boats. Hythe and New Romney, both cinque port towns, have been represented continuously in Parliament since the first Parliament was called in the 13th century. Fishing is not only an industry for Hythe bay, but an important part of its culture and heritage, which is why I and others throughout the constituency who do not work directly in the fishing industry take the issue incredibly seriously and are as one in support of the fishermen in their concerns.
Those concerns have been brought about by the proposals published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the consultation on the marine conservation zones and where they are to be established around the country. A particular concern is that the proposed Hythe bay marine conservation zone is to be set at a “recover”, rather than a “maintain” level. The fishermen do not have any objection to strong environmental standards to maintain the important habitat in the bay, but they think that that is being done successfully already. They would be happy with a marine conservation zone set at a level of “maintain”, but not “recover”, which suggests that there is a problem at the moment, and would prevent direct commercial fishing in that area. That applies not only to commercial fishing, but to fishing by many of the individuals who sea fish as a pastime, which is popular in Hythe bay and a source of considerable tourism to the area.
The main purpose of the marine conservative zone, as set out as part of the consultation, is to preserve the spoonworm, which lives in the sand in Hythe bay. It is very small and many of those who have fished in those waters all their lives have never seen one, but this is the habitat that Natural England is seeking to protect and was the object of its concern in the consultation on marine conservative zones. However, recent surveys commissioned by the Government show that there has been a near 100% increase in the local spoonworm population over the past decade, and that numbers in sand samples have increased from 800 per square metre to 1,400 per square metre. That suggests a conservation success story in Hythe bay: the fishermen understand that the delicate balance of creatures living in the waters is important to the fish and shellfish they catch, and it is being properly maintained.
Folkestone Trawlers showed me the equipment that the fishermen use to fish in Hythe bay, which is not heavy dredging trawlers and nets. The relatively small boats use light nets that skim across the surface. They have no interest in churning up the sea bed. The association pointed out that movement of the sea bed is perfectly natural. This area of water in the English channel was heavily defended during the first and second world wars and it is not unusual, particularly during storms at sea, for ordnance or even old mines from those wars to come up to the surface undetected because of the natural movement of the sea bed. There seems to be little evidence at the moment that disturbance of the spoonworm, which Natural England is seeking to protect, should give rise to concern.
A second concern that is incredibly important to the geography of Hythe bay, which is the coast that guards Romney marshes, is that a large area of the marshes is below sea level. They are important for sea and coastal defences. Some are maintained by major sea walls, such as that at Dungeness, but many are maintained by management of the high water mark shore, which is largely shingle. The shingle banks are moved and replenished as part of the natural work of sea defence that the Environment Agency conducts throughout the year.
It is proposed that the landward boundary of the marine conservation zone being set at the high water mark would be within the area that needs to be maintained, and is considered to be part of the one-in-200-years risk that is maintained along that part of the coast. It could mean that special licences are required for that basic work of rebuilding the shingle sea defences along that part of the coast, or even that that work could be prohibited. If so, new flood defences would be required at perhaps much greater cost to the Environment Agency or the Government or, worse, homes that are currently protected by the work may be in jeopardy. Clearly, that would not be acceptable to residents following the consultation on the marine conservative zones.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I know nothing about my hon. Friend’s constituency, the case for the spoonworm, or the shingle banks, but having taken marine conservative legislation through Parliament as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I know that it was carefully put together. He is absolutely right that it is not obligatory to consult industries such as the fishing industry or to involve it in the management plans for the marine conservation zones. Does he agree that the Government must ensure that those industries are fully involved in the negotiation of the management plan which then underpins the marine conservation zones that he is eager to defend, as I am?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and goes to the heart of the matter. Fishermen are not against marine conservation. Their livelihood depends on its being managed successfully, but they are worried about the specific proposals for Hythe bay and their impact, and do not believe that that level of intervention is justified. They have been concerned about the consultation process and whether the industry’s views have been listened to. I was shown an e-mail exchange by the Kent Wildlife Trust, which has supported marine conservation zones as constituted. It included a telling e-mail from a former fisheries liaison officer, who said of the consultation:
“The Hythe Bay”
marine conservation zone
“was originally proposed by a staff member of the Kent Wildlife Trust…during a Regional Stakeholder Group…meeting in London. The proposal received little support from other stakeholders and was totally opposed by all fishing industry representatives (this area being of vital importance to all the fishing fleets ranging geographically from Hastings to Ramsgate).”
He continued:
“At no stage during the stakeholder-involved Balanced Seas”
marine conservation zone
“process was there support for the whole proposed Hythe Bay”
marine conservation zone
“to be ‘recover’ as opposed to ‘maintain’”.
It is equally not the case that, during the consultation process, the fishermen opposed establishing any areas of protection. The local fishermen had proposed a zone between Dover and Folkestone that is not heavily fished, which they would be happy to set aside as a conservation zone. However, that recommendation was rejected as part of the consultation process and, instead, they were asked to accept restrictions in a zone that they were seeking particularly to defend and protect, and on which their livelihoods depend.
Other information from the Kent Wildlife Trust, which is part of its recommendation on Hythe bay, is telling about the conservation of the area and the success story there. It says:
“Hythe Bay is fortunate in having been the subject of a”
long-term
“series of surveys by the Environment Agency, with samples from the 20 point stations being processed by Heriot-Watt University Institute”
of Offshore Engineering. The surveys
“found an unusually rich assemblage of species to be present in the Bay”.
To my mind, that suggests a great success story of management of that water.
I believe we must have a very robust scientific case even to think about changing the status of that water because the livelihood of an entire fishing industry—the inshore fishing fleet in Hythe bay—depends on that consultation and what happens. What must not be allowed to happen is that people’s livelihood is jeopardised on someone’s hunch that some intervention is possible, based on surveys that were conducted not in Hythe bay, but elsewhere in United Kingdom waters, and not based on a robust study of the problem in those waters. People want a robust, clear scientific argument to be the basis of any decision, and unless that scientific argument can be made, the status of the conservation zone in Hythe bay should be set at “maintain” rather than “recover”.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. He says that Hythe bay is already a well-preserved marine environment, but have the Government’s own statutory nature conservation bodies not advised that 58 of the 127 originally proposed zones were vulnerable to immediate damage and that Hythe bay was one if action was not taken?
Damian Collins
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I do not believe that there is any evidence to support it. The evidence from the Government’s own survey suggests that the spoonworms, which they are seeking to protect, are recovering strongly. The Kent Wildlife Trust’s submissions made it clear that it was not party to the latest survey information.
We must not gamble on the matter. If a case could be made to show that the waters in the area are causing grave concern, and that there is a real conservation risk that would impact in the near term on the biodiversity of the waters in Hythe bay, in turn on the local fish and shellfish populations, and then on local fishermen’s livelihoods, the debate would be viewed in a different way. Families are worried that the waters on which they depend will become unavailable and drive them out of business altogether, or drive them to seek new waters elsewhere along the channel coast, moving to already congested fishing areas around Rye and down the coast. They are worried that such a decision will have to be taken without a clear and robust scientific case behind it. That case does not seem to exist.
Fishermen are conscious of the fact that they fish in a special area of water and that it is of great interest because of its rich biodiversity. They are happy for it to continue to be monitored and studied, but they believe that the level should be set at “maintain” and not “recover” because the case is simply not there for a recovery plan to be put in place, and if it was, it could have devastating consequences for businesses and the fishing heritage of the coast.
I have had meetings as part of my discussions with the fishing industry with Fisherman’s Beach in Hythe, Ken Thomas and councillor Tony Hills of Lydd, who represent the fishermen from Hythe, Lydd and Dungeness, and with Folkestone Trawlers to get the views of fishermen in Folkestone, who also fish in Hythe bay. A petition has been raised, which was signed quickly by more than 1,000 residents. I presented it to Downing street with Councillor David Monk, who is the leader of Shepway district council, the local authority.
As part of our submission to the Government—I have also made a formal submission as part of the consultation on marine conservation zones—we have requested that serious consideration be given to the argument for the zone being set at “maintain” rather than “recover”. We have also asked whether the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has responsibility for fisheries, could meet the fishermen, see the waters that they fish and the type of equipment that they use, in order to understand the local case that they are making. They tried, as part of the initial consultation, to make the case—they felt that it was not listened to—about other waters that may be more suitable, why the special nature of Hythe bay needs to be protected and maintained, and that we should not lose the important inshore fishing fleet, which has been part of the culture, heritage and the economy of the south-east Kent coast for many centuries.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I remind colleagues that permission should be sought from the Member who secures the debate and from the Minister. The Minister has indicated that he is happy for other people to speak briefly, if that will help.
Dr Coffey
Thank you, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing extra contributions.
On marine conservation zones, people generally agree that it is important to protect our seas. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe was discussing the importance of his fishing community. My own fishing community has been part of aspects of the Greenpeace and the Fish Fight campaign about protecting diversity. However, in my constituency, there has been local uproar in Aldeburgh, Orford and surrounding areas about the potential designation of the Alde and Ore estuary. That, again, as my hon. Friend referred to, is based on flawed evidence.
There are different examples—the Alde and Ore has three or four characteristics, one of which relates to smelt. However, there has only been one sighting of smelt in eight surveys over five years, and partly that is because it is not a freshwater river. Smelt is normally found in those areas, and although local fishermen have seen it once, that was deemed to be because it was chasing its food stock. The issue of being a rocky habitat beggars belief locally. It is believed that the rocky habitat now deemed so special was ballast tossed off barges about 40 years ago—they are, literally, big circular discs. There is astonishment that that can now be treated as something special and grounds on which to curtail activity. In terms of muddy gravels, no evidence has been supplied. More work is going on in that area.
With all that is happening, the Marine Management Organisation is getting in on the act and causing quite a lot of concern for local activities—whether it is painting the lines for racing, or repairing a patch on the slipway. We were promised by DEFRA—and the Department has delivered—that some deregulation would be undertaken by the MMO, but not if the area is in a designated MCZ. Some small activities are being hampered or cost a lot of money to fulfil. I also refer to the larger one in the Stour and Orwell estuaries.
There is no doubt that my constituency—about 40% is designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty—has almost any designation that we can think of. There are Ramsar sites and special protection areas, and all those different things. The port of Felixstowe has been able to work alongside precious habitat nearby to ensure that that is preserved. At the same time, while trying to continue as a commercial port, the marine conservation zone suggested for the area throws blanket coverage over the entire estuary, which is causing great consternation among the Harwich Haven Authority and the port about future activity. At the moment, certain areas where there is special designation are protected, and that should be respected, but I am very concerned that some unintended consequences of what is notably a good policy—trying to restore and conserve parts of our seas—may cause big problems for my constituents and their businesses in future.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate and on the careful way that he presented the case for his constituency.
I want to make three brief points. First, fishermen are not the only stakeholders in this. Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) that fishermen should be more involved in the process, their views are not the only ones that the Government have to take into consideration.
Secondly, marine conservation zones work, and that is proved by the marine protection areas that have been extremely successful on the west coast of north America. There is also some evidence of the success of marine conservation zones around Arran and the Isle of Man in Europe.
Mr Bradshaw
Is the hon. Gentleman also aware of research commissioned by the recreational anglers? It shows that fishing interests are not always allied. Sometimes the commercial fishing sector can be in conflict with the recreational sector, and the recreational sector, in many parts of the country, brings more income in to those local communities.
Mr Sanders
The right hon. Gentleman is correct. There are also divers and other people using the seas who contribute financially to the economies of the local areas concerned.
My third and final point—I hope that the Minister will refer to this—is the fact that we have to judge marine conservation zones as a whole, not individually. The network is crucial to their success. By altering one, we perhaps diminish the potential success of the concept as a whole.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate. I should immediately apologise for the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who cannot be here this afternoon. In some recompense for his absence, I make it immediately plain to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that the Minister has offered to come and meet him, and to talk to his constituents to understand the factors in his constituency better. I hope that that goes some way towards entering into the necessary dialogue. Whether I am at liberty to extend that invitation on the Minister’s behalf to Suffolk Coastal as well, I am not sure, but knowing my hon. Friend, I am sure that he would have no problem entering discussions with the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).
Perhaps it will be sensible if I outline the purpose of marine conservation zones, as we see it. The UK has a large marine area, which is rich in marine life and natural resource. Our seas are not just places of important biological diversity; they provide us with a variety of goods and services that are important for our social, economic and environmental well-being.
The Government are committed—in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders)—to contributing to the development of an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. However, we have been clear that we want successful, well-managed sites, created in the right places in the right way, and not only lines on maps. We have to get this right so that our seas are sustainable, productive and healthy, and to ensure that the right balance is struck between conservation and important industries.
MCZs are a new form of marine protected area provided for under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The new MCZs are part of a wider agenda for protecting the important habitats and species in our seas. They will complement other marine protected areas —special protection areas, special areas of conservation, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites—to contribute to a coherent network in our seas. About 24% of English inshore waters, out to 12 nautical miles, and more than 8% of the UK sea area are already established as marine protected areas to protect important habitats and species. In the UK, there are already 107 special areas of conservation, 107 special protection areas for birds with marine components, and 377 coastal SSSIs.
That is the overall framework in which we are working. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe is concerned, quite properly, on behalf of his constituents, about the balance that we must strike in his area between the interests of his constituents and their economic future, and the need for effective ecological support. I understand that. I am also well aware of the concerns that are being expressed in relation to the proposed site at Hythe bay and the “recover” conservation objective. An official from my Department attended a local meeting during the consultation to hear those concerns. Officials are currently reviewing the responses to the consultation, including considering evidence provided, and we will respond to the consultation in the summer.
Let me go back to the overall picture. The four regional stakeholder projects did some very good work to provide an initial list of proposals. We do not think it appropriate to designate all 127 site recommendations straight away, because of weaknesses in the evidence base for many of the sites noted by the DEFRA-appointed science advisory panel in its review of the recommendations. However, we have since committed additional resources to plugging those gaps and, in the consultation, we proposed pressing ahead with the first 31 sites that we considered suitable for designation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will announce the timetable for future designations of MCZs later this year.
We are aware of the concerns that some people have raised about evidence standards. Adequate evidence is vital. Without it, it is impossible to define the management measures necessary and take effective conservation action. We want to see that happen quickly after designation. There will be no prospect of securing agreement from other member states to regulate the activities of their fishermen where this is required in waters beyond our 6-mile limits. We would also lack a proper justification for the regulatory burden placed on business or the enforcement and monitoring costs that fall on the taxpayer. That is why the evidence is essential.
The impact assessment that accompanied the consultation gave an indication of the costs and benefits of possible management measures for all the sites and provided a good indication of what might be expected. The management measures noted in the impact assessment were provided for illustrative purposes and to allow for the calculation of a range of potential cost implications for each site. Consultees were invited to comment on those in responding to the consultation and provide additional information to facilitate a better understanding of the possible implications of site designation and to help to refine associated costs. Management measures were not being consulted on at that stage. When an MCZ is designated, that does not automatically mean that economic or recreational activities on that site will be restricted. Restrictions on an activity will depend on the sensitivity of the species and habitats for which a site is designated to the activities taking place in that area and on the conservation objectives for those features.
Andrew George
I know that my hon. Friend cannot make up policy on the hoof in the absence of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but the Act says that the Government are required to consult on the designation, although it does not say that the Government or the MMO is required to consult on the management plan. Would the Minister be prepared to say that he will ensure that the Department makes sure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to be consulted on the management plan as it applies within the new MCZs?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would not make up policy on the hoof even if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was here, because that is not the way we do things in our Department. That said, the actual management measures will be drawn up separately and put in place by the relevant public authorities after designation and will be open for consultation, as appropriate, before they are implemented. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) that that is exactly what will happen.
This is particularly relevant to the point raised by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe, where there is a dispute about the evidence. I accept that the evidence at the moment is generic across the Hythe bay area. That is why we need more information about what is happening. Within the site, a rich sea pen and burrowing megafauna community is present in the soft sediment, which is presumed to be continuous across Hythe bay, based on data from sample points taken annually over a 10-year period. That is why the site is considered overall to be a biodiversity hot spot within the balanced seas area, but we need more information on exactly what is happening within that site.
Damian Collins
On that point, does the Minister agree that it would be wrong to change the designation of the area unless there was very clear scientific evidence as to why that change needed to be made?
Mr Heath
The precautionary principle suggests that we should do the reverse—that we should up the level of designation until such time as we can be confident that we will not be damaging the very ecological factors that give rise to the designation in the process—so that is the approach that we take, but it is sensitive to the information that we receive from the hon. Gentleman’s local fishermen, among others, who will have a deep interest in and knowledge of the seas with which they are familiar. We need to look at that, along with all the scientific evidence, and then make a subsequent assessment of how to manage the site. That will be based, as I said, on the real factors. What is there? What is its value? What would be the potential damage from unregulated activity on that site? That would apply to any site.
The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal was a little dismissive of ballast thrown overboard being a valuable habitat. I have to tell her that it can be an extremely valuable habitat if it is colonised by the right species and has therefore formed an ecosystem that is worthy of preservation. The derivation of the rocky material on the sea bed is not the issue. The issue is what is then growing on that material and how it relates to the surrounding environment.
I am not prejudging the hon. Lady’s case. I know nothing about the sites off Suffolk Coastal and I have not been briefed, because I was not aware that she was coming this afternoon, but I promise her that the same considerations will apply to her site as will apply to that of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe in ensuring that we have the right information on which to base a reasoned argument. That really is the answer, and I am sure that it is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say when he goes to Hythe to discuss these issues. Let us look at the evidence, see what the appropriate designation is and work with those who have a specific interest in those waters—of course that includes the fishing community—to arrive at something that will work for everyone concerned. There is a very heavy responsibility on Government to get this right.
I have no responsibility directly for fishing and maritime policy at the moment, but I was involved at the very start of this process, back in the 1980s, when I was arguing on behalf of the World Wide Fund for Nature for conservation of our seas. At that time it was not even being thought of, but we are now at a highly developed stage in the process, where we have something that is realistic and holistic around our island nation, and it is really important that we get it right.
To recap, the public consultation was launched on 13 December 2012 and closed on 31 March 2013. It gave stakeholders the opportunity to comment and provide more evidence on the proposed sites before final decisions are made. DEFRA received more than 40,000 responses to the public consultation. The evidence received from the public consultation, along with other evidence collected since the statutory nature conservation bodies submitted their advice in July 2012, is being evaluated and will be taken into consideration before Ministers make their final decisions on which sites to designate in the first tranche.
The Government remain committed to the development, as I said, of an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. Now that the public consultation has closed, we aim to publish our response in the summer before making final decisions on which sites to designate in the first tranche this year. These zones are not the sum of our ambition: we expect to be taking forward more sites in the next phase. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury will announce the timetable for future designations of MCZs later this year.
The area of Hythe is a vital one. We want to get this right. I can assure the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that we will make strenuous efforts to listen to what his constituents have to say and to the views of others with specialist knowledge in this area, and I hope that we will reach the right decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Visual Effects Industry
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
As announced at Budget 2013, the Government are today launching a consultation on options to provide further support for the visual effects industry through the tax system.
The UK has historically been one of the global centres for visual effects production, and is currently home to a number of world-renowned and award-winning visual effects studios making a significant contribution to British culture.
The visual effects sector makes a valuable economic and cultural contribution to the UK, supporting the performance of the wider digital and creative content sectors. This includes the film, animation, high-end television and film industries, which the Government aim to support through their targeted creative sector tax reliefs. The Government are therefore keen to explore the need for Government measures to address any reported decline within the UK visual effects industry.
The consultation published today invites views from individuals, companies, and representative and professional bodies on options to provide further support for the visual effects industry through the film tax relief as well as alternative spend and tax options to support the sector. Copies of the consultation document have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
This initial stage of consultation closes on 2 July 2013. The Government will take all responses into account.
HM Revenue and Customs Brief
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
On 25 March HMRC published HM Revenue and Customs brief 04/13, which clarified the tax position of some regular payments to fund investors made by persons other than the fund itself. The brief stated that these payments, which are usually characterised by industry as rebates of the annual management charge, are taxable and should be subject to withholding tax and then further taxed as necessary at the investor’s marginal rate.
It has been brought to the Government’s attention that offshore investors also frequently receive such “rebates”. Given the legal position, this means that tax should now also be withheld on rebates paid to offshore investors.
However, unlike distributions to domestic investors, offshore investors are not normally subject to withholding tax on either interest or equity distributions. The “rebates” paid to investors are economically similar to additional distributions from the fund. Collecting withholding tax for offshore investors may therefore create distortions in how different forms of distribution from the fund are treated for tax purposes.
This difference could have a profoundly negative impact on the international competitiveness on the UK funds industry. Imposing a requirement to withhold tax would therefore be at odds with the Government’s investment management strategy, published at Budget 2013. The Government are determined to improve the UK’s competitive position as a centre for investment management.
The Government have therefore decided to ensure that this unintended consequence of the law as clarified by revenue brief 4/13 does not create inconsistencies in the tax system or impact on UK competitiveness.
The Government will imminently publish two short statutory instruments amending the Authorised Investment Funds (Tax) Regulations 2006 and also The Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009. These will remove the duty to withhold tax from “rebates” of the annual management charge in most cases where these payments are made to investors who are not UK resident for tax purposes.
Following a four-week consultation period, the Government expect to lay the regulations, setting out the detailed rules, subject to the usual parliamentary process.
Regional Growth Fund
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
Round 4 of the Regional Growth Fund closed in March and we received 309 bids, competing for a share of £350 million. The region which submitted the most bids was the North West, but there was a strong regional spread of applications across England.
Round 4 bids are now being appraised and will be reviewed by the independent advisory panel, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Heseltine. The panel will make recommendations to the ministerial group led by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and we hope that we will be able to announce selected bidders in the summer.
Rounds 1, 2 and 3
I would also like to take the opportunity to update the House on progress of the previous RGF rounds.
In total £1,920.9 million of RGF cash is available to businesses through RGF projects and programmes and over £800 million of private sector cash has already been invested thanks to this commitment of support. This will stimulate local economies and provide much needed growth and jobs. A summary of money available in each English region is at annex A.
The pace of RGF has significantly increased and we have enabled the private sector to invest its own money into projects in England, creating and protecting jobs and supporting the Government’s industrial strategy to rebalance the economy.
We remain committed to ensuring money continues to be made available quickly, and companies can access RGF awards as soon as they agree a final offer with us. A total of 98% of projects and programmes from rounds 1 and 2 have agreed final offers and for round 3, 92% of awards have been finalised.
Withdrawn bids
I am publishing the most recent list of bidders who have withdrawn at annex B; updated from my written ministerial statement of 11 February 2013, Official Report, column 33WS. As stated previously, the withdrawal of a small proportion of bids is to be expected given the robustness of the contracting process.
Money from withdrawals is recycled into the RGF. Ministers can use this flexibly to encourage growth through specific economic opportunities or to respond to economic challenges in vulnerable parts of the country. In exceptional circumstances this will take place outside the normal bidding process, although detailed due diligence requirements will still need to be met.
Region | Award Amount in millions (Finalised) |
|---|---|
North West | £309.3 |
North East | £235.3 |
Yorkshire and the Humber | £218.7 |
West Midlands | £255.7 |
East Midlands | £112.5 |
East of England | £41.1 |
South East | £119.6 |
South West | £180.1 |
This is the money currently available in each region for business to draw down as agreements have been finalised up to these values.
The remainder of the money available is with the nationally run RGF programmes and totals £439.4 million.
Annex B - Withdrawn projects
A number of bidders have withdrawn since the last published list (February 2013). The withdrawal of a small proportion of bids is to be expected given the robustness of the contracting process.
Bidders may withdraw a project or programme for any reason. Commonly these include global market conditions; realisation through the due diligence process that the project could not be supported (including on state aid grounds); and changes in senior management or parent company strategy.
The alphabetical list of withdrawn bids to be published as an annex to the written ministerial statement is below. Those highlighted in bold denote the new withdrawals.
No | Name of Beneficiary | Round | No | Name of Beneficiary | Round |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | A&P Tyne Ltd | 2 | 33 | Kilgour Metal Treatments | 3 |
2 | Ames Goldsmith UK Ltd | 1 | 31 | LNX Distribution Ltd/Elonex | 2 |
3 | BCM Ltd | 3 | 32 | Marlow Foods Ltd | 3 |
4 | BRM Packaging Ltd | 3 | 33 | Messier-Dowty Ltd | 1 |
5 | C&C Baseline Ltd | 2 | 34 | Nissan UK P3 | 1 |
6 | Caparo Precision Strip | 2 | 35 | Northern Tissue Group Ltd | 2 |
7 | Carlton & Co | 2 | 36 | Pailton Engineering Ltd | 3 |
8 | Cleveland Potash Ltd | 1 | 37 | PD Teesport Ltd | 2 |
9 | 1CE3 - Conitech | 1 | 38 | Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd | 2 |
10 | CE4 – Verta Energy | 1 | 39 | PMT Industries Ltd | 3 |
11 | Cumbrian Holdings | 1 | 40 | Prom Chem Ltd | 3 |
12 | Cummins Generator Technologies Ltd | 3 | 41 | Rapiscan Systems | 2 |
13 | 2CT5 – Exhaousto Ltd | 1 | 42 | Robert Bosch Ltd | 3 |
14 | CT7 – Aggregate Industries Ltd | 1 | 43 | St. Modwen Properties | 2 |
15 | CT8 – W.D. Irwin & Sons | 1 | 44 | SCM Pharma Ltd | 3 |
16 | CT9 – Arla | 1 | 45 | Shepherd Offshore Ltd | 2 |
17 | Diodes Zetex Semiconductors Ltd | 2 | 46 | Sirius Minerals | 2 |
18 | Disley Tissue Ltd | 2 | 47 | Stainless Plating Ltd | 2 |
19 | Federal-Mogul Friction Product | 2 | 48 | Sunsolar Energy Ltd | 2 |
20 | Fosters Bakery (Staincross) | 2 | 49 | T & N Plastics Ltd | 2 |
21 | Geothermal Engineering Ltd | 2 | 50 | Tameside/Monopumps | 1 |
22 | GE Power Conversion UK Ltd | 3 | 51 | Thales Properties Ltd (Leicester) | 1 |
23 | Guilford Mills Ltd | 3 | 52 | The Listen Media Company | 2 |
24 | Heerema Hartlepool Ltd | 2 | 53 | Treves UK Ltd | 2 |
25 | Huntsman Polyurethanes (UK) Ltd | 2 | 54 | Turner Powertrain Systems Ltd | 3 |
26 | Hydra-Valve Advanced Valve & Pipeline Solutions | 3 | 55 | Universal Engineering | 2 |
27 | I-Plas Products Ltd: Recycled | 2 | 56 | Vestas Technology UK Ltd | 2 |
28 | ING Lease UK Ltd | 3 | 57 | Zegen (Wilton) Ltd | 2 |
29 | J&B Recycling Ltd | 2 | |||
1CE is the Chirton Engineering package of projects 2CT is the Carbon Trust package of projects |
Planning Practice Guidance
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
The Department for Communities and Local Government ran a consultation exercise between 21 December 2012 and 15 February 2013 seeking views on the review group’s recommendations contained in the report of the review of planning practice guidance led by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor.
The review has examined all current guidance material and has recommended rationalising advice and making it easier to use. Existing guidance is unwieldy in its current form and the review has recommended that it be shorter but retain key elements, and be more accessible to be useful to everyone using the planning system.
We accept that the existing guidance suite needs reform and consolidation. In the light of the positive response to this consultation, we are carefully considering the implementation of the review group’s recommendations. As set out in the Budget, we will publish significantly reduced planning guidance, providing much needed simplicity and clarity in line with Lord Taylor’s recommendations. We accept the majority of the report’s recommendations, with the exception of those on signposting best practice material produced by the sector and the immediate cancellation of out-of-date guidance.
The Government’s response to both this consultation and the Taylor review has been placed in the Library of the House and is available on the Department’s website.
Sporting Legacy
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)
Through the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, and other major sporting events, we have raised the level of ambition for sport in this country for people in every community. I would like to update the House on progress with the delivery of the Government’s 10-point sports legacy action plan (my statement of 18 September 2012, Official Report, column 35WS). My last progress report was issued on 24 January 2013, Official Report, column 18WS. Since then, LOCOG has handed over its games maker database to Sport England working in partnership with UK Sport and London Partners and Join In. The consortium partners are now reaching out to the 5.3 million people currently on the database, with information about volunteering opportunities across the UK. This includes advice on how to volunteer at major sporting events such as the international cricket champions trophy in June and the rugby league world cup in November to ensure that we build on the success of the London 2012 games makers at future events.
On measuring sports participation, I can now confirm that there will be one set of data released through Active People. The next release of data will be in June 2013.
Elite Sport
Elite Funding
UK Sport has recently agreed the medal targets for summer Olympic and Paralympic sports for their targeted competition events in 2013. In June, UK Sport will publish these agreed medal targets as they are used to track progress towards success in Rio in 2016. Further information on this will be included in my next update.
World Class Facilities
Good progress is being made on the transformation of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic park. In preparation for the reopening in July 2013, all eight of the park venues, including the five sporting venues, now have operators in place.
East village (previously the athletes village) will be London’s newest neighbourhood; it will provide 2,800 new homes for Londoners from 2014 including outstanding free schooling for all ages at Chobham academy and an advanced medical clinic. Delancey and Qatari Diar have invested £557 million in the athletes’ village, and will provide the long-term management of the site. The joint venture will work alongside Triathlon Homes who have invested £268 million in this project to date, and will manage the affordable housing in the village.
Major Sports Events
Since my written statement of 24 January, the UK has successfully delivered three major events:
All England badminton champs;
BMX Supercross world cup; and
FINA diving world series
We have also won the right to host the following major sports events:
IPC para athletics grand prix final 2013
UCI track world cup 2013
FIH hockey world league 2013
The Tour de France Grand Depart 2014
We are currently bidding to host more events including:
The track cycling world championships (2016);
The European judo championships (2015);
The rowing world cup (2015);
The world figure skating championships (2016);
The youth Olympic games (2018).
Community
Places People Play
Sport England has again increased the funding for Places People Play raising it to £155 million. Sports facilities have now been improved and updated as a result of the programme.
Since my last update, 11,747 new sport makers have been recruited, bringing the total to 50,704.
The Sportivate programme has now given 225,000 young people the chance to try new sports, an increase of 84,445 since January. The programme has also been extended until 2017 with an additional £24 million of lottery funding.
Youth Sport Strategy
In May, a £1.8 million a new year long pilot to test new and innovative approaches to the delivery of women’s sport was launched in Bury. Also, as part of the strategy the first £5.1 million of the £40 million community sport activation fund has been allocated to 32 projects. StreetGames has created 46 door step club pilots, designed to offer sustainable clubs for young people in disadvantaged areas.
A total of 80,000 students have participated in active universities, an increase of 35,000 since the first year and we now have 153 college sports makers in place in further education colleges. In addition, a pilot in Birmingham has led 18 schools to open up their sports facilities for community use.
Join In
Join In 2013 will run for six weeks over the anniversary period. This year there will be 10,000 events, attracting 70,000 volunteers—these events will span the UK and 25% of them will focus on community activities. Since my last update, Join In have also become members of the consortium who own the LOCOG database, allowing them to build on their ambition to become the home of the games makers. In addition, Join In will host the “Go Local” event at the Olympic park on 19 July which will not only bring together those who volunteered in 2012, but also encourage them to inspire others to volunteer and to undertake projects in their own community.
School Games
As of 6 May 2013, a total of 16,918 schools had registered for the school games, of which 13,271 are fully engaged in the programme. A total of 450 school games organisers are in post with funding extended until 2014-15. Around 70 county festivals of sport are taking place during the summer, and I would encourage as many Members of the House to support their local community schools as possible.
An exchange of young athletes with Brazil will take place again in 2013—helping to build on our excellent relationship in the lead up to Rio 2016. In September, Sheffield will welcome a mixed team of both able-bodied and disabled Brazilian athletes to compete alongside our elite, young athletes at the school games national finals. In return, the UK will be send a team of some of our best, young disabled athletes to compete at Brazil’s school Paralympic-style games in November, providing them with valuable experience in competing against high-class international competition at a major sporting event.
PE/School Sport
On 16 March this year, the Prime Minister announced details of the new school sport premium, which will see £150 million a year going directly to primary school head teachers to improve the quality of PE and sport available for all their pupils. This will complement the £1 billion already being invested into youth and community sport—helping to ensure a lasting legacy of the London 2012 games and providing all young people the chance to begin a lifetime’s habit of playing sport.
Disability Sport Legacy
Sport England have just announced funding of £1,984,203 for the English Federation of Disability Sport for 2013-15. This will provide more opportunities for disabled people to take part in sport and deliver programmes to meet the needs of disabled people.
International Development
In February, Lord Coe was appointed chair of the International Inspiration Foundation (IIF). Following the creation of the new merged charity, the full board of trustees was appointed including Katherine Grainger CBE; Terry Miller and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). As of March 2013, the charity International Inspiration’s programme has contributed to or influenced 40 sports or education policies in partner countries, helping to promote sustainable change in these countries’ sports systems.
My next update to the House will be in July, to mark the anniversary of the opening of the London 2012 games.
Foreign Affairs/Development Foreign Affairs Councils
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 27 May and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will attend the Development Foreign Affairs Council on 28 May. These meetings will be held in Brussels, and will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland.
Foreign Affairs Council
Syria
On Syria, Ministers will discuss the regional ramifications of the crisis and the prospects for the Geneva II talks. We will seek agreement to amend the arms embargo to allow EU countries the flexibility to provide greater support to the moderate opposition, including a broader range of military equipment.
Common Security and Defence Policy
Ministers will discuss preparations for the December European Council discussion on defence, with a focus on the first of the three taskings agreed at the December 2012 European Council. These taskings were to increase the effectiveness of the common security and defence policy (CSDP); enhance EU capabilities; and strengthen the European defence industrial base. We will encourage the discussion on the first tasking to focus on practical measures that improve cost-effectiveness of the EU’s civilian and military missions and operations and deliver more effect on the ground, while continuing to ensure complementarity with NATO.
Middle East Peace Process
This is the first discussion of MEPP since the February FAC, at which EU Ministers addressed the deteriorating prospects for a two-state solution, and the importance of engaging the US. This discussion will be an opportunity to agree the focus of EU policy and engagement on the MEPP for the coming months. The UK will focus on how the EU can contribute actively, alongside other regional and international partners, to efforts led by the United States to drive progress on the MEPP. This will include the incentives the EU could offer the parties to reach a negotiated solution. The UK will reiterate the importance of predictable, sufficient support for the PA and its institutions, as well as support for efforts to reinvigorate the Palestinian private sector.
Iran E3+3
Baroness Ashton is expected to update Ministers on the latest progress on E3+3 nuclear talks with Iran, including her meeting with the Iranian chief negotiator Jalili in Istanbul on 15 May. No discussion is expected.
Mali
Baroness Ashton is expected to update Ministers on the latest progress in Mali, including on the progress made at the donors’ conference which took place in Brussels on 15 May. Discussion is expected to be limited.
Somalia
The Foreign Secretary will brief colleagues on the 7 May London conference, and will look ahead to the September Brussels conference.
Development Foreign Affairs Council
Council Conclusions to be adopted by the Council
We expect Ministers to adopt Council conclusions on the annual report 2013 to the European Council on EU development aid targets, the EU approach to resilience: learning from food security crises, and food and nutrition security in external assistance. The Government welcome these conclusions.
Post-2015 Millennium Development Goals Framework and Rio +20 Follow-up
This will be the main item for discussion. Ministers will debate the EU approach to the post-2015 development agenda and Rio+20 follow up. Council conclusions are expected to be adopted in June.
Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change
The Commission and European external action service will give an update on the implementation of this policy and anticipated process for delivery in the next programming period (2014-2020).
Information Points
There will be information points on food and nutrition security, member states’ 2012 overseas development assistance (ODA) figures. Policy coherence for development, the 11th European development fund and local authorities.
Chris McManus (Inquest)
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In his statement of 13 March 2012, Official Report, column 141, the Secretary of State for Defence informed the House of the deaths of the British architect, Chris McManus, and his Italian colleague Franco Lamolinara, who were taken hostage by Islamist terrorist group Ansaru in Nigeria on 12 May 2011 and who tragically were killed by their captors during a joint UK/Nigerian rescue operation on 8 March 2012. The Secretary of State for Defence reminded the House that Her Majesty’s coroner was legally responsible for determining the cause of Chris McManus’ death and that his statement could not in any way prejudice the course of the coroner’s inquiries.
HM coroner for Swindon and Wiltshire has now concluded his investigation, and held an inquest in Salisbury on 17 May 2013. He has recorded a verdict of unlawful killing.
Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I would like to update the House on the outcome of the recent conference of the five nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) nuclear weapon states (the “P5”). The conference, hosted by Russia, took place on 18-19 April in Geneva.
P5 conferences play a vital role in building the mutual understanding and trust needed to help the P5 take forward our shared NPT commitments. This was the fourth such conference that has brought together senior policy officials, military staff and nuclear scientists from all five NPT nuclear weapon states to discuss issues across the three pillars of the NPT. It follows on from conferences in London (September 2009), Paris (June 2011), and Washington (June 2012).
The P5 conferences are an important part of the international dialogue on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, demonstrating a shared determination to make progress on the commitments set out in the 2010 NPT action plan.
The P5 issued the following statement after the meeting:
“The five Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nuclear-weapon states, or “P5”, met in Geneva on April 18-19, 2013 under the chairmanship of the Russian Federation, to build on the 2009 London, 2011 Paris and 2012 Washington P5 conferences. The P5 reviewed progress towards fulfilling the commitments made at the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and continued discussions on issues related to all three pillars of the NPT—non-proliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and disarmament, including confidence-building, transparency, and verification experiences. The P5 also had a positive exchange with representatives of civil society during the Geneva P5 Conference.
The P5 reaffirmed their commitment to the shared goal of nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament as provided for in Article VI of the NPT and emphasized the importance of continuing to work together in implementing the 2010 NPT Review Conference Action Plan. The P5 reviewed the outcome of the 2012 Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference, and significant developments in the context of the NPT since the 2012 Washington P5 Conference. They assessed issues relating to strategic stability and international security, and exchanged views concerning prospects for further steps to promote dialogue and mutual confidence in this area, including in a multilateral format.
In addition the P5 welcomed a briefing by the Russian Federation and the United States on the ongoing implementation of the New START Treaty and its success to date. The P5 were also briefed by the Russian Federation and the United States on the joint 2012 inspection in Antarctica conducted pursuant to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and its Environmental Protocol. This joint inspection included verification that the international stations are implementing relevant environmental rules and that facilities are used only for peaceful purposes. The P5 shared views on objectives for the 2013 Preparatory Committee, the inter-sessional period thereafter, and looked ahead to the 2014 Preparatory Committee and 2015 Review Conference.
The P5 discussed the latest developments in the area of multilateral disarmament initiatives including the situation at the Conference on Disarmament. They expressed their shared disappointment that the Conference on Disarmament continues to be prevented from agreeing on a comprehensive program of work, including work on a legally binding, verifiable international ban on the production of fissile material (FMCT) for use in nuclear weapons, and discussed efforts to find a way forward in the Conference on Disarmament, including by continuing their efforts with other relevant partners to promote such negotiations within the CD. The P5 reiterated their support for the immediate start of negotiations on a treaty encompassing such a ban in the Conference on Disarmament. They noted the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on FMCT, and expressed the hope that its work will help spur negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament. The P5 reaffirmed the historic contribution of the pragmatic, step-by-step process to nuclear disarmament and stressed the continued validity of this proven route. In this context, they also emphasized their shared understanding of the serious consequences of nuclear weapon use and that the P5 would continue to give the highest priority to avoiding such contingencies.
The P5 advanced their previous discussions of an approach to reporting on their relevant activities across all three pillars of the NPT Action Plan at the 2014 NPT Preparatory Committee Meeting, consistent with the NPT Action Plan, and resolved to continue working on this issue under France’s leadership. They plan to continue their discussions in multiple ways within the P5, with a view to reporting to the 2014 PrepCom, consistent with their commitments under Actions 5, 20, and 21 of the 2010 RevCon Final Document. They welcomed the progress made on the development of the P5 glossary of key nuclear terms under China’s leadership and discussed next steps. They stressed the importance of this work, which will increase P5 mutual understanding and facilitate further P5 discussions on nuclear matters. The P5 reaffirmed their objective to submit a P5 glossary of key nuclear terms to the 2015 NPT Review Conference. The P5 are working toward the establishment of a firm foundation for mutual confidence and further disarmament efforts. They shared further information on their respective bilateral and multilateral experiences in verification and resolved to continue such exchanges.
The P5 recalled their Joint Statement of 3 May 2012 at the Preparatory Committee of the NPT Review Conference and pledged to continue their efforts in different formats and at various international fora to find peaceful diplomatic solutions to the outstanding problems faced by the non-proliferation regime. They reiterated their call on the states concerned to fulfil without delay their international obligations under the appropriate UN Security Council resolutions, undertakings with the IAEA and other appropriate international commitments. In the context of the nuclear test conducted by the DPRK on 12 February 2013 and the continued pursuit of certain nuclear activities by Iran, both contrary to the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, the P5 reaffirmed their concerns about these serious challenges to the non-proliferation regime.
The P5 underlined the fundamental importance of an effective International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards system in preventing nuclear proliferation and facilitating cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The P5 stressed the need for strengthening IAEA safeguards including through the promotion of the universal adoption of the Additional Protocol and the development of approaches to IAEA safeguards implementation based on objective state factors. They also discussed the role of the P5 in assisting the IAEA in cases involving possible detection of nuclear weapon programs in non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) in conformity with the provisions of the NPT.
The P5 continued their previous discussions of efforts to achieve the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and reviewed the recent UK-hosted P5 Experts Meeting on CTBT, at which the P5 identified a number of areas for future P5 collaboration and decided to pursue further inter-sessional work, in particular ahead of the Integrated Field Exercise in 2014. The P5 called upon all States to uphold their national moratoria on nuclear weapons-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, and to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty pending its entry into force.
The P5 shared their views on how to prevent abuse of NPT withdrawal (Article X). The discussion included modalities under which NPT States Party could respond collectively and individually to a notification of withdrawal, including through arrangements regarding the disposition of equipment and materials acquired or derived under safeguards during NPT membership. They resolved to make efforts to broaden consensus among NPT States Party on the latter issue at the 2014 PrepCom, thus making a further contribution to the NPT Review Process.
The P5 reiterated the importance of the implementation of the 2010 NPT Review Conference decisions related to the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, in particular those related to the convening of a conference, to be attended by all the States of the Middle East, on the establishment of the Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction, on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at by the states of the region. They underlined their support for all States concerned making all efforts necessary for the preparation and convening of the Conference in the nearest future. They also reiterated their full support to the ongoing efforts of the facilitator.
The P5 reviewed their efforts to bring about the entry into force of the relevant legally binding protocols of nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. They reaffirmed their view that establishment of such zones helps to build confidence between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states, enhance regional and international security, and reinforce the NPT and the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. They reaffirmed their readiness to sign the Protocol to the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone as soon as possible. They underlined the importance of holding consultations, including on the margins of the Second PrepCom, with the States Party to the Treaty on a Nuclear Weapon-Free-Zone in Central Asia. They noted also the parallel declarations, adopted by the P5 and Mongolia, concerning Mongolia’s nuclear-weapon-free status, at the United Nations headquarters in New York on 17 September 2012.
The P5 pledged to continue to meet at all appropriate levels on nuclear issues to further promote dialogue and mutual confidence. The P5 plan to follow up their discussions and hold a fifth P5 conference in 2014.”
Gender Birth Ratios
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
Following a request from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the Department of Health has undertaken an analysis to investigate whether the gender birth ratio in the United Kingdom varies by mothers’ country of birth beyond the range that might be expected to occur naturally. The analysis concludes that when broken down by the mothers’ country of birth, no group is statistically different from the range that we would expect to see naturally occurring. However, there are significant limitations in what these data can show. As there are small numbers of births for most groups, large differences in birth rates would be needed to identify ratios outside the normal range.
The UK gender ratio is 105.1 male to 100 female births and is well within the normal boundaries for populations.
Evidence suggests that a number of factors can influence the sex of a child. These include paternal and maternal age, coital rates, number of children and sex of previous children. However, ratios above 108 and below 103 are unlikely to occur naturally other than as a product of the random variability associated with small numbers of births.
Recorded birth ratios vary widely by mothers’ country of birth. Initial analysis identified a small number of countries for which there were indications that birth ratios may differ from the UK as a whole and potentially fall outside the range considered possible without intervention. However, departmental analysts emphasised that it is possible that this was the product of natural variation and that further analysis would be undertaken.
The further analysis was quality assured by the methodology team at the Office for National Statistics and identified 10 countries which over the period 2007 to 2011 had over 10,000 births and recorded gender ratios either lower than 103 (seven countries) or higher than 108 (three countries). However, the tests undertaken indicate a strong probability that this is occurring by chance. Only one country, Sri Lanka, was found to have a birth ratio significantly different from the figure of 105.1 for the UK as a whole. Mothers born in Sri Lanka have a birth ratio of 99.2 or 99 male children for every 100 female children. However, this is not statistically significantly lower than the 103 threshold and again is likely to be the result of random variation, particularly given the relatively small numbers involved.
The Department of Health will repeat this analysis on an annual basis following publication of birth data.
“Birth ratios in the United Kingdom: a report on gender ratios at birth in the UK” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available for hon. Members in the Vote Office and for noble Lords in the Printed Paper Office.
The documents can also be accessed at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-birth-ratios-in-the-uk.
Able Marine Energy Park
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
An application was made by Able Humber Ports Ltd on 16 December 2011 under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 regarding a proposed development known as the Able marine energy park comprising a quay of solid construction on the south bank of the River Humber at Killingholme, together with an ecological compensation scheme on the opposite bank at Cherry Cobb Sands.
An examining authority was appointed for the examination of the application on 13 April 2012 and the examining authority’s report was delivered to the Secretary of State for Transport on 24 February 2013.
I have been appointed by the Secretary of State to decide this application in line with the Department’s guidance on propriety in quasi-judicial decision-making, so as to avoid any possible conflicts of interest which might arise from my other policy responsibilities.
Under sub-section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008 the Secretary of State must make his decision within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless he exercises his power under sub-section 107(3) to extend the deadline. If he exercises such power the Secretary of State must make a statement, to the Houses of Parliament of which that Secretary of State is a member, announcing the new deadline.
I have decided to set the deadline for the decision to 24 July 2013 (an extension of two months) in order to allow the applicant to negotiate terms of a lease of land that they require for the project with the Crown Estate who are the freehold owners of the land. This is to ensure compliance with section 135 of the Planning Act 2008 and the Crown Estate’s statutory duties. The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to give development consent for this project.
Lower Thames Crossing
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
The existing river crossing capacity in the lower Thames area—the Dartford-Thurrock crossing—is operating above the capacity it was designed for, and there is already serious congestion at the crossing with negative consequences for business productivity and the national economy. This crossing forms a key route within the strategic road network. It completes the orbital route of the M25 around London and provides the only Thames river crossing east of London. In addition, the Dartford-Thurrock crossing is located in the Thames Gateway area, where we expect substantial redevelopment and growth.
We therefore propose that a second crossing should be built across the Lower Thames and I am today publishing a consultation document inviting views on the relative merits of three options for locating a new road-based river crossing in the Lower Thames area and a variant of one of these three options.
The three options are:
Option A—at the site of the existing A282 Dartford-Thurrock river crossing;
Option B—connecting the A2 with the A1089; and
Option C—connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30.
A variant for Option C would additionally widen the A229 between the M2 and M20.
Government are committed to tackling the congestion at the Dartford-Thurrock crossing and will improve traffic flows by introducing free flow charging technology to replace the existing cash charge collection and extensive toll plazas. However, even with these improvements there will be a future need for additional river crossing capacity. That is why Government identified a new lower Thames crossing as one of its top 40 infrastructure projects in the national infrastructure plan 2011 and committed to reviewing and consulting on options for locating the new crossing.
The technical analysis undertaken for and by my Department is now complete. It has confirmed the need for additional road based river crossing capacity and concluded that that all three options—including one with the variant—would accommodate additional traffic growth and reduce congestion at the existing crossing albeit to varying extents. In addition, the review has concluded that it would technically be feasible to deliver a scheme at all of the options.
The consultation document and related technical reports, which I am publishing today, set out the findings of the technical analysis for the three options considered and the variant. It presents information about the impacts of providing a crossing at each of the options and invites views from all interested parties.
The responses received to this consultation will be analysed and interpreted to help inform our decision on where to locate a new crossing. In weighing up the relative merits of the alternate locations, Government will need to consider the relative economic, environmental and social impacts as well as the potential cost, affordability and value for money.
This is the first stage of decision making. Subject to the decision on location, work will commence on the development of a scheme at the selected location and this will involve further consultation.
I am pleased to announce that the consultation will run from Tuesday 21 May until Tuesday 16 July. Anyone with an interest is invited to take part. A consultation document and instructions for responding can be found on my Department’s website. An electronic copy has been lodged with the Library of the House.
Department for Transport officials will also be available to answer questions with public information events on the following dates:
Thursday 13 June, Dartford library, 2-8pm;
Saturday 15 June, Grays library, 10am-5pm;
Monday 17 June, Chadwell library, 2-7pm;
Thursday 20 June, Bluewater shopping centre, 10am-9pm;
Friday 21 June, Lakeside shopping centre, 10am-10pm; and
Saturday 22 June, Gravesend library, 9am-5pm.
Local Transport Act 2008 (Traffic Commissioners) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2013
Grand Committee
Lord Popat
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Local Transport Act 2008 (Traffic Commissioners) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2013.
Relevant documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2012-13.
Lord Popat
My Lords, the order before us today will allow for greater flexibility in the deployment of traffic commissioners across Great Britain. Traffic commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as independent regulators of the heavy goods and public service vehicle industries in Great Britain. Traffic commissioners’ statutory functions can be found in numerous pieces of primary and secondary legislation but two key Acts set the regulatory framework. The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 establishes traffic commissioners, traffic areas and the general regulatory framework around licensing of road passenger transport operators, while the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 establishes the road haulage operator licensing system.
Most operators of lorries, coaches and buses in Great Britain must hold an operator’s licence to operate legally. Traffic commissioners’ key regulatory functions are to licence the operators of lorries, buses and coaches and to consider and take, as necessary, disciplinary action against operators who have not observed the conditions of their licences. To grant an operator’s licence, a traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant has sufficient funding, is of good repute and has arrangements in place to be able to operate in a suitably professional manner.
Although the majority of traffic commissioners’ work is focused on operator licensing, they also have a number of other key functions. These include registering local bus services and matters relating to the granting of vocational driving licences or taking action against the holders of such licences. The work of traffic commissioners is funded by fees paid by the industries that they regulate.
The Local Transport Act 2008 contained a number of reform measures to the structure of traffic commissioners. One of the key reasons provision was made in that Act for this restructuring was in recognition of traffic commissioners’ strengthened role resulting from that Act—for example, in relation to bus punctuality where the Act allowed traffic commissioners to issue a broader range of penalties to bus operators. Another reason for these measures was to respond to concerns raised by the industry about different standards or processes being applied in different parts of the country.
For these reasons, the traffic commissioner reforms attracted cross-party support during the Bill phase of the Local Transport Act and were designed to strengthen the independence of the regime, with the post of senior traffic commissioner becoming statutory rather than administrative. The first statutory senior traffic commissioner was appointed in March 2009. The legislation before us will provide that officeholder with more flexibility with regard to how resources are allocated by removing, except in Scotland, the statutory link between an individual traffic commissioner and their appointed regional traffic area of responsibility.
Given the degree of devolution of their functions, in Scotland a traffic commissioner will be retained who will be referred to as the Scottish traffic commissioner. However, the Scottish commissioner would be able to act on reserved functions in England and Wales and vice versa to provide further flexibility, and the legislation before us reflects that flexibility.
It is important to note that the legislation before us, and the associated commencement order, will not directly result in any changes to how traffic commissioners are deployed across Great Britain. Any changes to how traffic commissioners are deployed is, under the Local Transport Act, a matter that must be detailed in the senior traffic commissioner’s guidance and directions, on which the senior traffic commissioner must consult as set out in the Local Transport Act. This arrangement ensures that the independence of traffic commissioners in fulfilling their regulatory functions is maintained. However, any redeployment of traffic commissioners will help ensure that the fees paid by the haulage and passenger transport industries for the traffic commissioner system are kept as low as possible, which of course is particularly welcome given the financial pressures many in the industry are experiencing.
The changes before noble Lords are intended to assist the traffic commissioner system by removing current legislative restrictions to allow traffic commissioners to operate as flexibly as possible while retaining their statutory independence. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. I am well aware of what was intended in the 2008 Act and have no comments to make on it. However, in the past week the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced in the Commons that he was proposing a review of the transport commissioners’ duties. Apparently it is a quinquennial arrangement and the duties must be reviewed on that basis. I will draw two or three matters to the Minister’s attention, with a view to him raising with the Department for Transport certain issues that should be included in the review.
The first concerns the management of highways. This Act also elevated the position of local authorities in the management of the highways. The Minister will recall the use of the words,
“broaden a lot of the penalties”.
The traffic commissioners have a duty to bring before a traffic commissioner’s court the bus operators whose vehicles either do not keep time or run erratically. That is perfectly reasonable, but in a number of cases the operators concerned find it almost impossible to run a regular and reliable service because the highway is obstructed. It may be obstructed by roadworks, which are often carried out in a very undisciplined fashion, or by inconsiderate parking. These are matters over which the local authority and not the bus operator has control.
What I am asking in the first place is that, where a bus service is shown to be unreliable, if the traffic commissioner believes that the highway authority is not discharging its duty to provide a highway along which a reasonable bus service may be operated, they should have the ability to summon the director of highways, or whoever in a local authority is responsible, to give an explanation of the way they are contributing to the operation of a decent bus service. This is not meant to be divisive, but we are moving into an era of partnership working between local authorities and bus operators, and it is reasonable that a balance should be made, and that where a local authority is not playing by the rules, it should be answerable to the traffic commissioner.
The second matter that I will raise—again, I would like it to be addressed in the upcoming review—is the question of goods vehicle operating centres. Traffic commissioners have the duty of approving premises where goods vehicle operators are based. That includes the facilities for maintaining and stabling the vehicles, and having access to the highway. However, the traffic commissioner is not allowed to take his consideration any further than the gates of the depot. Sometimes—this is happening more and more as farms become heavy haulage depots—you will find that heavy lorries are making their way on to totally unsuitable roads. I am suggesting that the traffic commissioner’s discretion should extend to the point where the lorry will meet a main road, and that we should not let our lanes be devastated by heavy lorries that not only destroy the road surface and are dangerous but make for unfair competition.
That brings me to my third issue: the question of the competition authorities. As the Minister said in opening, the traffic commissioner licenses new local bus services but has no discretion whatever about what a local bus service should be. For example, if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, runs a bus service that runs on the hour and the half hour, I can come along and register a service at 57 and 27 minutes past the hour so that I run my bus three minutes in front of his and take all his passengers. I am asking that there should be an element of discretion in the traffic commissioner agreeing to a licence. Where the people who are trying to register a new bus service can be shown to be acting in a predatory way, which is not difficult to judge, the traffic commissioner should insist that journeys are spaced out evenly so that the public get a better service and we do not engage in the thoroughly wasteful bus wars that have been going on since 1985 and still flare up in some areas.
I am quite pleased with the order being laid before us because it makes more efficient use of traffic commissioners’ time, and I hope they will be run better. However, some small additions to their duties ought to be considered in the review that is to take place.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument. I indicate from the beginning that I thoroughly endorse the principal objective of the instrument—namely, that the link between a traffic commissioner and a geographical area should end and that we should have the degree of flexibility that the SI envisages for the operation of the traffic commissioners and, particularly, the head of the service.
It was suggested yesterday that in the question I asked in the House, which I thought was suitably penetrating, I was in fact too kind to the Minister, so the Minister today will not expect me to be too kind to Ministers on consecutive days. I therefore have one or two points that are slightly more abrasive than my general introduction, in which I just said that I support the thrust of the SI, not least because it builds on legislation that was passed by the previous Administration in 2008 with regard to the commissioners.
I am not quite as constructive as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has been with his questions about the traffic commissioners. I am having difficulty in understanding the timing of this SI. Why are we doing this when the Minister announced earlier this week that he was reviewing the whole question of traffic commissioners? It seems odd to have a statutory instrument recasting the position of traffic commissioners that is predicated on the assumption that there will be a review of the whole situation in the very near future. It looks to me as if that is back to front, and I should like an explanation from the Minister for why the SI has been tabled at this particular moment, although it has merit.
I appreciate the points that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made. There is no doubt at all that the Minister will appreciate that the punctuality of services is absolutely critical to their use by the public. This is particularly so in rural areas, where people often have very limited cover when they are waiting at bus stops. Therefore, I very much appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. If competition is introduced and two bus companies provide a service, it is better that the commissioner regulates those services to the benefit of the public rather than allow the free wind of competition to enable one bus company to pre-empt the other by running the service just in advance of its competitor. I hope and expect that the traffic commissioners will attend to that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is to be commended for having raised it and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Lord Popat
My Lords, both the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Davies, have pointed to a number of issues raised by the order. The order will allow the senior traffic commissioner the flexibility to determine what individual traffic commissioners work on and how their duties are broken down to different regions. The chances are that the traffic commissioners will become more specialised in different regions. For example, one traffic commissioner may specialise in issuing licences for buses; another may specialise in licensing the haulage industry. The order will create the consistency that we require. Currently, there is no consistency between the eight regions. I am sure that the senior traffic commissioner will give the necessary direction to traffic commissioners to create this consistency.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke about competition among local bus services. This will obviously be determined by the transport commissioner for an area to make sure that competition does not make things difficult for people who use bus services and that journeys are well spaced out.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, endorsed the order as being long overdue, which I welcomed. Whether to introduce a quality contract scheme is entirely a local decision and, like any decision, it must be made in the public interest. Central government has no role in such decisions; the Government are focused on improved joint working between local authorities and bus operators. We have seen the benefits of that approach in Nottingham, Sheffield and Liverpool.
I am sure that the consistency introduced by these changes will solve the problem of the poor regulation of bus services mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Local traffic commissioners will be empowered by senior traffic commissioners, who will in turn take guidance and instruction from the Department for Transport.
I cannot say much about the £2 billion subsidy that we provide for buses. That has been going on for a quite a number of years and I have no figures to substantiate how the subsidy is used.
Lord Bradshaw
Before the noble Lord sits down, the £2 billion subsidy to the bus industry is a rather fanciful figure. A lot of it is actually a subsidy to the passengers. For example, old-age pensioners’ bus passes are paid for by the Government so that people may travel free. The bus industry did not wish them on itself. On the industry making extraordinary profits, I commend having a look at the results of FirstGroup, which were published this morning. They are really terrible and it is losing a lot of money. That is as maybe and it is up to FirstGroup, but a lot of this talk about subsidy means subsidy to passengers; it is not to running bus services which, in a commercial market, the companies would not run anyway.
Lord Popat
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raises an important issue. I am glad the taxpayer is not subsidising the transport operators, whereas the taxpayer is subsidising or making free bus passes available to people aged over 60. So I am glad that the £2 billion is not going to the transport industry directly but is for the benefit of the people who use public transport.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I understand the point. It does not go directly as a subsidy to the buses. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is indicating that it is not an advantage to the industry that there is a guarantee from the public purse that certain people will have their fares paid for by the Government and be able to travel free—a position that we all endorse and are in favour of. If he does not think that that subsidy is an advantage to the industry, I wonder which world he is living in.
Lord Bradshaw
If I may reply to that, the bus companies are not reimbursed for the fare; they are reimbursed for a percentage of the fare, which, on average, is about 40% of what people would pay anyway. So it is not a question of handing over sacks of money to the bus companies. They have to provide more capacity to carry the extra people.
Lord Popat
My Lords, I take the points that both noble Lords have made. One of the questions that was raised in our discussions was why we are doing this now. Others were about some of the announcements made about the changes taking place. The traffic commissioner will be reviewed as part of the triennial review of all non-departmental public bodies. That review will be undertaken this financial year. The nature and scale of the review is yet to be determined and there are no current plans for any further substantial changes. It is for the senior traffic commissioners to take matters forward now.
I hope I have mostly addressed the key issues raised today and that noble Lords will agree that the consequential amendment order will allow the flexibilities in the traffic commissioner system, as envisaged by the Members of the House when approving the Local Transport Act.
Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013.
Relevant documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2012-13.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, in moving for the Grand Committee’s consideration of this first order, I shall speak also to the subsequent order, as they operate jointly in addressing a common issue.
The Court of Appeal recently held that the Police Act 1997 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 are incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that they provide for the disclosure to employers of, and allow employers to ask about and take into account, all cautions and convictions on a blanket basis. The court held that this regime, in so far as it relates to historic and minor cautions and convictions, is disproportionate. While the Government is seeking leave to appeal this judgment because we believe that the Court of Appeal went too far in its judgment and did not give sufficient weight to the views of Parliament on these matters, it is vital that we ensure that the legislation reflects the judgment of the Court of Appeal while it remains in place and that the Disclosure and Barring Service can continue to disclose spent cautions and convictions, and that employers can take these into account, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so to protect vulnerable groups, including children. That is the purpose of the orders that I am presenting today.
The orders amend the exceptions order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the Police Act so that, while maintaining important safeguards for public protection and national security, certain spent cautions and convictions will be filtered from, and no longer be automatically included on, a criminal record certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service. Employers will not be able to take such filtered matters into account.
Full disclosure of cautions and convictions will continue to be required in respect of some employment decisions, such as police recruitment or posts relating to safeguarding national security. Further, all cautions and convictions for serious violent and sexual offences and for certain other offences specified in the orders, such as those directly relevant to the safeguarding of vulnerable groups, including children, will continue to be disclosed, as will all convictions resulting in a custodial sentence.
We are also changing the position in relation to service personnel and former service personnel. Currently, service personnel or former service personnel applying for any position covered by the exceptions order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would have to disclose previous convictions for all service offences, including those that have no civilian equivalent, such as being absent without leave. We are changing the position so that, once spent, these non-recordable disciplinary offences will no longer need to be disclosed.
For all other offences, the orders provide for the following filtering rules to be applied: cautions, and equivalents, administered to a young offender will not be disclosed after a period of two years; adult cautions will not be disclosed after a period of six years; a conviction received as a young offender resulting in a non-custodial sentence will not be disclosed after a period of five and a half years; and an adult conviction resulting in a non-custodial sentence will not be disclosed after a period of 11 years; but all convictions will continue to be disclosed where an individual has more than one conviction recorded.
The Disclosure and Barring Service will continue to see all cautions and convictions, whether spent or not, for the purpose of making barring decisions. Individuals who have been barred from working with children or vulnerable adults must not be offered such employment.
Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, these changes will ensure that the disclosure of criminal records information remains proportionate and that, while avoiding unnecessary intrusion into people’s lives, public protection arrangements remain robust. I commend the orders to the Grand Committee for consideration.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, in principle, I certainly welcome the changes that these orders make. It is sensible to narrow the scope of the obligation to disclose convictions, particularly where they are of a less serious nature. However, there remain some issues on which I should be glad to have clarification. In particular, paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states, as the Minister pointed out, that,
“no conviction resulting in a custodial sentence will be filtered”.
Does that include a suspended custodial sentence? I think that there is a nod from the Box—although it is not quite a Box—so I will take it that that is the case and I am grateful for the clarification.
The Minister identified the various periods of time after which disclosure need not be made. My honourable friend Jenny Chapman, in dealing with this statutory instrument yesterday, questioned the basis of the periods of time given. They are rather curious, ranging from, for example, 11 years for an adult conviction resulting in a non-custodial sentence to five and a half years for a young offender. Obviously, in the case of a young offender it should be a shorter period, but I just wonder why this rather odd figure of 11, on which the other figure is presumably based, was chosen.
My honourable friend also asked whether harassment or stalking offences should be disclosed if a perpetrator seeks to enter a profession in which they will work closely with vulnerable people. I understand that such offences will not be exempt from disclosure but perhaps the Minister can confirm that. She also raised a question about a conviction for online sexual offences—for example, downloading indecent images of children and the like. Again, I assume, but would welcome confirmation, that that also is a conviction that would have to be disclosed. It would certainly make sense if that were the case.
On the other hand—my honourable friend referred to this matter as well—in the run-up to the police commissioner elections we had a rather ridiculous set of circumstances arising where very old convictions for very minor offences served to disqualify people from being a candidate for that position. Because they were not custodial sentences, I do not know the extent to which these provisions would now change that rather absurd outcome. I hope that they would but, if not, perhaps the Minister will undertake that a review will be made of the provisions that affect the nomination and qualifications for the position of police commissioner—if that is not already in hand as a result of several people having been disqualified in the rather absurd circumstances that arose last year.
The Minister in the other place said that the matter would be kept under review—that is, how the exceptions and so on are working out and whether the list requires change at all. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how and when such a review might take place. It might take place in two or thee years’ time. Will it be conducted within the department or be subject to wider consultation?
Having said that, as I said, we certainly support the principle and, subject to answers on these rather detailed points, are happy to support the two orders, the second being consequential on the first. My honourable friends in the Commons voted against it yesterday because at that point the Minister was unable to give assurances around certain of these matters, in particular in relation to harassment and sexual offences having to be disclosed. If I am right in thinking that that has now been confirmed, of course we would accept that position. If not, we would ask the Government to think again about those categories of offence.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his welcome for these proposals. They are a rational response to the court’s decision. We have had an interesting exchange of views. I hope that I will be able to satisfy the noble Lord on all the points that he raised. To the extent that I do not, I hope that he will allow me to drop him a line on the matter.
The point that he made and that I would like to emphasise is that notwithstanding the changes, public protection, particularly of children and adults in vulnerable circumstances, is of paramount importance to the Government. In the Chamber earlier today I had to give some horrendous figures which gave us all a chance to reflect on these things. It is also right that we should acknowledge individuals’ wishes to put their past behind them, and to allow that to happen in circumstances where we can be fairly confident that public protection will not be compromised.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act aims to aid the employment and resettlement of ex-offenders who put their criminal past behind them. It does this by declaring certain convictions to be spent after a specified time has elapsed after the conviction. A spent conviction is deemed for most purposes never to have existed, and an ex-offender will not have to reveal it in many circumstances, including when applying for most jobs. The rehabilitation periods are determined according to the sentence imposed, in order to reflect the severity of the offence. Currently, a conviction resulting in a custodial sentence of more than 30 months can never be spent.
There must be a balance to ensure that members of the public, especially those groups at greatest risk of harm, such as children and adults in vulnerable circumstances, are adequately protected. The exceptions order of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act seeks to achieve this balance by excluding certain employment positions, bodies and proceedings from the general application of the Act. This means that where an individual applies for a specified job or role, such as working with vulnerable groups, including children, their spent convictions must be made available to the employer and may be taken into account.
Linked to this, the Police Act requires that all cautions and convictions, whether spent or not and regardless of how old or minor they may be, are disclosed on criminal record certificates issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service. It is this regime that the Court of Appeal has found to be incompatible, and which the orders we have debated seek to address.
I will go through some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Perhaps I may begin by explaining that the orders introduce a mechanism to ensure that certain old and minor spent cautions and convictions no longer need to be disclosed and are no longer automatically included on criminal record certificates issued by the DBS. The introduction of such a filtering mechanism is a significant modification of the current public protection arrangements, and it is important that we approach the proposed changes with care. With that in mind, I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to the debate today.
The noble Lord asked about what was a conviction and what was a custodial sentence. A conviction, which is any determination of guilt by a court, regardless of the sentence imposed, and a conditional and absolute discharge are both sentences following a conviction. A custodial sentence includes any sentence of imprisonment, including a suspended sentence. I hope that that helps the noble Lord in that respect and confirms the nod that he may have seen from my officials behind me.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful. There is one matter that I ought to have raised before: the provision is in relation to the dispensation from disclosure only if there is no other conviction on the individual’s record. Does that mean a conviction of any kind, or would the conviction have to be of a category that would otherwise create the obligation to disclose? If it is the former, then for a long time a very minor offence could require the disclosure, which would otherwise not necessarily be the case.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I agree with the noble Lord but, in fact, any conviction subsequent to a previous conviction will bring that particular element into play. I suspect that we will consider this area when we see how the new regime works. Is there not an enormous incentive for people who have a conviction not to get another? This is one of the real drivers of why these changes, which have been forced upon us by the Court of Appeal, may be welcomed for giving people an opportunity to rebuild their lives in such a positive way.
Therefore, I hope that the measures being proposed strike a balance between enabling offenders to put their past behind them while ensuring that public protection is not compromised. With that, I commend them to the Committee.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013.
Relevant documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2012-13.
Railways: High Speed 2
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Astor
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of alternative routes for HS2, and compensation terms for those affected by it.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, the Government have so far rejected the opportunity to pause and wait until the Davies report on airport capacity in the south of England is published in 2015 and are pressing ahead with HS2. Therefore, we may have a new railway line on the right side of the country but, equally, we could have a railway line on the wrong side of the country. Who knows? However, HS2 is going ahead. What we do know is that the department has rejected a route stopping at Heathrow and so far has rejected a spur that would connect to Heathrow Aiport, so we are faced with the possibility that Heathrow may end up with the worst rail connections of any major airport in Europe.
In its recent report, the House of Commons Transport Select Committee called for a third runway at Heathrow, rejected the idea of a new airport in the Thames estuary and called for HS2 to serve Heathrow directly. What is the Minister’s response to this report? I imagine that the Government will want to wait until the Davies report has been published.
Today, we have to deal with the route for HS2 proposed by the Government. If it cannot cross the Chilterns at their narrowest point, it must be tunnelled where possible or mitigating measures must be put in place to give maximum environmental protection. If the Government would accept just one principle, which they accepted for HS1—that for any areas of outstanding natural beauty the route should be tunnelled—opposition to HS2 in the Chilterns would largely disappear. Another help would be to add an intermediate station, perhaps at Bicester, so that at least those living in the area could benefit from HS2.
It is worth repeating what made HS1 acceptable—what became known as the Kent principles: any route should be tunnelled or engineered with cuttings and sound barriers to minimise sound intrusion; it must follow the shortest route for areas of outstanding natural beauty; there must be an advantage for locals in intermediate stations, such as Ashford, which was created for HS1; and, where possible, any route should follow noisy transport corridors such as existing motorways. HS2 achieves none of these for one very simple reason—speed. I will come back to that in a moment.
The urgent issue that really concerns me is compensation. The judicial review judgment found that the Government must review their proposals. If you live within 60 metres of the line, you are automatically entitled to compensation. However, perhaps your Lordships can imagine HS2 crossing the middle of the Prince’s Chamber. If your house is on the first Cross Bench, you get compensation, but if your house is on the third Cross Bench, you get nothing. I would submit that there is not a large difference between them.
We know of at least one house 450 metres away from the proposed line that has been valued as worthless by the local building society. Many with homes just outside the planned route have found that their value has plummeted and that they cannot sell at any price. The mortgage company is demanding repayment due to the loan falling below the value of the house, and of course the banks are not interested in helping.
I will give one example. A couple in their late 70s live a few metres beyond the 60-metre limit. Their house was worth well over £200,000; now, it is virtually worthless. They cannot afford to sell but they cannot afford to stay. They want to move into a care home but they cannot. Theoretically they would have to pay because their assets are worth more than £70,000, but they do not have the money and they do not have a way out. They do not meet the definition of hardship and will be able to make an application for compensation to the Lands Tribunal only after 15 years, based on physical nuisance under complex rules. If they have not been gathered by then, they certainly will not be able to afford the costs of the case. They are suffering in a terrible vicious circle, and this is an issue that the Government ought to consider.
So far, three-quarters of those who have applied to sell their homes to HS2 have been turned down under the Government’s exceptional hardship scheme. I believe that they should review the terms of the scheme. A property bond has been proposed that would allow home owners to apply to the Government for an undertaking to purchase the property at a future date if a buyer cannot be found at the unblighted price. The bond would be transferable with the property to give confidence and security to any future purchaser or mortgage lender. This is not a new scheme. This type of scheme has been operated by Central Railway Ltd as well as by the British Airports Authority, which has a similar scheme, and mortgage lenders have successfully worked with the scheme.
The Government should remember that we are considering not just the effect of the trains once the line is completed but the many years of construction: the noise, the dust in summer and the hundreds of heavy lorries using country lanes. Local businesses, too, will be affected, and under the scheme they will have to prove loss of business—but only after some years. It would be depressing to see the value of your business decline in front of you and be unable to do anything about it until it was too late. We know that HS2 will cost more than £32 billion for the track, and another £8 billion for the trains: more than £40 billion in all. Can we have a little fairness for those who suffer real hardship? Will the Government consider a property bond? I gave the Minister notice that I would ask this question.
As I said earlier, the issue comes back to speed. The faster you go, the straighter the track has to be: no corners, so no flexibility. The Government have designed the track so that trains can run at 400 kph, which would make them some of the fastest in Europe. The plan is that they will start at 360 kph and work up to achieve an average speed from London to Birmingham of 330 kph. HS1’s maximum operating speed is 225 kph, with an average speed from London to the Channel Tunnel of 211 kph. The average speed of the HS2 service shows that it will have to operate at much slower speeds through tunnels and urban areas. Of the 225 kilometres of HS2’s route from London to Birmingham, less than half—109 kilometres—will be capable of allowing the planned 400 kph speed, due to various constraints.
So why design a track that will enable trains to run at this high speed of 400 kph when we know that it takes time to build up speed and as much time to brake to a slower speed, both of which will use energy and increase CO2 emissions? The problem with a projected speed of this nature is that there can be no corners: the track has to run virtually in a straight line. The minimum radius of curvature for the track increases, I am told—I am no mathematician or expert—from 4.05 kilometres to 7.2 kilometres. What is more, it will then limit the length of tunnels in which the train can travel at speed. Therefore, the line has to be straight. It cannot avoid urban areas or the unspoilt valleys of the Chilterns, or follow the line of the M40, where possible, to Birmingham.
We know from Europe that train speeds are being reduced, not increased, due to the disproportionate effect of very high speeds on train and track maintenance and on energy consumption and efficiency. If the plan was to operate HS2 at the same top speed as HS1, all the main issues could be dealt with, including a station at Bicester linking through to the Midlands, which would attract local support. Following the M40 as closely as possible to minimise environmental impacts would avoid most of the scarring and destruction and the damage to many homes. Many fewer houses would be affected than under the current plan, and that would enable the Government to save money, even though there would then have to be a longer track. It would avoid the loss of ancient monuments and woodlands and the severance of many public rights of way.
Therefore, my plea is for the Government to see what can be done. It is not too late. With HS1, we know that right up until the moment it was built there was a debate on where the track should go. It is not impossible to make changes. We know that we have an enabling Bill coming before us in this Session of Parliament, and we know that the Government hope to introduce a full Bill perhaps next year, so it is not too late to review the route and to take in all the matters that affect the route, whether it is speed, the environmental benefits or the environmental impact. I quite understand if the Government are determined to go ahead, and they should do so, but I urge them to look at the effect on those who live along the route and to see what they can do to mitigate the damage and improve the compensation that is available.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on securing this debate. It is timely and he has raised some interesting points. Certainly, he made a very good point about compensation. When I worked on the Channel Tunnel, which was an Anglo-French project, we were struck by the difference in the compensation regimes of the two countries. I think that in France people got the valuation of the property plus 10%, plus their moving costs. It was remarkable that very few people complained there, whereas they did in England and they continue to do so. Given the extra time and hassle, and the unfairness that the noble Viscount mentioned, I think that there is a strong argument for improving the package.
The noble Viscount mentioned the link to Heathrow. I believe in a new line to get extra capacity on the railway between London and the West Midlands, the north-west and the north-east. Whether that is via a high-speed passenger line, an ordinary passenger line or a freight line—I declare an interest as the chairman of the Rail Freight Group—more capacity is needed. The traffic is forecast to double in the next 20 years and the existing line certainly cannot cope with that. The Government have chosen the high-speed line.
Personally, I do not have too much of a problem with most of the route. It is interesting that it is still subject to change, as we have seen. I do not think that a spur to Heathrow is particularly sensible. I am sure that passengers going to Heathrow are terribly important, but the volume there compared with the number of passengers going to central London is very small. Probably only one train an hour is justified from, say, Manchester, whereas there will probably be three or four going to central London. They are not going to get to their terminal without changing trains because there are three groups of terminals at Heathrow. Therefore, if they are going to have to change anyway, they might as well change at Old Oak Common—that is my simplistic view on it.
However, what I worry about with the present situation is that we are getting more and more tunnels. We have a new one next to East Midlands Airport, which I think is very good for the logistics industry, we have another one near Ruislip, which I am sure my noble friend Lord Rosser will be pleased about, and we have lots of tunnels or extra lengths through the Chilterns, where there may be more to come or there may not. The extra cost of these tunnels is now probably well over £1 billion, although it may be more than that.
I have two issues to raise relating to the tunnels. The noble Viscount said that they slow down the trains. They do unless you build a tunnel big enough to reduce the air pressure, and that costs more, so there is a balance to be struck there. I do not have a clue what the right balance is but he made some good points.
However, I question whether one needs quite so many tunnels. If you go down and look at the line in Kent, you will see there are not that many tunnels. I spent quite a lot of time working on the side of line when it was being built. There was enormous opposition at the time. I thought that the environmental protection was pretty good—there are some fake tunnels and a real tunnel through the hills. You do not find many people there who now say what a disaster it is. They live with it; they are quite happy with it, and they basically ask what all the fuss was about. Having been brought up in a nice little village called Great Missenden, the one thing that I did not like was the road going through it from Aylesbury and Amersham, which, even 40, 50 or 60 years ago, was a pretty horrible road with lots of traffic. Frankly, building beside it a high-speed railway that was pretty straight, with the right sound barriers, I would have thought was probably just as good or bad as building a long tunnel—but that just happens to be my opinion.
Many noble Lords have talked about, and probably will talk about, the alleged destruction in the Chilterns and elsewhere. I do not know how many houses are going to be affected along the route outside London, but in the Camden area probably 400 houses are going to be affected by the proposed demolition west of Euston station and up at Camden Road. Residents there have just as much right to be considered and looked after as the people who live in leafier areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and I have come up with an alternative scheme for the London end of High Speed 2 that avoids those two areas of demolition. The idea is instead to construct an underground station linking Euston and St Pancras, next door to where Crossrail 2 might go. That would give a much better passenger throughput to the two stations as well as allowing a proper connection to HS1. It would provide not only for international trains, such as they may be, but for a new east-west Thameslink, which would probably become very popular—new forecasts are coming out quite soon that will support that.
Does the Minister have any views on this “Euston Cross” proposal? We have met representatives of HS2; we have met some Ministers. We have got further work to do, because HS2 Ltd says that it is too expensive—but it would, wouldn’t it?—but if it is going to add £1.5 billion to the budget for tunnels, it should at least look at this scheme. If it is the same price or even a little bit more and has a greater cost-benefit, it should be investigated.
I hope that this scheme goes ahead, with some changes, because if it does not then we will have to start the whole process over again. I hope that HS2 Ltd will engage with more groups and individuals along the route and listen to some of the comments being made, otherwise it will find a very large number of petitions waiting for it when it gets to the Commons and Lords Select Committees, which will cost it a lot of time and a lot of money.
Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, I, like others, congratulate my noble friend on bringing this matter before the House again. Many issues surround this expensive, grandiose and, in my eyes, not needed venture, but perhaps I may first declare my interest, as HS2 slices right through the magnificent farmland and rural communities of the constituency where I live. We are blighted not only by this but also by the threat and horror of wind turbines. The M40 runs through the constituency, so, altogether, we feel that we have been singled out for a battering. This seems to me to be the industrialisation of our beautiful countryside. People’s lives are being ruined as they assess their plight, and I feel particularly concerned for those who would apparently not be compensated because they live very close to HS2 but not close enough to benefit from compensation.
If this venture is to proceed, it seems very strange that the Government did not choose to build the line in the corridor of the M1 and the Birmingham to London railway line. The cost would, I believe, be less, as the blight has already been established, and the links around Birmingham and Birmingham International could be addressed much more simply than the present plans reveal.
The business case for this project seems to be very flimsy, and it is difficult to find reliable figures in support of it. I heard on Radio 4 last week that the benefit/cost ratio has been reduced from 2.4:1 to 1.6:1. It is inconceivable that the £33 billion cost will not increase—all public projects do. We are told that HS2 will deliver 100,000 new jobs some time in the future but, as Margaret Hodge said, the business case is,
“clearly not up to scratch”.
It is very difficult to accept the situation. There seems to be no evidence for the Department for Transport’s claim that HS2 would deliver regional economic growth. It just seems to be an ambitious fantasy pipe dream that would be constructed at an unaffordable cost to the taxpayer.
Since the privatisation of the railways, I have marvelled at the transformation of rail services. My nearest station is Banbury, so I can travel to London on the Chiltern line. We have new trains that are all fitted with wi-fi, enabling passengers to work on their computers in the comfort of carpeted carriages. Travel time is seen not as a waste of time but as quiet time away from phones before the start and hurly-burly of the day. The journey of 55 minutes, arriving at Marylebone on time, is impressive, and it seems to me that we travel at high enough speeds now.
I try not to travel at peak times, but if seats are in short supply, as many others have said, longer platforms to accommodate longer trains would be the answer. This would involve developing our infrastructure, thus bringing much-needed employment to all parts of the country now, not in the years to come. I do not know how many would profit from HS2, but it would be few compared with the many who would benefit from the upgrading of all stations on commuter routes.
There is much work to do on a business plan before the project could be approved and, most importantly, a great deal of research is needed to consider the environmental damage that would be caused. We should never forget that we are the custodians of our precious countryside and so, for the sake of all, we must not destroy our rural communities and the treasured way of life that is our heritage.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I declare an interest, as the current preferred route for phase 1 of HS2 goes very close to my home in Little Missenden—close enough to “blight” it, in the words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, but certainly not close enough to qualify for any compensation.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for securing this debate and indeed for his valiant work altogether in keeping this issue in the public eye. I agree with everything that he said about the compensation scheme, which I think needs to be completely reworked, perhaps along the lines of the French model mentioned by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I also thought that the noble Viscount’s points about the way in which the route for HS1 was changed quite late in the day were ones that we might want to keep in our minds as we move towards the paving Bill and then the hybrid Bill.
Like the noble Viscount, I have no objection to HS2 in principle and I support my party’s position on the introduction of this technology. However, taking a fresh look at HS2 may well help the Government, and indeed future Governments, to build in greater connectivity, more sustainability and, importantly, flexibility. It would also help in meeting local concerns without damaging the overall national objectives of the project.
In their announcement of the preferred route for phase 2 of HS2, the Government said that the scheme had been designed to minimise potential impact on settlements and properties as well as on important environment and heritage sites. They said:
“The scheme would avoid any national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty”,
and registered parks and gardens. Will the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, who is also the noble Viscount, Lord Prestwood, say why this approach was not taken for phase 1, which currently destroys the AONB in the Chilterns—including, it should be noted, the village of Prestwood? Indeed, the Chilterns AONB is now the only AONB along the entire HS2 phase 1 and phase 2 routes that is adversely impacted by the proposed project. Although the route is tunnelled from the M25 for approximately 13 kilometres through to Hyde Heath, partially bypassing Little Missenden, the remainder of the route through the AONB to beyond Wendover is on the surface or in cuttings of various depths. This has had a major and unacceptable impact on areas of ancient woodland, a scheduled ancient monument and several rights of way and ancient highways, and damaging impacts on the landscape and tranquillity of a nationally protected area.
Local residents, the county council and local district councils, along with conservation bodies, believe that if the current route has to be retained, the only acceptable solution is a tunnel throughout the AONB, continuing from Little Missenden, under Mantles Wood to Wendover. This would ensure that the villages of Prestwood, Great Missenden, Hyde Heath and Wendover would be given full-tunnel protection, along with the beautiful and unspoilt countryside in which they are located.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that the Government need to think harder about environmental impacts, and to learn the lessons from what made HS1 acceptable. What he described as the Kent principles should be applied to the Chilterns AONB. In addition to better protecting the environment and unique natural assets, redrawing the preferred phase 1 route would further enable the Government to meet local concerns without damaging the overall objectives of the entire HS2 project.
The HS2 draft environmental statement consultation that was published on 16 May accepts that a tunnel right through the Chilterns AONB would perform better on environmental grounds than the current proposals. It also accepts that the all-through tunnel option is feasible in engineering terms, would reduce operational noise impacts, save landscaping costs and mitigate major surface construction at 10 locations within the AONB, including ancient woodlands and the Grim’s Ditch scheduled ancient monument. The Woodland Trust recognises the potential benefits of using tunnelling through this section of the Chilterns AONB, in particular because it can negate the loss of ancient woodlands.
Perhaps the Minister will explain how he can justify his department’s approach when Defra’s recent forestry policy statement declares:
“England’s 340,000 hectares of ancient woodlands are exceptionally rich in wildlife, including many rare species and habitats. They are an integral part of England’s cultural heritage and act as reservoirs from which wildlife can spread into new woodlands”.
It states categorically:
“Protection of our trees, woods and forests, especially our ancient woodland, is our top priority”.
I repeat: “our top priority”. We understand that the Department for Transport is drawing up a landscape plan for HS2 which proposes the planting of 4 million native trees. Although welcome, these new trees can never compensate for the loss of ancient woodland which, by its nature, is irreplaceable.
The Government need to explain why the HS1 Kent principles are not being applied to HS2 phase 1, and in particular why the preferred route does not follow existing transport corridors, away from the Chilterns AONB. They need to get a better balance between the irretrievable loss of a unique natural landscape and shaving a few minutes off a journey. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that a plan to tunnel all through the Chilterns AONB will be included in the final environmental statement report as one of the “main alternatives” that HS2 Ltd has studied, so that the public and in due course Parliament can take this information into account at the hybrid Bill stage.
Redrawing the phase 1 route so that it crosses the Chilterns AONB at a narrower point would help meet local concerns without damaging the overall national objectives of the HS2 project. It would also improve rail access to Heathrow. Given the extent to which this might enable local people to come more readily to accept the HS2 project, it would seem an eminently sensible proposal. It must make sense for the Government to bring as many people along with their plans as they can. If this could be agreed, it would also, as my noble friend said, reduce considerably the time required for scrutiny of the hybrid Bill. I urge the Government to look again at the preferred route for phase 1 of HS2.
Lord Truscott
My Lords, first, I apologise for arriving late. I was given slightly different timings, but clearly the error was mine and I will read Hansard carefully and take note of what has been said. I, too, thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for initiating this short debate. This is the third such debate since last summer, and no doubt there will be many more over the coming years. The compensation scheme still appears shambolic, with many thousands of people losing out by being trapped in homes they may be unable to sell. I hope that the Minister will reassure noble Lords that the Government are finally getting a grip on the situation. Perhaps he could also inform your Lordships if the property bond finds favour with the Government.
Since our last debate in February, there have been further developments. The National Audit Office’s report on HS2 is damning. The case for HS2 is not convincing and the timetable is “challenging”. The NAO said that it was unclear how the project would deliver and rebalance economic growth, particularly in the regions. The Department for Transport had not assessed the value of time-savings correctly and had knowingly used outdated data. There was a £3.3 billion funding gap and the DfT had simply got its cost-benefit ratio figures wrong. The head of the NAO summed it up thus:
“It’s too early in the High Speed 2 programme to conclude on the likelihood of its achieving value for money. Our concern at this point is the lack of clarity around the Department’s objectives”.
The response of the Secretary of State for Transport in the other place to the NAO report sounds to me as if he is losing the plot. He attacked the NAO as a “bunch of bean counters”. Quite apart from the extraordinary spectacle of a Cabinet Minister attacking a body set up by Parliament to hold government to account, I question why the Secretary of State for Transport has more faith in his own officials, whose planning and implementation to date has not been above reproach—in fact, on occasion it has been quite awful.
There is also the question of the draft environmental statement, which is disappointing. The Government’s own forestry policy statement, referred to by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, states that protection of our trees, woods and forests, and especially our ancient woodland, is “our top priority”. Yet the draft summary of the environmental statement states that,
“at present there are no route-wide significant effects on habitats”.
That is patently not the case. Nor will growing an extra 4 million trees, as has already been mentioned, replace the irreplaceable. That is an environmental sop.
The proposed design speed of HS2, at 400 kph, resulting in a virtually straight line between London and Birmingham, will inflict maximum damage on the environment, including the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. The Chilterns AONB is now the only one along the entire route so affected. A lower design speed following existing transport corridors, as with HS1, would have a far reduced impact, along the lines of the Kent principles referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will listen carefully to reasoned opposition on HS2 and not descend to the mindless tactic of attacking the messenger rather than addressing the serious issues raised.
Lord Vinson
I apologise for arriving late, but the overrun rather threw the timetable out.
I am not scheduled to speak, but, as a businessman and having carefully followed the debates on the whole of HS2, it does seem to me to be a folly of the first order. Our country is desperate for new infrastructure development, not only in railways but particularly in roads and elsewhere. This project will not begin to return any money for 15 years, because it cannot until it is running. It has undoubtedly been underestimated already as they have left out the cost of the trains, which are an integral part of the project. It will mean spending £30 billion to £40 billion on something that will yield a negative return, because there is no high-speed train or railway in the world that runs at a profit. It will either have very high fares to try to justify it, or be heavily subsidised.
This country needs that £40 billion spent now over the next 10 years on improving our road bottlenecks, where 95% of our freight will always travel because freight cannot go by high-speed trains; it is a fantasy to think that it can. We have bottlenecks and pinch points on existing railways that could be opened up for a fraction of the money at issue here. I am repeating many of the hugely sensible arguments that have been put up against this vanity project. I hope that it can be delayed in every possible way. I hope that the Treasury will come to the conclusion that it is far too expensive. I hope that sanity will reign so that this money can be deflected to national projects that will give an economic return. Roads, for example, give a huge economic return. It is no good saying, “All people have got to travel by train”. They will travel by car to reach the high-speed trains and there will be massive congestion around the new rail terminals that are going to be put in place.
It is a fantasy project. Nowhere in the world do high-speed trains pay. We have very short distances in this country. For the longer distances—for example, from London to Edinburgh—airlines will always be able to offer fares at one-quarter of the price of train fares for the simple reason that air travel has no highway costs. It has terminal costs, but no highway costs. That is what is makes air travel inherently cheaper over longer distances.
On all these factors, I hope that the Government will reconsider. I hope that they will find a good excuse for dodging their present plans and an admirable reason for postponing, delaying and then cancelling this fantasy project that will bring no economic benefit at all to the British Isles.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for enabling us to have this debate today. It is probably not an unfair statement to make that most of the speeches have hardly been enthusiastic about HS2, and I shall return to that point shortly.
On the question of alternative routes, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the extent to which the current route now proposed is fixed, particularly the extent to which any further changes would involve reopening or extending the consultation process and the impact that this might have on the timetable for the development and construction of the line. Perhaps the Minister could also say whether further decisions to put more of the line in a tunnel or cutting than is presently envisaged would mean further delay as a result.
I ask these questions in the context of a press advertisement this morning from the Department for Transport about public consultation events on the draft environmental statement for phase 1 of HS2. Is the basis of this consultation that the route, including the extent to which it is in tunnel or above ground, has been fixed, or could this consultation lead to changes in the route or the extent to which it is in a tunnel or a cutting?
On compensation terms, I await with interest the Minister’s response to the questions raised and points made in the debate today. Will the amount of money available for compensation be fixed, or are the Government saying that it can be increased if they decide that a case for doing so has been made? What action have they taken in the light of the recent judicial decision on compensation?
Reference has already been made to the recent National Audit Office report on High Speed 2. It is clear that the Government’s inability properly to progress major transport projects continues. Having already announced that they would be incapable of making a decision during the entire five years of this Parliament on airport capacity in the south-east, the Government then showed themselves less than capable of running the rail franchise bidding programme. The west coast main line franchising fiasco has resulted in nearly the whole of the rest of the programme being delayed or deferred and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being wasted.
The next display of a deficiency in competence over handling a project is now occurring over the high-speed rail link from London to the West Midlands, Manchester and Leeds. A less than complimentary National Audit Office report has highlighted financial and timetabling problems as well as the Government’s failure to articulate properly the powerful case for HS2.
As a result, the current hostility, which we have seen in part today, of a number of MPs and Peers, primarily Conservative, to the project is continuing. The National Audit Office has damningly said that the Government’s strategic reasons for developing High Speed 2 were not well presented in the business case. Its report also states that the timetable for introducing the hybrid Bill for HS2 phase 1 to Parliament this year has been overambitious and remains challenging. Witheringly for Transport Ministers, the NAO then drew attention to its earlier report on cancelling the intercity west coast franchise procurement, which had highlighted the mistakes that can be made in trying to meet an unrealistic timetable.
Further issues of concern to the NAO are the absence of a government mechanism to agree long-term, in-principle funding for the life of the HS2 programme, and serious doubts over the transport department’s capacity to undertake the HS2 programme to a challenging timetable, bearing in mind its other commitments and the impact of considerable organisational change, driven by the Government, within the department.
The NAO report does not address the environmental case for HS2 for reasons that are, frankly, not clear, but it then calls for an examination of premium fares for HS2 when there is no precedent for it, as the HS1 premium fares apply only to commuter services and no commuter services are planned for HS2.
Our support for HS2, which we first proposed and embarked upon when in government, remains undiminished. It is needed to address serious and mounting capacity problems on our existing rail network and, in particular, the west coast main line. The NAO report spells out far more effectively than this Government have ever done the increasing capacity problems for commuters at Euston in the peak and it goes on to say that a new line—that is, HS2,
“would release capacity for extra commuter services as most intercity services would transfer”.
As we have said before, in the light of the Government’s decision on the route, their dithering and delay on the question of airport capacity in the south-east and the need to progress HS2, we are no longer pressing for our preferred alternative route via Heathrow. We still have serious concerns about the adequacy of the link proposed in London between HS2 and the High Speed 1 route to the Channel Tunnel and Europe, the impact of the Government’s plans on Camden and recent proposals for a scaled-back Euston station. We will, however, be providing cross-party support to secure parliamentary approval for the HS2 project to become a reality while ensuring that it is fully integrated into the existing network, is affordable to use and is not undertaken at the expense of investment in the existing network.
However, HS2 will not progress if the Government again fail to get their act together on this further major transport project. The larger government party has lost control and influence over its Back-Benchers on Europe and gay marriage in both the Commons and the Lords. If a hat trick of Back-Bench rebellions is to be avoided, the Government have to make the case for HS2 with rather more vigour and determination than they have done up to now and also act on the critical NAO report on their failures to date.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I assure the Committee that I will be supporting and pursuing the HS2 project with great vigour.
I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Astor for securing this debate and I thank other noble Lords for their contributions. A project as significant as HS2 deserves plenty of time for debate, and I am happy to address your Lordships’ questions this evening and, I hope, on future occasions.
There have been some developments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport introduced the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, to which my noble friend referred, in the House of Commons on 13 May. It is colloquially known as the paving Bill. We also published the Draft Environmental Statement for phase 1 on 16 May, along with a consultation on the proposed route refinements.
Noble Lords will also be aware of the NAO’s review of HS2. The report is a snapshot from the past and the project has moved on. Economic modelling is just part of the story. If we relied only on modelling, we would not have built the M1, parts of the M25 or the Jubilee line extension to Canary Wharf. We are not building HS2 simply because “the computer says yes”; it is the right thing to do to make Britain a stronger and more prosperous place.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made much of the NAO report. Perhaps I may remind him that the Government are running with a project that his party started, and we are very happy to do so. This is a transformational project that will serve eight out of 10 of the UK’s largest cities, bringing our major cities closer together and two-thirds of people in the north to within two hours of London.
The Government support a direct high-speed connection to Heathrow but it is sensible that further work on a link to Heathrow should await the consideration of the Airports Commission’s recommendations, due in 2015. If it fitted with the commission’s recommendations, we could consult separately later and include the spur in the legislation for phase 2. It could be constructed as part of phase 2 without any impact on the operational railway.
We welcome the outcome of the judicial review, with nine of the 10 challenges being rejected. The one challenge on which the judge found against the Government concerned the 2011 consultation on property compensation rights. The judgment makes clear that it was the process, not the compensation scheme itself, that was flawed. We are giving detailed consideration to the judge’s comments and are planning to reconsult later this year on property compensation schemes.
My noble friend has claimed that properties more than 60 metres from the line would not be eligible for compensation. This is not correct. The exceptional hardship scheme for phase 1 has no defined geographical limit for qualification. However, the EHS is only the start; we will consult later this year on long-term proposals for property schemes that will apply to those outside the 120-metre swathe that my noble friend has described. I have more to say on property compensation.
It is regrettable that the recent judicial review has delayed the introduction of further compensation. However, the Government have been clear that we want to get compensation to those who need it as quickly as possible. While it is inappropriate to speculate on the final package of schemes, I can confirm that the scheme, or rather the consultation, will include a property bond.
The Government are determined to make this an environmentally responsible scheme. We have listened to concerns and worked closely with Natural England and the Environment Agency. However, you cannot build a railway without causing some disruption. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, raised the issue of the Chilterns. Following the 2011 consultation, of the 13 miles of route through the Chilterns AONB, less than two miles will be at or above the surface. This is more than a 50% increase in tunnel or green tunnel compared with the original route. It is clearly harder to avoid an AONB near the Home Counties than further north, where there are more possibilities of changing the route.
Mitigation can have its own impacts. A full-bored tunnel through the Chilterns was considered, but would require 10 ventilation shafts as well as an emergency access station. This would be a box constructed within the AONB, around half a mile long, with good road access for emergency services. Only one feasible location for this access station was identified, close to Little Missenden on the A413, requiring the box to be between 40 metres and 50 metres deep, making this a costly and significant engineering challenge, with its own environmental impacts.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I think I detected a somewhat aggressive stance in what he was saying. I am sorry that he says that. Does he not accept that there is in fact an alternative scheme, which I mentioned in my speech, that proposes a relief tunnel, exactly as specified and required under European legislation, at Wendover Dean? That has the support of local residents, which is one of the major reasons why it has been put forward. To say that there is no alternative except in Mantle’s Wood, the very ancient woodland that we are most concerned about, which happens to be near Little Missenden and indeed Great Missenden, is wrong, and we are against that. There is an alternative. It is not the best alternative, but it is disingenuous of the Minister to say that there are no possible alternatives.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am extremely sorry to the Committee if I appeared to be aggressive. I have no intention of doing that at all. However, the noble Lord is raising detailed questions about the route, and my duty is to defend the whole scheme. It will be the duty of Parliament to finally approve the route. At the moment, we are consulting about the route, and we need to do that properly. I will of course read Hansard carefully to look at the precise points that the noble Lord has made.
I turn to the issue of train speed, which my noble friend Lord Astor raised. The route has been engineered to allow for train speeds of up to 400 kilometres per hour in future, should there be a commercial justification for doing so. Operation at up to 400 kilometres per hour would require the consideration of whether improved train design enabled services to operate at that higher speed without additional significant adverse environmental effects. Going fast does not disproportionately increase the cost of the infrastructure, but it means that the alignment has to be more or less straight.
I will try to answer as many questions as I can in the time remaining. My noble friend Lord Astor proposed a station at Bicester, but then he went on to point out the difficulties of accelerating and decelerating from stations. My noble friend made further comments on train speeds. While it is true that some European operators are looking at operating at slightly lower speeds, largely due to maintenance issues, we are not aware of any that are planning to go as low as 225 kilometres per hour. The infrastructure is still built for higher speeds so that, when technology allows, they will be able to return to those higher operating speeds.
My noble friend also talked about the spur to Heathrow. It is important to understand that the spur has not been cancelled but has been paused, and it is too early to predict the outcome of the Airports Commission’s work or any of the decisions taken following that. There are no plans to slow down the progress of phase 1. We need to press on quickly with phase 1 so that we can deliver the economic and wider benefits that higher rail speeds can bring. Does pausing the spur mean no third runway at Heathrow? The Government’s position on a third runway at Heathrow remains unchanged, as set out in the coalition agreement. However, the Airports Commission has been tasked with identifying and recommending to the Government options for maintaining the UK’s status as an international hub for aviation.
My noble friend Lord Astor and others have suggested that, where possible, the route should follow noisy transport corridors such as existing motorways. During the course of the scheme development work in 2009, six main corridors, including the M40 and the M1, were considered. The routes were rejected, primarily because of their adverse implications for journey times and economic benefits, which were compounded by their higher costs. Any environmental advantages that these options offered over the proposed scheme were marginal at best, and therefore not decisive in discounting these routes.
I turn to the issue of compensation. We are clear that we need to have a very good compensation scheme. Most infrastructure projects compensate property owners only at a much later stage of development, when statutory measures apply. For the HS2 project, however, an exceptional hardship scheme has already been introduced while the route is being considered. Subject to consultation later this year, the Government have already stated that we hope to introduce subsequent schemes that go even further than the law requires in order to ensure fair compensation for those directly affected by HS2.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave a case study for what we are doing with the EHS, remembering that it is inappropriate for me to comment on specific individual cases. Take a lady living 350 metres from the proposed HS2 route who suffered from an illness that meant she was unable to safely climb the stairs in her home. The lady therefore needed to sell her home to purchase a bungalow but, because of the proximity of HS2, she was unable to achieve a sale at the required price. The lady and her husband applied to the EHS, providing documentary evidence that they met the criteria for the scheme, including that the lady was suffering exceptional hardship. A majority independent panel considered the evidence and recommended that the lady’s home should be purchased from her. This recommendation was reviewed and agreed by a senior civil servant at the DfT. Some 12 weeks later, we exchanged contracts on the lady’s home for the full, unblighted value. So far we have brought 81 properties on to the scheme, spending just under £50 million, and have offered to buy a further 32.
Viscount Astor
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He kindly said that the Government have the intention of introducing a property bond. I realise that there will not be time for him to go into the details today but I would be grateful, when he has had a chance to consider what it might be, if he would perhaps write to those who have spoken in this debate with any details that he has.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I very nearly slipped up in what I said. I nearly said that we would be introducing a property bond, but I corrected myself and said that we would be consulting on a property bond, which is rather different.
My noble friend gave us an amusing analogy about the Palace of Westminster, where the Cross Benches are and so on. This claim reflects neither the current strategy provisions nor the discretionary proposals put forth by the Government. Property owners may be entitled to Part 1 compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973. This is paid if the property loses value due to the impact of physical factors arising from the use of new infrastructure, such as noise, dust and vibration. It is available for owner-occupiers of residential properties, small businesses and agriculture units. Owners can put in claims once the railway line has been open for a year. This allows the actual impact of the infrastructure to be understood.
I have completely run out of time. I will have to write on all the other issues, apart from the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of a below-ground station at Euston. I read the noble Lord’s proposal very carefully but I am afraid that it has been rejected. In order to avoid Underground lines and the proposed Crossrail 2 and Thameslink station at Kings Cross, the station would need to be very deep—50 metres or more. The significant additional cost and complexity of constructing such a station, and the significant safety issues that it would present in respect of evacuation, mean that this option is not viable. I have discussed this with the engineer, and will happily discuss it further with the noble Lord if that would help. I would also be very happy to have separate meetings with Members of the Committee on each individual issue, as I have only 12 minutes to respond today and it is very difficult for me to do justice to noble Lords’ points.
I reassure the Committee that the Government will continue to listen to concerns about the impact of HS2. The consultation on the draft environmental statement and route refinement will be an opportunity for people to respond with their views on what is needed. HS2 is about helping Britain to thrive and prosper.
Lord Rosser
Before the Minister sits down, in the light of what he said at the end about the consultation on the environmental statement, I am still not clear, and would therefore like him to confirm whether the outcome of that consultation could lead to the route that has been determined so far being changed, and whether it could lead to the extent to which a line is in a tunnel, in a cutting or on the surface also being changed—or is that all fixed now?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, at the end of the day, nothing is fixed until Parliament has determined what the route will be. The role of the Government is to propose to Parliament what the route should be, using the appropriate procedures, and then Parliament will agree what the route will be.
House of Lords
UN Arms Trade Treaty
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements they are making for the signature, ratification and implementation of the new United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, the United Kingdom welcomes the adoption of the arms trade treaty on 2 April. We spent seven years working for this treaty. Its adoption is a victory for government, Parliament, civil society and industry. The treaty opens for signature on 3 June. The United Kingdom will sign and ratify it as a matter of urgency. We will also encourage other states to sign and ratify to ensure that the treaty enters into force as soon as possible.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I trust that it will be in order to ask that congratulations be passed to Alistair Burt and his team at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for their skill and perseverance in achieving a more robust treaty than might at one time have been anticipated, and to the Foreign Secretaries, from Jack Straw onwards, who gave them their full support. Can the Minister say who is going to sign on behalf of the UK on 3 June? It is surely important that the signature be at a level that indicates the importance that we attach to it. Can she also say what consideration will be given in future, when granting an arms export licence, to the status of the importing country under the arms trade treaty—whether it has signed and ratified and is implementing the treaty? Would not that be a more effective way of encouraging the widest possible acceptance of its terms?
Baroness Warsi
I think the noble Lord asked three questions. Yes, I can absolutely add my support and congratulations to all the Foreign Secretaries, and indeed all Ministers, many from the Opposition, who have worked over seven years to make this happen. Of course, my congratulations go to my right honourable friend Mr Burt, who handled this towards the end, and to Alan Duncan. Negotiations went on long into the evenings to make sure that it happened—and, of course, it has been a huge success.
The treaty will be signed as soon as possible. We are hoping that it can be done by the Foreign Secretary, and we are looking at opportunities for how that will happen. It is really a matter of getting a balance to make sure that it is as near to 3 June as possible as well as at the highest level.
I missed most of the noble Lord’s third question, but I think it was in relation to getting the broadest support from member states. Of course, this treaty will come into force only once 50 states have signed it and 90 days thereafter have passed. So we will do all we can to encourage that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, the United Nations press release says that the treaty makes it,
“harder for human rights abusers, criminals and arms traffickers to obtain weapons”.
How does that fit in with the UK defence industry and the sales of arms, equipment and aircraft to other states?
Baroness Warsi
As the noble Lord is aware, the UK already has one of the most robust and effective export control systems in the world. I regularly see documentation on the countries for which I have responsibility. We have extensive criteria against which we assess any sales. We feel that this arms trade treaty sets an international benchmark, but we do not think that primary legislation will be required to enable us to implement it.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, of the 150 countries that adopted this treaty, a significant proportion do not have the capacity to implement it. What plans do our Government have to build that capacity in countries that are key to the implementation of the treaty as it is in our interests that they are able to do so?
Baroness Warsi
I can inform the noble Lord that resource has been set aside to make sure that we work with those countries which do not have the developed, sophisticated arms control systems that we have. The treaty will be effective only when 50 countries join; thereafter, it comes into force. We will, of course, use the network—as the noble Lord is aware, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has one of the most extensive networks—to make sure that we work with our partners to ensure that countries which need the support get the support.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
What changes, if any, will be necessary in the UK arms controls guidelines on exported arms?
Baroness Warsi
We think that we may have to implement some secondary legislation. Once the treaty has been signed, it will be laid before both Houses, I think for 21 sitting days. We hope and anticipate that we will be able to ratify before the end of the year. We think that there may be some amendments to secondary legislation, but that will take place before the end of the year.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I have had discussions with various people who were closely involved with this. It is, after all, a really good news story. However, I have been advised that the signing ceremony will be particularly important. If the United Kingdom is not present, that could send a signal that our commitment is not as high as it should be. I urge the Government to consider that we should be represented in New York on 3 June at the most senior level possible to show how committed we are to this treaty.
Baroness Warsi
Exactly those kinds of discussions are happening to make sure that we send out that very strong signal. Your Lordships will also be aware that we can make an intent declaration when we sign. We will make sure that that is very robust and clear. Much work has gone into this and we have led on much of it. I absolutely assure the noble Lord and this House that we will continue to show our support.
Lord Elton
My Lords, which countries are currently the most prolific exporters of arms to undesirable recipients who have not signed up to the treaty and are not proposing to ratify it? What plans are there to try to persuade them to sign up to it?
Baroness Warsi
I do not know whether I can tell my noble friend which countries are sending arms to undesirables. However, I can say that there are countries heavily involved in arms exports—for example, the US, Russia, China and India. The US will, of course, sign the treaty. Russia, China and India abstained but they made positive statements and we are hopeful that they will move in the right direction.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I join in congratulating the Government and former Foreign Secretaries on this achievement. Indeed, I have written to Alistair Burt personally to say how much I admire and respect the work that he did in achieving this outcome. I return to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. There will be those, like us, who have signed the treaty. There will be others who do not sign the treaty. How do the Government envisage ensuring that the people who have signed the treaty do not export arms to those who will not abide by these international standards?
Baroness Warsi
The treaty sets out an international benchmark and even for those countries which do not sign the treaty initially, and are not supportive of it fully at this stage, political pressure will build off the back of this saying this is what the international community sees as the standard—you may not have signed up to it but it is how we expect you to conduct yourselves. That will be an important lever in trying to move those countries in the right direction.
EU: UK Trading Deficit
Lord Vinson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce, and raise public awareness of, the United Kingdom’s £46 billion annual trading deficit with the European Union, as set out in the Treasury Pink Book.
Lord Popat
My Lords, the UK’s current trade balance with the rest of the EU reflects a range of factors. The recent rise in the deficit reflects the shrinking EU market, not a loss of UK market share. The UK is pursuing a range of policies—supporting measures to stabilise and revitalise the EU as well as encouraging firms to internationalise—which will boost UK trade with the EU.
Lord Vinson
I thank the Minister for his very considered reply. Indeed, we must all try harder to export. Does he agree that our relationship with the EU is changing and that the strength of our trading position would be a key factor in any future negotiations? Should it not be widely known that while 3 million of our jobs are reciprocal with our trade with the EU, the continuing £46 billion a year trade imbalance means that overall 4 million of its jobs rely on us? We are indeed its biggest customer. Is this not likely to lead to sensible bilateral trading arrangements similar to those that we have with the rest of the world, as it needs us rather more than we need it?
Lord Popat
My Lords, our trade with the European Union, and the deficit of £46 billion, is counterbalanced by our surplus on invisible trade. Our membership of the EU is still in the best interests of the UK. It provides tariff-free access to a market that is worth around £11 trillion and has half a billion customers, and its trade with the UK enables 3.6 million employers in this country.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, the EU trade deficit is all very well, but do the Government agree that to tackle our overall trade deficit we should be encouraging exports to countries such as India? I despair to this day that when I ask businesses in this country if they export to India, only a handful of hands go up in an audience of 300. Will the Government consider rolling out the GREAT Britain campaign, which is doing an excellent job in promoting Britain abroad, here in the UK to give our businesses confidence to export to countries such as India?
Lord Popat
My Lords, for the long-term economic health of the UK we need to develop further our economic relations with fast-growing, emerging markets, including India, which the noble Lord mentioned. This is why the Prime Minister has been leading trade missions to these countries. We are doing everything possible to support our trade with emerging markets, including India, but we are also supporting a large number of UK companies, through UKTI, to help them to internationalise and to do more trade with those emerging markets.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, are we not missing the main point in this Question? Europe largely has the euro, which has devalued by 30% against the pound sterling since it was created. Why, with that level of devaluation, have we not had the competitive advantage in our trade relationships with Europe? Should not the answer to this Question really be a critique of British industry and British commerce for not taking advantage of the competitive devaluation?
Lord Popat
My Lords, part of the reason for the devaluation of the euro is the crisis the euro is going through. This Government are committed to creating a competitive economy that is fit for purpose in the 21st century.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that the argument the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, has made is the one that people from his Benches make who advocate us coming out of the European Union. I am sure he would accept, and perhaps he can confirm, that one of the answers to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, ought to be to think what would happen to our exports to the European Union were we to come out of it, let alone what would happen to our inward investment.
Lord Popat
My Lords, just under half our exporting is to the European Union. We are working to continue our trade relations with the European Union, and we really need to ensure that we reform it to make it more competitive and accountable. It is crucial that we continue to trade with it and that we increase our trade with it: hence, we have 27 UKTI offices in those countries.
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, these answers hardly fill one with confidence, do they? UK Export Finance was set up specifically to help all businesses to export more, but let us look at the results. Over one year—2011-12—the number of small and medium-sized companies receiving help from UKEF has been the magnificent total of 21. Cannot we do better than that?
Lord Popat
My Lords, this time last year I asked for an ad-hoc cross-party committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Cope, to be set up. We had a report in the early part of this year, and received a response from business this week on what we can do to help our SMEs to export more, including how the UK Export Finance scheme can work more effectively for those who export in those countries.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether there is any other trading bloc in the world with which we have a similar sized trading deficit, and which on top of that charges us money for the privilege of being part of it?
Lord Popat
My Lords, I expected that question from my noble friend. There is no other country in the world with which we have such a huge trade deficit. We have it with the European Union, but we have a large number of benefits as well. The £7 billion contribution that we pay to it gives us the benefit of free trade and a free market to other parts of the world. However, some of the huge deficit that we are talking about is offset by the invisible trade that we do with it. Most importantly, 20% of the goods that we import from Europe become part of the raw material that we export elsewhere.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, what prospect do we have of securing a successful EU/USA trade deal in the future if we are to absent ourselves from the negotiations with our EU partners? Has the Minister yet made contact with the successor to Pascal Lamy of the World Trade Organisation, Mr Azevedo, to secure the UK’s position in the WTO?
Lord Popat
My Lords, in fact, we are working with the European Union to negotiate a reformed European Union. We have moved on because in a global race we need to ensure that Europe is more competitive with respect to trade.
G8 Meeting
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their priorities for the G8 meeting on 17 June.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, the priorities for the G8 are pushing for practical action to achieve fairer taxes, greater transparency and freer trade. Those are actions that are essential in shaping the rules characterising a fair and open global economy, and ensure that both developed and developing countries benefit. G8 leaders will discuss topical foreign policy and global economic issues, as well as terrorism and security in weak and ungoverned spaces, especially the Sahel and north-west Africa.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the pre-G8 parliamentarians conference held at Westminster last week, to which more than 100 parliamentarians from all over the world came, it was once again affirmed that voluntary family planning and maternal health are cost-effective ways of promoting economic development by stabilising population growth and enabling women to access education and join the workforce? Will our Government, therefore, press their commitment to family planning and maternal health at the G8 meeting?
Baroness Warsi
I cannot assure my noble friend whether that will be on the agenda, but I will certainly take her views back. She will be aware that a huge amount of work is done by the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development both in projects on the ground and in creating the right climate for these matters to be discussed. Sometimes G8 summits are seen as places where western nations can point the finger at developing countries, but this meeting is also about the G8 countries getting their house in order.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, is it not an absolute disgrace that multinational companies, such as Associated British Foods, can actually pay less tax in countries such as Zambia than small single market traders based in the same communities, as shown by ActionAid and others? In putting their proposals to the G8, will the Government ensure that the actions of corporate multinationals and the capacity of individual governments to ensure efficient tax systems are tackled?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord raises a very important point. It is why transparency in tax will be a key priority at the G8 discussions. It is important that we get political support for ensuring that global tax rules are fit for the 21st century. It cannot be acceptable that companies can create these shadow shell companies offshore, which effectively means that both developed and developing countries do not get the benefits from revenue that should come from their profits.
Lord Hylton
Does the noble Baroness agree that Syria should be high on the G8 agenda, because of both the huge loss of life and the impact on all the neighbouring states? Would this topic not include violence against women in particular, such as mothers who have been forced to leave their homes in Syria?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord can be assured that Syria will be on the agenda. He may be aware that I repeated a Statement in this House yesterday. It is clear that this is one of our biggest foreign policy priorities. In terms of violence against women, the noble Lord may be aware of the Preventing Sexual Violence initiative, which the Foreign Secretary has been leading on. The G8 meeting of Foreign Ministers put out a robust and extensive statement on action taken to prevent sexual violence in conflict, and I am sure that this will be reaffirmed at the G8 meeting.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, the list the Minister started with contains security, but I confess that I was a little disappointed that action against nuclear proliferation was not included. There are at least two nations—and arguably very many more because of those two—where the nuclear arms race could well take hold. That must be a fundamental issue to our security and to security more generally. How will the Government ensure that that is discussed at the G8 meeting?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord will agree that a whole series of important issues could be put on the G8 agenda. We feel that what is important is to discuss the political and economic challenges of the day—as they always are. However, it is also important for the G8 to look at ways in which it can get its house in order and agree on those things that would make a real difference to developing countries—such as tax, transparency and trade. This allows developing nations to have much more transparent, open systems, so that countries know when developed nations go into their country, what they are paying for those contracts, what those governments are receiving and what the real benefits will be for the people of those nations.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s decision to concentrate on west Africa. It is an area where drug and human trafficking are a great problem. What do the Government intend to do in terms of stabilising democracy in some of these nations, for instance in Mali, Niger and Guinea-Bissau, to stop the problems escalating in future?
Baroness Warsi
The recent tragic events earlier this year in Algeria and Mali showed that different nations have different expertise that they can bring to the table. It is obvious that wherever there are ungoverned spaces, that is where the threat of extremism starts to rise. We have seen that in Mali. The discussions at this G8 will be about how we can harness that expertise from different nations and bring it together to be able to come forward with solutions for these areas which are proving to be extremely challenging.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
Would the Minister care to give an assurance about movement towards the principle of paying a living, fair and minimum wage in those countries which they intend to assist with inward development? Will she tell her colleagues that some of us despair about the way the Government are tackling the results of many major companies—this has been referred to today—which fail to pay a living wage to their employees and the governments cut the benefits? There are companies that do not pay their tax and the benefits of their employees are being cut by the government, but in fact the fault lies with the multinational companies.
Baroness Warsi
I repeat to the noble Baroness the point I made at the outset. If these companies are not paying tax off the back of their profits, it means that developed nations and developing nations cannot provide the public services and support that is needed. It will be a key part of what we are doing at the G8 to say to companies, “You have to be transparent about who owns you, about where you are owned and about the tax you are paying”, because it cannot be right. I do not know whether noble Lords saw the fantastic article in Prospect, but apparently Jersey is now the world’s largest exporter of bananas. We know that that is not true and we need to get behind that.
Sexual Offences: Investigation and Prosecution
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morris of Aberavon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will invite the inspectorates of the constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service, together with the social services agencies, to conduct an inquiry into all aspects of the investigation and prosecution of large scale sexual offences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, sexual abuse in whatever shape or form is abhorrent and we rightly expect all agencies to learn the lessons from the horrendous cases that we have seen recently. Nationally, a joint inspection programme is being planned by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and the constabulary that will look at child sexual abuse and exploitation and this will address how agencies interact to protect children and ensure that offenders are brought to justice.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, I welcome very much the Minister's reply. Is it collective amnesia that has blinded us to the underlying circumstances whereby at least 27 police forces are investigating 54 alleged child grooming gangs? Why has investigating and prosecuting in so many different parts of the country taken so much time? Is it a fear of racialism or is it that many of these vulnerable girls come from care homes? I hope that what the Minister has told us will result in speedier co-operation between all the agencies.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble and learned Lord makes a very powerful case for working together across government. I think that noble Lords will know that bodies are already in place and that we already have a very considerable focus on child protection in this country. However, there has been a failure, and a failure to recognise the reality that many of these young people have experienced. That has been exposed in recent court cases. The Government are determined that the system should work. The system needs to work to protect these very vulnerable children.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, does the Minister accept that since it would appear that in only a minority of these cases—a small minority—is there a direct victim complaint, no real progress can be made until the law enforcement agencies are prepared to adopt more robust tactics, including infiltration and surveillance? Otherwise, we will only be dusting over this disgraceful practice.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that all agencies are now very much on the alert. However, we are in effect looking back and trying to recover a situation that should never have got to this point. The intention of government should be to ensure that this does not happen again. Anyone whose job involves the protection of children should be alert to this fact. That includes local authorities, the police and those who are responsible for care homes, health agencies, schools, the probation service and housing. All these elements must come together. We have a statutory body—the local safeguarding children boards—in every local authority in this country. What are they doing if not seeking to protect the young children who are their responsibility? The Government are very alert to this and I hope that I am reassuring the House that we are determined that the system should protect the very people it was designed for.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the themes that underpins the reporting of the child abuse scandals of the past is that the victims have failed to come forward because they did not think that they would be believed? There is plenty of evidence that the authorities charged with looking after these children did not believe the accusations when they came forward. What steps can be taken to improve the situation by ensuring that those victims coming forward—who have the courage to come forward—are going to be believed and listened to and that their complaints will be investigated?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, Damian Green, has set up a group designed to ensure that this is the case and that the police forces themselves are aware of the difficulties and the need to lend a positive ear to complaints from young children. My noble friend makes a very good point—that the point of failure in the system is that these allegations have not been listened to or taken seriously by the authorities in the past.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the scale and type of sexual abuse has shocked the nation. Perhaps I may refer back to the Question from my noble and learned friend Lord Morris. Can the Minister confirm the number of serious, larger-scale sex abuse cases involving groups and gangs that have been investigated? My noble and learned friend suggested that there are about 54 such cases. The number is clearly over 30, which could mean that hundreds if not thousands of young people are suffering abuse at this moment. I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer and he was absolutely right about co-ordination. However, is he really confident that the Government have now got to grips with the matter and that the co-ordinated strategy which he spoke of deals with all aspects of these wicked crimes, including the reporting of them and the court proceedings?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I have in fact got a figure and it is a dramatic one: 2,409 children and young people were confirmed victims of sexual exploitation by either gangs or groups during the 14-month period from August 2010 to October 2011. Those figures speak for themselves and to the scale of what is being dealt with. I assure noble Lords that this Government are focusing their attention on the issue as much as any Government have done.
Cash Ratio Deposits (Value Bands and Ratios) Order 2013
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the draft order laid before the House on 26 March be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2012-13, considered in Grand Committee on 20 May.
NHS: GP Services
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I shall now repeat, as a Statement, the Answer given in another place to an Urgent Question earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
“I have been clear that we have not been satisfied with the performance of A&E over the winter period. On 13 May, I announced to Parliament my intention to launch a new plan for vulnerable older people and publish this in the autumn. As I said in that announcement, there is short-term work under way to address the issues in A&E. However, the plan will look at all aspects of the way we look after those older people most in need of support from the NHS and social care system. In many cases, we could be offering better alternatives outside of hospital. The Primary Care Foundation has estimated that 10% to 30% of A&E cases could be treated elsewhere. The plan is being developed jointly by NHS England and my department, and we will be looking to engage with patient and professional groups over the summer so that the plan can be informed by their views”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, I refer noble Lords to my health interests as set out in the register. The noble Earl is certainly right about one thing: that the health and social care system is under huge pressure. Hospitals are full to bursting, discharge is becoming ever more difficult, and social care and the voluntary sector are struggling to fulfil the demands being placed upon them. However, from the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place, it seems that the Government are seeking to blame everyone but themselves.
For instance, we have heard a lot about the GP contract, but can the noble Earl say why it has taken nine years for that contract to impact on A&E services? These are the very same GPs to whom, only a year ago, the noble Earl was saying we should hand over £80 billion for them to commission services without expertise, experience or inclination. Does he agree that the real causes of the crisis are the government-induced collapse of adult social care, the reduction in nurses, the closure of walk-in centres and ministerial pressure to introduce the NHS 111 service way too soon? Does he accept that all that has happened on the watch of the noble Earl and his ministerial colleagues?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we know that A&E departments are under pressure, and the noble Lord is absolutely right to emphasise that. Over 1 million more people are visiting A&E departments compared with three years ago. However, we also know that, on the whole, the NHS is performing well. The latest weekly figures for emergency services show that 96.3% of patients visiting A&E are being seen within four hours and that people are waiting, on average, 55 minutes for treatment. That is a testament to the hard work of many staff throughout the health and care system.
It is not just about the GP contract; it is about making sure that we have a much more joined-up system in which hospitals communicate better with care homes and GP surgeries so that information about a patient’s needs is shared between the professionals who need it. GPs have an important role to play in this, which is why changes were made to the 2013-14 GP contract as a first step. Any future changes to general practice and the contract will of course be made in negotiation with GPs, and it is too early for me to go into detail on what those proposals might be. As regards NHS 111, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I am sure that he will be aware that the pilots we conducted on the NHS 111 service were extremely encouraging and showed a high rate of patient satisfaction.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would not disagree that the GP contract, although it was some time ago now, was a factor in what has gone wrong with A&E. Does the Minister believe that we can move towards a situation where the responsibility for out-of-hours medicine once again becomes part of what GPs accept as their CCG responsibility? Can he also say whether steps might be taken in the short term to ease the situation in A&E, while in the long term we move towards a more satisfactory answer involving the reintegration of GPs into the care of patients going into A&E situations?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think that the GP contract is but one element of a more complicated picture. It is not the only issue or, indeed, is it the only solution. It is true that access to out-of-hours care in some parts of England is simply not good enough. We are not saying that family doctors should necessarily go back to being on call in the evenings and at weekends. They work hard and have families, and they need a life too, but we must take a serious look at how out-of-hours NHS care is provided. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be talking to GP leaders about how we can do that over the coming weeks.
Lord Laming
My Lords, the noble Earl has indicated that there is a need to look again at the availability of community-based services. Hospital-based services are available seven days a week but community ones for much less, and that includes social care services. While not wanting staff to work all hours, is it not possible to move towards a situation where the services will be available at all hours while we protect staff working time?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has summed up the situation extremely well. I am sure he knows that Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, is currently looking at how NHS services across the piece can be provided seven days a week in a much fuller way than they are at the moment. Access to GPs out of hours is part of that wider consideration and NHS England is working with the royal colleges and professional organisations to develop a set of standards that will apply to seven-day services. Some trusts are already thinking about treating patients at weekends for non-urgent operations and procedures. We want to encourage that trend.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, can I correct a serious misrepresentation and misconception that is constantly made regarding the GPs’ contract, and which has been made in the past few moments? The GPs’ contract for 2003-04 did not remove the requirement of a doctor to work out of hours. That was removed a decade earlier under the previous Conservative Government; indeed, by 2000 a huge percentage of doctors had already opted out. The GPs’ contract was to try to make sure that GPs were not spending part of their normal day bureaucratically chasing up a replacement doctor to take their place. It removed that bureaucratic imperative but it did not remove the right of a doctor to refuse to work out of hours. That was the case with some 70% to 80% by the end of the previous Conservative Government, before the GPs’ contract. That is a very important distinction.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I certainly did not mean to mislead the House and if I have done so in any way I apologise. The summary given by the noble Lord is broadly right. Under the old general medical services contract, GPs had a 24-hour responsibility for their patients, although most GPs delegated responsibility to GP co-operatives or commercial providers. At the beginning of 2004, as I recall, only a small proportion of GPs actually provided out-of-hours services themselves. However, 24-hour responsibility continued to be unpopular with GPs as they felt it was discriminatory, which is why the contract was renegotiated at that time. It has brought about a growth in GP co-ops, with more use of telephone triage and more patients offered emergency consultation with a primary care centre. But that has resulted in fewer home visits and I think that point in particular is one that is exercising many people.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, does my noble friend understand that while he is telling the truth in saying that the contract is only one of a number of aspects that have to be addressed, the problem is that Ministers have said that so frequently from this Dispatch Box and the one in the other Chamber that it is now in danger of being understood as a reason why Ministers will not tackle contract issues? If my noble friend and his colleagues would start by addressing the contract issues, they would be doing us all a great favour. He would thereby be creating a lot more credibility when the other issues, which have to be addressed simultaneously, are turned to.
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. He may know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is very concerned to look carefully at the current contract to make sure that it does not include too many perverse incentives to tie GPs’ time up too much. If we can work towards a contract with the agreement of the profession that enables GPs to take a more holistic look at their patients’ health and adopt a more preventative approach, which I think everybody agrees is desirable, that is thoroughly to be wished for. However, this is work in progress.
Care Bill [HL]
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate. Care and support are things that everyone will experience at some point in their lives, whether they need it themselves, know a family member or a friend who does, or provide care themselves. Yet today’s care and support system often fails to live up to the expectations of those who rely on it. While many have good experiences, the system can often be confusing, disempowering and not flexible enough to fit around individuals’ lives.
The Bill represents the most significant reform of care and support legislation in more than 60 years. The foundations of social law are based on principles that are no longer relevant in today’s society. This long-awaited Bill implements the recommendations of the Law Commission’s excellent three-year review, begun under the previous Administration, to pull together over a dozen different Acts into a single, modern framework.
The Care Bill also takes forward our commitments to reform social care. Through the Bill, we are clarifying entitlements to care and support to give people a better understanding of what is available, help them to plan for the future and ensure that they know where to go for help when they need it. The Bill will make a reality our vision for a system that promotes people’s well-being and focuses on the person, not the service. It makes preventing and reducing needs a priority, and empowers people to take control over their care and support. It introduces national eligibility criteria, bringing greater consistency and transparency of access to care across the country.
The Bill includes historic reforms to strengthen the rights for carers to access support, putting them on the same legal footing as those they care for. It emphasises the importance of integration and co-operation between care and support and other services, providing the flexibility for local authorities and care professionals to innovate and achieve better outcomes for people.
A new adult safeguarding framework will ensure that arrangements are in place to protect people from abuse and neglect. There are new guarantees for people receiving care whereby if they move from one area to another they will not go without the care they need. For the first time, the Bill clearly sets out that local authorities are responsible for the care and support of people in prison.
I am pleased that public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny have demonstrated widespread support for the principles and approach to law reform in adult care and support. Indeed, I am very grateful to those present who have already provided helpful and detailed scrutiny in draft through a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Government have accepted the majority of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill. The Bill now reflects the importance of financial advice as part of the care and support information service; there is a stronger focus on prevention in assessments and care planning; and we have extended the powers to assess children for transition before the age of 18.
We have accepted the recommendations of the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support, chaired by Andrew Dilnot. The current care and support system offers little financial protection for the cost of care, which for one in 10 people will be in excess of £100,000. Critically, the Bill will reform care and support funding by creating a cap on care costs, giving people peace of mind by protecting them from catastrophic costs. By introducing universal deferred payments, it will also ensure that people do not have to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for residential care. Following the failure of Southern Cross, the Bill clarifies local authorities’ duties to protect people’s interest in the event of the failure of a provider, and creates a new regime for financial oversight of larger care providers.
In the debate on the gracious Speech, a number of noble Lords expressed concern about levels of funding for care and support. This is of course a very important matter. As a nation we are living longer, which I am sure all noble Lords welcome. Managing the fiscal consequences of this will be a key challenge in the coming years.
We must recognise that for the foreseeable future government spending will be constrained. However, we are also aware that in many areas local authorities are finding new and innovative ways of spending their available funding to secure better outcomes. The Bill will help to ensure that the care and support system works as effectively as possible to make best use of the resources available. To draw an analogy, the legislation changes not the amount of fuel available but rather the efficiency of the engine. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ views about how the framework set out in the Bill can do this even more successfully.
The report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry, led by Robert Francis QC, identified inexcusable failures in care that must never happen again. Between 2005 and 2009 many patients received appalling care, and the wider health system failed to identify and act on the warning signs. The Government’s initial response set out our commitment to ensuring that patients are,
“the first and foremost consideration of the system and everyone who works in it”.
It set out a five-point plan to ensure safe, compassionate care.
Most of the steps we need to take are about increasing cohesion and bringing about a change in culture across health and care. This is not about fundamental changes to the structure of our healthcare system. However, there are a number of limited but significant changes we need to make which require primary legislation. These are changes primarily to the way health and social care information is used to assess performance, and to the way poor performance is tackled.
Through the Care Bill we will introduce a ratings system for hospitals and care homes to give a single version of performance so that organisations and the services they provide can be compared like for like in a way that is meaningful to patients and the wider public. For while there is considerable information available on organisations providing health and care in England, there is currently no consolidated summary of how well they are doing. Aggregated ratings will help people choose the right services, and encourage organisations purchasing or providing services to improve them.
We will create powers so that the new Chief Inspector of Hospitals can instigate a single failure regime. A key finding of the Francis report was that the focus at Mid Staffordshire was on financial and organisational issues rather than the protection of patients and ensuring quality of care. A new failure regime, in which quality of care is as important as financial performance, will ensure that where quality of care is below an acceptable standard, firm action is taken to resolve it properly and promptly.
Robert Francis made a number of recommendations to promote openness in the health system. We will improve transparency and accountability by making it a criminal offence for providers of NHS secondary care to supply or publish false or misleading information about their own performance and outcomes. This will ensure that regulators, commissioners and the public have an accurate picture of the organisation’s performance, and enable the Care Quality Commission to detect quickly any signs of poor quality or safety and trigger the appropriate interventions.
The Care Bill also closes a loophole in the regulatory powers of the CQC. At the moment, if the CQC finds that a care home that is part of a large provider is not complying with registration requirements, the provider could close down the care home voluntarily in order to evade enforcement action by the CQC. In order to guarantee transparency of the regulatory system, the Bill will address this gap in the law to ensure that large providers operating a non-compliant service cannot avoid a record of poor care in this way.
These measures make limited but important adjustments to facilitate our response to the Francis inquiry. Together with changes we are making that do not require primary legislation, they will help bring about a revolution in the care that patients experience, rooting out unacceptable care, tackling failure promptly and effectively, and ensuring that the inspectorate and ratings framework inspires all hospitals to drive for continuous improvement.
Health Education England provides national leadership for the education and training of healthcare professionals. It supports a network of local education and training boards to enable local healthcare providers and professionals to take responsibility for planning and commissioning education and training in their area. The Health Research Authority was formed to protect and promote the interests of patients and the public in health research, and to streamline the regulation of research. The Care Bill establishes both HEE and the HRA as statutory bodies independent of the Department of Health, giving them the impartiality and stability they need to carry out their vital roles free from political interference.
I am grateful to noble Lords from all parties for their support for this Bill in the debates on the gracious Speech. I look forward to debates about the detail of the measures it introduces, and I am sure that improvements can be made. Fundamentally, the Bill delivers much needed and long overdue reforms that can and should be widely supported. The Care Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring a compassionate, integrated and sustainable system of health and care, built around the needs of individuals and the outcomes they want to see, for now and the years to come. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheeler
I thank the Minister for his very thorough and comprehensive introduction to the Bill. When the Care Bill was discussed last week in our debates on the Queen’s Speech, there were six overarching themes in the contributions from noble Lords.
First, there was a general welcome for the reform and consolidation of social care law, which we on these Benches initiated and strongly support in so far as it achieves a fairer, simpler and more sustainable system—three factors against which we will be closely testing the Bill through scrutiny and amendment.
Secondly, there was deep concern that this would be at best a partial solution unless a new legal framework is introduced in the context of addressing current and future social care funding needs. Given the scale of this Government’s cuts to local authority budgets, the Bill’s measures put forward in this context risk raising expectations that cannot possibly be met.
Thirdly, the Government’s proposals in the Bill on social care funding do not meet the Dilnot commission’s fairness criteria. Many in care homes will die before the cap at this level is reached; houses will still need to be sold; the cap will not in fact limit the costs that elderly people actually pay for their residential care; and the Bill will not mean that pensioners get their care for free if they have income or assets worth up to £123,000. The squeezed middle—those pensioners on average incomes who have worked hard, proudly invested in a home and tried to save for their older age—risk missing out.
Fourthly, the Bill offers only a partial response to the recommendations of the Francis report to address failures in hospital and care support. What happened at Stafford Hospital was terrible and lessons must be learnt. Last week Jeremy Hunt referred to Part 2 of the Bill as,
“a vital element of our response to the Francis report”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/13; col. 350.]
But in reality the Government have been disappointingly limited in their response to those vital issues identified by Francis. Where is the Government’s response to his concerns over safe staffing levels and the risks to safety and care? Where are Francis’s full proposals on the statutory duty of candour? Where is the regulation of healthcare assistants?
Fifthly, there were concerns that once again, like the Health and Social Care Act, this Bill will not in practice lead to better integration of health and social care. How will the Bill translate this into practice? How will the work of the Government’s consultation on integrated care, launched last week, inform our consideration of the Bill? Will it report in time for any legislative steps to be adopted? How will the institutions of the Health and Social Care Act—the health and well-being boards and Healthwatch England—link in with the care requirements placed local authorities? How will the marketisation and fragmentation of that Act align with any integrating intention in this Bill?
Sixthly, there was deep concern and dismay across the House that the Government have backtracked on vital commitments on public health, particularly on standardised packaging for cigarettes. The care crisis facing this country is not simply one of an ageing population but also one of co-morbidities and many more people living with long-term health needs. Public health plays an essential part in our response to those demographic changes, and is hugely relevant to issues dealt with under Clause 2 and to maintaining well-being.
So, the good news: the Bill is welcomed by Labour as an important first step towards providing a consolidated legislative framework for our social care system based on the excellent report of the Law Commission inquiry set up by Labour in 2009 to streamline and unify social care law. It implements 66 of the commission’s 76 recommendations, refocusing care and support on more patient-centred services better suited to people’s lives and needs, improving access to information and advice, strengthening the legal rights of carers, standardising eligibility criteria and establishing well-being as the guiding principle.
We strongly support that. It takes our work on patient choice and control forward. It builds on the progress that Labour made on key areas such as prevention, personalisation of services and carer recognition and support in our landmark National Carers Strategy. It also addresses much of the unfinished business in our pre-election White Paper on a national care service.
Like other noble Lords, I commend the pre-legislative scrutiny work of the Joint Committee. The Bill enjoys support among patient and carer organisations, staff, and service users and providers, but with the proviso that key improvements are needed to address what the committee itself identified as gaps and risks of unintended consequences. For completeness, we also welcome the proposals on Health Education England and the Health Research Authority, albeit with some significant issues to explore as we progress the Bill.
Now for the not-so-good news. On its own, the Bill will not go anywhere near far enough to tackle the crisis that is engulfing health and social care today. In addition to the crisis in A&E, now acknowledged by the Secretary of State, we have hospitals full to bursting, the discharging of patients becoming ever more difficult, handovers to social care services slower and subject to more disputes and a social care sector struggling to fulfil the demands placed on it. On the front line, thousands of nursing posts have been lost and many services are under pressure. In social care, the recent report of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services lays bare the scale and severity of the financial squeeze on councils, who, by the end of this spending round, will have been stripped of £2.7 billion from their adult social care services, equivalent to 20% of their care budgets, as demand for services increases.
New rights to services and support risk being meaningless as council budgets are cut to the bone and people are faced with spiralling charges. Will the noble Earl tell the House whether the resources for local authorities to deal with the additional responsibilities placed on them by the Bill, including carrying out the extra assessments of the estimated 450,000 self-funders, will be made available, and whether it will be new money? Is it accounted for in the impact assessment? Is he confident that councils will have the trained staff to complete those assessments on time?
We welcome the delayed consideration of Part 1 until completion of the spending review, but can the Minister reassure the House today that his department has shared with the Treasury the representations of the Care and Support Alliance, which has stressed that,
“without appropriate funding for the social care system … the aspirations of the Bill will not be reached”?
Can he also give a commitment to the House that the regulations associated with Part 1 will be available in draft by the time of our consideration? Without them, our scrutiny of vital issues such as eligibility criteria will be severely hampered.
On Dilnot, it is disappointing that the Government have watered down the commission’s proposals, proposals which Labour believes represent an important step forward in beginning to address social care funding. When he announced the Government’s response to Dilnot, the Secretary of State made great play and emphasis that the plans were “radical” and would,
“transform the funding of care and support in England—bringing a new degree of certainty, fairness and peace of mind to the costs of old age”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/13; col. 592.]
He matched that with a promise that that would guard against someone’s property being sold and their savings wiped out. However, a £72,000 cap—£140,000 for a couple— will not be enough to stop many people with modest properties, especially in the north of England, selling their homes to pay for care. Under the deferred payment scheme, councils loan people money to cover their care costs, which now has to be paid back with interest, most likely by selling the family home after the elderly person has died. Nor will the Bill cap the costs that elderly people actually pay for social care unless differing local authority care charges are addressed, which could make a difference to care now. The cap introduced by this Bill will be based on the standard rate that local councils pay for residential care, which on average is £480 a week; but 125,000 self-funders face weekly bills that on average are £50 to £140 more than this average council rate and in some areas far higher. This extra amount will still have to be paid and not count towards the cap.
The Bill will not mean that pensioners get care for free if they have income or assets worth up to £123,000. People will still get free care only if they have income or assets under the lower means-tested limit that is not being increased and will still be £17,500 in 2017. Those with incomes or assets between this figure and £123,000 will get a sliding scale of support from councils as they do now. Can the Minister confirm that this is the case?
On these Benches we remain to be convinced that the Government can provide answers on these fundamental aspects. Can the Minister not recognise that the Government are overselling what the impact of the Bill’s current provisions will be, particularly bearing in mind that nobody will be benefiting at all until 2020 at the earliest?
Finally, I turn to the some of the other questions that noble Lords will no doubt raise during the Bill’s passage, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to them. Will the change in the legal language around the continuing care and social care boundary of the NHS, shifted by the Bill, result in the possibility of more people having to be means tested for residential care? What are the Minister’s estimates of the number of people who will fall out of the system and become ineligible for support under these proposals? Have the Government assessed the overall impact on disabled users of social care also hit by cuts in their benefit entitlement and support? What consultation have the Government had with the insurance industry and pension providers about the likelihood of markets developing to help self-funders bridge the gap up to the £72,000 cap?
We welcome the introduction of well-being as the guiding principle but should this duty not also be placed on the Secretary of State? On integration and prevention, why does housing still get only limited consideration and mention throughout the Bill? On young carers, when will the Government make their position clear in addressing via this Bill the gap in the law? His colleagues have resisted attempts to amend the Children and Families Bill to this effect. Why have the Government reintroduced the issue of after-care services for people with mental health problems leaving hospital after a period of detention? We thought that this issue was settled under the last health Bill, but it seems not.
Lurking in the background as we speak today is the reality of a social care system on the edge of collapse. Social care is being left to decline. Labour supports the principle of capping care costs, but we stress that a bigger and bolder response is needed by Government to meet the challenges of our ageing population. Whole-person care is our vision for a 21st-century health and care system that brings together physical and mental health, and social care, into a single service to meet all of a person’s care needs. Our independent commission has already started its work on looking at how health and social care services budgets can be brought together. “Integrated services” means not just a series of area or service specific initiatives, but a way of working for a whole service.
We have a major task ahead of us to improve this Bill and we on these Benches will work hard to meet this challenge, and ensure that older and disabled people, and their carers and families, get the best possible deal.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howe for explaining the parts of the Bill so clearly in his introduction to this debate. I also thank the government Care Ministers—the previous one, my right honourable friend Paul Burstow; and the current one, Norman Lamb—for championing the Care Bill and the work of the Dilnot commission.
As the Minister has already explained, this Bill brings all previous legislation together for the first time, and is based on the well-being principle but also on the funding cap to protect those from catastrophic costs, the higher means test, the inclusion of rights for carers assessments, the portability of care and the mechanism to protect the care market.
The decision to manage this Bill differently from the Health and Social Care Bill was wise. Not only was there extensive consultation on the White Paper, but the Bill was based on the Law Commission report that itself had consulted widely. It is worth mentioning that we on the scrutiny committee looked at Part 1 so that the new Part 2 and the sections added to Part 1 should get close scrutiny in Committee.
The committee had members who are hugely experienced in the world of care, and was chaired by the previous Care Minister, my right honourable friend Paul Burstow. We took evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, and without exception they were full of admiration for the work of the Bill. However, as noble Lords would expect, they had areas in their own field that necessitated extra work. When we looked at what the report should say, we had a strong evidence base and deliberated long and hard about any deletions, omissions or just plain amendments to the draft Bill. Those recommendations, which were included in the report that was published, were to make a good draft Bill better. I therefore really welcome the Bill, but there are some areas where more work needs to be done. There are some unintended consequences, and some minority groups need assurance that the Bill will meet their needs.
This is not the time for detail, but areas that have received full coverage and early attention are young carers, adults caring for children, and the transition in service provision. The Law Commission felt that this Bill is the vehicle to place legislation for the assessment and meeting of their needs, but in winding up on the third day of debate on the humble Address the Minister was very clear that there is no place in this Bill for young people: that it is an adult Bill. Will he explain how the Government intend to meet this real need? If he does not have the information at the moment, will he please write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library?
A third of the adult population who receive care are of working age. Many are in work or mobile, and many aspire to work. I would be grateful if, before we get to the parts of Part 1 about funding, the Minister will meet me to look at areas where the sector is anxious that their needs will not be met, resulting in failure to cope, leaving employment and subsequent isolation and depression. This was articulated most clearly in the report released last week by the All-Party Parliamentary Local Government Group and the All-Party Parliamentary Disability Group, entitled Promoting Independence, Preventing Crisis.
There are other sizeable but hidden populations who feel that the provisions of the Bill do not meet their needs. Before Easter, there were two all-party group commissions: one on dementia and autism and the other on BAME communities in old age. As I have said before, details are for Committee, and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Browning, whose expertise in autism is far greater than that of many noble Lords, will follow this up.
One of the scrutiny committee recommendations was about free care at end of life. Marie Curie Cancer Care has done a financial assessment of this policy, and the cost works out at £32.2 million a year. This will support the families of some 40,000 people who have care needs and are on the register, and will be just over £800 per individual. I note that the Government think that this has merit and that it can be implemented without a change to legislation. Will the Minister confirm that discussions are in hand on this and give some indication of a timescale, or has the proposal found the long grass already?
The intention of this Bill is to rationalise a confusing morass of Bills and measures to give clarity to local authorities, providers and, most importantly, those in need of care and their carers. In Part 1, the main thrust is the individual, not the system. It is based around the well-being principle in Clause 1 and the cap on funding to give assurance about catastrophic care costs. Both the cared-for and the carer will be entitled to an assessment and a care plan, whether they are a self-funder or not, and there will be a requirement to provide information about care options.
Part 2 was added to redress some of the problems that arose from the Mid Staffordshire Hospital scandal, to ensure that information is available in a readable and usable way to detect failure earlier, and to clarify actions in the event of failure. I am sure there is room for debate on this in Committee, too, but on balance we welcome the clause in Part 2 and hope that the further information referred to in yesterday’s deposited Statement on the joint Monitor/CQC approach to their new role and the development of ratings will be in time for the Committee debates on this part. Can the Minister assure the House that that will be the case?
Additionally, Part 3, on Health Education England and its Health Research Authority, is now hugely improved on the formulation in the Health and Social Care Bill, and is welcomed by the sector.
Of course, the economic situation in which we find ourselves is not the easiest, and I welcome the proposed delay—or perhaps I should say the pause—in Committee so that we can address the issues in Part 1 in the light of the spending review. I am sure none of your Lordships needs telling that the higher the level for eligibility for social care, the more will fall on the NHS. Let us hope that the Chancellor understands that point, too.
This will need modelling carefully, and I hope we will see some of that detail. Of course, it is worth knowing that were the CCGs and their health and well-being boards to work together as hoped integrating services, prevention would be increased, gaming would be reduced, and care would be delivered in an appropriate way by the appropriate body.
However, the Bill gives a sustainable and coherent framework for care in the future, some level of security about the cap for those with high care costs, and a method of dealing with hospital failure, including an early warning system. It comes with a warm welcome from these Benches.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, in welcoming this Bill I first declare an interest as someone who benefits from a whole range of care services, without which I would not be in your Lordships’ House. I hope that my professional knowledge, combined with my personal experience, will give added value to the debate over the coming weeks.
This Bill is the culmination of five years’ complex and challenging work to modernise the legal framework for adult social care. Much work has been done by the Law Commission, but the Government have also understood that they needed expertise that can come only from those who use care and support services. They conducted a lengthy and broad consultation. I have been impressed by the Department of Health’s efforts to get this right. Much credit for this must go to the fine leadership of its former director-general, David Behan. He recently left to take the helm of the CQC, which is very lucky. The Bill also benefits from the experience of Members of this House. A number of your Lordships served on the Joint Committee that considered the draft Bill and recommended improvements to it. The Government have listened, and the Bill is better for it.
Equally, the Bill is the culmination of more than 25 years’ work by the Independent Living Movement of disabled people. I consider myself very privileged to have played an active part in this social movement to radically change the way that care and support are designed and delivered. Since the mid-1980s we have fought to ensure that disabled people of all ages have the same opportunities that everyone else takes for granted. This has involved challenging entrenched professional attitudes, political assumptions and public misconceptions about what disabled people can and cannot do. The struggle continues today. Many people believe, as I do, that disabled people have lost ground recently. As someone once observed, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”.
However, this Bill shows how far we have come since the passing of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996—in my view, the most emancipatory care and support legislation in my lifetime. That Act was passed because a group of disabled people was able to persuade the Government of the day that they could be trusted to take control of the cash needed to pay for their personal care support. That was my first memorable experience of the House of Lords. Twenty years ago, I sat in awe behind the Bar, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, introduced his disabled persons Bill.
Three years later, in another place, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, John Bowis, took over the Bill. His powerful speech at Second Reading would be just as relevant in today’s debate. He said:
“I have heard from people who have a disability, but also hold down a job or voluntary work and whose working lives are obstructed by the rigidity of a council service rota; or people who do not like to complain, but would really like a different range”,
of home help support,
“or people who have responsible jobs, but are treated by the care workers as if they were rather tiresome and untidy children. They have no real independence, no real choice and no real dignity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/96; col. 372.]
What became the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 was a bold step on the then Government’s part to empower disabled service users. Local authorities were required to deliver services differently. They could not just decide what was best for us anymore. That Act transformed many people’s lives, including my own.
As your Lordships will be aware, there has been much progress since that landmark statute. Further legislation has widened access to direct payments. Personalisation policies have developed other ways for people to have more say and control over their support and care. Personal budgets offer another way for people to decide how funds should be used to support them. Even the NHS has caught on, by introducing personal health budgets for people with long-term conditions, so they, too, can have more say over their healthcare. A process that started among working-age disabled people has broadened out to benefit other groups: people with learning disabilities, older people and people with mental health problems. They are all using direct payments and personal budgets—and so, too, are parents of disabled children, giving them both more control and allowing enough flexibility for many to pursue their dreams. Policy guidance has encouraged local authorities to work with people and their families as equal partners. By working together, many are coming up with solutions that best fit their individual circumstances, using public services to complement their own resources, personal assets and community links.
All these positive trends, many of them with roots in the user and carer movements, come together in Part 1 of the Bill. It represents a sea change in the values and attitudes embodied in the legislative framework for adult social care. It treats people requiring support as citizens first and foremost, with rights and entitlements stemming not only from this Bill but from the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, and international agreements, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
However, your Lordships would not expect me to tell them that this Bill is perfect. It sets out many of the right goals, but we will need to question the Government very closely on some of the means by which they intend to achieve them. For instance, we are promised first sight of the regulations on assessment and eligibility towards the end of June. This will coincide with announcements about the public spending review, so we can assume that resources will impact heavily on the qualifying criteria for public support. Much also depends on how local authorities choose to implement their responsibilities and powers under this legislation. There is a great danger that this Bill could be ignored as being fine words but without teeth.
There are already wide variations in the sensitivity and understanding shown by local authority staff in assessing and responding to people’s needs. I recently had a review visit to assess my suitability for a personal budget. Like fellow service users, I am naturally very wary of reassessments as they generally involve budget cutting. I did not know what to think when I received a copy of the reassessment report last week. It says that I have,
“severe difficulties in either self-expression or understanding”.
If any of your Lordships have difficulty understanding what I am saying today, please come to my office for clarification. On a more serious note, the reassessment of my ability to communicate could mean the difference between a social care direct payment and NHS-funded care. That might be fine if support would not change for the worse as a consequence. It is no secret that some local authorities cannot wait to offload clients onto NHS continuing care. I am hopeful that health budgets will eventually mirror social care direct payments. However, this is not yet the case.
Last year, the JCHR investigated independent living. The resulting report was dedicated to a 22 year-old disabled man. This young man had been in part-time employment and living independently, supported by social care direct payments. However, after being admitted to hospital with a chest infection, it was decided that he would be safer with a tracheostomy. Tracheostomy care is not rocket science. It does not take long to train a sensible person. However, the local authority decided that this man was now “the problem” of the NHS. As a result, his direct payment was withdrawn. It took health commissioners six months to decide how he would be cared for, leaving him in a hospital critical care unit for three months longer than was necessary. This severely disabled independent man lost his job, his loyal PAs and his dignity. The cost to the taxpayer was £36,000 in hospital fees, double what it would have cost had he been allowed to keep control of his cash and care, with an enhanced payment from the NHS to pay for the extra PA hours needed during the night.
Is it any wonder that disabled people fear the future? They do not just fear the consequences of inadequate funding, they dread past ways of working creeping back in the name of austerity. Those of us who use care services must be given more control to enable us to survive these difficult financial times. Services need to adapt to enable the recipients to create their own budgeted support and to seek work, wherever that may be. This nicely leads me to return to an issue I have been raising in your Lordships’ House for the past four years. Noble Lords will know that I have a particular concern about portability of care and support. I will push for the Government’s proposals on portability in this Bill to match the outcomes set out in my Private Member’s Bill.
The Minister for Social Care in another place has indicated his desire to work closely with those of us campaigning for total portability of care and support. I have consulted on the subject for more than five years with disabled people and their organisations, carers, lawyers and professionals in social care. My Private Member’s Bill is the culmination of that work. My Social Care Portability Bill has been recognised by the Department of Health. The greater part of it has been subsumed into the Care Bill before us today. However, there is one crucial difference. My Bill ensures that disabled people can move to another area, confident that they will receive the support they need to enable them to continue to play an active role in society. The manner in which the council meets those needs may be different because of the different configuration of local community and care services but it should not reduce choice and control, and the ability to achieve the outcomes they need. I believe that the Care Bill has the same intention but I would welcome confirmation that this is indeed the case. There are questions about bureaucracy and enforceability but the detail can be fleshed out in Committee.
There is one other matter I want to flag up today. Those who receive their care not from a public authority but from a private body lack the full protection of the Human Rights Act. The Joint Committee recommended an amendment to the Bill to put this right but the Government have not addressed it. It is a loophole that must be closed. I will be interested to hear the Minister reflect upon that issue.
I have great expectations of this Bill’s capacity to change the way that care and support are delivered in the future. We have waited for this a very long time. We must not let the opportunity slip through our hands. We are all interdependent. We all need to feel safe and valued. We all need our dignity respected. We must take heed of those “experts by experience”, of which I am proud to be one. We have much to offer the debate on how we create care and support services which maximise the well-being of those who need them. I am sorry if I have taken longer than many other noble Lords may for the rest of this debate but I feel so strongly about this issue. We have much work to do and I am happy to do my part.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who speaks on these matters with a particular authority and profound experience. I should mention my interests: I am a vice-president of the Carers Trust, a member of Barnardo’s and I have honorary fellowships from three of the medical royal colleges.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his explanation of the Bill. I also congratulate the department and the Ministers there as quite a number of changes have been made to the draft Bill and yet they have managed to get it in so early in this Session. One of the difficulties that that may entail is that the funding arrangements may not be fully known at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill in Committee.
I was privileged to be a member of the Select Committee engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and I want to acknowledge the great expertise of my fellow committee members and the excellent chairmanship of Paul Burstow, who was the Minister before he found himself chairing this committee.
In the many submissions that the committee received there is one that goes very deep into this situation. It is from the King’s Fund, suggesting that the time may have come for a reappraisal of the arrangements between social care and healthcare. As I went through the Bill, I appreciated from time to time that the division between these two areas affects integration. There was a great desire for integration and I share that. One of my lawyer friends connected with the committee said that as a lawyer he had some difficulty with integration. One can see why that is. The King’s Fund has raised a huge question about whether some change should be made. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, will have something to say about the matter later, with his expertise in this area.
The Bill sets out in Part 1 a very welcome and wonderfully wide principle of well-being as its object for individuals. I am thankful for the alterations, and indeed the widening of that principle which was made on the recommendations of the Joint Committee. However, I echo what has already been said—that without adequate funding the anticipation of what the Bill will achieve will be considerably higher than the realisation, which can only be damaging for those who promote the anticipation in the first place.
The Joint Committee advised that the duty to have regard to this well-being principle should be incumbent on the Secretary of State when he is making regulations under the Bill. I must say that that seemed to me, and I am sure to the rest of the committee, to be eminent common sense. Sadly, however, in preparing the Bill, the Government did not feel that that should happen. In the explanation given in answer to our recommendation 22, the Government say:
“We do not agree that the Bill should require the Secretary of State, when making regulations or issuing guidance, to have regard to the general duties of local authorities under clause 1”.
As regulations are intended to give effect to the obligations of the local authorities under Clause 1, one would think that in making regulations it would be common sense to have regard to the principles on which the local authorities should work. Here is the Government’s answer:
“Local authorities are responsible and accountable for social care. We believe that creating new duties for the Secretary of State would distort these clear lines of accountability”.
I have some difficulty in understanding that. The object was not to create new duties for the Secretary of State but to assist him in performing the duties that he has to make regulations. It seems to me that to attempt to make regulations in relation to this matter for local authorities, which are bound by the general principle, it would only be sensible that the person making the regulations should have regard to the general principle.
I welcome the Bill very much: it has great opportunities, subject to what I have just said about the funding. I shall comment on only one or two particular points because there are many speakers and there will be many matters that people want to raise and I do not want to create unnecessary repetition.
Clause 22, as it is now, defines the difference between healthcare and social care. The Joint Committee commented on that but the department has enlarged the clause; it is bigger than it was before, but I am not sure that it is much clearer. In particular, it provides that if a registered nurse is to be employed, the consent of some commissioning board—usually the national one, I think—is required. I would have thought that something could be done about that without requiring continual reference to the commissioner.
I will not say much about the Dilnot clauses because generally they came later than our committee could have seen, but I agree with the point that the eligibility and cost arrangements nationally must be important for the Dilnot cap to work. It ought to be the same fit whether in London or Cumbria. That would require a degree of uniformity across both cost and eligibility that might be quite difficult to attain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has already mentioned the human rights point. The Joint Committee suggested that this should be put in, and I adhere to this matter being looked at in Committee in due course. The point I particularly wish to stress is the situation of young carers. The Joint Committee recommended that this should be dealt with in the Bill. The answer is that it is inappropriate that children should receive adult care. However, that was not the point the Joint Committee sought to make. Its point was that the Joint Committee considered that there can be a relationship between the care provided for the adult and the child providing that care.
One of the important factors is that the child’s obligations of care, which are often undertaken cheerfully and voluntarily, do not cause damage to the child. The imposition and undertaking of undue burdens of care for adults, which may be given out of love, affection and loyalty to the adult, may be damaging to the child. I—and I think the Joint Committee as a whole—believe that this is an important factor to be put into this Bill. The regulations and legislation about care of children are contained in five different statutory provisions, starting with the Children Act 1989. There have been others since and I gather that there are about six different provisions of guidance on these matters. The children are surely entitled to some degree of simplification, just as the adults are, by this Bill.
Another point I shall touch on is the question of guidance. The Joint Committee recommended that guidance should be by way of a code, which should be available and endorsed by Parliament. However, the Government have said: “This is not really necessary. It is not quick enough; things change so quickly that we need to change them all the time, therefore it is not appropriate in this situation to have a code”. We expect a lot of social workers and often they are the people who take the burden of complaint when something goes wrong. It cannot be right to have a lot of different pieces of paper for social workers to know what the guidance is—and when the guidance changes the pieces of paper just increase. They do not always seem to destroy the previous pieces of paper, so the difficulties for people trying to carry out this work are increased by that system.
I remain of the view—which we can discuss in Committee—that guidance should not be ad hoc pieces of paper, but a code, which can last for a reasonable time. After all, the statutory provisions have lasted some time. There are many other matters that one could raise, but I do not want to find myself shortening the time available for others.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, I—and several noble Lords speaking today—was a member of the Joint Scrutiny Committee. Like the noble and learned Lord, I join the thanks to the officials, the chairman and my fellow members. I very much welcome the changes that the Government have made to the draft Bill as a result of the committee’s report.
Your Lordships will many times have heard me and others—whom I have a habit of referring to as the usual suspects—detail how inadequate social care systems are for meeting the needs of the increasing numbers who need them. “The system is not fit for purpose”, “out of date”, “confusing” and “a lottery”—all those are familiar phrases to your Lordships’ House. So it is a great pleasure to welcome a Bill which attempts to address some, though by no means all, of the problems. Importantly, it addresses the issue of the law relating to social care. It encapsulates proposals made by the Law Commission report in May 2011. The Law Commission pointed out that the law relating to adult social care stretched back to the Beveridge reforms of the 1940s and included a plethora of other Acts, including the National Assistance Act 1948, parts of which are still in force. The law relating to people with disabilities and carers, as we have heard, is similarly contained in a variety of parts of Acts and Private Members’ legislation.
The Law Commission originally proposed that there should be a tightly defined process for determining the scope of adult social care. But when it consulted very widely, it decided instead to define the purpose of adult social care as promoting or contributing to the well-being of the individual. That recommendation was accepted by the Government and is central to the new policy. The whole of the new policy structure is shaped by the well-being provision, although I share with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, anxiety about the accountability of the Secretary of State for Health in this regard.
The enactment of the Care Bill will not just consolidate and streamline into a single statute 60 years of piecemeal law-making, it will place on a statutory footing for the first time both the principle and practice of self-directed personal care based on individual assessment. Particularly pleasing is that the well-being principle is also to be applied to the individual’s carers. It is around carers that I want to base the majority of my remarks this afternoon.
In the draft provisions it was not clear whether the important duty on local authorities to put the promotion of well-being at the heart of their delivery of care and support also applied to carers. The new reference to “individuals” rather than to “an adult”, which appeared to refer to an adult receiving care, now rectifies this and removes any doubt that carers are qualified. This is an important and welcome distinction.
The Bill also adds a new landmark duty that local authorities should have a duty to ensure that they plan for sufficient care and support services when enabling carers and disabled people to be supported, especially with regard to them being able to undertake paid employment.
A Private Member’s Bill was introduced by another member of the Joint Committee, Barbara Keeley MP, which would have put in place this sufficiency of support duty. Although the Bill did not progress, its vision has now been accepted by the Government who have responded in the Care Bill by placing a new requirement on local authorities to ensure that there are sufficient care and support services to meet current and future needs. This would have a particular focus on supporting carers to undertake paid work and caring where this is possible, although when we come to the issue of carers’ resources to provide that sufficiency, we will no doubt have many debates.
The new provisions in the Bill set out a framework for the development of more modern services that can help family members. As well as being hugely important in preventing financial hardship for families, this can also be seen as of great benefit to the wider economy. It has been estimated that carers giving up work costs the economy up to £5 billion a year.
Another very important change that has been made for carers is with regard to finance. The draft Bill did not make it clear that, as in the case of the person with care needs, a carer’s need for support should be assessed before their financial circumstances are considered. I am pleased to see that the Bill has been amended to put an assessment of support needs before financial assessment. Again, that is very important.
The draft legislation could have meant that carers could be wrongly charged for services provided to the person they care for. The Government have said that this was not their intention and they have made it clear that carers must not be charged. However, what is a carers’ service and what is a service for an older and disabled person are not yet clearly set out in the Bill. We will need to make further changes that will define what they are and prevent confusion and disputes down the line.
Two other areas about carers will need careful scrutiny as the Bill goes through and I hope that the Minister will comment on these. The first is the issue of young carers, as has already been mentioned. The Joint Committee that scrutinised the legislation called for amendments to ensure that young carers get equal rights to assessments and support in law, both in this Bill and the Children and Families Bill currently before Parliament. The Government have made some limited changes that mean that where a young person receiving care is in transition between children's and adult services, the circumstances where they or a young carer would be covered by provisions in the Bill would ease this transition.
However, the changes do not alter the fact that young carers will have lesser rights to assessment and support than adults caring for adults. The same thing will apply to parent carers, because we have to ensure that parent carers—those who look after disabled children—do not also end up with lesser rights, because the changes made for carers, and we hope for young carers, are very positive. Parent carers now have an imbalance of rights because they are not included, and we shall need to give this careful attention as the Bill proceeds.
Others have commented on the Dilnot proposals and I will not do so, except to say that, for many of us, the level of the proposed cap is disappointing. The effects of bringing many who are currently self-funders into the assessment system have not yet been sufficiently recognised.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the Care Bill has the potential to make major improvements to how social care is delivered. However, we shall have to focus very carefully on several issues, apart from those I have mentioned already, if it is to achieve that potential. I will just list them now. The first is national eligibility criteria and where they are to be set: there is a great deal of anxiety about that. The second is the role of advocacy in helping people negotiate a system which, by the Government’s own admission, is complex and difficult to understand. The Joint Committee thought that advocacy ought to be part of the element of information and advice, but the Government have not accepted that. There is also, of course, the old issue of integration of health and social care, which we all know is so vital; the Government have recently made renewed commitments to such integration. Also under this heading, we need to look at the role of prevention, which is similarly such a vital part of integrated services. There is also the vexed issue of funding, on which I look forward to spending many happy hours. In order to make the vision encapsulated in this Bill a reality, the Government and the nation simply have to make resources available. Not to do so is a false economy and will store up many more problems for the future.
I hope our debates will enable us to look at a broader vision too, such as that encapsulated in the Ready for Ageing? report from the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Filkin. If anyone imagines that the Bill before us today provides a long-term solution to all the problems in social care, they are very much mistaken. I hope the Minister will be able to acknowledge this. Recently I gave a lecture at King’s College entitled, “Social Care: Our Biggest Problem or Greatest Opportunity?”. My conclusion was that it was both. My noble friend Lord Filkin’s report is the clearest call yet that we have had for a new vision for social care—a different settlement for the older people we will all become. This is not just a matter for health and social care, but for whole communities, the whole of government and all political parties. This Bill is a welcome first step towards that new vision—or new settlement—but we must never lose sight of the fact that it is only a first step.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I start by saying how very strongly I welcome this Bill, which I also see as a landmark piece of legislation, addressing one of the key social policy issues of our time. After decades of putting this issue in the “too difficult to deal with” box, and with earlier reports gathering dust on shelves, this Government, in very difficult economic times, are finally establishing the architecture which will allow for the capping of catastrophic social care costs—something that has created fear for many families up and down the country. Many people deserve credit for getting the Bill to this stage—including, of course, my noble friend the Minister—but I, too, particularly want to pay tribute to the outstanding work and tenacity of my honourable friends Paul Burstow and Norman Lamb in getting both the policy and the legislation to this stage.
I see this legislation—and the surrounding guidance and regulations—as having the ability and potential to transform the lives of many of our fellow citizens for the better. All my other remarks will be made within this context and reflect my wish to strengthen the Bill still further. Also, I will focus in particular on issues affecting carers, who contribute so much to their loved ones, families and to society, but who too often go unnoticed and unvalued. However, I do not claim to do so with anything like the same degree of expertise as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley.
There is much to welcome in the Bill and the recent changes which have been made as a result of the excellent pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken by the Joint Committee mean that it offers an ambitious and positive vision for the future of social care. It is also an important consolidation of the existing social care law. It introduces for the first time new rights for carers, giving them the same rights to assessment and care services from local authorities as those they care for, which is something that I welcome. However, as so many others have said both in this House and outside, much of this will hang on the amount of funding that is available for social care, a matter that I suspect we will return to time and again.
I would like to highlight the following key provisions. I turn first to the new well-being principle, which is something that I strongly support, in particular the fact that carers are now covered by this important duty. Secondly, the new requirement on local authorities to ensure that there are sufficient care and support services to meet current and future needs is absolutely critical. Thirdly, we have the introduction of a national eligibility threshold for care services, alongside a new assessment process and eligibility criteria. This will make the way people are treated when they apply for care more equitable and easy to understand, including when they move away to different parts of the country. Fourthly, at the heart of the Bill are paving clauses to allow for the introduction of regulations setting out the level of the cap on social care costs and changes to the care means test. This is of course the architecture, and there will be plenty of debate to come on the appropriate level of that cap. While I very much welcome the increased level of the care means test, which has already been announced, I hope that as the economy improves and more resources become available, it will be possible to reduce the level of the cap to something more akin to that suggested by Andrew Dilnot. Finally, there is to be a duty on local authorities to provide information and advice, again with the explicit inclusion of carers. This is important as currently far too many carers feel that they have missed out on financial support as a result of not getting the right information and advice early enough.
During the passage of the Bill I will want to focus on four particular areas, and I shall say something briefly about them now. I turn first to well-being. As I say, I am a strong supporter of the well-being principle underpinning everything that happens in social care, but like the Joint Committee and other noble Lords who have already spoken, I would like to see it extended to the Secretary of State so that the whole pack of cards is fully aligned. We hear much, quite rightly, about the importance of horizontal integration between health, social care, housing and other services. In my view, what I would call vertical integration within the care system is equally important, and I will be pressing for this to be incorporated in the Bill.
The second area is that of dignity. In recent times, we have seen and heard of shocking failures in the care of older people across both the health and the social care sectors. Moving forward, we need to see a major cultural shift to ensure that dignity is embedded in everything that happens, along with a positive attitude to ageing and working with older people, a point that the recent report on ageing from the Lords Select Committee on Public Service and Demographic Change, of which I had the privilege and pleasure to be a member, made loud and clear. Public confidence in the current social care sector’s ability to treat people with dignity is very low. A recent survey showed that only 26% of the public are confident that older people receiving social care are treated with dignity. We have a great opportunity here. The Care Bill could, for the first time, embed dignity in legislation as a core element of the well-being principle, thus placing it alongside other crucial aspects of well-being such as physical and mental health, and family and personal relationships.
I also want to add my voice to a pressing issue that unfortunately has gone largely unnoticed in recent legislation and to which others have already referred. Both the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill represent commendable and critical efforts to improve the lives and enhance the rights of many people, but sadly, a particularly vulnerable group appears to have slipped through the gap between these two Bills. It remains mired in complex legislation and disadvantaged by limited rights. This group is young carers.
The 2011 census identified 178,000 young carers in England and Wales alone and a further survey taken by the BBC in 2010 estimated the number to be more like 700,000, with as many as 8% of secondary-school children providing moderate to extensive care. As a group, young carers are infamously hard to identify and evidence suggests that in many cases the carer tries to keep this part of their life secret. But although they may often be invisible, young carers and their rights are in serious need of attention. Evidence suggests that young carers are often rightfully proud of their roles and the invaluable contributions they make to their families and the lives of those close to them, but that does not mean that they do not encounter serious difficulties and disadvantages—a point made so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. So while young carers work to look after the needs of another person, the system must work to protect them and their rights and well-being.
A very welcome aspect of the new adult carers’ right is that it strips away the requirement for adult carers to have to establish that they are providing both regular and substantial care, placing a duty on adult services departments to provide services to meet the assessed needs of adult carers. Young carers, on the other hand, have been left with what has been described as,
“a mishmash of relic semi-serviceable carers’ Acts”.
In certain cases young carers will be required to establish that they are providing regular and substantial care with higher thresholds than for adult carers. In other cases young carers will have to demonstrate that they are in a household that is receiving services, and even then will have only a discretionary entitlement to support. When scrutinising the legislation, the Joint Committee called for amendments to ensure that young carers get equal rights to assessments and support in law, both in this Bill and the Children and Families Bill currently before Parliament. In response the Government have made some limited changes aimed at easing the transition between adult and children services, both for young people receiving care and for young carers, and they are welcome. But these changes do not change the fact that young carers will have lesser rights to assessment and support than adult carers caring for adults. Nor does it go far enough in placing a responsibility on adult social care services to prevent inappropriate caring by children—something which I would like to see clearly included in the Bill.
To summarise, both the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill present an important opportunity to simplify and clarify the law for young carers, to provide a clear interface between the two pieces of legislation and to ensure that young carers are not left with unequal rights compared with adult carers. It is imperative that the Government urgently address this rights imbalance in an even-handed way. I ask the Minister to give assurances that the Government will look at the issues I have highlighted in a fully joined-up way to ensure that all carers receive the same legal rights to assessment and support.
Lord Rix
My Lords, the introduction of the Care Bill is to be welcomed. It provides the opportunity to fundamentally improve the lives of disabled people and the legal framework for the social care and support system. Social care is vital for people with a learning disability. Good social care and support empowers them to live independently and within the community. It means that they can be valued members of our society and not marginalised and hidden out of sight in institutions such as Winterbourne View.
The system, however, is in crisis. Social care for working-age adults is under funded by at least £1.2 billion and thousands are being excluded from services as local authorities tighten eligibility criteria. It is a situation that the learning disability charity of which I am president is only too well aware. Mencap research has shown that the vast majority of councils have tightened criteria from “moderate” to “substantial”, which is now by far the most common level. Put simply, people with a learning disability are being left without any care and support for basic needs, such as help with getting out of bed in the morning, making a home-cooked meal, communicating with friends and family and even getting out of the house.
The report, The Other Care Crisis, produced by Mencap, the National Autistic Society, Scope, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Sense, and supported by economic modelling by Deloitte, highlighted that alongside the moral imperative for action, investing in support for people with moderate needs will ultimately lead to savings for the taxpayer. Well, Clause 13 gives the Government the ability to set a national eligibility threshold in regulations; however, setting the threshold at “substantial” rather then “moderate” will result in more than 100,000 people being denied the support that they need. To prevent us going backwards, the Bill must be underpinned by an appropriate funding settlement in June’s comprehensive spending review.
I wish now to move on to safeguarding. Time after time, we have seen how agencies have not taken safeguarding seriously, with horrific consequences for people with a learning disability. There have been the deaths of Francesca Hardwick and her mother Fiona Pilkington, the murder of Steven Hoskin and, more recently, the abuse scandal at Winterbourne View Hospital, where it took a whistleblower and “Panorama” to expose the abuse meted out by staff.
The Bill does much to clarify and strengthen the law, and address the widespread concern that current procedures for safeguarding adults at risk of abuse or neglect are inadequate. Putting adult safeguarding boards on a statutory footing will better equip them to prevent abuse and respond to it when it occurs. Nevertheless, it must be made absolutely clear when safeguarding investigations are to be carried out, their threshold and the process. However, the Bill also introduces a welcome duty on local authorities to make inquiries when it suspects that an adult is at risk of, or experiencing abuse or neglect, but there is no duty on providers or other relevant partners to inform the local authority when they suspect that an adult is at risk. This appears to be an oversight that I hope will be addressed by the Minister.
I should like also to touch on the cross-over between the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill, currently on Report in the other place. We all know the difficulties that disabled young people and their families face in transition to adulthood and how often young people fall through the gaps as they move from children’s to adult services. These two pieces of legislation offer a unique opportunity to make this better.
The Children and Families Bill will introduce education, health and care plans, potentially up to the age of 25—something to be widely welcomed. At the same time, the Care Bill introduces care and support plans for disabled adults over 18. Young people aged between 18 and 25 could therefore have two different plans. It seems to make sense that when a young person is eligible for both, they be brought together to create a consistent approach. I hope that the Minister and officials will work with interested parties, including Mencap and the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign to ensure that these plans are complementary and do not result in separate processes and plans.
Clause 55 of this Bill gives local authorities the power to assess children and young carers under the adult statutory framework in advance of their 18th birthday. This will be known as a child’s needs assessment. If a local authority does not comply with a request to undertake an assessment, it must give a written explanation for the decision. The clause is welcome and will allow young people better to plan their future because they know their entitlements. However, local authorities will have to assess children and young carers in advance of their 18th birthday only if they judge it will be of “significant benefit” and,
“it appears to the authority that the child is likely to have such needs”.
There are also repeated clauses about the potential contribution of “other matters” such as support from friends and family when determining necessary provision. This might well allow local authorities to use this wording as a way to pass on their responsibility to carers and family members or, frankly, to wriggle out of their responsibilities altogether.
Clause 63 creates welcome new protections to ongoing children’s services where a child’s needs assessment has been requested. However, this puts the onus on the parent or the child to request the assessment. If a parent or child is not told of their right to request such an assessment, and do not request one, they receive no protection under this clause. I therefore hope the Minister will consider extending this protection to all children and young people, not just those who have requested an assessment.
Part 3 of the Bill focuses on health, specifically on the establishment of Health Education England, which will be responsible for the planning and delivery of education and training for the NHS and health workforce. It is absolutely critical that the NHS meets the needs of people with a learning disability. This is simply not the case at the moment. The three-year confidential inquiry into the premature deaths of people with a learning disability published its final report in March of this year. The inquiry looked at the deaths of 233 adults and 14 children with a learning disability in the south-west. It found that 37% of deaths would have been potentially avoidable if good quality healthcare had been provided. As if to underline this, today there was a report by the NHS Ombudsman, Dame Julia Mellor, on how mistakes by an out-of-hours GP service and Basildon University Hospital in Essex contributed to the death of a young woman with both physical and learning disabilities.
Unfortunately, this is no surprise to many families, who feel that blunders, poorly trained staff and indifference are to blame for the deaths of their loved ones. We await the Government’s response to the confidential inquiry’s findings, and its recommendations on how to prevent the needless deaths of people with a learning disability. Clearly, the training of healthcare professionals is vital. I trust that appropriate and acceptable amendments will be made during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House.
To conclude, I reiterate that the Care Bill is a very welcome piece of legislation. However, I cannot stress enough that if we are to meet the aspirations of disabled people we will need to ensure that the eligibility threshold is set at “moderate”, not “substantial”. “Substantial” should be used for the funding of social care for disabled people, but knowing this Government’s attitude toward adequate funding for this vital service, I can only say, “Don’t hold your breath”.
Baroness Bakewell
My Lords, there is no doubt that this is indeed a momentous Bill. It will affect the lives of many who are already old, and the many millions whom medical progress and judicious lifestyles will bring to a multiplicity of years. It attempts to deal with what is not simply an immediate domestic crisis, although of course it is that. It is about a change in human society on a Darwinian scale: for the first time in history the human race will be living substantially longer than ever before. In Japan, there are already 50,000 people who are more than 100 years of age.
We have to realise the scale of the change that is under way. When Beveridge wrote his 1940s report he confronted five challenges: the evils of squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease. Today there are just as great evils stalking the old in this country: they are fear, ignorance, need, loneliness and neglect. In dealing with the problems that this creates, society has a mountain to climb. This Bill, which is much needed, deals merely—and deals well—with the immediate foothills. In doing so, it endorses two important priorities, which I welcome. Part 1 defines the central concern of the legislation as being the well-being of the individual. Later, the Bill shifts the emphasis of legislation towards,
“preventing … the development of needs”
in the first place. This is an honourable objective but there are many obstacles that the Bill does not resolve. In examining and improving this Bill, we must bear in mind the scale of the problems as they already exist and the expectations that such problems will vastly increase in future.
Considered as a “foothills” measure, the Bill may be judged a very good one. It now includes many of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, and I pay tribute to the committee’s efforts. But there are many issues that we still have to address more thoroughly so, on behalf of older people, I will address the five evils I enumerated.
The first is fear: old people are haunted by what will happen as they age. They fear having to give up their home to move into strange places among strange people. The Bill goes some way in the implementation of the Dilnot report recommendations to assure them on this account. However, Dilnot had suggested a cap of between £25,000 and £60,000; the Government have set the cap at £72,000. This will clearly be of greater benefit to the wealthiest. It is not yet clear what types of insurance packages might be offered to the less well-off to cover their costs. It is obvious that with average earnings currently at £26,500, many people will not be buying such insurance at all. At the same time, the funding cap could create a new form of regional inequality due to the wide variation in average house prices in different areas of the country. In addition, with the increase to £123,000 as the upper threshold for receiving means-tested support, the King’s Fund estimates that the result will be an additional 100,000 older people in need of public funding. The fear will persist.
The second is ignorance: many old people long ago took to heart the phrase “from the cradle to the grave” and are still in shock when you explain to them that the NHS comes free but that social care—however it is defined—must be paid for. Confusion about the difference between medical and social exists in the system and the Bill makes a gallant attempt for care provision to integrate the two. However, the difference remains: one is a free service and the other must be paid for, either by the state responding to precise criteria or by the individual. Given that no one would have conceived things this way when the NHS was created, the dilemmas persist about how to inform those who implement the system as well as its beneficiaries about exactly how it works.
An example of how such issues come to a head can be seen when an individual is discharged from NHS care—a hospital—into social care. Caroline Charles, the director of external affairs at Age UK, tells us that 6% of hospital beds are occupied by people readmitted to hospital within a week of discharge because their care arrangements have not been worked out satisfactorily. The Bill tasks local authorities with integrating care and health provision—a hugely costly and convoluted undertaking.
I will round up my final three concerns into one. Need, loneliness and neglect all afflict far too many of our old people. The Bill’s answer to these issues is to define need. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to this concern as it affects the disabled. Levels of need were introduced and defined in 2003 as critical, substantial, moderate and low. Different local authorities applied different criteria, but the Nuffield Trust cites a recent survey that found that 82% of councils now provide care only to those with substantial or critical needs, an increase from 62% in 2005-06. The trend towards setting higher needs thresholds is driven remorselessly by funding pressures on local authority budgets. The Bill moves the responsibility for eligibility to a central, nationally consistent measure—an important and welcome step forward. However, whether it will succeed in setting the criteria back to moderate, as so many of us wish, depends very much on a substantial increase in spending.
So we come remorselessly to the issue of money. With appropriate judgment, the Bill loads local authorities with many of the tasks of meeting the needs of older people, but without strong commitment to central government spending, many of those changes will be unworkable. According to Age UK, since the Government came to power, £710 million in real terms has been cut from social care spending, mostly as a result of cutting local authority budgets at the very time when needs are rising. ADASS reports that more than a third of local authorities anticipate having to reduce services and a fifth expect to have to increase charges. All of this is moving in the wrong direction and towards further disasters and tragedies. The implementation of the legislation calls for a commitment in the coming spending review to a major increase in spending on social care.
Finally, as we contemplate the mountain peak of need from the foothills of reform, let me reaffirm my suggestion: I believe that it is time for England to have its own commissioner for the old. That would be a unique role that would give such a commissioner access to planning across different government departments. The life of the old is influenced by housing, transport, justice, and now, with the encouragement of David Willetts, education; each department should have a strategy for the old linked across departments. Of course, a commissioner for older people would be a new cost. In Wales and Northern Ireland, where such appointments already exist, each commissioner has a budget and an office, but it is already proving money well spent in keeping people informed on the available options, and keeping all departments immediately aware of needs and impending crises. In the long term, that will represent major and consistent savings. Such an appointment would help both the needy and their providers to find their way around this confused and confusing system. The 10 million people now over 65, the 3 million over 85, deserve no less.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. If there is to be a commissioner for the old in England, I second her nomination at this point.
I also congratulate the Government on bringing together these timely reforms to our social care system. When the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was talking about the problems for local government, I was reminded that it is 20 years since I was elected to North Yorkshire County Council for the first time and put in charge of looking after the budget for adult social services. It was an impossible task 20 years ago. It is an impossible task today. Her remarks are very timely in concentrating our efforts on getting that right.
Parts 1 and 2 begin to address key questions of affordability and access addressed by the Dilnot commission and the issues of quality and safeguarding highlighted by the Francis report. Although modernising the legal framework, as proposed by the Law Commission, and clarifying the rights of individuals and their carers, is an important step, no one should suggest that the Bill will rectify decades of neglect in our social care system. Here, I agree very strongly with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay that not until we have completely aligned our health and social care systems can many of the issues recognised by Dilnot be fully addressed. Nor would anybody suggest that the proposed new funding arrangements will be a panacea, but they provide at least a more equitable solution than exists at present and afford the nation a breathing space until a more radical solution can be found. I say “more radical” because the reality is that at the current rate of increased demand our health and social care system is not sustainable.
About 30% of the UK population currently suffers from a chronic disease, many with co-morbidities, and the rates of increase are frightening, as are the costs. Seven and a half million of us are being treated for hypertension—many I suspect in this Chamber at the moment—which is up 11% since 2006-07; 2.5 million are treated for diabetes, which is up 25%; 1.8 million have chronic kidney disease, which is up 45% since 2007; 800,000 have long-term cancers, which is up 79% since 2007; and 270,000 have long-term dementia, which is a rise of 25% over that six-year period.
Unless we seek better ways of preventing the onset of chronic conditions and managing them more effectively in the community, or even better finding cures, many of the worthy reforms in this Bill will merely provide respite care. This is why I am so supportive of Part 3, the setting up of Health Education England and the Health Research Authority as arm’s-length bodies. The way we will transform the health and care landscapes radically is by improving the education and training of the workforce, and by giving it the tools to transform patient care by using our outstanding research base.
Health Education England has already made a hugely positive start under the excellent leadership of Sir Keith Pearson, but the need to move swiftly to NDPB status to make sure that we align workforce planning with education and training is essential. What is missing from the legislation is a duty to future proof workforce supply into the NHS and social care system. There should not be a three-year plan for LETBs but a 10-year rolling target so that we avoid the feast and famine often associated with kneejerk reactions from government Ministers as problems of nurse, doctor and consultant shortages appear.
We cannot allow a return to local, short-term self-interest that is the real danger for the LETBs; nor must we exclude the private and voluntary sectors, the key role that they must play in workforce planning, and—crucially—the contribution that they must make to training and education. When he replies I hope the Minister will say how the private and voluntary sectors will be brought in. Incidentally, I am delighted that in Clause 82 there is now a duty for Health Education England to promote research. I congratulate the draft Bill committee for getting that into the Bill, but why does this duty not extend to the LETBs? Improvements will come about only if all the workforce recognises the value of research and puts it at the heart of its daily routines. LETBs are crucial to this agenda. Perhaps the Minister can explain why they have been excluded from that duty.
There are many other issues that need to be raised over Health Education England, but one requires an urgent response. The damning criticism in the Francis report about the role of healthcare workers is largely ignored in this legislation, as are crucial elements concerning nurse education. Francis was clear about the need to train, regulate and register HCAs. These recommendations were also strongly made by the recent commission that I chaired, but in the Bill there is no regulation and no registration, and only a minimalist training programme that is not mandatory.
Can I suggest to the Minister that at the earliest possible date Skills for Health is quietly retired, that new standards are set by the NMC and that Health Education England is mandated to ensure high-quality training with appropriate certification for all healthcare support workers? I understand the challenges of adopting a fully fledged registration scheme, but ensuring that any healthcare support worker who cares directly for patients is trained to a mandatory standard, and that training is certificated and registered for inspection with employers, is surely achievable. Making employers legally responsible for registering the competency of their staff and regularly updating that competency safeguards patients, staff and the reputation of the provider.
Finally, I am delighted with the progress made on the HRA so far. The HRA has demonstrated that it is more than an enhanced national ethics service, which I feared it might become, and I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on ensuring that it was given that freedom. The crucial next step of creating an NDPB with scope to make the NHS and our social care system the most research-intensive in the world is hugely exciting. However, there remains timidity about the legislation in this Bill. In 2011, the Academy of Medical Sciences highlighted the need for better and more streamlined regulation, and we are not there yet. Clause 93 gives the HRA the duty to promote the co-ordination and standardisation of practice in the UK with regard to health and social care research, but will this extend to the removal of unnecessary levels of regulation?
At a recent Science and Technology Select Committee hearing, part of its inquiry into regenerative medicine, one regulator said to the members, who included the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that because the science was complicated, so must the regulation be. That is what bedevils the regulatory framework for research. The power of different regulators to gold-plate their regulation continues to worry me. Does the HFEA really have a role in embryonic stem cell research, or could its regulatory functions be subsumed by the HRA or indeed be merged with the Human Tissue Authority? Will the HRA have the powers to abolish, or at least to recommend to Parliament the abolition of, unnecessary regulators, or will those regulators, with their independence, still have the upper hand?
As we move to more stratified medicines, regenerative medicine and greater emphasis on genomics and bioinformatics, the key will be to move fast with often small groups or lone patients. The current system of regulation is too burdensome and cumbersome for us to be able to act. The system is simply not fit for purpose. Surely we should be seeking to strengthen the powers of the HRA so that it can decide appropriate regulatory pathways, rather than the existing regulators.
A similar issue arises with National Health Service research and development permissions. The HRA has done brilliantly in streamlining local ethics approvals, but there are still difficulties with individual trusts over site approvals. Not only does each site have to give approval, but if there are variations to a clinical trial, the whole process has to be repeated. This is nonsense if we are aiming for more trials involving more patients at more sites. Simply publishing good guidance, as expected in Clause 98, is insufficient. I hope the Minister will go further and say how the HRA will ensure that trusts have regard to its guidance. Of course, the success of research and the HRA will depend significantly on public buy-in, an issue which the Joint Committee took very seriously. Transparency is key, and the open publication of data should be a statutory requirement for the HRA. The Association of Medical Research Charities, which I chair, has just published Our Vision for Research in the NHS, which includes, from all members of the charity, a call to publish research results and make them accessible.
This is an excellent Bill. It has huge potential. It is not a panacea. It is a great start, but it needs a little bit of courage, and I urge the Minister to have that courage.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I must confess I felt my score on the hypertension scale rise as we went through the day and the debate got nearer, but we are ready in time. I thank the Minister for the very clear way in which he introduced the Bill, and I must apologise for missing the opening seconds of his speech.
There are six reasons why this Bill should be welcomed—and it is not often that one can say that about a government Bill. First, it consolidates and modernises the legal framework for adult social care. Secondly, it creates a framework for limiting people’s exposure to crippling costs for their care. Thirdly, it establishes the principle that the well-being of the individual should be the animating purpose of social care. Fourthly, it establishes rights for carers. Fifthly, it establishes the principle of portability of care. Sixthly—a slightly more parochial concern, in which I declare my interest as a vice-president of the RNIB and a visually impaired person—it renews the statutory basis for local authority-maintained registers of visually impaired adults. We still have some work to do to ensure that the system is maintained for visually impaired children. The Government are to be commended on all these things.
The Bill, therefore, makes important progress in getting the framework right. However, there is still major work to do to ensure that it is adequately funded and implemented in the right way. Without this, all this good work will come to nothing. Adult social care is now consuming more and more of local government’s budgets, and is set to consume virtually all of them in a couple of decades’ time. However, four in 10 disabled people who receive social care and support say that it does not meet even their basic needs for things like eating, washing, dressing and getting out of the house. At present, the shortfall in funding is conservatively estimated as being in excess of £1.2 billion a year. Over the past three years £2.68 billion, or 20%, has had to be cut out of adult social care budgets. If greater integration of health and social care budgets is to mean anything at all, it must mean a transfer of resources from the NHS budget to fund adult social care properly.
This has important implications for the sections of the Bill that deal with prevention—Clause 2; and eligibility—Clause 13. Getting these right will be key to delivering the Bill’s potential, and I will say a word about each of them. Prevention has the potential to be a win-win. It clearly matters to individuals, who see their care needs escalating without the kind of support that Clause 2 requires local authorities to put in place. However, it matters not just to individuals, but to cash-strapped councils as well. In the debate on the Queen’s Speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke most interestingly of there being three stages of retirement:
“a decade or so of healthy life … a decade of some limiting disability, such as a lack of mobility, the inability to reach or difficulty in hearing, but with care needs sufficiently modest that … they can normally be met at home; and between two and five years of frail dependency, including dementia, during which substantial personal care is needed”.—[Official Report, 14/5/13; col. 292.]
The noble Baroness suggested that the second stage, of limiting disability, would most repay investment, because funding and supporting people at that stage is not all that expensive. All the evidence points to prevention being cost-effective.
An analysis by Deloitte of a range of British Red Cross services suggested that the charity achieves savings of £1.50 for every £1 invested. Its 2012 report, Taking Stock: Assessing the Value of Preventative Support, estimated savings ranging from between £700 and £10,430 per person, depending on the individual circumstances. This places a premium on the preventive aspect of care. Providing relatively low-cost, timely support—for example, when someone is discharged from hospital or loses their sight or hearing—makes obvious sense.
The Bill represents significant progress on the prevention agenda. The Care and Support Alliance, the coalition of more than 70 organisations working with people with care needs, particularly welcomes the references to preventing needs in the assessments and eligibility sections of the Bill, in Clauses 9 and 13. Yet the Bill says nothing about the importance of providing this kind of intermediate care—what is increasingly referred to as reablement, which we used to know as rehabilitation. Reablement perhaps focuses more on getting people over the immediate short-term crisis. The Bill says nothing about these things. This is especially regrettable when you consider that a structured programme of rehabilitation and the provision of minor aids and adaptations can be just the services that the blind and partially sighted, and many other adults who become disabled, need most if they are to remain independent. Clause 2 on prevention will therefore need strengthening if we are to move towards a care and support system with prevention at its heart. At the moment, the accountability for fulfilling the preventing needs duties is weak so, when we come to Committee, I shall look for amendments to strengthen the lines of accountability through health and well-being boards.
The Bill has changed to signal the Government’s intention to set out specifications for different types of preventive services and to whom or for how long they might be available. What are the Government’s intentions with regard to regulations here? Will those adults who need a short burst of intermediate care, or perhaps even longer bursts of specialist rehabilitation, get the help that they need? Can the Minister confirm that intermediate care and other qualifying services such as community equipment will remain free of charge, as today?
One of the most important areas for reform of social care concerns the question of eligibility. The Bill will fail to improve the social care system for disabled and elderly people if eligibility is set too high. We are all familiar with the impact that slashing social care budgets has had; many local authorities have been raising the threshold at which people become eligible for support. In 2005, 50% of local authorities set their eligibility criteria at moderate needs; by 2012, 84% were setting their eligibility criteria at the higher, substantial needs level. As a result, just 14% of those with moderate needs are receiving care, and at least 800,000 people with care needs are not receiving any support at all. The introduction of a national eligibility threshold under the Bill is thus most welcome, but it will do little good unless the threshold can be set at the equivalent of moderate under the fair access to care services system, and the Secretary of State is required to have regard to the duty of local authorities to promote individual well-being in setting the threshold.
There is no denying that this will be a daunting challenge, but there can only be dividends to be reaped from putting in the necessary support before things reach crisis level. In its Cutting the Cake Fairly report from 2008, the Commission for Social Care Inspection reported that needs assessments were unduly standardised. We need to get away from generic needs assessments and, instead, match disabled adults undergoing assessment with the specialist assessors who are best qualified to determine their care and support needs.
Clause 12 paves the way for specialist needs assessments. However, if I am not mistaken, Clause 12(1)(f) is actually weaker than the corresponding clause in the draft Care and Support Bill. This clearly needs to be put right. If blind, partially sighted and other disabled people who need one were to receive a specialist needs assessment undertaken by a person with expertise in the relevant field, there would be a stronger chance of their care needs being identified as the often substantial needs they really are.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, the Minister has clearly outlined the many positive qualities in the Bill. Although I welcome many aspects of it, a number of issues cause me concern, particularly with respect to the care of some of the most vulnerable people in society—those with mental health problems.
I wish to explore four specific aspects of the Bill and seek assurances from the Minister about how the Government intend to address these: first, the lack of adequate safeguards for effective advocacy—for example, in ensuring take-up of personal budgets and protecting those detained under the Mental Health Act; secondly, what I see as unnecessary changes to the definition of mental health aftercare services; thirdly, how adult safeguarding boards will be able to exercise their functions effectively; and, finally, the lack of clarity about continuity of care for people in prison and on leaving prison.
I start with the new national eligibility criteria and personal budgets. Overall, I support the Bill’s focus on this and believe that giving everyone who is eligible access to a personal budget will greatly improve their lives. However, accessing these budgets is a far from simple process. For example, there are already significant variations in the take-up of personal budgets between councils and regions, and between different community groups. The official figures from the NHS information centre show that while 29% of adult care users or carers receiving community services had a personal budget in 2010-11, the rates ranged from 4% in Somerset to 71% in Manchester. The figures suggest that progress on moving people onto personal budgets is slowest in the south-west, where the average take-up is around 18%, and fastest in the north-west, at around 35%.
Moreover, the uptake of personal budgets among people with dementia still lags way behind most other client groups. The Alzheimer’s Society in a report in 2011 found that three in five people with dementia assessed as eligible for a care package were not even offered a personal budget, while 15% declined an offer of one. The report clearly highlighted the importance and need for advocacy or brokerage services and stated that,
“support planning and brokerage services are crucial to enable people to access the system”.
I fear that without a statutory entitlement to effective advocacy and support, some of the most vulnerable users and carers, such as those with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia, will not be able to access the system nor have their needs met through the kinds of informal support services that personal budgets are so good at enabling.
I am concerned that it was not considered necessary specifically to reference advocacy within the duty to provide information and advice. In meeting this duty, local authorities will be expected to provide information and advice that is accessible and proportionate to all. Of course, I recognise that an individual’s requirements for information and advice could range from a leaflet or a face-to-face conversation to long-term independent advocacy but, as the Law Society stated, “information … is no substitute” for a proper system of advice and advocacy for service users to navigate what will be a “complex system”.
Further, in a really important point, the Law Society notes that Clause 2(3) states that local authorities may be permitted to “make a charge for” this service and that this will be set out in regulations. I would like to know how vulnerable people who lack resources and in many cases live in poverty will find the means to pay for this. For those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged, charging could in fact become a new barrier to accessing an already difficult system.
What about those with mental health problems? The Bill rightly highlights the Government’s aspirations of achieving integrated and joined-up care, including parity of esteem between physical and mental health. This parity of esteem must include those detained under the Mental Health Act, where there is an even stronger case for the provision of effective and independent advocacy. I feel very strongly that unless all patients subject to compulsory powers under the Mental Health Act can access a truly independent mental health advocate, they will continue to be at risk of missing out on the most basic elements of care and support intended by the Bill. This is even more important for those groups already experiencing significant inequalities, such as those suffering from mental health problems who are from black and minority ethnic communities. It is crucial that we tackle these existing inequalities in the mental health system. I believe that providing effective and independent advocacy would be an essential step in doing this.
In fact, I am very concerned about the relative lack of focus on mental health in the Bill. Frankly, mental health is the biggest unaddressed health challenge of our age and is costing our society and the economy millions of pounds every day, not to mention the cost of the suffering among individuals and families. Why, given the critical nature of mental health problems, have the Government once again chosen to change the statutory provision of free aftercare services for people who have been treated under the Mental Health Act? I speak, of course, about Section 117 services, which noble Lords will recall this House debated to a large extent during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. Yet here we are again, faced with what I believe to be an unnecessary and possibly harmful change to these vital services. I will be seeking to make amendments in Committee unless the Minister can explain how these changes help or improve provisions which may not be perfect, but which ensure a degree of protection for those very vulnerable groups of people.
In particular, I am at a loss as to why the Government are attempting to change the eligibility criteria for Section 117 services. For example, Clause 68(5) introduces a new definition of aftercare services such that these services must be,
“meeting a need arising from or related to the mental disorder of the person concerned”.
This is surely unnecessary, but more importantly—and this gives me real cause for concern—given the history of local authorities in trying to avoid their responsibility for aftercare services of this kind, this new definition would enable local authorities to refuse aftercare on the basis that the need is no longer related to the mental disorder. Far from clarifying the position, this new definition adds to the complexity and risk, creating a situation where more people are denied access to these essential services.
I understand that the Government’s aim was to translate the Law Commission’s recommendation on Section 117 of the Mental Health Act into the draft Bill, but I note that the Law Society has asked for specific assurances that there is no intention by government to erode the current free-standing duty to provide free aftercare under Section 117 to,
“some of the most vulnerable”,
individuals in society. I suggest that the proposed new definition of aftercare services is too restrictive and could generate complex legal disputes over whether a service should be provided under Section 117. I will need a great deal of persuading that the proposed changes bring any benefit and do not in fact create the likelihood of greater harms.
Care of the vulnerable must be at the forefront of our efforts. Therefore I welcome the statutory framework for adult safeguarding, which includes the establishment of Safeguarding Adults Boards in local areas. The Bill states that these boards will be required to produce safeguarding plans and updates on progress, and that where a board “knows or suspects” that “serious abuse or neglect” has contributed to the death or serious harm of an individual, it will be required to carry out a safeguarding adult review.
However, I have a number of concerns and questions around how these boards will be able to exercise these functions effectively. For example, not only must local authorities and the NHS work together, but neighbouring local authorities must establish communication systems to ensure that all knowledge on abuse issues is shared not just in a local area but across areas, if another Winterbourne View is to be avoided. We also need avenues of communication for carers and families to register concerns, and for these to be looked at quickly. In fact, carers and families should not only have input on the boards but, I suggest, be supported to act as representatives on them.
Moreover, effective safeguarding work cannot be disassociated from other aspects of care and support provision. For example, with more and more people with higher needs potentially being employers with personal budgets, they will be vulnerable to abuse in their own homes. How will this be safeguarded against? There can be no doubt that for these boards to be effective, local authorities will require additional funding. Where is this to come from? I will not add to the many comments about lack of funding already made by other speakers; I simply pose the question again.
Finally, as I understand it, the whole point of this Bill is to move away from responding to crises and emergencies which can result in costly and unnecessary hospital or residential care. The aim is rather to develop person-centred and preventive approaches that meet real needs in a timely and appropriate fashion. One group who especially need this are those with social care needs who are entering or leaving prison. For this group, care is often not of the same standard as it would be in the community. In fact, a 2007 report by the University of Birmingham for the Care Services Improvement Partnership, Adult Social Care in Prisons: A Strategic Framework, identified major shortcomings in the provision of social care in prisons.
Clause 69 could be a very important step in addressing these shortcomings, particularly considering that around 70% of prisoners will have mental health and substance misuse problems. Providing this care can have a significant impact on reoffending and greatly enhance people’s ability to rebuild their lives on release. However, for such benefits to be realised, it is essential that there is continuity of care between prisons and the community. We need to ensure that prisoners have access to care that is equivalent to what is available in the community. People receiving care before entering prison should continue to receive such support, and any care provided while a person is in prison should be continued through the gate. Local authorities, prisons and probation services must work together to ensure that effective links are in place. I would like some reassurance from the Minister that this will indeed be an outcome from the Bill and one that he recognises is important.
Many aspects of this Bill are welcome and are long overdue. However, there are significant omissions and there is a real risk that in the current economic climate and with the background of funding cuts, nothing will really change. I am concerned about those who are most vulnerable and whether we have truly learnt the lessons from Winterbourne View and Mid Staffs. If we continue to react to problems rather than resolving them at an earlier and more effective point, we will place the most vulnerable in our society at risk. I hope that the Minister will reflect on my concerns and respond appropriately.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the introduction to the Care Bill. This legislation provides the missing links in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and sets out clearly the responsibilities and the part to be played by local authorities in providing the missing links towards achieving a fully integrated service which aims to provide holistic care, from maintaining pathways in well-being, disease prevention, sickness, care and support through to end-of-life care.
The Bill also shows how the costs of the services will be met, ensuring that advice and understanding will be available for all. The Bill’s success depends on breaking down the organisational and professional boundaries that have prevented progress previously. It will succeed only if its three parts are fully discussed in Committee and then implemented in line with the comments made at Second Reading. The Committee will address Part 3, followed by Part 2 and then Part 1. I firmly believe that Part 1 will not succeed unless Parts 2 and 3 are fully understood and addressed.
I am a retired nurse and a carer so I approach the Bill from an essentially practical perspective. I shall therefore start with the provision making Health Education England a non-departmental body. This change is vital if the body is fully to fulfil its responsibilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said. The Secretary of State will issue a mandate and this will be of great value to Health Education England, which must work in tandem—and within a defined budget—with a wide range of specialities and many different bodies. The Government’s addition of Clauses 87(5) and 93(3) from the draft Bill underlines the fact that planning for a period of longer than one year is essential when considering workforce requirements such as education and training which involve a long lead-in period. Clause 88 sets out the importance of having sufficient numbers of skilled workers to meet the health and social care requirements. LETBs will have responsibility for planning for the workforce and the skills requirements for a defined area but they must also take account of the wider geographical requirements if specialities and the time element are to be addressed, especially if this is to be cost-effective.
Healthcare assistants—support workers—have been a subject of concern regarding training and the review by Camilla Cavendish which the Prime Minister requested is due shortly for publication. Skills for Health has published a list of skills that should be part of the training for healthcare assistants. As we know, however, simply teaching a skill without providing the background knowledge is of no value in delivering quality care. Both Robert Francis QC and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, recommended mandatory training. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that after considering Camilla Cavendish’s recommendations. I ask the Minister seriously to consider mandatory training programmes which might link skills training to the NMC’s care standards, which are the core of the nurse training curriculum. That would provide a greater understanding for both the healthcare assistants and for the registered nurses who are responsible for supervising and delegating to the healthcare assistants. If high-quality care is to be delivered in the NHS, in local authorities and, importantly, in the independent sector of nursing homes and care homes, where standards are not always compatible with high-quality care, then the matter of training for healthcare assistants must be dealt with urgently.
Health Education England has an enormous task in improving the provision of workforce data on all disciplines and clarification is required about the part to be played by the Centre for Workforce Intelligence and how this slots into the Health Education England programme. Achieving the right numbers of appropriately qualified people who are in the right place at the right time is an enormous task but it is essential if safe, high-quality care is to be delivered to the satisfaction of patients and their families. There are already examples of shortfalls in all disciplines but in nursing there are great disparities between those who produce high-quality care and those who do not. These disparities usually reflect the ratios of registered nurses to healthcare assistants and the required level of supervision. The right numbers in the right ratios are the most cost-effective and care-effective way of delivering high-quality, safe patient care both in the NHS and in local authority health and social care services. I hope that the two vital issues of healthcare assistants’ training and the ratio of registered nurses to healthcare assistants can be sorted out as a matter of urgency.
Continuing professional development is crucial to the future of integrated care programmes. It is important that the values set in the NHS constitution and within healthcare trusts, primary care and local authorities are understood by all employees and employers. There is a need to encourage onward development of all employees by implementing a sound appraisal system which reflects the needs and aspirations of each employee and results in an individual CPD programme. If this is not rigorously followed through on, the issue of burnout and loss of commitment will become apparent. In such circumstances morale falls and healthcare provision can fail. Such a culture is not conducive to high-quality care and is similar to that experienced in Mid Staffordshire.
I turn to the Health Research Authority. Evidence-based practice and innovation depend on research findings. It is a great disappointment that the constitution provided in the Bill is stated in such general terms that it is impossible to determine whether there will be multiprofessional representation on the board or among the employees. All healthcare professionals now require a degree but the responsibility for research has until now remained with the medical profession and little attention has been paid to the other healthcare professionals when considering representation on boards, in committees and in terms of funding. How can innovations be developed without research backing? Promises were given verbally during the briefing for and passage of the Health and Social Care Act but there is no evidence that any notice has been taken.
One good example of the outcome of some research done by a Florence Nightingale Foundation scholar— I declare an interest as president of the foundation—was the introduction of care bundles. As a result of that scholarship the mortality rate in people suffering from three long-term conditions was reduced to below the average SMR. We need more projects and research like that to ensure that practice is based on evidence and sound research. I ask the Minister to ensure that there is more investment on the multiprofessional side of research as well as on the medical side.
Part 2 of the Bill refers to care standards. It is pleasing to see that the Government have taken steps to legislate on some of the Francis report on the Mid Staffordshire inquiries. The CQC’s role in identifying failing trusts on the basis of quality as well as financial concerns is welcomed by nursing staff who strive to maintain delivery of safe, high-quality care to the satisfaction of patients and relatives. Work by the CQC is ongoing and we will study it as an important step forward.
Part 1, on care and support, is a crucial part of the Bill that fundamentally sets out the responsibility of local authorities in the fields both of preventing the need for care and support and promoting well-being. However, the critical and most difficult part is promoting the integration of care and support within the health services. Fundamentally, integration is vital and the most important ingredient in successful health and social care, bringing together a huge band of people who will need educating, training and an understanding of the true meaning of holistic care that enables a patient pathway to be clear and understandable by those delivering the care, whether within the aegis of the local authority, the NHS or the independent sector.
In summary, the Bill is a welcome step forward in tackling the issues that so badly needed to be addressed. It will influence and persuade health and social care providers to provide the population they serve with quality and satisfaction.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, in these matters. She has not only a lot of knowledge, but a great deal of personal experience. I always listen carefully to what she says. I refer the House to the register and to my interests particularly in certain charities which I shall mention. I, too, share the welcome that has been widely given across the House to this legislation. It has great potential to improve the lives of many people with a disability or who are elderly and frail. Simplifying legislation that affects local authorities’ care responsibilities is both timely and something that many of us hoped would happen for some time.
Like others, I share concern about the ability to fund such an ambitious piece of legislation. In the impact assessment available in the Printed Paper Office, I noticed that the monetarised benefits actually outweigh the public sector costs. If that is true, it is really to be welcomed, but I must tell my noble friend at the Dispatch Box that in Committee we will want to look carefully not just at the costs identified in the impact assessment, but at what are perhaps the glaringly obvious omissions, particularly future demographics. This Bill is very generous. To a degree, it seeks to underwrite the costs for people who currently do not receive state help with their care. The way in which the population demographics work out in this way is challengeable. I would say to my noble friend that what is really important is that we do not raise expectations through this legislation, only to find that they cannot be resolved.
I say this from personal experience. I remember some years ago when my son, who has Asperger’s syndrome, was in his late 20s and lived permanently at home with my husband and me. As the named carer, I received through the post forms to fill in, asking me what my carer’s needs were. Every time this form came, I am afraid that I wrote across it in large letters: “If my son’s needs were met, my needs would be minimal”. They probably caught me on a bad day. As any carer will know, the reality was that sometimes even the very basic needs of the person you are caring for are not met. In a way, this Bill promises that this will be addressed. After all, what does “well-being” mean if not the well-being of the whole person? The well-being of carers is very much dependant on the well-being of the person for whom they care.
This is particularly relevant among those people who cannot advocate for themselves. We heard in today’s debate discussion about people with dementia, mental health problems and learning disabilities—so ably expanded by my dear noble friend Lord Rix. I have had an association with various autism charities and can say that these people need somebody to make the case for them—usually the carer, though there is not always an immediate carer. It is really important that this legislation will fulfil its promises.
I am a little concerned about one particular area. Although it is extremely welcome that throughout this Bill there are requirements to assess—for example, the person needing care or the carer—if those assessments cannot be fulfilled, there will be a huge feeling of let-down. My own experience, not just as a carer, but having served for nearly 20 years in another place as a constituency MP, is that all too often there is huge push-back and resistance to an assessment, even when there is a statutory requirement to provide it. This is purely because the people who are asked to carry out the assessments know only too well that whatever their conclusions, they cannot do very much about them because the resources are not there to deliver what that person needs.
It must be pretty awful for the people who carry out those assessments to know that if they do their job fully and properly, at the end of the day there is not an awful lot they can do to make a difference to that person’s life. I think my noble friend described the resources attached to this legislation as being about the engine working better rather than putting more petrol in the car. I would say to him that the engine needs to work better and he needs to fill up a few more times, otherwise I do not think that the resources will meet the need.
Looking quickly at the autistic community, I mentioned earlier that there are some omissions. This applies both to autism and to people with dementia, perhaps more elderly people who go on to have Alzheimer’s. There are a huge number of people who are still undiagnosed. In the autistic community it is improving, particularly with younger children. However, there is still an adult community with needs that do not always come to attention. As with those with learning disabilities, if they have been living at home with elderly parents who themselves have a crisis, it is the crisis of the person they have been caring for that comes to the attention of the authorities. All too often, that means crisis management and huge sums of money with all the disruption that goes with it to try to put some form of stability package in place at short notice.
This is not helped by something which the Bill aims to address—I hope it is successful and has been touched on by many speakers already today. This is the relationship between health and social services. When I was a constituency MP, I used to say, tongue-in-cheek, “We are having an ‘Oklahoma!’ moment”. Often people would come to my surgery with the typical problems of those who do not receive the correct services, or are carers who are at breaking point and cannot get anybody to understand their needs. For those who can remember it, “Oklahoma!” has a song with the line, “The farmer and the cowman should be friends”—but they never seem to talk to each other. That is the “Oklahoma!” moment, and it is quite easily resolved by Members of Parliament. When in my surgery or on the phone I was presented with a problem that quite clearly needed a group of people to sit around a table and talk about it, I used to cut to the “Oklahoma!” moment as quickly as I could. All too often, good things happen when an MP says to health and social services, “I think you should get together”. Indeed, I sometimes used to say, “Don't worry, I'm very happy to come along to the meeting myself”, which usually galvanised a few people. Problems were not always totally resolved overnight, but we started to make progress. It used to occur to me, “Why do I have to have this ‘Oklahoma!’ moment when all these people could be doing all this for themselves?”.
I say to my noble friend that, as we go through the Committee stage of the Bill, I will want to pay particular attention to those parts that seek to improve things so that we do not have “Oklahoma!” moments. The structure must be such that automatically there is dialogue and not stand-offs about who pays for what, because the difference between who funds the social care and who funds the health care is addressed in the Bill. All of this bodes well for resolving many of these problems, but I still have concern that if the resources are not available, we shall not do so.
Finally, it is important that we have a new piece of legislation on the statute book; the Autism Act. It has not really bedded down yet and it is early days. But the new Care Bill must ensure that the duties in the Autism Act statutory guidance continue to apply to local authorities and local NHS bodies to ensure the ongoing implementation of that Act. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that when he makes his concluding remarks.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, as so many noble Lords have said, making the points that I wanted to make, this is potentially a very important piece of legislation. I warmly welcome it. The well-being principle set out in Clause 1 is particularly welcome and the Government are to be congratulated on acting on so many of the Joint Committee's recommendations for strengthening the Bill. But unless this Bill is properly funded, its aspirational principle and welcome structure will just rub salt into the wound of the current crisis in social care. The Bill must be properly funded and other government departments must work in concert with this legislation if the social care crisis is to be alleviated.
The media debate around the Bill has largely focused on the care needs and the funding of that care for older people. I want to concentrate on the social care needs of working-age disabled people who comprise one-third of social care users. I will focus particularly on funding and housing.
Current government action on these two issues does not bode well. As we know, the fine aspiration set out in the well-being principle is cloaking a grim reality. This is particularly the case for the more than 20,000 most severely disabled people who, until it was closed to new applicants in 2010, were funded by the independent living fund to live ordinary lives in their own homes.
When I became disabled in the mid-60s, these were the people who, unless their families had sufficient money and suitable housing, were warehoused in residential care with no hope of living any sort of normal life. In the decades since, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Campbell, we have witnessed the liberation of this group to live fully integrated lives as part of the community. Some have been enabled to work and make considerable contributions to our society only because the ILF has provided top-up funding to the support available from local authorities.
But despite the fine words of Clause 1, these ILF users fear that current government action is threatening to return them to institutional care. ILF funding is ending and these people are being transferred to the local authority system in 2015. Their fears are not exaggerated and have been confirmed by the directors of social services, the Local Government Association and the Government's own impact assessment as well as the National Association of Financial Assessment Officers who have said that some councils will decide that residential care is a less expensive option than supporting people to live at home.
A few weeks ago, a group of ILF users took this decision to judicial review. It lost, but during the two-day hearing, it became clear that transition funding to protect current ILF users is available only for one year, 2015-16, and that neither the DWP nor the noble Earl’s own Department of Health want to take responsibility for making the case to the Treasury for further funding in the spending review.
What steps will the Department of Health and the DWP jointly take to ensure that funding is available after 2015? Will the Minister assure the House that ILF users will not be forced into residential care or confined within their own home with only ‘life and limb’ care following the transfer of funding responsibilities to local authorities? If this Care Bill is to fulfil its principle of well-being, what level of funding do the Government believe is necessary to ensure that we do not return to the days when disabled people with high support needs had no opportunity to live independently? If there is no time to answer at the end of the debate, would the Minister be so kind as to write to me?
The justified fears of ILF users serve only to highlight the current crisis in adult social care which is failing to support disabled people to do the basic things in life—basic needs such as washing, dressing and getting out of the house. I will not repeat the points that other noble Lords made so eloquently. However, as the Care and Support Alliance has emphasised, this Care Bill will fail to improve the social care system for disabled people if the welcome proposal of a national eligibility threshold is set too high. The White Paper's suggested threshold of “substantial” is too high. For the ambitions of Clause 1 of the Bill to be realised—that social care should enable participation in work, education and society—it is essential that the eligibility threshold should support that ambition, not demolish it.
It is vital that the national threshold is set at no more than “moderate” to ensure that prevention is at the heart of the social care system. Prevention must lie at the heart of this Bill. It will also depend on other government departments and other local authority services playing their full parts to ensure that social care expenditure does not escalate in an unintended way.
One of the most important factors in prevention is housing; both the provision of suitable housing and the aids and adaptation service. Countless stories of people being unable to return to their own homes after serious illness or accident because of inaccessibility are heartbreaking. They also result in costs occurring elsewhere in the system because of delayed discharge from hospital or expensive residential care. Simple adaptations to a person’s home can prevent the need for costly care, whether it is the provision of ramps and handrails, lever taps or a downstairs bathroom when stairs become insuperable.
This applies equally to the need for supported housing especially for people with learning disabilities. Frequently, local authorities do not even seem aware of their legal responsibility to house this group. I congratulate the Government on having listened to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and including the suitability of a person’s home in the definition of well-being in Clause 1. During the passage of this legislation, I will seek to ensure that housing also appears on the face of the Bill in other relevant clauses so that it cannot be forgotten.
Finally, it seems like a forlorn hope that the Chancellor will recognise the urgent need to build the thousands of homes needed for social housing. They are particularly needed by disabled people who are more dependent on social housing than the rest of the population. Instead, the Chancellor spends our scarce resources on his help-to-buy scheme, which can only lead to yet another catastrophic housing bubble.
I wish the noble Earl the eloquence of angels in persuading his fellow government Ministers that they must all play their part if this Bill is going to result in more than just fine words and aspirations, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the usual suspects referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. Like many of the speakers in today’s debate, I am a veteran of more care Bills than I care to remember. I wish to put on record my admiration not just for my colleagues Paul Burstow and Norman Lamb, who did a remarkable job getting this Bill to where it is now, but also to a number of people—not least of whom are the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Sutherland of Houndwood—who over the whole of the last decade started the debate which has got this Bill to where it is today. An awful lot of work has gone on in the last decade that has shaped this legislation. It has to be clear, coherent and consistent; people and their carers need to know what they are entitled to receive from social care, what they will be expected to contribute and what their entitlements will be. That has been a long process, but it is a relief that we have finally got there.
A lot in this Bill is admirable and it starts for me at the third sub-heading in Part 1, which talks about the purpose of assessment. Assessment is key to all this Bill: the extent to which it is possible to assess a person’s needs, means and support networks and the extent to which social care, health and private insurance have a common assessment process are the keys to whether the aspirations that we all have for joint care can really and truly be achieved. At the heart of it all is housing. We have known for some considerable time that the care that an older person receives in later life depends upon whether they own a property and the extent to which they can use that to fund their care. This Bill goes a long, long way to ensuring that other people—those who do not have properties at their disposal—get the help that they need as well.
There is much detail in here about the assessment process and much of it is extremely welcome. However, there is one subsection—Clause 9(4), which looks at how one’s need for support is assessed—which talks about the need to look at what a person can do and the sources of support around them in their family before an assessment for eligible needs can be carried out. We need to be clear by the time this Bill finishes all its stages that people and their families are being assessed on what it is that they are able to provide by way of support and care, rather than what they are expected to provide to make up for some of the deficiencies of the care system at the moment. We do not wish to see people and their families pressurised into providing more than they possibly can.
I welcome Clause 11, which talks about the enduring responsibility of a local authority to care for an older person even if they refuse to have an assessment. All of us who have worked with older people know that horrible moment when a carer finds that their mum has gone for her assessment and sworn blind that she can do lots of things which on her very best day she might be able to do, but routinely she cannot. Here I also make the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I always raise on occasions such as this, in memory of Lord Weatherill. There are some people, particularly Christian Scientists, who do not lack capacity but who wish to refuse to have assessments and so on. Their views need to be upheld. I am extremely pleased that the need to assess somebody’s financial resources is in the Bill. It is quite clear that that assessment happens separately and after their needs have been assessed.
Clauses 15 and 16 talk about the cap on care costs and implement Andrew Dilnot’s report. Again, there is much in this that is extremely welcome. It is welcome that there are some things for which local authorities will not be able to charge. The whole process of how one gets from the point of an assessment of need to the point of eligibility is much more complicated than many people realise. There will be things such as care costs that people have already paid for in their own homes which are not taken into account. The same is true for payments for their daily living costs. We also know that the current system whereby local authorities will pay up to what they call the usual rate—which may be well below what an older person and their family believe they need—will continue to endure under this new system.
It is absolutely critical that this whole part of the Bill is scrutinised in great detail, because there is a danger that this could end up like the fares for a budget airline. You have an upfront figure, which by the time you finally get to the airport, turns out to have so many add-ons that it bears no resemblance to the original fare. If, at the end of our process of scrutiny, that is what we end up with, then the whole system will become discredited. We really need, above all else, to emerge from this legislation with everybody knowing in detail, with some certainty, what their costs are going to be.
One of the issues on which the Government’s response to the joint scrutiny committee was slightly disappointing was about drawing the boundaries between health and social care. Those of us who have been involved in working with older people for any length of time know that when resources are tight, the ability of the NHS and local authorities to withdraw and start pressuring people from pillar to post gets tempting. There was an attempt in the draft Bill to differentiate clearly between healthcare and social care. In the Bill that has emerged now, it is less clear than it was originally. That will not help anybody; it will simply set the basis for ongoing court cases about what constitutes continuing care. Again, one of our main duties in the passage of this Bill is to ensure that there is clarity on that point.
Turning to deferred payments for social care, we currently have a system of deferred payments and we have some case law already on the way in which that works. It is welcome that the Government wish to extend that and to make it more consistent across the country. However, I hope that in doing so, they have paid attention to the existing case law about when people’s properties can be taken into consideration when other members of their family are living in those houses. I have to ask the Minister what financial modelling has gone into this part of the Bill, because we are talking potentially about the deferment of a lot of money for a lot of care for a very long time. Given the state of the finances of local government at the moment, we could be talking about a policy of quantitative worsening of social care, rather than quantitative easing of it.
I move on quickly to safeguarding. It is very welcome that we are finally getting a statutory power to investigate the potential abuse of older people. People such as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, have been working for 20 years towards a time when we put the abuse of older people on as serious a statutory footing as the abuse of children. However, the changes to Section 47 of the National Assistance Act—the power to remove older people from unsanitary conditions—without a power of entry when a third party is withholding access to somebody who may be being abused, may mean that we have a statutory power that is not going to protect people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, that Section 117 support for mental health is important, and we must make sure it is not weakened.
We have within our grasp a system that will deal with the biggest problems with which we have been grappling for more than 20 years: how to make our social care systems, our health systems and the rest of our public finances work together, so that individuals, their families, their communities and the National Health Service all know where they stand in relation to each other. We are not quite there, but with some concerted effort, and using our combined experience, we will get there by the end of this Bill.
Lord Patel
My Lords, the Government have to be commended on bringing forward this Bill to reform the current system of social care and thus bringing in a fairer system. Many noble Lords have commented on the financial issues, saying that adequate finances will be required to make sure that the ambitions of the Bill are delivered. Noble Lords have also commented on another important issue, that of the eligibility criteria that are to be used. If these two things are not met appropriately, the duties being placed on local authorities in Clause 1—promoting well-being, preventing deterioration and reducing need—will be difficult to meet. It will also mean that more people end up in A&E, in primary care and as in-patients.
I am concerned about two other issues. As yet, the Government have not accepted the need to provide free care and support for cancer patients at the end of life. I remain encouraged by the comment made by the noble Earl when we considered this issue in the debate on the gracious Speech. He said that there was “much merit” in the idea. I hope that he will be able to convert the thought that the proposal has much merit into an amendment that the Government will bring forward.
A survey by Macmillan Cancer Support has shown that 91% of cancer patients at the end of life wish to die at home or in surroundings familiar to them. The barrier to this is the lack of care and support they need along with complicated, lengthy and stressful processes to access funding for care. Financial means testing when patients are dying does not seem to be compassionate or caring. The argument for providing free social care at the end of life is strong. It will deliver the Government’s vision of integration and choice. Research by the Nuffield Trust shows that a saving of some £52 million a year could be made through reduced hospital admissions. I hope sincerely that the Government will amend the legislation to do this, or accept an amendment that I will bring forward.
There is also the issue of the support that the carers of cancer patients get or, rather, that they do not get. Almost 1 million cancer carers give their valuable time to this, saving services probably in the region of £12 billion a year, yet half of them receive no support at all and the other half very little. This is partly because most of them do not see themselves as carers and are unaware of their rights; fewer than 5% get any assessment at all. What would help is if a similar duty as the Bill puts on local authorities is placed on the NHS to work with local authorities to identify the support needs of carers who are themselves supporting cancer patients. Cancer carers will then receive the support they deserve.
The other areas of concern to me relate to Clauses 55 to 63, also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I associate myself with his comments. I want particularly to make a point about the support and care of children and young adults during the transition period. More than 40,000 children and young people aged between one and 19 in England have long-term conditions which, for the most part, will end their lives or for which they will require palliative care. They may have complex health conditions and severe disabilities, and for the most part they are looked after by parent carers. This is not end-of-life care, but care that brings some comfort, respite, the relief of suffering, and a little bit of quality of life. Evidence shows that while they are children and in their early teens, these young people receive support from children’s services. In their late teens they begin to receive services from adult services, but that support is often reduced, fragmented and disjointed. Parents describe this transition of care as “standing on a cliff, about to fall into a black hole”. It is not difficult to imagine the stress and anxiety it must cause to young people and their carers.
The proposals in the Bill are a step forward, but in my view they need to go further. A consortium of charities which has grouped together under the charity, Together for Short Lives, feels that this provision needs to be strengthened. The Bill should make it clear that when a young person reaches the age of 14, local authorities should initiate transition planning with the young person, their family and the relevant agencies, so that by the time they reach the age of 16 a five-year rolling programme for their support and care is in place. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this and that the Minister, if he is able to do so, would be willing to meet with representatives from Together for Short Lives and myself.
Part 2 of the Bill relates to performance rating. I support in principle the idea of introducing a system that assures quality of delivery of health and social care. Suffice it to say at this stage that whatever the final system that is introduced is like, it has to be credible and have the confidence of both patients and health professionals. If it is going to be based on three domains of quality—clinical effectiveness, patient experience and patient safety—the dataset needed to achieve this in an equitable and fair way is available for some areas, but not all of them. I hope that the Government will see the introduction of assessment as formative and embedded over a period of time, evolutionary in helping to develop appropriate datasets leading to improved services, rather than a one-off assessment that identifies only failures and shortcomings. I am very familiar with a system based on standards that encompass the three quality domains of clinical effectiveness, safety and patient experience, but using a different process that works. I know of no system within our national healthcare that is similar to the proposals, although of course there are large healthcare providers which are using a similar methodology. I look forward to the debate on this subject and hope to contribute to it.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the other parts of the Bill, starting with Health Education England. In my view, the Government have brought in provisions that we agreed in principle in the Health and Social Care Bill. The Government have to be commended on doing this and I thank the noble Earl. I am also encouraged by the appointment of Professor Wendy Reid as the medical director. Health Education England will have someone with huge experience and skills in health education. My only comment relates to the local education and training boards. Why is there not a duty placed on them to promote research and research training, a point also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough?
As for legislation related to the Health Research Authority, its current role is small and we will want to see how it evolves. I recognise the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about too many regulators in the area of health research. I hope that the Government will look at this, while the inquiry into regenerative medicine may also give rise to some comments. I think that the Government are right not to put a duty on the Health Research Authority to require the publication of the results of research. It is much better that the authority should work with others to encourage the publication of research and that it develops over time an appropriate methodology. The mandatory publication of research by the authority would have been the wrong thing to do. It does not work; it has been tried in other countries, including the United States.
As for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the original Government thinking was right, but now that they have changed their mind and have decided to keep the authority, I hope that it concentrates on its key role of improving services related to infertility.
In conclusion, on the whole I am supportive of this Bill and hope that the Government will be sympathetic to amending some of the areas I have alluded to in order to help improve the lives of those most in need of care and support.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I welcome this very important Bill. I do not want to repeat the points that have been made, but I will add my support to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, on the need for real independence and dignity for disabled people and to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, on the housing needs of disabled people of working age. I also share the concern expressed by her and by many speakers in this debate that this Bill will work only if adequate resources are available. I noted the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the system is now in crisis and that people with real needs are left without support, which is a worrying situation.
I want to highlight matters relating to the detailed working of this Bill and the complexity that arises in some areas by virtue of the fact that social care is devolved in Wales to the National Assembly, since some of the provisions in this Bill impinge on devolved responsibilities. First, can the Minister confirm that legislative consent Motions have been agreed with Ministers in Cardiff and that there are no outstanding issues that need to be resolved?
Secondly, on the issue of funding, the Secretary of State Mr Hunt said on 11 February:
“All the Barnett consequential issues are decided by the Treasury”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/13; col. 601.]
I understand that additional spending in England of about £1 billion should generate about £60 million of consequential spending in Wales. Can the Minister confirm that a figure has been agreed, and can he tell the House what it is? There is the associated question of the Barnett formula being generally inadequate and particularly inadequate in this context, where the age and need profile in Wales differs from that in England. Wales has higher levels of disability for historical and industrial reasons, and thousands of people retire from England to the beautiful coastlines and countryside of Wales. They are very welcome to come, but there is a cost implication. Wales has the highest proportion of older people of any country or region in the United Kingdom. Nearly one in four are over 60 years of age, and that is expected to increase by a further 5% over the next 10 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, rightly emphasised the need to be aware of the demographic changes that are taking place and the effects that they will have. Any funding system that is based merely on total population relativities will inevitably generate inequalities.
Thirdly, the Government of Wales are currently in the process of reorganising social care in Wales. The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Bill is similar to this Bill in many aspects and will, inter alia, increase the number of services for which people can claim a direct payment from the local authority, introduce national eligibility criteria, and provide for portable assessments to avoid the cost and trouble of reassessment. These detailed provisions need not exercise your Lordships’ House. What is of concern, however, is that any provisions in this Care Bill with an England and Wales remit will impact on the changes taking place in Wales under the other legislation.
Equally, changes taking place in Wales will have an implication for cross-border placements and the portability of care packages. Can the Minister tell the House whether discussions have been concluded with Ministers and officials in Cardiff and whether all issues in this area have been resolved? In particular, has there been a resolution of the portability of social services assessment undertaken in Wales in the event of persons choosing to move to England, and likewise of the portability of care packages for persons choosing to move from England to Wales? I am not referring to cross-border placement, which is quite another matter. Will the UK government cap on social care costs follow an individual who moves to Wales from England and is already in receipt of a care package, and if the cap is different in Wales, which of the two would apply? There is a real danger of disputes arising. The Care & Support Alliance commented:
“The Care Bill could have gone further to set out a strong and clear dispute process”.
The difficulty to which cross-border issues give rise within England between local authority areas is covered by Clause 36. This provision deals with people choosing to move for genuine reasons, but it does not appear to deal with those moving between England and Wales for genuine reasons. Likewise, Schedule 1 deals with the cross-border placement question, and paragraph 1(2) deals with the placement from England to Wales, but it does not appear to specify who has the responsibility for paying. Perhaps the further provisions referred to in paragraph 1(5) are meant to cover this, but it is far from clear and we need some assurances on the matter. It is also less than clear that paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 1 is adequately rigorous to provide for full recompense or that it is relevant in all cases. I should say that the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Bill also fails to clarify these cross-border issues. These are matters that we certainly will need to clarify and to follow up in Committee.
Finally, I refer to the proposed health research authority provided for by Clause 96. Clause 98 states that the HRA’s remit is to promote the co-ordination and standardisation of practice in the UK in the regulation of social care. The Bill places a duty on the HRA and the devolved Administrations to co-operate with one another, but how on earth is such a duty going to be enforced? And what happens if disagreement arises between conflicting expectations in Wales, Scotland and England? Does the Secretary of State in England have to act as a referee in such a dispute? I am not arguing against the need for such co-operation, of course, but legislating for these matters never guarantees the desired outcome. All these issues are points for further consideration in Committee. Meanwhile, I am very content to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I declare an interest as unpaid president of SOLLA, the Society of Later Life Advisers. I want in my remarks to concentrate on the Dilnot-related parts of the Bill—that is to say, the cap and the related changes to the means test. I should state straightaway that I welcome the cap. Indeed, I hope that the House will not think it unduly immodest of me if I claim to be, if not its father, perhaps its grandfather. In the minority report of the 1999 royal commission, which I signed with the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, there was a proposal that people should have their care costs covered if they were in care for more than five years. I was not even able to command the majority in the minority on that matter, because the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, did not agree with me on that, although we agreed on everything else. So right from the beginning I have been a strong supporter of people being protected against catastrophic costs of care. I emphasise the word “catastrophic”, because I am also extremely glad that the Government opted for the £75K cap, which I referred to in this House in my initial reaction to the Dilnot proposals, and not for the much lower figures put forward by the commission, which frankly I thought to be unaffordable.
I hope that my credentials as a broad supporter of what the Government are doing are established and that it will not seem impossibly contrarian if I point out two disadvantages of the proposed scheme that we need to bear in mind throughout proceedings. The first is that it is still pretty expensive—£1 billion by the end of the next Parliament, rising to £2 billion by 2030, according to calculations by the Health Economics Group at the University of East Anglia and the LSE’s PSSRU. In the times of austerity in which we are living, any increase in public spending needs to be very thoroughly justified, because of its implications for taxation if nothing else. There is a particular danger in spending money on helping people to pay for care. The real acute and immediate crisis that we face is not about people paying for care; it is about the amount of care that we are providing, on which spending has been cut by about £710 million in real terms since this Government came to power. There are loads of figures, but that is the one that hit me. People are doing without services. If you do not have substantial needs, you do not get services any more. When the priorities come to be weighed, that seems to me to be the pre-eminent one.
There is also the issue of where this money goes. The Dilnot proposals—for all their advantages, which I will come back to before noble Lords get convinced that they should not go forward—do little for the poor. They mostly benefit the better-off. That is because poor people get paid for in full under the present means-testing system. It is the better-off who have to pay. Of course they do not like that and it understandably creates a furore. Even the Government’s plan, which I will call “watered-down Dilnot”, benefits most the better-off. According to the same academic sources that I quoted, the plans in 2030 will be worth £52 a week to people over 85 in the top quintile by income—the top 20%—compared with just £20 a week to those in the lowest quintile. That is an inevitable consequence of replacing means-tested benefits with targeted universal benefits, which is why some of us are chary of the current fashion for scrapping means tests.
Dilnot argued that the cap will protect a bigger share of the assets of those with modest wealth than those with lots of wealth. That is true. It is, however, also true that those with modest wealth will have to contribute to the cost of their care a higher percentage of their wealth than will richer people. It was therefore as difficult a choice for me as it was for Joel, my noble friend Lord Joffe. I go back to the only dispute that we ever had.
Against those disadvantages had to be weighed two important advantages. One is that there is real injustice in the present system, because it is a total lottery as to whether you need care or none at all. It seems unfair that one set of people, however well off they may be, have their wealth wiped out because they happen to need a lot of care, while more people—about two-thirds—get away with the full loot to leave to their children because they do not happen to need care. That lottery is unjustifiable.
I have been in politics for some time and, frankly, I thought that it would be a tremendous advantage if, at reasonable cost, we could get this issue of paying for care off the agenda and concentrate on the things that really matter—the money that has to go into care services, the way that those services are organised and the way that individuals get more control over those services. The issue of the old having to sell their homes to pay for care is a distraction from a more important debate, and the proposals, at modest cost, will take it off the agenda. It is right to proceed with them, but I am sorry that the cap changed from £75,000 to £72,000 and that it has been brought in a year earlier as a result of the Budget. That means increased Exchequer costs earlier, which is robbing money that should go on services.
Incidentally—this is a side issue, but important—the administrative burden on local authorities is quite alarming. Getting this done by 2016 is a major deal. Authorities will need to invest huge amounts in systems, staff, advice and all these things—perhaps £500 million just for the administrative costs. The Government must—I repeat, must—pay for that in full, but it will be nip and tuck as to whether it is done in an orderly fashion to the new timetable. If that had not been done, we would have had a little extra money. At quite modest cost, the government scheme could be tweaked to do more for those with relatively modest wealth and we would not have to worry as much that all the benefits were going to the better-off.
This now gets a bit geeky, but I will persist. The Government propose to raise to £123,000 the limit on how much wealth you can have before you stop getting means-tested support. That is good; it represents the value of a cheap house in some parts of the country. However, it is not very good. I do not know how many noble Lords are fully aware of this but, in fact, if you have £123,000 in assets and that modest house, all the money that the Government are trying to give you under the means test will be taken away from you. Why is that? It is because of a little-known thing called the tariff. Under the present system, for every £250 that you have in excess of about £14,000 in assets, you lose £1 a week in benefit. You would require a 20% return on your savings—£50 a year on £250—to benefit. The money is taken out of your pocket by this tariff in the means test as it is put in by the increase in the ceiling.
How could this be changed? It could be done easily. Suppose that the tariff was changed so that, instead of losing £1 for every £250 of your assets, you lost £1 for every £500. Therefore, those with assets of up to £123,000 would get decent benefits from the state towards the costs of care. Nor would the cost to the state be great. According to the academics whom I quoted, the cost would be around £150 million—less than a sixth of the cost of the Government’s proposals. A small slice would go to those with modest income and wealth and, if necessary, it would reduce the very large slice going to those with substantial income and wealth. In other words, if this proposal were to be combined with the cap proposals, we would have a much less regressive package. If it were necessary to fund it by raising the cap from £72,000 to, say, £80,000 or a little more, that would be a price well worth paying for a more socially just solution.
My party has rightly criticised the Government, mildly, because their plan does not do enough for the less well-off. Here is a ready-made solution. The Minister was described at a meeting earlier this afternoon as a saint. I would not dissent from that. I do not mean to be offensive to the noble Earl, but he would not like the tag put on him that he cares only for the better-off. When the Bill goes to Committee, I am confident that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will stand up and accept amendments to reduce the tariff to £1 for every £500, thereby making this Bill much more progressive and helpful to those hard-working people on modest incomes who want their fortunes to be protected.
Lord Bichard
My Lords, I should declare an interest as chair of the Social Care Institute for Excellence—or SCIE, as it is known in non-media circles. The first chair of that organisation was the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, so I am conscious that I have rather a lot to live up to, but I will do my best. I took on that role because I believe that social care is the most important social issue for the next decade or two. That means that this is one of the most important Bills to go through this House in this Session or, indeed, at any time. As others have said, the Bill has the potential to redefine the landscape of care and to offer a new deal to those in need of care, many of whom, let us not forget, are vulnerable and frail and face difficult and complex problems and decisions about their future. They have often contributed greatly to our society and their communities, and deserve to be properly supported and sustained when the need arises.
Again, there is much in the Bill to applaud and welcome: the greater emphasis on prevention, the cap on the cost of care, the responsibility to promote individual well-being, the emphasis placed upon integration and co-operation, and the new rights for carers. We can all applaud and welcome those provisions. However, in Committee we will naturally look at ways in which we can make the Bill even better. I want to suggest five measures that we may consider.
First of all, I should like to see an even stronger commitment to dignity at the beginning of the Bill. The recent events in mid-Staffordshire and in individual care homes must surely have taught us that whatever changes we make to organisational structures, technology, financial systems, buildings or even equipment, they count for little if personal dignity is not afforded absolute priority on the ground. It must be the bedrock upon which everything else rests. It can no longer be taken for granted or left unsaid. Clause 1(2) refers to dignity, but in passing. It does not feature strongly enough and is entirely lacking in other key provisions, such as in Clause 1(3). I should like the very first clause to state boldly that the general duty of all providers, not just local authorities, is not only to promote individual well-being but to ensure that individuals are treated with dignity at all times and in all settings.
In making my second point, I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. There is a danger that Parliament—I use that term rather than “Government”, because we all have a responsibility in this—sees this Bill as an opportunity to make bold statements of good intent and then immediately to pass on the responsibility for achieving them to local government, with insufficient thought being given to the consequences.
Local government rightly has a key role to play in this, but we all know that it is bearing the brunt of budget cuts, and it would be irresponsible of us not to take account of the pressures facing local authorities as we debate the Bill. Others have already reminded this House of the reductions that local authorities are making: £2.68 billion in the last three years to social care funding, and another £800 million in 2013-14. Like many others, I can see no way in which the ambitions of the Bill can be achieved without some additional funding sooner rather than later. At the very least, in our discussions and in our debates we should carefully make explicit and take account of the practical implications of every clause and every proposal, so that we do not just make bold statements of intent.
My third point is that there is a danger that in making these proposals the Government do not examine closely enough how their own practice and their own behaviour can make it more difficult for all those on the front line to deliver the kind of integrated service we all want to see. It would be quite wrong for the Government merely to encourage others to go away and integrate without looking carefully at their own practice and their own behaviour. The King’s Fund—I am a member of its advisory board—says that in feedback from its work with local health and social care leaders, one reason for the lack of progress in developing integrated care is that some aspects of current policy, practice and regulation are acting as serious barriers to progress. The Government need to look at how Whitehall departments can be made to work together more effectively. They need to look at the impact that silo-based budgets, targets and regulation systems have on good practice on the ground, and they need to look at some of the big strategic issues, such as the interface between the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups. This needs to be addressed afresh.
At the moment, a great many good things are happening out there, but very often you are told, as we were recently in the Select Committee in this House, that they happen in spite of Whitehall and in spite of Westminster, not because of them. Maybe Clause 3 should refer again not just to local authorities exercising their functions with a view to ensuring integration but to Government. Let us not forget housing providers. Why do we feel comfortable imposing statutory responsibilities to co-operate on everyone except central government departments?
My fourth point relates to the importance of information and advice, and to the need for this to be properly independent from providers’ interest. Clause 4 refers to the need for financial advice to be independent, but we need to ensure that individuals are not vulnerable to other advice that might disadvantage them but benefit providers. Clearly, the Government have set their face, for the moment at least, against a legal right to advocacy, while acknowledging in the Explanatory Notes that advocacy might be necessary in some circumstances. I wonder whether this issue would benefit from one further look. Is it really not possible for us to come up with some affordable advocacy support for people who are, as I said earlier, facing such difficult decisions?
Finally, I would like to see us making greater efforts to make care and support provision more inclusive. At the moment, care homes, to take one example, sometimes stand apart from their communities, and too often communities seem content for that to happen. Such a situation would be completely unthinkable with schools. As a result, opportunities to improve residents’ quality of life are missed, and crucial opportunities to identify unacceptable practice are missed too. We cannot expect infrequent CQC inspections to be the only way to spot poor care, and I believe that David Behan, the chief executive of the CQC, agrees. More frequent visits from volunteers could make a big difference. It is quite clear that relatives of residents are often reluctant to complain, because justly or not they fear that this would be held against their loved ones. We need stronger external involvement, and we could help to achieve it by adding a duty in Clause 1(3) to take steps to ensure that care and support facilities are open, transparent and accessible to local communities. It is already good practice and we can see it happening in the best care and support facilities, but it needs to be uniform.
This Bill could be a defining moment in the history of care in this country. Care is an issue that should in large part rise above party politics. I look forward to this House doing what it does best: playing a key part in achieving the best possible legislative outcome, but ensuring most of all that those in need of care are treated fairly, and always with the greatest dignity and respect.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of the Care Bill. There are areas which I hope to see strengthened, but it represents a basic framework on which future generations should be able to build. My concern is how we make the words a reality. It is not the first time that this has been mentioned in debates. Will future funding restraints prevent any real improvements? How can we ensure the essential co-ordination between hospital care and home or residential care? My final concern is around the capacity and welfare of our workforce in health and social care and in local authorities. To make the words a reality the Care Bill must, in the words of Age UK,
“make a tangible difference to the lives of people with care and support needs who are currently effectively ignored by the system”.
The Bill contains measures to ensure a single national eligibility threshold for care services, but if, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has already mentioned, the regulations set the minimum level at “substantial” rather than “moderate”, it would affect 100,000 people and would render a national system meaningless. Age UK asks for the Bill to be strengthened in a number of ways, for instance by linking eligibility for social care to the achievement of outcomes based on the individual’s well-being, as defined in the Bill. The requirements on local authorities to plan to meet the diverse needs of their populations and to promote quality and choice could be strengthened by requiring service commissioners to monitor and take action where necessary. Clause 8, describing the kinds of support which local authorities must offer, should include issues such as transport.
Finally, on turning words into deeds, good quality information and advice is needed. The most stressful thing for any family caring for the frail elderly is finding their way through the maze, feeling unsupported and fearful that they are not accessing the best possible services for their loved one. Website information is welcome, but some people need more intensive help. The clause on advocacy has already been mentioned. It should be strengthened, perhaps by creating a positive duty on local authorities to ensure that someone has the help and advice they need.
Secondly, despite not being written in the scope of this Bill, future funding is critical for its success. As many of us have said in this and previous debates, there have been real-terms cuts to social care funding: 7.7% in 2011-12 and 6.8% in 2012-13. The rising levels of unmet need are such that 800,000 people who need care now are not receiving it. The Nuffield Trust calculates that,
“there would be a funding gap of between £7 and £9 billion by 2021/22 if funding were held constant in real terms”.
It adds:
“These funding pressures would rise to between five and six per cent a year if the recommendations of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support were implemented, resulting in a total funding gap of £10 to £12 billion by 2021/22”.
This gap will have to be faced by the next elected Government and will probably be met only by a combination of productivity savings, managing chronic conditions, holding down pay and taking a larger share of public funding. The social care funding gap is likely to be between 3% and 6% a year, depending on trends in chronic conditions, and Dilnot costs of course. The Nuffield Trust concludes that:
“The NHS in England may face continued austerity measures into the early 2020s”,
which is something of an understatement.
The Local Government Association supports the intentions behind the Bill but has pointed out that,
“the government’s austerity programme … does not fit well with the aspirations of the Bill”.
Policy decisions and financial decisions have become detached. The point about underfunding has also been made by the Care & Support Alliance and Age UK.
The need to co-ordinate health and social care is going to become even more desperate. In its response to the Francis public inquiry report, the Nuffield Trust states:
“The reality is that more and more trusts will be treating large numbers of sicker, older adults in an atmosphere of pay restraint and frozen budgets”,
and recommends that,
“the highest priority for initial development of fundamental standards be given to care of the frail older people on acute wards … and that this priority should shape any new requirements for data collection in NHS trusts set by the NHS Commissioning Board or the Care Quality Commission”.
The NHS is already creaking under the weight of our failure to solve the social care crisis. When I was a carer, I fought tooth and nail for my mother to be allowed to stay in hospital until her health improved rather than be sent back to the care home where she spent the last 18 months of her life—not that her care was good in hospital; it was a choice between bad and worse. I understand the dilemma of families who want to do the best for their elderly relatives. Perhaps we need more halfway house temporary accommodation, jointly funded by the NHS and local authorities or charities, to relieve the undoubted pressure on hospital beds. If care standards in residential homes were better, that would relieve pressure on hospital beds.
The changes proposed in the Bill will put enormous pressure on staff in the health service, social care and local authorities generally. The Joint Committee on the draft care and support Bill has already raised the issue of initial and ongoing training and support needed for local authority staff and social workers. Others have dealt with the certification of care workers. Long shifts and low pay are a real problem in residential homes and often determine the quality and commitment of staff. With all these new responsibilities being piled upon staff by this Bill, we should not forget our responsibility to meet their capacity and welfare needs. Also, the statutory requirement for candour may not sit easily with a more market-oriented approach to health and social care. This would also place a tremendous burden on some staff.
Finally, I have not referred to the “Dilnot-lite” elements of the Bill. Of course it is disappointing that the Dilnot figure was not accepted. The proposed figure will benefit very few people, particularly with the additional £12,000 a year overhead costs, but it is a start and having a framework is very important.
The timetable for the Mesothelioma Bill clashes with the Committee stage of this Bill, so I will not be able to be present for the early stages, but looking around I feel sure that all angles will be well covered by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. Like her, I very much welcome this Bill. It is a very good Bill and the Government are to be congratulated on bringing it forward, on responding constructively to the recommendations and observations in the Joint Committee’s excellent report on the draft Bill, and on incorporating the essence of the Dilnot report into the Bill. When it becomes law, the Bill will have the effect, among other things, of introducing certainty, stability and consistency into the provision of care. It will also create the conditions in which financial institutions can begin to write policies that will directly help in the pooling of risk, which is not the case at the moment.
The Bill deals with a very complicated subject and seeks to make fundamental changes to the current arrangements. Many of the critical components of this reform of the care system are to be left to secondary legislation and guidance. Although it is clear that many details will need to be and should be left to secondary legislation and guidance, I think that the Bill would benefit by addressing some of the key issues more directly in primary legislation.
The recent toing and froing over Section 75 of the NHS Act illustrates the point. There are some things to which the answer is not yes or no. There are things that the House may very well want to debate in a way that produces amendment. I suggest that the size of the various caps critical to this Bill are such things and would be better debated amendably than on a yes or no basis.
Dilnot noted in his report that setting the cap above £50,000,
“would not meet our criteria of fairness or sustainability”.
The proposed cap of £72,000 is greater than Dilnot’s £50,000, even allowing for inflation. I suspect that many Members will want a vigorous debate in Committee on where the trade-off between reach and affordability should lie. The same goes for the definition of eligibility in Clause 13, and for Clause 34(1), which will by regulation set out when an authority may agree to defer payment. All these things may be better discussed in the more flexible environment of primary legislation.
I will now comment on four more specific areas of the Bill. The first is communications, which is dealt with in Clause 4. The Dilnot report, which for me is a model of absolute clarity, has 10 recommendations. Two of these are about communications because Dilnot clearly views that issue as central to the success of the entire scheme. Recommendation 7 says:
“To encourage people to plan ahead for their later life we recommend that the Government invest in an awareness campaign”.
This is proactive and prospective information. Recommendation 8 says:
“The Government should develop a major new information and advice strategy to help when care needs arise”.
This is reactive and responsive information. The Bill addresses the second recommendation and not, I think, the first.
Clause 4 specifies in some detail what information must be provided by local authorities but it seems to be aimed, as Dilnot puts it, at situations “when care needs arise”. It does not seem to deal with Dilnot’s Recommendation 7, which asks for more general, wider and very much earlier awareness campaigns. Dilnot seems to be asking for a heavyweight, national publicity campaign aimed at the general population before need arises.
Furthermore, the Bill contains no provisions for defining the test for sufficiency in “sufficient” information as stipulated in Clause 4(3). It does not seem to include the requirement to provide information, for example, about how to appeal against a judgment of ineligibility. I assume that there is such a right of appeal, and a simple and quick mechanism for handling such appeals in the first instance, even though I could not spot it in the Bill.
There also appears to be no requirement in the Bill for local authorities to have a mechanism for measuring and reporting their success in providing information or the success of that information in achieving its objectives. I should be very interested in the Minister’s comments on general early-awareness campaigns; on the need to measure success in providing what the Bill calls sufficient information; and on the existence of an appeal mechanism at first instance.
The second area I wanted to speak about is eligibility. I have already said that I think that the criteria for eligibility should have been available before this debate. I also worry about a Section 75 problem in dealing with the criteria and secondary legislation. In particular, I wonder how local authorities are to be able to take a properly comprehensive view of who might be eligible. The Bill states in Clause 9:
“Where it appears to a local authority that an adult may have needs for care and support”,
and so on. That strikes me as a very passive and rather weak obligation. It does not specify any duty to be properly aware of such adults, merely to act if it appears to the authority that an adult may have such needs. We may need firmer language here. The Bill would surely benefit from obliging local authorities to take appropriate and proportionate steps to make sure that they are reasonably likely to know when an adult is in need of care and support.
The Bill is also silent on the time that a local authority may take between becoming aware that an adult may be in need, making an assessment, determining eligibility and providing the service. It is clear that we need national standards of service here. I assume that requirements will be written into guidance, but I would welcome the Minister’s assurance on that.
The third area that I want to address is the question of direct payments. The Joint Committee was quite right to propose that we should not be too restrictive about the use of direct payments, and I was glad that the Government agreed to that in their response and to see no unreasonable restrictions in the Bill. However, the problem is likely not to be abuse but accidental mismanagement and complications arising from it. It seems highly likely that some who ask for and are allowed direct payment may find the subsequent commissioning and managing of the services that they need stressful, complex and burdensome. It may be a very good idea if the local authorities have an obligation to provide friendly oversight of and help with the management of direct payment services, at least in the first months of their existence. It would be a great pity if the valuable ability of people to specify and obtain what they need was allowed to suffer from bureaucratic, management or legal difficulties due to inexperience, misunderstanding or contractual unsuitability.
The fourth and final area on which I should like to touch briefly is funding. As many other noble Lords have said, to make all that work, the funding needs to be sufficient. In particular, the Dilnot cap needs to be set at the optimum level to balance reach and affordability. We will want to examine the assertions made in the impact assessment carefully in Committee. I hope that the impact assessment’s calculations turn out to be accurate on examination and when we are in possession of all the details to be contained in secondary legislation.
I note, for example, that the Joint Committee states in Recommendation 5:
“The introduction of a capped cost scheme, which will result in many more people being assessed and entitled to a personal budget, is likely to lead to an increase in disputes and legal challenges. We are not confident that Ministers have yet fully thought through the implications for local authorities of these changes”.
Rather worryingly, there does not seem to be any financial provision for that in the impact assessment.
I end by repeating what I said at the beginning. Notwithstanding my four areas of concern and my feeling that the balance here between primary and secondary legislation is not quite right, I believe that this is a very good Bill. I believe that, with proper funding, it will lead to a clear and genuine improvement in the provision of care, and I congratulate the Government on introducing it.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I add my name to the list of noble Lords who have expressed the view that the Bill is very welcome indeed. I was privileged to serve on the scrutiny committee considering the Bill. Integrating—or at least having co-operation between—services that are so differently organised at the moment is extremely difficult to succeed in, but essential if we are to get it right. We are talking about an extremely vulnerable group in our society. In fact, there is more than one group. There is a huge number of frail, older people and a very large number of disabled people of all ages. It is not fair or worthy of our society to think that people can shop around for the services that they need. It is impossible, we know that. They must be integrated.
I have a very simplistic view on this. I know that it is difficult to bring a paid-for service and a service that is free at the point of delivery together, but if the money is ring-fenced and put in the hands of either the clinical commissioning group or the health and well-being board, where they are mandated to mix up the money and use it in a co-ordinated way, I cannot understand why that would not work. As I said, that is my simplistic way of looking at this.
Everyone has echoed the fact that we need more money to make this succeed. We do, but Andrew Dilnot and his colleagues demonstrated clearly that the amount of money needed to make this succeed is a minute proportion of what we spend in the National Health Service, primarily on acute services, and that if we integrate those services we can achieve a great deal. We do not always measure the savings that we will make on acute NHS services, as a proportion of NHS costs, by getting this right. Those are not, generally speaking, the right services to deal with the people involved. People often need to go into hospital for short periods but much of what they need can, and much more could, be provided in the community.
I have previously spoken with the noble Earl about the innovation that is necessary, including step-down facilities for people who do not need to be in acute hospitals, like the Scandinavian model of patient hotels. That would not be privatisation, as they would be NHS-funded contracted services which provide private accommodation and family care—opportunities for care rather than healthcare—with access to medical specialists as and when necessary. All sorts of such experimental schemes can be introduced if we mix the money. I think that that is the priority.
We need to get rid of the terrible situation at the moment where people are waiting in their own homes for the care that they need. I know about this because I was the lead commissioner for domiciliary care for older people not very long ago. If people who need services are at home, a care worker comes to you who cannot count the time that it takes to get there but then has to get you up, clean you up, clean up your room, dress you, make you a meal, talk to you and help you eat your meal within 15 minutes. That is, physically and mentally, totally impossible. It is an insult and an impossibility. We cannot go on doing that to vulnerable people, so we must somehow put our resources together and get this right. It is a disgrace at the moment and of course, when it does not work, we need advocacy services. I agree with the noble Lord—forgive me, but I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Bichard—who was talking about the role of care homes. Another step-down facility can be the care home, if the care home of the future can be more of a local hub.
I would like to see that my mum gets to know the care home provider, goes there for French classes, local history lessons or art—and for the odd weekend if daughter is going away—and that, knowing it, she goes there for a holiday and then moves in. That is not dumping mum; it is mum going to a place that she already knows well. The care homes of the future must be a resource for the local community and linked to all the other services. They must be part of the step-down procedures, from acute hospitals to caring for the sort of vulnerable people who we are talking about.
In the Bill, there is the possibility of making this happen but we must get some things clarified. What are the duties of a local authority in promoting well-being, for example? It is not absolutely clear. We must be certain that there is enough care and support provision in every local area. In terms of well-being, we need to make sure that the Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia, which is due soon, will outline how much progress is being made on making the quality of care as important as the quality of treatment. When we talk about the growing challenge of dementia, it is not always about treatment but about care. The prevalence of dementia makes that essential. The other point that we might bring in is that much of dementia care should come under public health because it is about prevention, well-being, design and preventive care. If we can bring public health professionals, who are now very important at a local level, into this group of providers then we stand a chance of getting this right.
I also support the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in making the point that end-of-life care is important and that we must make sure that people who are approaching their last days do not have to pay for the care that they need. These definitions of what health and social care are should disappear at that point. We are talking about services to dying people. After all the years that I have worked in the field of aging and with older people I know that the loss of dignity and respect, and going into an inappropriate hospital setting, are what people fear most as their life draws to a close.
I agree with everybody who said that moderate care must be part of the equation. If I was a director of adult social services, I would have to concentrate on those in the greatest need. We are so limited as regards the number of people who can obtain services at all. If we could only include moderate services, we might have a chance of preventive types of care being part of our envisaged service provision.
We must also do something about self-funders subsidising the funders who get their total funding paid for by the local authority. In terms of inflating the cap and the personal care account, although annual wage inflation appears to be the chosen index some sort of acknowledgement must be made of the actual cost of care. I assume that the practice of self-funders paying more than local authority-funded people, often for the same accommodation in a residential or other type of care home—subsidising the latter, in other words—will be clarified or should cease. Otherwise, self-funders are going to reach the cap far in advance of other residents. This is not only unfair but might well be challenged as not being legal, being a form of taxation which is not publicly accountable.
When elderly people who are frail go into hospital, their discharge procedure must be verified and known about as part of the admission process. I think we made this clear in the scrutiny committee. We get these terrible stories now of very frail people being discharged from hospital with no proper plan. We know, because we have heard about this recently, about the horrible wait that people have to leave hospital. We must make sure that advice relating to care and support includes information about how to access relevant independent financial advice. This should bring in the members of SOLLA; the noble Lord who spoke about that was in an authoritative position to do so.
Some new schemes are coming forward from one or two think tanks, including one with which I am associated, which are looking at more affordable savings products that might appeal to people of modest means. I hope that for people not normally able to pay for an insurance scheme, these products would help encourage the insurance companies to come in and provide the sort of long-term schemes that are needed to make this care system work properly. Unfortunately, they really do not exist in this country at the moment, but with the catastrophic costs being taken on board by the state it should be possible before too long to interest the insurance industry in being part of paying for care for older people in the future.
This Bill has been awaited for a very long time. We need to make sure that other things that we have learnt, such as human rights protection, are not left out of the Bill as it proceeds through Parliament. We know that there are some serious problems in ensuring that human rights protection will follow people, however their care is provided. I hope that we can work on that in Committee to make sure that it is clarified and that it is simple to access human rights protection. Whoever the provider of care might be, frail and vulnerable people, who are usually very old, need that protection. We have seen too many instances of human rights being abused and quite dreadfully breached. This Bill is so important, as long as it guarantees that those sorts of abuses will not happen in the future.
Lord Warner
My Lords, let me say at the outset how much I welcome this Bill and in doing so I pay tribute to the contributions made to its construction and arrival in this House by Paul Burstow and Norman Lamb. I should also declare my interests, as a member of the Dilnot commission and as a member of the Joint Select Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill. I emphasise that it produced a unanimous cross-party report with more than 100 recommendations for improvements, mainly in relation to Part 1 of the Bill. The evidence given to the Select Committee showed strong stakeholder support for the Bill, but there were important proposals for further improvements that we reflected in our recommendations.
At this stage I shall not comment on the Dilnot recommendations, other than to distance myself slightly from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lipsey and to associate myself with the excellent remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. I will come in a moment to some of those Joint Committee recommendations that were not accepted by the Government. First, I would like to ask the Minister about the Bill’s silence on the key area of public health to which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred.
We know that the NHS’s core business is the management of 17 million people with long-term chronic conditions, many of which have been largely caused by—if I may put it this way—lifestyle decision-making. We know that nudging on its own does not really cut the mustard with issues around smoking, alcohol consumption and poor diet and that legislation may be needed. It was disappointing to many people outside this House—certainly, I have had a lot of approaches about this—that the Government did not use this Bill to bring forward the standardised packaging of cigarettes, the minimum pricing of alcohol and some kind of simplified system of food labelling. They have failed to do so. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about the Government’s plans for introducing legislation in these three areas? If it is not to be this Bill, when will we see legislation tackling these issues, on which there is a very large measure of public support for something to be done?
I now turn to some areas in Part 1 that require fuller scrutiny in Committee and probably amendment. The principle in Clause 1 of promoting well-being has been warmly and widely welcomed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned earlier. The Joint Select Committee considered that this principle should be applied to Ministers when exercising their responsibilities under the Bill. Ministers in oral evidence seemed slightly sympathetic to this idea, but when they got back to Richmond House they seem to have gone cold on it and rejected the Joint Select Committee’s recommendations. I will be interested if the Minister can produce more convincing arguments than I have heard so far on why the Joint Select Committee’s recommendation was rejected. If we are not convinced by the arguments of the Minister and his colleagues, I hope that some of my colleagues on the Joint Select Committee will join me in prodding the Government a little further with an amendment to see what they are made of.
I shall flag up briefly for the Minister some other areas in Part 1 where I am minded to put down amendments. On integration, I think the response to some of the Committee’s recommendations suggests that the Government are a bit happier talking the talk rather than walking the walk with practical ideas such as—dare I suggest it?— pooled budgets, joint commissioning, joint provisioning and a number of others. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, I still think that implementing the Bill’s changes effectively over time requires a statutory code of practice, and I would favour an amendment to achieve that. As noble Lords have said, the Bill needs strengthening on young carers, advocacy and human rights protection for those in private care homes. We have been over that latter ground a number of times in this House, and it is time to deal with this once and for all. I do not think the outside world is convinced by the Government’s position on this or, indeed, by the previous Government’s position on it. We need some careful drafting that gives proper protection to those in care homes who are paying their own way. It is not good enough to leave things as they are.
Let me flag up some issues around whether there will be a credible way of dealing with what is likely to be a considerable number of disputes over this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned this. There will be two types of dispute: disputes between service users and the local authority, and disputes between the local authority and service providers. We could leave things as they are, but if we really want a lot of judicial reviews and to clog up the courts, that is the right way to go about it. We need to hear a bit more from the Government about their further thinking on some tribunal-type way of dealing with these disputes without relying on the courts.
I am genuinely puzzled by the Bill’s drafting on the boundary between the NHS and social care, as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I am still unclear whether the boundary has been changed. I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response to the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, given the attention he has given to this issue in the Joint Select Committee and outside it.
The issue in Part 1 that is of greatest concern to most people is Clause 13 on eligibility criteria, as a number of noble Lords have said. They are to be dealt with by regulations and, as I understand it, drafts will not be published before the spending review announcement scheduled for late June. The Government have promised to establish a minimum national threshold of service need to be met under these criteria. It is still a bit unclear to me where in the Bill we find that. Will the Minister explain how this will be done?
More widely on Clause 13 there are widespread concerns that this threshold will be set too low to ensure that enough effort is put into preventive help to protect independence and preserve well-being. I think consideration will have to be given in Committee to placing in the Bill a stronger framework of requirements on eligibility criteria rather than leaving so much to ministerial discretion within regulations. I certainly feel a set of amendments coming upon me on this issue, and I welcome any contributions on this issue—the more, the merrier.
There are some other issues I want to raise on Part 1, such as including social care savings in auto-enrolment schemes for pensions, the right to die at home and free social care at end of life for patients suffering from cancer. However, the last point I wish to raise today on Part 1 is one that a number of other noble Lords have raised: funding for social care. The Dilnot commission’s report made it crystal clear that its proposals would not solve the existing shortfall in social care funding. I do not wish to trade figures today with the Minister on this issue, but what is beyond doubt is that there is a major funding shortfall relative to need. It is fair to say that historically under successive Governments social care has been less generously funded than the NHS, and promising a brave new future under this Bill without adequate funding for implementing the new system would be a cruel deception to inflict on many vulnerable people. More immediately, the funding crisis in social care is having a major impact on the NHS in terms of the major flow of people into A&E departments, especially at night, and the lengthening of hospital stays as discharge packages cannot be funded.
Social care has never had a review of its funding like the review that the late Derek Wanless carried out for the previous Government on the NHS. We should consider bringing forward an amendment to the Bill to provide for an independent review of the funding required for adult social care. I would like the Government to be willing to contemplate asking the Office for Budget Responsibility to conduct such a review, and I would like to be in a position to put down an amendment so that we can debate this issue fully during the passage of the Bill. I know that the King’s Fund will be undertaking a further review of social care funding, but Derek Wanless did one for it on this some time ago. It simply does not have the clout and authority that an organisation such as the Office for Budget Responsibility has.
There are a few issues on Part 2 that I will wish to raise. I shall not dwell on them for very long today, but I want to mention to the Minister some of the issues around Clauses 76 and 77, which are concerned with trust failure. As I understand these clauses, they relate to foundation trusts only, but the trusts with the possibility and risk of failure are those within the remit of the NHS Trust Development Authority. They are the trusts with the longer-standing financial problems and, by association, they present the greater risks to quality for patients. Indeed, the TDA’s mandate, in a ministerial letter of 7 May, says that the TDA is expected to “make a significant contribution to improving quality of care”. Can the Minister explain to us why the TDA trusts are not covered by the Bill when they appear to have a less robust approach to failure than Monitor? Does this not put patients in these trusts more at risk than those in foundation trusts?
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, it is, of course, a pleasure to follow my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, whose experience contributed so much to the outcome of the Dilnot review, and who has regularly drawn the attention of this House to the importance of its conclusions. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her kind remarks. Suffice it to say that I remain one of the usual suspects and will continue in that gang for the foreseeable future.
The context of this Bill has a history. The post-war creation of the modern welfare state as we know it was momentous, and many of us have benefited from that for most of our lives. The two Bs, Beveridge and Bevan, gave us two structures. The first is the National Health Service, which in principle offers healthcare free at the point of delivery, and the second offers other benefits that cannot be defined as healthcare, including care services deemed to fall outside healthcare. These are not free at point of delivery but are subject to two constraints. The first is means-testing and the second is that responsibility for delivering these benefits lies currently with local authorities, and so is not currently in national service as is the National Health Service. This Bill goes some way, but not the whole way, towards changing that situation, and I will come back to that. It contributes to a redefining, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that the role and the difference between healthcare and social care still remains unclear.
The second and last relevant point of difference from when the national services—the health service and the local authority care service—were set up is the growing demographic change in our country and in every country. Demographic shifts have created a completely new situation which, whether we like it or not, will have an impact on how and where we spend money. We simply live in a different world. For 50 years, we got away with trimming at the edges, changing bits here and there in relation to health and social care spending. That can no longer be the case. It is clear, at last, that something must be done. This Bill does something, and it is very welcome. That is the strength of the Bill. However, it is, at best, a good start, for many of the reasons that have been given already. Its strength is that a peg has now been put in the ground, and there is a commitment to having a national strategy and policy that we have simply avoided because of the huge fissure that runs between health services and social care services. That is part of the world in which we live and it has very significant consequences.
The fundamental recommendation of the Dilnot report, that a cap be put on the cost of care for any individual, has been accepted. All credit is due, for this is at last an acceptance by the Government, including, therefore, the Treasury, that the risks involved in the frailties of old age, like those involved in cancer, stroke and diabetes, should be shared across the whole community. I hope that that principle has been established in the Bill before us.
Of course, the fears of the Treasury, which are always there, are already being realised. Inevitably, a chorus of voices points out that there is less to this than meets the eye. The Bill does not commit the resources that we all know are necessary if you are to duplicate the quality in social care services that we have in the National Health Service. As we have heard, Dilnot’s proposal included the possibility that a cap might be as low as £25,000. In the event, it is eventually £72,000, with the possibility of deferred payment. Again, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, local authorities are vigorously pointing out that there is already a shortfall in funds made available before account is taken of this new proposal. They estimate that the current round of cuts to the adult care budget amounts to £2.68 billion—or 20% of previous provision—and that is before the provisions of this Act are dealt with. At the same time, as has also been mentioned, care home owners often subsidise local authority-sponsored residents from the charges made to those who are self-financing. That cannot be right. There should be a single charge, and a single cost that applies to everyone. However, the rich—or the moderately rich—are subsidising others. That is the position in which they have been put.
Of course, we all know that we are now in the worst financial crisis in living memory. Account has to be taken of that—and I put it to you that account has already been taken of it. What that does—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord MacKay of Clashfern, made this point very fairly—is to raise expectations, in the way in which this Bill is being canvassed, which will come home to roost. People who have legitimate hopes that their old age will be comparatively secure will be disappointed.
Equally important in the Bill is an implicit bet—and that is the best of it, as far as I can see—that the principle of a cap on care costs will stimulate a strong insurance market to cover pre-cap and possibly post-cap costs. We shall see, but there is no guarantee about that. Of course, conversations have been held, but my previous experience on the royal commission was that those providing insurance products were not interested. We shall see if a cap makes all the difference. Let us hope that it does.
The Government, while being commended on a good start, or indeed on facing up to demographic change, must accept, however, that as we stabilise our economy—and the expectation and hope is that we will do that—a reordering of priorities will be the only rational response to the empirical realities of the huge demographic change. We must accept, as a Government and as a Parliament, that these priorities will have to be looked at. The world out there is different. The facts and the shape of the population are different. If there is no more money, priorities have to move around a bit. That is the reality, or we will be having desperate scenes in the houses, streets and care homes of our country.
One change which cannot and should not wait until then is the need to ensure that the huge sums already being spent on care, social care and even more so on healthcare—the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to this—are spent in the most efficient and effective way, and to maximum standards of the quality of care.
In two successive parliamentary Sessions we have had two relevant major Bills. The first, now an Act, was, despite its Title, almost wholly concerned with healthcare. It is called the Health and Social Care Act but there is not much social care in it. This second Bill, as its Title says, has to do with care. However, there is the rub. Why were these two not one Act? There is a legal, financial, and administrative fissure in our society that runs through our attitude to the provision of care. We simply cannot continue like this. It is at government and at professional level. Doctors and social workers are the best of friends in the pub, but you should hear them when they talk about each other when it comes to money. There is a fissure there.
On the royal commission, we reran the hoary old joke about the difference between a health bath and a social bath. You had to divide them up in those days to decide which fund provided the money to provide the bath. Both the commission and the Dilnot report firmly made it plain that bringing together health and social care provision and, ultimately, budgets, is essential if we are to maximise value for money in this massive and increasing spend—and it will not go down.
There are some good pilots taking place. I would find it very helpful if the Minister could tell us what the outcome of the pilots would be. What process is there for taking account of the evidence of what they provide in terms of shared facilities, budgets and provision? The message is very clear: combining budgets provides better administration, improves the effectiveness of spend and, importantly, has a huge potential vastly to improve the quality of care.
I would like quickly and briefly to make two points that have come up in the debate about the assessment and evaluation of what is going on. The first is that there is provision, rightly, to deal with what I can refer to only as the Southern Cross problem. We cannot have major providers going bust on us. That is right—but I wonder whether it is right to ask the Care Quality Commission, whose expertise is in a wholly different field, to take responsibility for this. Is there not even a group within the department of health economists, or economists, who know about running big businesses—they are essentially property businesses—and can give a proper health reading? Those responsible for assessing the quality of care are not those people. Yes, they will employ others. But if it is to be a kingdom within a kingdom, why not charge reasonably well paid civil servants with doing that?
Lastly, although it is not mentioned in the Bill, the Minister made mention of a new inspector. I simply ask whether we can have some information about the context in which such an inspectorate will work. It is canvassed as being like Ofsted, which is of course a great reassurance to those of us who were involved in setting up that body. However, it does not seem at all like Ofsted. Does this new inspectorate have a statutory basis? Is it independent of Ministers? We have had a row within recent weeks about who can close down a unit within a hospital—for example, for the heart surgery of children. Where are the lines of accountability? What is the new inspector responsible for? The chief inspector of schools is accountable to Parliament, not to Ministers. That gives it an independence and certainty about being taken seriously that will not necessarily be the case for an inspector within the employ of the department. So there is a lot of room for clarifying the provision there, but I am sure that we will come back to that in Committee.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, I come to this debate from the perspective of a professional in the social care sector, as well as with experience as a local authority councillor and, not least, as a carer for over 30 years. I agree that we are at a crossroads for our social care system. In my contribution, I shall draw on the evidence presented to us in the Joint Committee inquiry on the Promoting Independence, Preventing Crisis report, which was ably led by the all-party parliamentary groups on local government and disability. I take this opportunity to salute the work of my noble friend Lady Campbell, Anne McGuire, Heather Wheeler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins.
Much emphasis has rightly been put on the demands of our growing ageing population, and it is right that we do so, as is the fact that one in three of those who use our care services are disabled people of working age. I would like to focus on that aspect, and I make no apologies for unreservedly quoting some aspects of the inquiry, which I commend to the House.
For too long, Governments have used a sticking plaster approach and incremental improvements in dealing with adult social care, resulting in systems that are bewildering for the recipient and unwieldy for authorities to administer. So I, too, welcome the principle of adult social care reform. The Joint Committee inquiry took evidence from a long list of expert witnesses representing all sectors, all the major disability organisations and those involved in statutory provisions, as well as local authorities and academia. There was undeniable consensus, and a call for disabled people to be at the heart of social care policy reform as well as making decisions in their care. In doing so, we must not see them as passive recipients, but must uphold their human rights under the UN convention to which the United Kingdom is signatory, and embrace the fundamental principles of independence.
There are pervasive concerns that much of our provisions fall significantly short of providing dignity and choice, thus hampering independent living. Of course, the funding shortage is a reality, but we cannot allow those who may be voiceless to be sidestepped at the behest of what may be regarded as best value by locally set criteria. The evidence received by our Joint Committee points to local authorities struggling to achieve the best outcomes, resulting in raising their eligibility threshold for care provision. Many instances have been cited, implying that current eligibility criteria have led to many thousands of disabled individuals falling out of the care system altogether.
The statistics are astonishing. The Audit Commission on social care in England found with the fair access to care system in 2005 that 50% of 152 local authorities in England provide services to those with moderate needs and above but, by 2012, 84% were only providing services at the higher threshold of substantial need, with three councils now providing social care to people who fall into all four eligibility bands and only 24 councils providing care to those with moderate needs and above. The Care Bill will fail to improve the social care system for disabled people if eligibility is set so high that those in need will not receive even the basic help such as washing, dressing or getting out of the house. These changes, challenges and differences in eligibility are bound to lead to more disabled people left ineligible for care and support, contrary to the Minister’s claim that the Bill will provide compassionate and consistent care to those who need it.
The inquiry committee hopes that the Government will consider more uniformity in setting thresholds for eligibility right across the country, ensuring that the 2013 spending review will give due regard to adequate resources being made available so that the needs of disabled people are not compromised. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that legislation will not impact on the funding available. How can provision be efficiently provided, as he suggests, when the system is already stretched to its limits? Disabled people deserve to have confidence in any new care and support system, and I hope that we will be able to rectify some of these anomalies.
There is a significant body of opinion calling for prioritising the design of a new framework of eligibility, which should actively engage core stakeholders, addressing gaps highlighted already in the House today. The joint inquiry report suggests that the current fair access to care services criteria should be replaced by a system that is more objective and coherent and implemented across the country, where resource allocation is transparent and enables the disabled person and their carers to take part in the decision-making process. Worryingly, the evidence that we took suggests that there is little cohesion within various partners of care providers. This will stretch the ambition of the seamless services that the Care Bill envisages. Personalisation appears not to break down the barriers between care, housing, transport, leisure and community involvement, particularly when any person moves from one area to another. Therefore, I welcome the commitment in the Bill that continuity of care packages will not be interrupted by any move to another local authority or area. I would like to ask what mechanism will be in place to ensure a smooth transition if that happens, and whose lead responsibility it will be to manage the transition. I suppose that I am asking who will manage the “Oklahoma!” moment and who will provide the leadership.
This Care Bill is happening alongside the Government reassessing all those working-age disabled adults receiving disability living allowance and transferring recipients on to the personal independence payment. The House has voiced significant concerns to the Government, which were augmented last week by the whistleblower giving an insight to reports that individuals were not receiving even-handed services. The fact that supporting evidence given by applicants was not forwarded by the assessing company for assessors to use suggested a bias towards finding reasons to award points begrudgingly or not to award points, thereby affecting resource allocation. I have spoken to a number of carers and this is being seen by some as another cynical example of eligibility criteria being used to reset the goalposts for determining how much financial help people with disabilities require and ultimately receive.
A Member of this House recounted in a meeting last week the experience of being assessed. I hope that that respected individual will not mind my repeating what was said. The whole experience was said to have been so harrowing that the individual felt defeated by the very system which has the ambition of delivering dignity and choice through this Care Bill. I am deeply saddened that so little appears to have changed in the 30 years since I had a bitter experience with my son. Trying to access educational and social care was like asking for rain on Mars. In the end, we as a family were so defeated that we retreated into relying only on our own resources and ways and means.
I agree that reforms need to be made but they must and should be robust and intelligent in respectfully and professionally identifying genuinely deserving individuals, especially as regards those with disabilities which are difficult to understand and those with fluctuating conditions. Indeed, I have been made aware of the case of a disabled adult and her advocates who are trying to augment a personal budget. The person says that she felt bullied by a director of commissioning into accepting a package which represented best value for the authority but completely ignored her condition and needs and possibly violated her right to privacy and family life. If our society is to be judged by how we treat our weakest members, we have some distance to walk. I hope that we will be bold and ambitious enough to remember that social care must not simply be about basic survival but about supporting people to live independently. Independent living means disabled people of all ages having the same universal rights of freedom, choice, dignity and control as other citizens at home, at work, and in the community. It means having the right to obtain practical assistance and support to participate in society and live an ordinary life that others take for granted.
Your Lordships may not be surprised to learn that even in this context there is a distinct difference in the services provided to those from minority communities. It is a fact that 32% of all disabled people live in household poverty. Sadly, for minorities this figure jumps to 44% of disabled people living in household poverty. A report suggests that income for minority disabled people is 30% lower than for the general disabled population. The Equalities National Council and Scope in a report entitled Over-looked Communities, Over-due Change found that services are not fully inclusive for BME disabled people, who experience significant language and communication barriers, social isolation and stigma exacerbated by their lacking access to information and advice, including from well recognised NGOs. Many of the large NGOs operating within communities accepted that they had some way to go in addressing the needs of minority disabled people. In fact, a quarter of BME disabled people report difficulties receiving benefits and accessing independent living compared with 16% of others, indicating that additional unmet needs exist. Evidence on barriers to care shows that BME disabled people's conditions and impairments tend to escalate quickly to higher levels of need. I submit to the House that this is a costly process and that it is therefore even more important that the social care system provides effective coverage at lower care need equivalent to “moderate” within the current fair access to care needs system.
That is not all: meeting criteria and being eligible for support is not the end. An assessment determines the value of someone’s personal budget, and the resource allocation system ascribes a number of points to each eligible need which has been identified and, in referring to a table, sets out the financial value of each set of points, which then fleshes out the support plan to purchase and achieve identified independent living outcomes. Final decisions about the value of personal budgets are made by an anonymous panel of local authority social care professionals based on information provided by the disabled person, their social worker and the RAS calculation, often without ever having met the disabled person. The Sue Ryder report, The Forgotten Millions, highlights this point and found that a lack of uniformity among local authorities in allocating resources and calculating care packages for individuals is causing deep confusion and stress. A case was brought to my attention recently of a disabled adult who had all services stopped at 6 pm one evening. Apart from the legality of how and why this happened, an anonymous panel had turned down for the third time a request to increase travel by nine miles twice weekly, despite the social worker having great input from advocates on the matter. As the client had received an insufficient explanation from the social worker at 6 pm at night, she had to recall her father from business in London. He arrived at the social work offices the next day to petition the head of services as to why this had happened. Fortunately, services were immediately reinstated, with the family being offered a transfer from a direct service from the local authority to a personal budget.
Many carers claim that all these formal processes lack transparency regarding panels, their remit, obligations and decision-making. Disabled adults and their advocates are forbidden from having adequate details about the panel making the decisions. Surely transparency should be an obligation. If the objective is to provide care and support while maintaining the dignity of the individual, surely it is critical to have the individual or their representative present to ensure that their opinion is heard and valued as they are the experts on their own lives. The panel should have due regard to the contribution of disabled people in determining the nature of their care and support in any decisions that are made. Our report asks that the Government place resource allocation systems on a statutory footing through the Care and Support Bill and place new duties on councils to be transparent about these decisions. I welcome the move to put personal budgets on a statutory footing in Clause 25 of the Care and Support Bill. That should be enhanced to ensure that local authorities are transparent about decisions relating to the allocation of resources. All too often, personal budgets have care costed at one rate, with another rate available if external agencies are used.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I apologise to the noble Baroness but she has been speaking for 15 minutes, which is normally the maximum time.
Baroness Uddin
I apologise. I am nearly finished. Anyone not associated with the care sector will become dizzy when encountering the array of acronyms and phrases such as RAS, FACS, DLA and PIP. Indeed, they are fortunate members of our society, with the ability to lead an active, fulfilled and independent life. They are fortunate enough to be able to perform everyday tasks such as getting up, washing, dressing, personal care, food preparation and eating without having to justify even the most basic daily tasks. For those members of our society who are reliant upon our care systems, this Bill represents a new hope that our social care system will enable disabled people to live an independent life which is just and equitable. I note noble Lords’ massive endorsement of the Bill and eagerly await its outcome.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, when I spoke in the debate on the Queen’s Speech last week I concentrated on care of the elderly in the community which is one of the most critical issues facing society, as we have heard from some remarkable speeches today. If anyone has any doubt about the scale of the problem they will just have to read Hansard. I will not repeat what I said the other day, save to reiterate my specific plea that we pay attention to the screening of vulnerable elderly people in the community by primary care and social services staff so that we can introduce simple preventive measures to keep people at home. I hope the noble Earl might say something about that.
Tonight I want to concentrate on the proposals in the Bill to establish Health Education England and the Health Research Authority as non-departmental public bodies. These are, of course, extremely welcome proposals but inevitably there are a number of aspects where we need to seek clarification and improvement. The roles of the HEE and the associated local education and training boards—inelegantly abbreviated as LETBs—are spelt out in the Explanatory Notes but I fear that the Bill itself is fairly silent on how it will ensure high quality and standards in education.
For example, much is made of the fact that the LETBs are provider-led and dominated by the needs of NHS trusts for sufficient numbers and range in the workforce to meet those needs. So far so good, but what is missing is a proper recognition that the quality of training, the curricular content and the skills and knowledge of those going through training programmes will be taken care of. Where, for instance, is reference made to the need to include postgraduate deans on the boards of LETBs? It is not in the Bill and given only passing reference in the Explanatory Notes. Where is reference to the need to engage closely with local universities or training colleges—that is, with those whose whole raison d’être is education and all that that entails? Content of training programmes and maintenance of standards is their special expertise and for providers to ignore that aspect will be to their detriment. I am sure they are aware of that but we need mention in the Bill of a need to involve universities, either in the membership of the board, albeit in a minority, or, if not that, then an obligation to seek their advice in formulating their programmes of training.
At the national level, in the HEE, there is some recognition in the notes to the Bill, but not in the Bill itself, of a need to seek advice from the royal colleges—here I have to express my interest as an ex-president of a royal college—the GMC, the GDC and the NMC in developing its policy. It seems to me that all those bodies have considerable expertise in education and training. Indeed, the main functions of the medical royal colleges, for example, are in the development of all the curricula for medical trainees and in setting their exams and assessments to make sure that they have reached an acceptable level of skills, aptitudes and knowledge. Every cardiologist, orthopaedic surgeon and psychiatrist has to go through a training programme devised and run by a royal college. The regulatory bodies have responsibilities for the oversight of training and education to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Yet despite all this remarkable body of expertise, no mention is to be found in the Bill that the HEE will draw on any of this for advice and assistance.
Then there is a further issue of the need to take account of the importance of clinical researchers in programmes of training and education. We have heard much helpful comment from Ministers about the need to embed research in the NHS and to make every health professional a researcher and every patient a willing participant. The noble Earl was extremely helpful in getting research high up the agenda for the NHS in the Health and Social Care Bill. It is, of course, through research that we may in due course find some answers to the major diseases from which we suffer such as dementia, diabetes and Parkinson’s, so it is vital that research really is in the middle of the NHS.
While the new Bill is very helpful in stating that the HEE must promote research into matters relating to its activities, which is rather subtle, it hardly takes account of the need for LETBs to take account of this in their training programmes. Those embarking on a clinical academic career have to be able to take time out from their purely clinical training to train in research, perhaps for up to three years if they are going to do a PhD. All other trainees, at least in medicine, need to be able to carry out some research so they have experience of what research is about. They are then in a better place to take advantage of the results of research and not resist the rapid introduction of innovations when they go on into practice. I fear that the dominance of provider-led interests in LETBs will lead them to paying little attention to this aspect of training unless they have access to advice from their local universities and the research community. I fear very much that the shadow body of the HEE has shown little sign so far that it is aware of this particular point.
I come now to the Health Research Authority. I believe we are extremely fortunate in having Professor Jonathan Montgomery as its first chairman. He is clearly switched on to the need to be able to protect the public and the patient interest, while at the same time encouraging high-quality clinical research and not putting unnecessarily burdensome regulation in the way. It might be thought that these twin responsibilities—the need to protect patients and ensure their safety and confidentiality on the one hand while promoting and encouraging research on the other—are opposed to each other but they are closely aligned. Patients want not only to be safe but they are very keen for research to be done on their diseases. Furthermore, surveys of patients’ attitudes show that more than 90% of patients want to be involved in research themselves in clinical trials. They are desperate for innovations in treatments arising from research to be applied to them. Of course they want to be safe and protected but they also want high-quality research, so the two go hand in hand. It is pleasing to know that Professor Montgomery is well aware of this and the need for proportionality in regulation.
I welcome the clear statements in the Bill on this and in particular in Clause 98(3) where it is proposed that the HRA must promote standardisation of the regulation of research across England and ensure that such regulation is proportionate. It is clear, too, that for the HRA to gain credibility with the public and patients it cannot simply pontificate about safety from on high. It must actively communicate with the public and have processes in place for it to be able to listen to the views of the wider public. It needs access to the public view and should put in place mechanisms to achieve that.
I come now to another aspect of transparency. In addition to its own transparency, the HRA should also be encouraging transparency of researchers engaged in clinical trials in academe and industry and their results should be published as expeditiously as is reasonably possible. Results should become freely available, after careful checking for reliability, whether they are positive or negative. It is helpful to know that GSK is leading the way in industry by publishing its data more openly and others are beginning to follow. We do not want the HRA to be given too rigid a formula. That would be counterproductive, but we do want to be able to encourage and support the HRA in its efforts to use measured persuasion.
Finally, it is good to see in the Bill the confirmation that the HRA will continue its good work in co-ordinating the work of the ethics committees and in taking on the roles provided until now by the Secretary of State and what was PIAG in ensuring the safe use of patients’ data. It is gratifying to know, too, that the HRA is moving towards a single application process for entry into the jungle of research regulation. There remains at least one major barrier to research and that is the local R&D approvals that have to be given by each trust where clinical trials are being done. This is where we need a rational, proportionate and national system and if the HRA can incorporate trust R&D approval into that national scheme, the research community would heave an enormous sigh of relief.
I hope I have not given the impression that I am unhappy with this part of the Bill. I think the proposals to set up HEE and the HRA are extremely valuable but of course there is always room for some improvement.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for explaining this Bill so clearly. The idea of the Bill is good in theory but will it work in practice? Will there be enough resources to go round and will there be good communication and co-operation between professionals? Will this Bill eliminate the postcode lottery? As so much help is organised locally, this may continue to be a problem.
The Bill emphasises care for elderly people but one must not forget those people of working age who have disabilities. A little help can make all the difference. If eligibility is set too high, people will become isolated in their homes and unable to work. Children, if there are any, may have to help their parents, causing problems at school and putting a strain on their childhood. I am sure that care can become more co-ordinated and save resources if health and social care work in co-operation and co-ordination.
To give your Lordships an example, I speak as president of the Spinal Injuries Association. One of our members, who is paralysed from the neck down but is bright and motivated, goes out to work. The health service helps her with her toileting and the social services help her with dressing. It means that two lots of helpers come in for one person. I am sure that the skills of operational therapists can help with integration as they work in both health and social services. The wheelchair and equipment service needs improving, as does the speed of adaptations to people’s accommodation when they become disabled. This sometimes means that extra time is spent in hospital.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with the post-Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. The aim is that no such appalling situation can arise again, but nobody seems to have taken responsibility for the failings. The people who knew about what was happening and witnessed the neglect and cover-ups were not listened to. I feel that throughout the health and social care systems, we need openness and honesty, and that a duty of candour would help. I would be grateful if the Minister would say what progress is being made, as this is a recommendation of the Francis report. A culture has developed among some nurses of doing as little as possible to make patients safe and comfortable. Not all staff are the same; some are exemplary and kind, which is what patients who are often worried and in pain need.
I am concerned that unacceptable practices are happening in many hospitals throughout the country; either they are unbeknown to management or it turns a blind eye. One foundation trust, which ticks all the boxes and always has a good review, had a hospital to which a friend of mine was admitted as an emergency. He had been chairman of the PCT and worked hard for the NHS. Time passed and he was given nothing to eat, so he asked if he was nil by mouth. “No”, said the nurse, “the last person in your bed did not fill in the menu card, so nothing was ordered”. He was then offered a sticky toffee pudding—the last thing his condition needed. He also said that the nurses chattered all night and did not help a critically ill patient in the next bed.
To make the situation better for patients there will have to be a huge change in attitude and practice throughout the health and social care systems. Only last Saturday the Yorkshire Evening Post reported appalling abuse of patients at the Solar Centre in St Catherine’s Hospital in Doncaster. There had been delays in the conviction of two care assistants who mistreated vulnerable patients. The newspaper stated that this was,
“an appalling abuse of trust and a violation of what society should be able to expect from people in the care profession”.
One of the problems seems to be that people who cannot get other jobs become care assistants. As there is such a demand they get work, even if they are undesirable and not fit for purpose. Should there not be better selection and vetting of those who work with vulnerable people? It seems vital that there should be registration of care assistants with adequate training. I am told that Australia is going back to state enrolled nurses. It has found that not having the practical, trained nurse has been dangerous to patients. There is need for a highly technical nurse, but also for a practical nurse to work alongside.
There seems to be an overall welcome for establishing Health Education England, and the Health Research Authority. Research is vital if progress is to be made. Resistance to much needed antibiotics is an example and new drugs and research are needed into such devastating diseases as motor neurone disease, neuroblastoma in children and all the rare conditions which need new and effective drugs. Some day a way may be found to join and regenerate the spinal cord.
I feel it was an unwise move by the Government to disband the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services—AGNSS. Will they consider reinstating this much needed service? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we are approaching the end of what has been a serious and expert debate on the Care Bill, which has clearly drawn considerable support from your Lordships’ House. However as speaker after speaker has pointed out, there is a marked contrast between the Bill’s intentions and the reality of the health and social care system, which is under huge financial pressure at the moment. Of course, this Bill puts new pressures and responsibilities on local authorities, but there are no signs yet as to how those authorities are to find resources.
We are happy to co-operate in postponing deliberation of Part 1 of the Bill, to allow it to take place after the spending review has been announced. However, in a sense that concerns the future and future responsibilities. The fact is the crisis is here now in relation to social care. Very little has been heard from the Government about how they intend to respond to it. I hope the noble Earl will say something about it tonight. Many noble Lords have referred to the eligibility criteria and the intention to set this at a national level to get consistency and deal with the issue of the huge variation that is now apparent throughout the country. This has been widely welcomed, but I would tell the noble Earl that we certainly expect the Government to publish the all-important draft regulations before we go into Committee to deal with this important matter. I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm that he intends to do that.
He will know that there is widespread expectation that the Government will set the national level at the “substantial” level. I do not expect the noble Earl to confirm that tonight, but does he agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that local authorities have increasingly moved the threshold up to the substantial level, with, of course, prevention and early intervention being unavailable? May I also ask him about the risk of those local authorities which do not at the moment set the threshold at the substantial level, actually raising it in the light of the national criteria being set at that level? That way, we will have national consistency, but it will be consistency where provision is at the meanest. That would cause considerable concern in many local authority areas.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and my noble friend Lord Warner raised the question of Clause 22 and the all-important boundary definition between the means-tested social care and the free-at-the-point-of-use NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, hopes that at some point this might be a thing of the past, but at the moment this is a critical delineation between the two services. The Minister will know that the Select Committee was concerned that a court might view any changes in the wording as implying a change in the meaning of the provision. It is important that we hear a response from the Government about why we ought not to worry about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, spoke so eloquently of the problems of people being shunted between the two services because of the cost implication between local authorities and the NHS. At the same time, the noble Baroness passionately promoted the need to support disabled people to be as independent as possible. This is not an issue that will go away and we will need to come back to that in Committee in terms of the new meaning—if it is a new meaning— in Clause 22.
This is not just a Bill for older people, but the challenges that older people face are formidable, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell said. Like my noble friend Lord Lipsey, I welcome the Dilnot provisions and the cap—as far as they go. However that is not the complete picture. The cap and increased threshold will reduce the risk of catastrophic costs, but there is a concern about the way that people of modest means will be treated. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said about the operation of the means-tested tariff and the impact on people with modest income. My noble friend Lord Warner does not quite take his view on that, but it would be good to have a debate on this in Committee.
I would also be interested to know whether my noble friend Lord Lipsey has taken into account that in some benefits the first £6,000, and in others the first £14,000, are exempt from the tariff, which in itself is progressive, with those with the most savings hardest hit. It is important we come back to that.
My final point on Dilnot is about the insurance market, which a number of noble Lords raised. What is the noble Earl’s current assessment of the prospects of an insurance market developing? Has his department been in recent communication with the ABI and can he say any more about the confidence that he has in insurance products developing? This is very important in reaching a conclusion about the likely success of the Dilnot proposals in this legislation.
Finally in this area, I turn to a point raised by my noble friends Lord Lipsey and Lord Warner. The actual administration and assessment that will have to take place, particularly as thousands of self funders will need to be assessed under these proposals, will lead local government into a major administrative task and to an increase in disputes and legal challenges. The Joint Committee was not confident that Ministers had fully thought out the implications for local authorities of these changes. Will the noble Earl comment on that and also on my noble friend Lord Warner's suggestion that we need to establish tribunals in order to deal with disputes to keep them out of the courts as far as possible?
Very good points were made about the need for impartial information in relation to Clause 4. When one thinks about some of the financial consequences of the decisions made, it is a powerful argument. I also hope that the noble Earl will respond to my noble friend Lord Patel in relation to Clause 68 and the question of aftercare and the implications that it has in relation to Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We had extensive debates on these matters only a few months ago. I hope that this is not opening up the question and is not a reinterpretation.
On carers, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley spoke eloquently about the importance of these provisions, and we welcome them. But there is a question about why they do not relate either to parents caring for disabled children or young carers. As Barnardo’s has said, young carers represent a uniquely valuable group of people whom the Government should be ensuring receive help to address the very serious effects that caring has on their lives. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made an important point about the need to ensure that, in the case of children caring for adults, the impact on the child must be given due consideration.
My noble friend Lady Wilkins talked about housing. The point she raised is surely right. What concerns me is the lack of very much reference to housing provision or housing authorities in the Bill. I am sure that we can look forward to some amendments in that direction from my noble friend.
On safeguarding, it is a matter of regret that there is no duty on providers to report to local authorities where they suspect the risk of abuse. It is also a matter of regret that there is no clause allowing for power of entry. This was raised by the Joint Committee and it was clear that there should be a power of entry for local authority representatives where a third party is refusing access to a person who may be at risk of abuse. I know that the Government will say that the consultation produced a lot of people opposed to that. But if we are to take abuse seriously, we should come back to examine whether a power of entry is necessary and should be required.
On Part 2, there is the NHS failure regime. I was pleased that the noble Earl’s officials gave us a briefing on this. It is rather complex and there seems to be a risk of confusion of roles between the two regulators, CQC and Monitor. Will he respond to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Warner about non-foundation trusts? I should have declared an interest as chair of an NHS foundation trust and indeed as a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections. Why are the weaker organisations subject to a much less regulated framework than the foundation trusts? Why are the non-foundation trusts not covered in the Bill?
I am disappointed that there is only a partial implementation of the Francis recommendations, particularly as far as primary legislation is concerned. For instance, where is the duty of candour? We have the offence in Clause 81 of publishing false or misleading information. But Francis wanted a statutory duty of candour on healthcare providers to inform patients or appropriate persons if treatment has caused death or serious injury to the patient. Why is that not in the Bill? Where is the registration of healthcare support workers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, suggested?
On public health, I agree with noble Lords who regret that there is no provision for standardised packaging for cigarettes. I look forward to a continuing debate on that matter. On Health Education England, some very important points were raised by noble Lords. I would particularly refer to my noble friend Lord Turnberg’s comments about the LETBs and the need to ensure high quality in training and the involvement of postgraduate deans. As regards research, again, the provisions are very welcome but there is real concern that this country is losing out in terms of the number of multi-centre trials that take place here. Does the noble Earl thinks that the HRA should be given more authority over both the local research ethics committees and NHS trusts in terms of R&D approval? We cannot just leave it to these different bodies when the whole prosperity of our country is in many ways based on this kind of investment.
This has been an excellent debate. We look forward to the responses from the noble Earl. He will know that there are a lot of provisions here that command general support but, ultimately, the real concerns relate to current and future resources, and to the need for the Government to respond strongly in convincing argument about the kind of integrated services that are required to ensure that the provisions of this Bill will be implemented. The Government need to show that they really do get it and are going to come forward with those proposals.
Earl Howe
I begin by thanking everyone who has spoken today. There have been some excellent and highly informed contributions from all sides of the House. Health and care matter to us all throughout our lives; the quality of the contributions today demonstrates how important the issues are in this Bill. I am grateful in particular for the welcome given to Part 1 of the Bill by many noble Lords. A large number of questions have been raised during the debate and I will endeavour to cover as many of them as possible in the time that I have. Unfortunately, there is unlikely to be time to address all of these issues but I will, of course, write to follow up on any unanswered questions.
I listened with care, as I always do, to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, but I must confess that I was disappointed by the somewhat negative tone that characterised her remarks. Anyone listening to her could be forgiven for thinking that the Labour Party opposed the principles set out in the Bill. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, correcting that impression. I hope that, at the very least, we can look forward to a constructive approach in Committee from all noble Lords opposite. As ever, I stand ready to work with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and indeed all noble Lords to ensure that we explore the Bill thoroughly so that we can, in due course, send it to another place in a form of which we can be collectively proud.
A number of noble Lords referred, unsurprisingly, to the funding envelope for adult social care. We recognise that the last spending review provided local government with a challenging settlement and that is why we took the decision to prioritise adult social care and provide extra funding to help local authorities maintain access to services. In the White Paper, we committed to additional support for social care over the next two years. However, it has to be remembered that local authorities ultimately have discretion over how they use their resources. Of course we agree that the level of funding available in future will have an impact on how far the reforms are realised, but noble Lords should appreciate that we have committed to funding the reforms set out in the Bill in full.
For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out, funding reform will cost the Exchequer £1 billion a year by April 2019 and there will be an additional £175 million a year to fund the new legal rights for carers in 2015-16. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, that the needs of social care will be at the front of Ministers’ minds as we approach the spending review. However, noble Lords will understand the realities facing us. We cannot improve care and support by simply putting more and more money into the system, and in this financial climate it is therefore more important than ever that councils review their practices, drawing on the work of the sector’s efficiency programmes, to ensure that they are using their resources in the most effective and efficient way possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and others criticised the level of the cap on care costs. It is surely to be welcomed that, for the first time, there will be a cap to protect people from spiralling costs, and that people will no longer have to live in fear that their home will be sold while they are in a care home or that all their life savings will disappear. The level of the cap is not set in the Bill, but will be set in regulations. Why do we propose to set it at £72,000? We want to strike the right balance between supporting people in paying for care and managing the public purse in a sensible, sustainable way. We believe that a cap of £72,000, which is equivalent to around £60,000 in Dilnot terms, along with the increase in the means test threshold to £118,000, achieves this balance. I was grateful for the broad support provided by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in that context.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in her characteristically eloquent and powerful speech, contended that the formula we have arrived at protects the wealthiest. The current system, as she knows, exposes those with few savings or modest housing wealth to the greatest risk of losing everything to pay for their social care. That is unfair and it needs to change. Yes, we are expanding the scope of the means test benefit so that more people will get help, but the vast majority of state support will be provided to the 40% of older people with the lowest incomes and wealth. This is about protecting people with the greatest lifetime care needs, not the greatest wealth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked me to confirm the details of the sliding scale of contribution towards care costs. People with assets above the lower capital limit, which will be £17,000 from April 2016, will have to make some contribution to the costs of residential care. The sliding scale determines the amount they must contribute. Individuals are deemed to be able to contribute £1 for every £250 of assets above the lower capital limit. We are extending the upper capital limit to £118,000 in residential care, which removes the cliff edge in the current assessment and will result in a gradual increase in support towards an adult’s care costs.
I have noted the hopes and concerns of a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, around the eligibility threshold. There has been widespread support for a national eligibility threshold and noble Lords are understandably keen to see the regulations that set it. In determining the threshold, we must consider the funding settlement to local authorities; the national minimum eligibility threshold will be announced as part of the spending review on 26 June, and the regulations will follow. Indeed, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we will make available a draft of the regulations under Clause 13 to provide for the national eligibility criteria in order to support debate of the Bill in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said in her powerful speech that care and support was harder to access for minority ethnic people. I would say to her in that context that information is central to ensuring equality of access to care and support, a point rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Clause 4 sets out clearly and places the duty on local authorities to provide information which is accessible to people needing care and support in the local community. The information must be accessible to those for whom it is provided. So, for example, it should be translated into the languages that are used in the area. The noble Baroness also said that a disabled person should be involved in decisions about how their needs are met and their personal budget is settled. Clause 25 sets out important new duties for the local authority to involve the adult in care planning and to take all reasonable steps to reach agreement with the adult or carer on how their needs are to be met.
My noble friend Lord Sharkey and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, expressed their concern that the Bill contains no provision for a right of appeal against eligibility decisions. The Bill sets out, for the first time in primary legislation, how eligibility decisions will be made by local authorities and the new right to a written record of the decision and the reasons for it. These are important new rights, which will promote transparency and aid decision-making. Where people are unhappy about a decision, there is an established right to make a complaint, which is set out in the Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. There is no need to set out another system in the Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we will look at the existing complaints arrangements, including considering how best to provide for effective challenge to local authority decisions, in the light of the findings of the review of NHS complaints led by Ann Clwyd and Professor Tricia Hart and our consultation on the capped-cost scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, drew attention to Clause 2(3) and the power to charge for prevention services. He was concerned about how people will pay for this. Local authorities already have the power to charge for preventive services. We do not expect this to be the norm for lots of simple preventive services but we think it important to retain the ability to do so. We intend to use regulations to ensure that services which must currently be provided free, including intermediate care and minor aids or adaptations, remain provided free of charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, drew attention to the cross-subsidisation issue. Local authorities and individuals can pay different prices for care, as he well knows, and this can be because individuals have chosen premium facilities or because the local authority has negotiated a lower price in exchange for buying care for a large number of people. The Bill places new duties on local authorities to promote an efficient and effective market for high-quality care services. The local authority must ensure that it has regard to factors such as the sustainability of the market.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked how the Bill interacts with benefit changes. My department is in regular contact with the Department for Work and Pensions on the relationship between welfare reform and our proposals for care and support in order to understand the interaction and impact on people who use care and support, carers and families.
My noble friend Lady Barker asked whether the development of the deferred payment scheme would take into account existing case law. The answer is yes. We have committed to a universal scheme for deferred payments for people who need residential care. In designing this scheme we will of course take into account all relevant case law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke about the Independent Living Fund. Following the closure of that fund, we have committed to passing funding to local authorities in order to allow for ILF recipients to be brought into the mainstream care and support system. Final details will be announced as part of the spending round on 26 June.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, stated their view that the Bill does not do enough to reference the importance of housing to care and support. In actual fact, the Bill does a lot to recognise housing as a determinant of health and well-being. In response to comments during consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, we have included “suitability of living accommodation” within the list of matters which well-being relates to in Clause 1. Clause 3 requires local authorities to integrate the provision of healthcare and support and health-related services, which includes housing, while Clauses 6 and 7 require local authorities to ensure the co-operation of their housing officers, both internally and with the authority’s “relevant partners”, in care and support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, stated her view that Clause 8 should include transport as a way of meeting needs. I agree that the provision of transport is an important way of meeting people’s needs but we do not believe that there is any requirement to set this out in Clause 8. That clause provides high-level examples of ways of meeting needs so as to leave maximum flexibility to the local authority and the adult to agree on how their needs should be met. Of course, that could encompass transport.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked whether we had been talking to the insurance industry about the reforms. It is encouraging that many companies support the change. We have been talking to the industry. The Association of British Insurers has welcomed the announcement as a,
“positive step forward in tackling the challenges of an ageing society”.
My noble friend Lord Sharkey asked why the Bill does not implement Dilnot’s recommendations for an awareness campaign. Legislation is not required for that but the Government agree on the need to raise public awareness. The Government will adopt a strategic approach to maximising the public’s understanding of the new care and support system, and that is a crucial part of our plans to implement Dilnot.
My noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke about the proposal to legislate for free end-of-life care. The palliative care funding review recommended that social care should be provided free at the end of life. The Government are funding eight pilot sites to test this and other recommendations, which are gathering evidence over two years until 2014. Before making any decisions we want to consider the evidence collected from the pilots. I can, however, confirm that primary legislation will not be required to enable social care to be provided free at the end of life.
My noble friend Lady Browning spoke about autism and people with Asperger’s. The autism strategy and its statutory guidance mark a great step forward for adults with autism in England, as I know she acknowledges. What it does not do, however, is guarantee that everyone with a diagnosis of autism will receive support or services from local authorities. If your needs do not meet the eligibility criteria set out by your local authority you will not receive social care services. The Bill will ensure that you are given information about what other support is available in your local area. As local areas gain a better understanding of autism needs locally and develop autism commissioning plans, we expect local authorities to look more at the cost benefits of more low-level and preventive services such as befriending services or social skills training.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Wheeler, my noble friends Lady Jolly and Lady Tyler, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, referred to young carers. The boundaries between children and adult legislation ensure appropriate distinctions between what can reasonably be expected of adults and children. It is of course crucial that adult and children’s services work together to ensure that young people are not carrying out inappropriate caring roles or are disadvantaged in their education and losing their childhood because of caring. First and foremost, however, young carers should be seen as children and assessed in that context.
Several amendments to the Children and Families Bill on support for young carers were debated in the other place. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families, Mr Timpson, recognised that the effective identification of young carers and assessment of their needs for support are best achieved by children’s social care, health and education services working together and considering the whole family’s needs. He explained that he would reflect on the arguments put forward and the evidence from the National Young Carers Coalition. Ministers in his department are very happy to meet noble Lords who are interested in this area as the Children and Families Bill moves to this House. Officials are in contact with the National Young Carers Coalition and other key stakeholders as part of the consideration of the evidence that they have provided. I should say, however, that the Care Bill encourages local authorities to take a whole-family approach in assessing an adult, which means that adults’ needs for care and support are not seen in isolation from their family circumstances, including the contribution of young carers. Regulations about assessment procedures to be made under Clause 12 will put a duty on councils to have regard to the family of the adult to whom the assessment relates.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke about the transition into adulthood, and I completely agree that transition between childhood and adulthood is an important time when young people and their families are thinking about their goals and aspirations for the future. The Bill gives young people and child carers the right to request an assessment before they turn 18 in order to help them to plan for the transition to adult care and support in order for them to have the information that they need to prepare for their future. The Bill will ensure that no child reaching the age of 18 should go without the care and support that they need around the point of transition. It will require local authorities to maintain children’s services until a decision has been taken about whether they require adult care and support in place for there to be no gap. The Bill will therefore incentivise local authorities to focus more closely on the relationship between these services to improve the experience of transition for all.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, said that care plans should be in place from the age of 14, and for five years thereafter. As he well knows, the difficulties that some young people and their families face as they move into adult care and support are well documented. The Care Bill aims to smooth the transition. It sets no restrictions about whether the child is already receiving a specific service under children’s legislation in order to request this assessment, nor does it contain any restriction or stipulation about the age of the child for whom the request may be made, or their proximity to their 18th birthday. Instead, the local authority must consider whether the individual child is likely to have needs for care and support after they turn 18 and whether there would be significant benefit in undertaking the assessment.
My noble friend Lady Barker said that Clause 9(4) needs to be clear that people’s needs are assessed on the basis of what their family can provide and not what they are expected to provide, so that there is no pressure on them. I completely agree with what she said. The assessment is to include whether any carer is able, and is likely to continue to be able, to provide care. The intention is also that the regulation supporting assessment will require the local authority to have regard to the needs of the whole family, as I have just mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, stated his view that Clause 12(1)(f) is weaker than it was in the draft Bill. I will write to him about that, but that is not our intention and we will look at that point. My noble friend Lord Sharkey referred to the Clause 9 duty to assess where it appears to the local authority that a person may have needs. He thought that might be too passive. The duty is worded on the basis of the existing duty that it will replace, Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. It implements the Law Commission’s recommendations on what should trigger the duty to assess, and it is not intended to be passive. In fact, we do not think that it is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, spoke powerfully about the portability provisions in the Bill. The Bill will ensure that no one should face discontinuity in their care and support when they move local authority area. This is an important reform which will improve well-being for many people who use care and support. The Care Bill will place duties on local authorities that will ensure continuity of care. This will provide clarity on which local authority is responsible, and should ensure that there is no disagreement between authorities which might result in disruption to a person’s care.
The noble Baroness asked why there was no requirement for equivalent services when somebody moves. We believe that when people move local authority area their circumstances are in many cases likely to change. They may be moving to be nearer family support or to take up employment, and their needs for care and support may also change. After the move it will not always be appropriate for them to have services that are equivalent to those that they had before. Moreover, equivalent services may not be available in the new area. The assessment process we are putting into legislation is very much focused on these needs, rather than service provision.
With the leave of the House I would like to continue for a little longer, because there are a number of questions which I hope noble Lords would be glad if I answer while I am on my feet. If that is not the wish of noble Lords, I will race through the rest of my remarks. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, my noble friend Lady Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, all referred to the duty in Clause 1 to promote individual well-being, and asked why the Secretary of State was not bound into that duty. I am sure that we will have debates in Committee on that point, but I only say now that the well-being principle in Clause 1 is intended to apply at an individual level, when a local authority makes a decision. This individual focus on the specific well-being and outcomes for that person is at the heart of the way that the Bill has been drafted. It is not intended to apply in a more general way. Given that we do not think it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to be subject to the same duty, the Secretary of State does not make decisions at the individual level.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, asked why there was no mention of advocacy in Clause 24(2)(b). The Bill specifies that the information and advice service provided by local authorities,
“must be accessible to, and proportionate to the needs of, those for whom it is being provided”.
This allows for information and advice to be provided in a variety of ways, as is appropriate to the needs of the people who use the service. Information and advice provided by an explanation in a leaflet or on a website may be a sensible way of providing this service for many people, but other people may require individual discussion through their assessment and care support planning process, in a variety of depths from independent brokerage to advocacy.
The noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, referred to the key issue of integration, which again I am sure we will debate in Committee. Integration is about more than legislation. That is why my department has been working with national partners—NHS England, Monitor, the Local Government Association, ADASS and others—to empower local health and care communities to improve integrated care and support for their populations and to tackle the barriers to achieving this. This is described in detail in Integrated Care and Support: Our Shared Commitment, which was published last week and which I commend to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked about cross-border issues and whether a legislative consent Motion was required for issues to do with Wales. We do not anticipate any issues in this area. Legislative consent on matters applying to Wales has been sought from and agreed in principle by Welsh Ministers. Of course, this is subject to the tabling and agreement of a legislative consent Motion by the Welsh Assembly. The issue of cross-border placements is complex due to diverse charging systems and regulatory requirements across the UK. The exact details of cross-border residential placements will be tailored to the wishes of each Administration and we will create a bespoke set of regulations for each Administration to meet those diverse operational requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, expressed concern that, in relation to the safeguarding duty, there is no duty to assess based on the appearance of risk. He suggested that that was an oversight. It is not an oversight. The adult safeguarding duty to make inquiries in Clause 41 arises where the local authority suspects that an adult with needs for care and support,
“is experiencing or is at risk of abuse or neglect”.
The local authority duty is to make inquiries to decide what action should be taken. One such form of action is to assess the adult’s needs under Clause 9. The duty to assess needs arises where it appears,
“that an adult may have needs for care and support”,
and that would cover an adult who is at risk of abuse or neglect.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay said that social workers should not have to rely on bits of paper to know what they have to do and that there should be a code of practice. I totally agree that social workers should not have to look at lots of bits of paper. Guidance should be set out in single, clear, accessible volumes. The only issue is whether it has to be laid before Parliament each time it is changed. We do not think that that is necessary. Equivalent guidance to social workers on children’s social services is not laid before Parliament but is set out in accessible volumes and we plan to do the same. Our proposals will look and feel just like a code of practice and will have the same legal effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, drew attention to Clause 68 and the proposed definition of Section 117 aftercare. We noted that several mental health organisations were concerned that the consultation definition of aftercare was drawn too tightly. We therefore changed the wording to clarify that Section 117 services address needs “related to” as well as “arising from” the person’s mental disorder. We have also clarified that the purpose of Section 117 aftercare is to reduce,
“the risk of a deterioration of the person’s mental condition (and, accordingly, to reduce the risk of the person requiring admission to a hospital again for treatment for the disorder)”.
Various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked about Clause 22. The boundary between the NHS and local authorities is critical to the way in which the law impacts on the services people receive. This needs to be as clear as possible so that the division between local authority care and support and healthcare, particularly continuing healthcare, is more easily understood. The current law is especially complex and dates back to 1948. It was not designed for setting out the boundary between modern care and support and the reformed NHS. It has been subject to much case law and dispute over many years. The clause establishes the boundary between the responsibilities of local authorities and the NHS and includes a regulation-making power to enable clarification in the event of uncertainty. It is not intended to alter the current boundary, but instead to express it in a more transparent way which fits with the new framework.
I shall cover rapidly the rest of the points made, if I may. My noble friend Lady Jolly asked about the timescales for introducing ratings. We are currently considering the Nuffield review; we will respond in due course with our plans for implementation. We want to proceed quickly, but it is important that the CQC has the time to develop ratings properly in consultation with the wider health and care system. The CQC will begin the discussion on ratings with the publication of a consultation document in June.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, emphasised that the domains of effectiveness, patient experience and safety should form an important part of the CQC’s ratings of hospitals. In accordance with the Nuffield Trust’s recommendations, it will be for the CQC, working with key stakeholders, to design and develop the rating system. However, the ratings are likely to include information on safety, effectiveness and user experience, as well as some measures of the quality of governance.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Masham, asked why the duty of candour was missing from the Bill. We will introduce a statutory duty of candour on health and care providers to inform people if they believe that treatment or care has caused death or serious injury and to provide an explanation. That will be introduced in secondary legislation as a requirement for registration with the CQC.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, asked about the role of the chief inspector. The Chief Inspector of Hospitals will oversee CQC inspections, assessment and ratings of providers, identifying both good and poor performance. Ratings will be part of the information used to establish a single version of the truth. The chief inspector will be a CQC post, which does not need to be established in statute.
The noble Lord also asked why the CQC is the right body to oversee market failure. The CQC is the independent regulator of care and support providers in England. It already has significant experience of the care and support sector and longstanding relationships with all registered providers, on which it can build to assess financial sustainability. In our view, the CQC is the body best placed to take on that important role.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked why the NTDA is not included in Clauses 76 and 77. Where the TDA considers that it is in the interests of the health service, it can already advise the Secretary of State to place an NHS trust which it considers to be a clinically and/or financially unsustainable into special administration. An equivalent provision for the CQC to trigger similar action in respect of NHS trusts will be made through directions to the TDA; it does not require primary legislation.
I was struck by the fact the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked me why the Bill was a partial response to Francis. The short answer to her question is that we can do a lot without primary legislation, but we will be producing a further response in the autumn which will include action resulting from the range of reviews currently under way—for example, on complaints, safety, bureaucratic burdens and training and support for healthcare assistants.
I turn briefly to Health Education England. My noble friend Lord Willis asked how it will ensure sufficient workforce supply. I have a lengthy answer, which I hope that he will allow me to entrust to paper and which I shall copy to all noble Lords. I will write similarly in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on the role of the Centre for Workforce Intelligence and the action being taken by Health Education England to support the development of care assistants and to ensure that there is a sufficient number of nurses and the right ratio of nurses to healthcare assistants.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, asked how Health Education England could ensure continuous improvement in the quality of education and training. Again, I have a good answer for him. In short, I can say that as commissioners with responsibility for the investment of around £5 billion, Health Education England and the LETBs will have considerable influence over the education that is commissioned from education institutions and the training that is delivered by employers through clinical placement and training programmes. They will work together with providers to deliver high-quality clinical and public health placements. I can assure the noble Lord that Health Education England must seek advice widely. The Bill requires that the body obtains the necessary advice needed to carry out its functions, which includes professional regulators and organisations involved in the provision of education and training—royal colleges and universities, for example.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me what Health Education England will do in terms of improving education and training for people who care for those with learning disabilities. The answer is that it will work with employers, commissioners, education providers and professional bodies so that education and training evolves better to support people in that category.
My noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked why local education and training boards do not have a duty to promote research. Health Education England has the primary duty to promote research. As committees of Health Education England the LETBs will support the national body in delivering this duty through their workforce planning and education and training functions. Health Education England will work with the National Institute for Health Research to ensure appropriate investment in education and training to develop clinical academic careers.
I will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on her question of representatives of the professions on the board of the HRA, and that there should be more investment in multi-professional research and not just clinical research. In my letter, I shall also cover transparency of research, which was rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and others.
To my noble friend Lord Willis, I can say on his question about the HRA’s responsibility for co-ordinating and standardising regulatory practice that that is precisely what is envisaged for the HRA. That is why the clauses give the HRA a unique freestanding duty to do just that, relating to the regulation of health and social care research, in addition to the duty to co-operate with other regulatory bodies. I am happy to expand on that when I write to him, along with the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about the HRA’s duty to co-operate with the devolved Administrations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, observed that this Bill does not provide all the answers to the challenges facing us in meeting the needs of those adults who require social care. I would never claim that it does. However, I have discerned that she and other noble Lords regard the Bill as a landmark measure, representing an essential and major advance in the law relating to care and support. Later stages of our debates will provide an opportunity to consider the detailed issues that noble Lords have raised today and the Government’s mind is open to making further improvements to clauses. I look forward to those debates, and to engaging with noble Lords outside this Chamber to clarify and discuss the Bill’s provisions. Meanwhile, I repeat my thanks to all noble Lords who have spoken today in a debate that has been fully worthy of the vital and pressing issues now before us. I commend the Bill to the House.