House of Commons

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 12 June 2013

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

1. What proposals her Department has to tackle tax avoidance by multinational companies operating in developing countries.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking to help developing countries improve their tax systems.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

The UK Government are committed to ensuring that developing countries have the ability to collect the tax that they are owed. The UK is using our G8 presidency to promote tax transparency, tackle tax avoidance and ensure tax compliance.

[Katy Clark]

The Secretary of State will be aware that developing countries lose more than £160 billion each year through tax avoidance, more than one and a half times what they receive in aid. What is she doing to ensure that we get country-by-country reporting so that we see how much those multinationals are taking from developing countries?

[Justine Greening]

Addressing tax avoidance and encouraging tax compliance will be one of the key elements of the G8 agenda, and transparency sits alongside that. We will look at how we can obtain more transparency, including sectoral transparency through measures such as the extractive industries transparency initiative. All those measures together have the potential to ensure that we can help developing countries to collect the tax they are owed.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that developing countries will be able to end their dependence on aid only if they can raise enough revenues through the tax system?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to have sustainable development and developing countries are to have the tax revenues to fund and invest in their own public services, we need a thriving economy that creates those revenues. That is why economic development is such a key part of what my Department is now focusing on. Along with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, we are investing to ensure that developing countries have the tax expertise they need to collect the taxes that are due.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I back the call from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for country-by-country reporting by all multinational companies. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that no money from DFID goes to any organisation or company that is not fully tax transparent?

[Justine Greening]

We are very clear that we want companies to behave responsibly across the board, including on tax, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is such due diligence. We cannot simply ignore those problems, and if we are to shape private sector investment in the developing world so that it can help drive development, as I think we should, we will have to engage with the private sector more in the future than we have in the past.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will know that the OECD has been charged with coming up with a scheme to tackle base erosion and profit shifting and to consider corporate taxation. Last week in a meeting with the organisation it confirmed to me that it is working to a timetable of just two years. Does she agree with that timetable, or does she agree with me that it is an over optimistic timetable for trying to get a multilateral convention to replace 3,000 tax treaties?

[Justine Greening]

My right hon. Friend is right that the timetable is ambitious and that is why we need to put the political momentum behind it that the G8 meeting can bring. The work that the OECD is doing has been commissioned by the G20 and it shows that if we are to reach a sustainable solution, leading economies and world leaders must come together. That is precisely why we have put the subject on our G8 agenda.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the main objective of this weekend’s summit on tax and transparency and next week’s G8 meeting is for G8 countries to put their houses in order. That would strengthen the moral authority of the G8 and send a strong message to the rest of the world that the time has come to get serious about tax dodging. Will the Secretary of State ask the Chancellor today to bolster the Prime Minister’s moral authority and undertake an urgent review of the changes he made to the UK’s controlled foreign company rules, which are estimated to have cost developing countries £4 billion in lost tax revenue?

[Justine Greening]

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would ask me about the success of the G8 event on nutrition we held last Saturday, which saw huge progress on providing funding for that issue. Let me answer the question he has asked, however. I reassure him that we are taking a structured approach to the discussions at the G8. We are looking at addressing tax avoidance—in other words, dealing with the problem. We are looking at developing better approaches to tax evasion—in other words, once the problems happen we need to ensure that we can sort them out. We are also looking at how we can ensure that developing countries, once they have made progress, are in a position to collect tax. Our Government has put the question on the agenda and I think the hon. Gentleman should congratulate us on that.

[Mr Lewis]

I do not know about tax dodging but the Secretary of State is getting a reputation for question dodging—we will try this one, Mr Speaker. The Government have identified the public registration of beneficial company owners as one of their top priorities for the G8. There can be no excuse for this basic information about company directors being shrouded in secrecy. Does that remain the Government’s priority? Will she confirm that if they are unable to secure agreement, the UK will take unilateral steps on the issue of public registration?

[Justine Greening]

We have made beneficial ownership one of the key elements of our G8 agenda, and it is right to do so. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman’s Government particularly pushing on the issue during their 13 years in office. I can assure him that the best way to make a difference for developing countries is to get international agreement. That is what they want and that is why we are trying to get it.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

In the light of the Select Committee on International Development’s recent report, and following the election, will the Secretary of State engage with the Government of Pakistan to ensure that Ministers, MPs and the leaders of the community there pay their fair share of taxes to match the contribution that British development aid is making to Pakistan?

[Justine Greening]

We have a question on the Order Paper later about Pakistan, Mr Speaker. I have already spoken with Ministers in the Pakistani Government, and the Committee’s report was right to highlight this issue.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

The humanitarian situation in Syria has now reached catastrophic proportions. More than 80,000 people have been killed—that is nearly 1,000 a month—6.8 million are in need, including at least 4.25 million internally displaced persons, half of whom are children, and a further 1.6 million refugees are in the region, of whom 75% are women and children. UK support is providing food, health care, water and shelter for refugees, both inside and outside Syria.

[John Robertson]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, and I am pleased to see that she is well up with what is happening. She will also be well up with what is being done by the UN commission of inquiry, which mentioned the killing of 13 children because of lack of food and medication. Will she confirm that the Government will press for an agreement at the G8 summit on improving humanitarian access for the estimated 4 million people who need it in Syria today?

[Justine Greening]

I am sure we will be raising those issues at the G8, as I did when I was at the UN a couple of weeks ago. It is simply unacceptable that the Syrian Government continue to refuse to allow humanitarian deliveries across the border from Turkey, and we need all sides in this conflict to agree to give unfettered access to humanitarian agencies and to do that free from violence.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

The number of refugees coming across the border from Syria into Turkey is way beyond Turkey’s ability to provide for them. Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with her counterparts in Turkey, the European Union or the wider international community on how these refugees might be catered for?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to recognise the impact that refugees are having on several countries in the region. Some 370,000-plus refugees have arrived in Turkey, and we have spoken with the Turkish Government about what we can do to provide support. They have played a leading role in providing humanitarian support to those refugees, and that should be acknowledged, too.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

In addition to the information that the right hon. Lady has just given the House, is she aware that World Vision estimates that 1.5 million people are displaced? Does she agree that in the event of any removal of arms embargoes, there will be no less emphasis on the crucial need for humanitarian aid?

[Justine Greening]

I think I can absolutely reassure the right hon. Gentleman on that point. My Department is looking at what needs to happen in not only the immediate time frame, but the far longer term. We know that more than half the hospitals in Syria have been damaged, and that the water and sanitation systems are essentially no longer working. There needs to be not only a short-term plan to examine humanitarian needs in all circumstances—he is right about that—but a longer-term plan to examine what Syria’s needs will be afterwards.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

With the Council for European Palestinian Relations, I recently visited Palestinian refugees in Lebanon who had fled from Syria. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is doing all that it can to help those people, who are living in miserable conditions?

[Justine Greening]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because that important aspect of the crisis is often not recognised. We have provided £5 million to UNRWA particularly to support its work with Palestinian refugees. That will support more than 350,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria, and will go on food parcels and other relief items.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I wish to declare an interest: I have just returned from a visit to Lebanon, courtesy of World Vision, on which I witnessed at first hand the impact of the heavy influx of Syrian refugees on that country. The number of refugees in Lebanon has reached half a million and is set to reach 1 million by Christmas. Last week, the UN appealed for £3.2 billion to deal with the humanitarian emergency. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much the UK Government will contribute to this appeal?

[Justine Greening]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We are looking now at what we can do to continue playing a leading role in providing humanitarian support, but I think that all Members of the House would agree that we need to put pressure on other countries in the region, and the international community more broadly, to step up to the plate and provide support, and we need to make sure that they fulfil commitments that they have already made.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. When the Government plan to bring forward legislative proposals to enshrine in law their commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

This Government will be the first in the G8 to reach 0.7%, and we are doing so this year.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister wants us to believe the Government’s 0.7% aid promise, but first we find no Bill in the Queen’s Speech, and secondly we see a massive underspend in the Department in the last few months of last year. Who made the decisions to omit the Bill and to underspend? Was it the Secretary of State, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, or the Prime Minister?

[Mr Duncan]

Very nice try, but there is not a massive underspend. Previous mentions in the Queen’s Speech were about the objective of meeting the target, and if the hon. Gentleman wants the proof to be in the pudding, that is exactly what we are doing.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Would the excellent Minister agree with me that we should not set targets for overseas aid? We should give what is required.

[Mr Duncan]

We are doing both, because as the United Nations’ objective of 0.7% established, the continuity that comes from countries meeting it ensures that aid is delivered in the best possible way, and that is why the objective is so important for the poorest people in the world, whom we are all trying to help.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Now that we are the first of the G8 nations to reach 0.7%, perhaps the Prime Minister will make that declaration in the magnificent surroundings of County Fermanagh next week. When he has done that, will he ensure that we target that aid, that it is free from corruption, that people can see that there is a point behind the aid, and that it goes to those most in need?

[Mr Duncan]

I am confident that not only would the Prime Minister enjoy making such a commitment, but that he could do so truthfully and accurately, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and indeed all of us in the Department for International Development, ensures that the money that we spend on behalf of taxpayers goes to people in need, and not into the pockets of anyone who might be corrupt.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

May I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to look at the Ministry of Defence’s stabilisation activities, such as mine clearance, police training in Afghanistan, and the replacement of the Kajaki dam turbine? Those activities are not claimed as going towards the ODA target of 0.7%; if they were, I believe that we would be exceeding it.

[Mr Duncan]

One of the great achievements of this Government is the great co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and DFID, under the auspices of the National Security Council. When it comes to spending, we work very closely with those two Departments, but we must stick within the OECD rules that govern the definition of official development assistance.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

How much of that percentage will be made available to the people of Yemen? Only yesterday, Jamal Benomar, the UN special representative, said that 1 million children were dying from malnutrition there. How can we save those children?

[Mr Duncan]

Our focus on Yemen is acute, and I take charge of that personally. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, one of the comments at the nutrition event at the weekend, attended by Ministers from Yemen, was that more than half of their children under five are stunted. We have to focus on that need, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that through our programmes in Yemen, that is exactly what we are doing.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

6. What her Department’s spending priorities are for 2012-13.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

In 2012-13, the Department focused its investment on poverty reduction through improving the lives of girls and women, boosting economic development and creating jobs, building open societies and institutions, combating climate change, responding to humanitarian emergencies, and building peaceful states and societies.

[Alun Cairns]

The Government have rightly prioritised money for some of the most deprived people around the globe, but can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the Government will also prioritise the ungoverned states in the conflict-affected areas around the world?

[Justine Greening]

I can; 30% of our bilateral aid by 2014-15 will be invested in precisely those states. When the multilateral investment is added, that comes to about half the Department’s budget.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Nutrition for Growth event in London last weekend highlighted the importance of investing in nutrition. The Secretary of State will also know that in the countries with which DFID has a bilateral relationship, only about half have an investment in nutrition programme. Will the Department be expanding its commitment to invest in nutrition in developing countries?

[Justine Greening]

We made our own commitments, alongside those of many other countries last Saturday. In total that brought in $4.1 billion of investment between now and 2020, and we will be looking to work with developing countries to develop nutrition plans where there are none, but interestingly, last Saturday we saw many countries with existing plans in which they are already investing.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

In the year when we will achieve the historic 0.7% target, does the Secretary of State agree that her Department can get more bang for its development bucks by also championing development right across Government—for instance, with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, on tackling the issue of modern-day slavery in the business supply chain?

[Justine Greening]

We need to make sure that all Departments are pulling in the same direction on this agenda, as I am trying to do. The hon. Gentleman is right. Modern-day slavery is a disgrace and my Department will look at what role we can play in relation to human trafficking.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

7. What recent contact she has had with the Pakistani Government about UK aid.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

Following Pakistan’s historic elections on 11 May, I have spoken with incoming Government Ministers about their priorities, as have my officials. The federal and provincial governments made clear manifesto commitments to reform and now have a clear democratic mandate. The people of Pakistan have put their faith in democracy and they now want to see Governments delivering on those promises.

[Andrew Selous]

Tax collection is very weak in Pakistan, with apparently 70% of its MPs not even filing a tax return. Given that Pakistan promised back in 2008 to close its tax loopholes as a condition of an International Monetary Fund loan, why should we believe Pakistan on this occasion that it will be better at collecting the taxes due to it?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, as the International Development Committee did. The incoming Government have a clear-cut manifesto commitment to increase the proportion of GDP from tax collected. We support that, and we hope and expect that they will get on with it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There have been reports from Pakistan of Christian groups who say they have not had access to the aid coming from the United Kingdom Government. What steps have the Government taken to address that issue directly with the Pakistani Government to ensure that Christian groups get the aid that they should get?

[Justine Greening]

We intend to make sure that our aid reaches all the people who need it, irrespective of ethnic background or anything else. We raised all such issues with the Pakistani Government in the past and will continue to do so with the new Government, now that they are in place. I hope I can do that when I visit Pakistan in the coming weeks.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

8. What research her Department has undertaken into the humanitarian effects of the occupation of the west bank.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

We are deeply concerned by the impact of the occupation on the lives of Palestinians in the west bank. DFID assesses this constantly. Reports from the UN and others clearly document poverty, displacement, constrained growth and the demolition this year alone of 247 Palestinian structures.

[Mr Ward]

Those who have been to the west bank and to Gaza will be frustrated constantly to see international aid used to pay for buildings which are promptly knocked down by the Israeli regime. Is the Minister aware that according to figures in the United Nations “Humanitarian Monitor” monthly report for April, there was a 30% rise in the number of Palestinians displaced by house demolitions, with a total of 46 structures demolished by the Israeli army, which included five paid for by international donors?

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the hon. Member, but we need to have time for the answer.

[Mr Duncan]

The Government share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the nature and scale of the demolitions. I am pleased to say, however, that we have contributed to the construction of a number of schools in Gaza, where we hope children will be educated without their premises ever being demolished.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

Since the last International Development questions, I have attended the high-level panel meeting in New York, met the CBI to discuss how DFID can work with business on development and attended the G8 social impact forum last Thursday. You, Mr Speaker, will recall the parliamentary reception we held last weekend in advance of the G8 Nutrition for Growth event, where we secured commitments of up to £2.7 billion to tackle under-nutrition between now and 2020.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place. The Secretary of State and Members are addressing extremely important matters, and they should be discussed in an air of respect and consideration.

[Chris Evans]

Last year the Secretary of State said that her top priority was women and girls. What steps is she taking to tackle violence against women and girls, especially in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited that region comparatively recently. We are looking at how we can scale up our work on tackling violence against women and girls. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are also working hand in hand with the Foreign Office on tackling violence against women and girls in conflict.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

T2. In recognition of her achievement in securing the 0.7% of gross domestic product target, will the Secretary of State indicate just how many of her investments are leading to improved trade opportunities for the United Kingdom?

[Justine Greening]

We invest around £1 billion in wealth-creating projects, but I would like us to do more in the area of economic development. We need only look at the increase in our exports to China to see how other countries developing their economies will ultimately benefit us, too.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T9. Following the excellent WaterAid campaign on world water day earlier this year, what progress has the Secretary of State made on ensuring that access to clean water and sanitation remains a central part of the post-2015 development goals?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady will have been as pleased as I was to see that sanitation and water feature strongly in the high-level panel’s report passed to the UN Secretary-General a couple of weeks ago. It is really important that we keep that proposed target, which is precisely what the Government will be pressing for.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

T3. May I commend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for last Saturday’s Nutrition for Growth summit, which showed that improving nutrition is not only about state aid, but about bringing the private sector and philanthropists together to solve the problem of over 1 billion people going hungry?

[Justine Greening]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because it shows that if we are to make a real difference, we need ultimately to see Governments working in partnership with business and encouraging responsible investment. If we can work together and bring in the best science, we will have a real chance of tackling under-nutrition.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

T10. A member of my staff, Lee Butcher, recently visited Palestine. He was shocked and stunned to see how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis, for example having no water for weeks on end. What can the Government do to help those Palestinians who are suffering such pain?

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

We put as much pressure and argument as we can to improve the condition of Palestinians in Area C, and we very much hope that such issues will be addressed in the peace process, which we wish every success, as it continues over the next few weeks.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T4. What discussions have been had with the Government of Pakistan to tackle the issues of population growth, lack of family planning and high maternity deaths?

[Justine Greening]

This Government have focused on family planning; indeed, we hosted a conference on it last year. As regards Pakistan, we have a successful programme in relation to health workers. Of course, the ultimate way to tackle the issues that my hon. Friend talks about is through education. If girls stay in school longer, they get married later and have fewer children and, indeed, healthier children.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

On a recent delegation to the west bank, we met President Abbas, who confirmed that the Palestinian Authority pays the families of convicted criminals a salary dependent on the length of time they spend in prison. Since DFID provides direct budget support which is indivisible from the Palestinian Authority’s funds, will the Minister explain and justify how British taxpayers’ money can be spent on paying criminals?

[Mr Duncan]

We have dealt with this issue on many occasions in written and oral parliamentary questions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that British funding is ring-fenced and does not in any way go to purposes of that sort.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T5. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be possible to link our large aid presence in the British embassy in Jakarta more effectively with our trade presence in order to promote new energy solutions like the first biodiesel plant in the country from Gloucestershire’s Green Fuels?

[Justine Greening]

That sounds like a very sensible thought. We work closely with UK Trade & Investment in Whitehall, and I would like that to happen more on the ground in developing countries such as Indonesia.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 June.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Alex Cunningham]

Because of this Government’s incompetent management of the NHS, 256,000 patients were forced to wait in the back of ambulances because accident and emergency departments could not admit them. Why does the Prime Minister think that the best way to deal with this is to fine hospitals £90 million for his Government’s failure?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government are putting £12.7 billion extra into the NHS—money that would be cut by Labour. Because of that extra money and because of the reforms, waiting times for in-patients and out-patients are both down, hospital-acquired infections are right down, and mixed-sex wards have almost been abolished in our NHS. That is a record we can be proud of.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Surely the shadow Chancellor is right when he says that the Labour party will look ridiculous if it refuses to give the people a say on our future in Europe. Can my right hon. Friend confirm the Conservative party’s commitment to renegotiation and a referendum and can he explain why a Labour leader so weak that he can resist the shadow Chancellor on nothing else refuses to do what the shadow Chancellor says on the one occasion that he is right?

[The Prime Minister]

On behalf of the whole House, may I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House of Commons? It is good to see him making such a strong recovery and being in such strong voice as well. He makes a very important point. On this side of the House, within this party, we are committed to renegotiation and an in/out referendum before the end of 2017, but there has been a staggering silence from Labour Members. Apparently half the shadow Cabinet support a referendum and the other half do not. Well, they will have their chance on 5 July—they can turn up and vote for a referendum in the United Kingdom.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

On Syria, the Prime Minister has our support to use the G8 in the coming week to push all members to provide humanitarian assistance to alleviate the terrible crisis that is happening there. On the arms embargo and supplying weapons to the rebels, he said last week:

“If we help to tip the balance in that way, there is a greater chance of political transition succeeding.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1239.]

Given that Russia seems ready to supply more weapons to Syria, does he think it is in any sense realistic for a strategy of tipping the balance to work?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He is absolutely right. We should use the G8 to try to bring pressure on all sides to bring about what we all want in this House, which is a peace conference, a peace process, and the move towards a transitional Government in Syria. I am delighted to tell the House that, in advance of the G8, President Putin will be coming for meetings in Downing street on Sunday, when we can discuss this. Because we have recognised that the Syrian national opposition are legitimate spokespeople for the Syrian people, it is important that we help them, give them technical assistance, give them training, and give them advice and assistance. We are doing all those things, and I think, yes, that that does help to tip the balance to make sure that President Assad can see that he cannot win this by military means alone and that negotiations should take place for a transitional Government.

[Edward Miliband]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, but my question was specifically on the lifting of the arms embargo and the supply of weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Last week, the Prime Minister also told the House that

“there are clear safeguards to ensure that any such equipment would be supplied only for the protection of civilians”.—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1234.]

Will he tell us what those safeguards are and how in Syria they would be enforced?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me say again that the point about lifting the arms embargo, which applied originally to both the regime and the official Syrian opposition, is to send a very clear message about our intentions and our views to President Assad, but we have not made a decision to supply the Syrian opposition with weapons. As I have said, we are giving them assistance, advice and technical help.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s second question, we have systems in place—of course we do—to make sure that that sort of non-lethal equipment, such as transport, does not get into the wrong hands.

[Edward Miliband]

Two things: first, I think we all support the idea that we should focus on the peace conference, Geneva II, and on making it happen, but the problem is that the Government have put their energy into the lifting of the arms embargo, not the peace conference.

Secondly, I quoted the Prime Minister’s words not about non-lethal equipment, but about the supply of lethal equipment. He gave an assurance to this House that, in the circumstances of supplying lethal equipment, there would be end-use safeguards. My question was what those safeguards would be, but I did not hear an answer. Perhaps when he next gets up he will tell us.

When the Prime Minister replies, will he also confirm that if he takes a decision to arm the rebels in Syria, there will be a vote of this House on a substantive motion, in Government time, with a recall of Parliament from recess if necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

First, as I have said, we all want to see a peace conference come about. The question is: how are we most likely to put pressure on the parties to attend that peace conference? I have to say, going back to the very first thing that the right hon. Gentleman said about the Russian decision to arm the regime, the Russian regime has been arming it for decades and, frankly, it is naive to believe anything else. That is important.

On safeguards, we are not supplying the opposition with weapons. We are supplying them with technical assistance and non-lethal equipment. We have made no decision to supply the opposition with weapons, so that is the answer to that question.

On the issue of the House of Commons, as the Foreign Secretary and I have made clear, I have always believed in allowing the House of Commons a say on all these issues. I think that was right when it came to Iraq, it was right when we made the decision to help the opposition in Libya, and it would be right for it to happen in the future as well. Let me stress again, however, that we have made no decision to arm the rebels in Syria.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

On the Government plan to double the size of our reserve forces, has the Prime Minister considered the role that retired Ghurkhas might play? Now that they are allowed to settle here, many Ghurkhas have told me that they would welcome an ongoing connection with the British Army, but there is no real routine or tradition of recruiting them. I do not think there is any impediment, but it will not happen by magic. Will the Prime Minister authorise an initiative to recruit them?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. One of the ways that we can best build up the fully funded and fully equipped larger reserve of 30,000 that we want to see is to make sure that there are better opportunities for those who have served in the regular Army to serve in the reserves. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will look at my hon. Friend’s point about the Ghurkhas and see what can be done.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Q2. I do not know whether the Prime Minister watched the “Panorama” programme on Monday night, but I am sure he will be aware of the subject of blacklisting. The programme confirmed what many of us, particularly members of the Scottish Affairs Committee, already knew: that thousands of people in this country have been subjected to blacklisting. It has been compared to McCarthyism, but I think it is worse than that: it is secretive, behind closed doors and many people who are on a blacklist do not even know that they are on one. Will the Prime Minister call for an urgent inquiry into this practice, which I refer to not as McCarthyism, but as McAlpinism?

[The Prime Minister]

To answer the question very directly, I did not see “Panorama” on Monday night, but I will ask for a report on it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not support blacklisting and have taken action against it.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

Q3. I thank the Prime Minister for his recent visit to Erewash to support the historic furniture making industry. Does he agree that we can best help the hard-working staff he met at Duresta in these tough times by protecting their pensions and capping benefits, rather than by protecting benefits and cutting pensions, as the Labour party would do?

[The Prime Minister]

I well remember my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. She is right that people in this country want to know that we will cap welfare and get on top of the welfare bill, but protect pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement. I have done a little due diligence on the Opposition’s policy. Last week, they announced that they wanted a welfare cap. I thought, “That’s interesting. That’s progress.” However, when you look at it, would they cap the welfare bill for those in work? No they would not. Would they cap housing benefit? No they would not. The one thing that they want to cap, apparently, is pensions. So there we have it: protect welfare, punish hard workers and target pensioners—more of the same “something for nothing” culture that got this country into the mess in the first place.

[Edward Miliband]

Today’s fall in unemployment of 5,000 people is welcome, but will the Prime Minister explain why today’s figures also show that three years into his Government, living standards continue to fall?

[The Prime Minister]

First, it is worth announcing to the House what today’s unemployment figures show. They show that employment—the number of people in work in this country—is going up, that unemployment is going down, and that—[Interruption.] I know that the Labour party does not want to hear good news, but I think it is important that we hear it. The claimant count—the number of people claiming unemployment benefit—has fallen for the seventh month in a row. It is interesting that over the past year, while we have lost 100,000 jobs in the public sector, we have gained five times that amount in private sector employment.

The figures show some increase in wages, but real wages have obviously been under huge pressure ever since the calamitous boom and bust over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. What is good for people is that this Government are cutting their income tax this year.

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman is into his fourth year as Prime Minister and his excuse for falling living standards is, “Don’t blame me, I’m only the Prime Minister.” It is simply not good enough. He does not understand that because of his failure to get growth in the economy, wages are falling for ordinary people. He wants to tell them that they are better off, but actually they are worse off. Will he confirm that today’s figures show that, after inflation, people’s wages have fallen since he came to power by more than £1,300 a year on average?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman might have noticed that the figures announced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies are from 2008, when he was sitting in the Cabinet. It is worth remembering that while he was Energy Secretary, sitting in the Cabinet, the economy got smaller—it shrank month after month after month. Under this Government, there are 1.25 million more private sector jobs and there has been good growth in private sector employment this year. That is what is happening. Of course living standards are under pressure. That is why we are freezing council tax. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is shouting away, as ever. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is excessive noise in the Chamber. Members must not shout at the Prime Minister any more than anyone should shout at the Leader of the Opposition. Let the answers be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

The answer is that there are 1.25 million more private sector jobs under this Government, and that is a good record.

[Edward Miliband]

There is no answer from the Prime Minister on the living standards crisis that is facing families up and down the country. It is no wonder what his side is saying about him. This is what the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) wrote about him at the weekend—[Interruption.] I know that Government Members do not want to hear it, but he said:

“It’s like being in an aeroplane. The pilot doesn’t know how to land it. We can either do something about it…or sit back, watch the in-flight movies and wait for the inevitable.”

I could not have put it better myself about this Prime Minister. The reality is that day in, day out, what people see—[Interruption.] Calm down, just calm down. The crimson tide is back. Day in, day out, people see prices rising and wages falling, while the Prime Minister tells them that they are better off. He claims that the economy is healing, but for ordinary families life is getting harder. They are worse off under the Tories.

[The Prime Minister]

Only someone who wants to talk down our economy could pick a day like today—more people in work, unemployment down, youth unemployment down, the claimant count down, yet not one word of respect for that good agenda on jobs. The right hon. Gentleman talks about aeroplanes. Never mind getting on aeroplanes, this is what the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said about his leadership:

“we are literally going nowhere”.

He has not even got on the aeroplane because he has not got a clue.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Last December, the whole of Shropshire welcomed the Government’s support for a new direct rail link from Shropshire to London. This week, however, Network Rail has blocked Virgin’s bid. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that Network Rail should not get in the way of the will of the Shropshire people or economic progress?

[The Prime Minister]

We want to see more direct rail links such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned, and there is also a need for better links to Lancashire and Blackpool. One issue that the rail industry is battling with is the shortage of capacity, and High Speed 2 will help bring that freeing up of capacity to make more of those direct links possible. I was discussing that yesterday with the Transport Secretary, and we should be making some progress.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q4. Last week the Prime Minister could not confirm that taxpayers would not subsidise foreign buyers of property in the UK. Perhaps he can instead clarify whether his Help to Buy scheme will see taxpayers help fund purchases of second homes and holiday cottages.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me try to give the hon. Lady some satisfaction. First, this scheme is for people’s only home and it will have a mechanism in place to ensure that is the case. The second important thing is that in order to take part in the scheme, a person must have a credit record in this country. So no, the scheme will not do what she says it would.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Q5. As a former pensions manager I was proud that this Government introduced a new triple lock formula—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is very discourteous. The hon. Gentleman, like every Member, should be treated with courtesy. Let us hear what he has to say.

[Richard Graham]

As a former pensions manager I was proud when this Government introduced a new triple lock formula on our state pension that increased by £234 in its first year for every pensioner in the land. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that under the shadow Chancellor’s plans to cut or cap pensions, all our pensioners will lose that increase and their standard of living will fall sharply?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government have put a cap on the welfare that families can receive, but we have been as generous as we can with pensioners who have worked hard during their lives and want to have dignity and security in old age. That is why we have the triple lock. Very interestingly, we now know that the Labour party wants to cut the pension because it is putting a cap on pensions but not on welfare. Just this morning the shadow Foreign Secretary was on television—the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) may not know this as he might not have been following it—and when challenged about the triple lock he said that it was Labour’s policy “at present”. Given all the U-turns we have had in the last week from the Labour party, I do not think “at present” will last very long.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Q6. Will the Prime Minister congratulate Bolton Wanderers football club for doing the right thing by rejecting sponsorship from a payday loan firm, and will he also join in, do the right thing, and give local authorities the power to ban those predatory loan sharks from our high streets?

[The Prime Minister]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I wish Bolton Wanderers well for the future. We must give more support to credit unions in our country, which I think is one of the best ways of addressing the whole problem of payday loans and payday lending. I also hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that over the past year unemployment has fallen fastest in the north west of our country.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Q7. This is national carers week. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the session has to be extended to accommodate the democratic rights of Members, it will be extended. The hon. Gentleman will—I repeat will—be heard.

[Dr Huppert]

This is national carers week, so will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the huge commitment that thousands of carers make day in, day out, caring for ill, frail and disabled family members, friends and partners, often unrecognised and without financial assistance? Will he sign up to the carers week recommendations in “Prepared to Care?”

[The Prime Minister]

On this one, the hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole House and the whole country in praising Britain’s carers. They do an amazing job. If they stopped caring, the cost to the taxpayer would be phenomenal, so we should do what we can to support our carers, and to ensure they get the proper respite breaks from caring that they need to be able to go on doing the wonderful work they do.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Q8. Why has the number of supply teachers in secondary schools in the past year increased by a staggering 17%?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not have the figures for that, but we have protected the amount of money that goes into schools per pupil so that schools have the money to employ the teachers they need.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Since 2010, unemployment in Brentford and Isleworth has fallen by 6.9% and youth unemployment has fallen by 19%. I will do my part as an organiser—I held my jobs and apprenticeships fair in Isleworth recently—but does that not show that our economic plan is working?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We see today a growth in employment, a fall in the claimant count and a fall in youth unemployment. As I have said, we are losing jobs in the public sector because we had to make cuts to it, but, most importantly of all, while we lost more than 100,000 jobs in the public sector in the past year, we gained five times as many in the private sector—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor, as ever, wants to give a running commentary, but let me remind the House what he has said, because this is one of the most important quotations in the past 10 years of British politics. He said:

“Do I think the last Labour government spent too much, was profligate, had too”

much

“national debt? No, I don’t think there’s any evidence for that.”

That phrase will be hung around his neck for ever.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Q9. Five hundred homes in my constituency were flooded in November. Residents in my constituency are terrified that their homes and businesses are now worthless because this Government have failed to replace the flood insurance scheme. They have also cut more than £200 million from flood defence works. Why has the Prime Minister sold my constituency down the river?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give the hon. Gentleman welcome news. We had to extend the period of the scheme so that we could continue negotiations, but I am confident that we will put in place a proper successor to it. An announcement will be made quite soon.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Mathmos makes lava lamps in my constituency—it has been making them for 50 years. It has very large exports to Germany, but has run into a problem with the reclassification of the product. May I send the information to the Prime Minister and enlist his support for this innovative company operating so well within our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to receive the information from my hon. Friend. It is important that we get Britain’s exports up. If we moved from one in five of our small and medium-sized enterprises exporting to one in four, we would wipe out our export deficit altogether, so I am happy to get my office to look at the information she has.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Q10. The accident and emergency department at Ealing hospital is one of four that the Prime Minister is closing in north-west London. I welcome the Health Secretary’s review, but with waiting times at a nine-year high, ambulances being diverted and the risk of unnecessary deaths, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the closures are not a serious option if the NHS is safe in his hands?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Health Secretary has asked the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to conduct a full review of the proposals, and it will submit its advice to him no later than mid-September. Let us be absolutely clear: whatever decision is reached, the proposals will not be due to lack of central Government funding. North-west London will receive £3.6 billion, which is £100 million more than the previous year. Of course, if we had listened to the Labour party, which said that more NHS spending was “irresponsible”, his hospitals would be receiving £100 million less.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the China-Britain Business Council, which, under its inspirational vice-chairman, Mr Peter Batey, organised a seminar on exporting to China that was attended by more than 60 businesses in Watford last Friday? I think it should be congratulated on that initiative.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to extend my praise to the China-Britain Business Council. If we look at the evidence of the past few years, we see there is now a significant increase in British exports to China, and a big increase in Chinese direct investment into the UK. All of that is welcome and we need to see it grow even further.

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Q11. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he understands the importance of the creative industries to the economy of this country, and that they need to be buttressed by adequate intellectual property rights? Is he also aware, however, that his intellectual property Minister, that horny-handed son of toil, the fifth Viscount Younger of Leckie, recently told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in relation to Google, that “I am very aware of their power…I am also very aware…that they have access, for whatever reason, to higher levels than me in No. 10”.Is that not a disgraceful comment on the way this Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question, which refers to a distinguished constituent of mine, suffered from the disadvantage of being too long.

[The Prime Minister]

First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our creative industries are incredibly important for Britain’s future. The music industry has had a record year in terms of sales. One in every four albums sold in Europe is made here in the UK, which is something we can be very proud of. We have to get the intellectual property regime right, which is why we are legislating on it. We have already taken action to extend the life of copyright protection to 75 years, which has been welcomed across the music industry. I simply do not accept what he says about my Ministers. Indeed, the Minister with most responsibility for this matter is the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), and I think his father was ennobled by Harold Wilson, so that does not really fit.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Q12. Will the Prime Minister join me in praising the hard work of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for ensuring that planning decisions taken at local level concerning wind turbines remain local? However, many of my constituents in South East Cornwall are becoming increasingly concerned that our green fields are becoming solar fields. Should decisions on solar fields be subject to the same planning rules as wind turbines?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising the excellent work done by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, which has been carried on by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). They have both done a very good job at bringing some sanity to the situation concerning onshore wind. On solar panels, the Government of course substantially reduced the feed-in tariffs to ensure that this industry was not over-subsidised, because all subsidies end up on consumers’ bills and we should think very carefully about that.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Glenfield hospital has the second best survival rates from children’s heart surgery in the country. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the quality of care—including survival rates, which are what matter most to parents—is central to any decision on the future of these services?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will make an announcement shortly about Safe and Sustainable and children’s heart operations. We have to be frank with people: we cannot expect really technical surgery, such as children’s heart operations, to be carried out at every hospital in the country. As the parent of a desperately ill child wanting the best care for that child, you need to know that you are getting something that is world best when it comes to really technical operations, but you cannot have that everywhere. Clearly, however, the conclusion is that this process, which started in 2008, has not been carried out properly, so we need to make a restart.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Q13. Is the Prime Minister aware that last year Britain became a net exporter of cars for the first time since 1976? If this trend continues, the UK will produce an all-time record of 2 million cars in 2017. Is this not a really good example of a high added-value sector upskilling and putting the “great” back into British manufacturing and exports?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a good example of a British industry that is succeeding. If we look at Honda, Nissan, Toyota or Jaguar Land Rover, we see really good news in our automotive sector. We now need to get behind it and encourage it to have as much of its supply chain onshore as possible. That is beginning to happen in these industries, and I hope for further progress in the months ahead.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Q14. This week, Newcastle city council has revealed that rent arrears have increased by more than £550,000 since the bedroom tax was introduced in April. Furthermore, 60% of affected households are falling into arrears. When will the Prime Minister admit that this devastating policy risks costing more than it saves?

[The Prime Minister]

We ended the spare room subsidy because we did not think it was fair to give to people in council houses a subsidy that those in private rented accommodation did not have. There is now a question for the Labour party: if it is to have this welfare cap, will it now tell us whether it will reverse this change? Will you? [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is shaking his head. Is that a no? That is right. After all the talk of the last few weeks—the iron discipline we were going to hear about, the welfare cap they were telling us about—they have failed the first test.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Q15. Tax avoidance is rightly at the heart of the G8 agenda. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tell the House what advice he might have received on this issue from either the leader of the Labour party or the international, pizza and expensive curry-loving shadow Chancellor?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is this Government who are putting aggressive tax avoidance at the heart of the G8 agenda, and what do we hear this week from the Labour party? It gives tax avoidance advice to its donors. That is what it has been doing: £700,000 of tax has been avoided because of what Labour advised its donor to do.

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

Calm down.

[The Prime Minister]

The shadow Chancellor asks me to calm down. Frankly, I cannot calm down because this is money that ought to be going into our health service, education and training young people. Let me challenge the Opposition: will you give the money back? Yes or no? It is very simple. On 2 April, the Labour leader said—according to The Guardian, so it must be true—that

“tax avoidance is a terrible thing”.

He has also said:

“If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn't have a health service, we wouldn't have an education system.”

That is the shameful state of the Labour party today.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

This week is carers week. Will the Prime Minister show support for the 7 million unpaid carers across the country and invest £1.2 billion from last year’s NHS under-spend in social care, as we have pledged to do, so averting the Government-made crisis in accident and emergency and social care?

[The Prime Minister]

We could start with the money from Labour’s tax avoiding. That is money that should be going into the care system and the NHS. The Government have put £12.7 billion extra into our NHS. That is how we are supporting carers and hospitals, but the hon. Lady can have a word with the shadow Chancellor and her leader and say, “Pay the taxes you owe.”

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, will the Prime Minister join me in recognising the challenges we face in continuing to bring oil and gas ashore from the North sea, the skills and dedication of those who do it and the paramount importance of safety in ensuring that we can continue to exploit these resources?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my right hon. Friend in praising the North sea oil and gas industry. It is a real jewel in the crown of the United Kingdom economy. What is encouraging is that this year we are seeing a growth in production, as a number of new fields and projects come on stream, but he is absolutely right to say that at all times safety and security are absolutely paramount.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. Points of order come after statements. I feel sure that he will be just as keen at that point and will spring up from his seat to favour the House with his thoughts.

We shall now have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health, who is at this moment beetling towards the Dispatch Box.

Children’s Heart Surgery

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

12:35

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s congenital heart services.

On average, around 3,700 heart procedures are carried out each year on children who have been diagnosed with congenital heart conditions. The mortality rates at Bristol royal infirmary identified as far back as 1989 indicated that we are not as successful as we should be in such operations. The Safe and Sustainable review began in 2008 and set out to ensure that children’s heart services are the best they can be for all children across the country. Whatever the controversy about the location of such services, we all have a responsibility to ensure the best possible outcomes for children and their families, who must always come first in any decision about service provision.

Sir Ian Kennedy, in his Bristol inquiry report in 2001, recommended the concentration of medical and nursing expertise in a smaller number of centres. Subsequent working groups and reports have endorsed that recommendation, including the Royal College of Surgeons in 2007. The public consultation on the Safe and Sustainable review received more than 75,000 responses. This was the largest review of its kind, conducted independently of Government by the NHS. In July 2012, the then Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts, on behalf of local NHS commissioners, decided that children’s heart surgery networks should be formally structured around specialist surgical centres in Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle and Southampton, as well as Great Ormond Street and the Evelina children’s hospital in London. The JCPCT recommended that services should no longer be provided in Leicester, Leeds and Oxford or at the Royal Brompton or Harefield in London.

Following the JCPCT’s announcement, three local health overview and scrutiny committees formally referred its decision for me to review. I wrote to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel asking it to undertake a full review of the proposals. I received that report on 30 April, and I would like to thank the IRP for producing such a comprehensive review of such a challenging topic. It strongly agrees with the case for change—specifically, that congenital cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology should be provided only by specialist teams large enough to sustain a comprehensive range of interventions, round-the-clock care, specialist training and research. I agree with the IRP’s analysis.

However, the report also concludes that the outcome of the Safe and Sustainable review was based on a flawed analysis of the impact of incomplete proposals and leaves too many questions about sustainability and implementation. This is clearly a serious criticism of the Safe and Sustainable process. I therefore accept the recommendation that the proposals cannot go ahead in their current form, and I am suspending the review today. NHS England will also seek to withdraw its appeal against the judicial review successfully achieved by Save Our Surgery in Leeds. None the less, the IRP is clear that the clinical case for change remains, and its report is helpful in setting out the way forward in terms of broadening the scope of the discussion and looking in detail at the affordability and sustainability of the proposals. The IRP says, and I agree, that this is not a mandate for the status quo or for going back over all the ground already covered during the last five years. The case for change commands widespread support, and we must continue to seek every opportunity to improve services for children.

The recommendations in the report set out the IRP’s view of what needs to be done to bring about the desired improvements in services in a way that addresses the gaps and weaknesses in the original proposals. Specifically, they include better co-ordination with the review of adult heart surgery services; expanding the detailed work on the clinical model and associated service standards for the whole pathway of care, beyond surgery; services to be fully modelled, and their affordability re-tested; NHS England to establish a systematic, transparent, authoritative and continuous stream of data and information about the performance of congenital heart services; NHS England and the relevant professional associations to put in place the means to continuously review the pattern of activity and optimise outcomes for the more rare, innovative and complex procedures; NHS England to reflect on the criticisms of the JCPCT’s assessment of quality and to learn lessons to avoid similar situations in its future commissioning of specialist services; and NHS England to use the lessons from this review to create with its partners a more resource-effective and time-effective process for achieving genuine involvement and engagement in its commissioning of specialist services.

NHS England now must move forward on the basis of these clear recommendations and the Leeds court judgment. I have therefore written today to NHS England, and to the local overview and scrutiny committees that originally referred the JCPCT’s decision to me, to explain that the IRP’s report shows that the proposals of the Safe and Sustainable review clearly cannot go ahead in their current form. It is right to give all the parties some time to reflect on the best way forward, now that the IRP report is in the public domain, so I have asked NHS England to report back to me by the end of July on how it intends to proceed. In the meantime, it is important to stress that I believe that care for children with congenital heart conditions is safe in the NHS, and that ensuring it continues to be will be the top priority for all involved in this process.

I know that many families have found the Safe and Sustainable review to be a traumatic experience. People are rightly proud of the hospitals and the staff that have saved, or tried their very best to save, the lives of their children. However, there is overwhelming consensus that we cannot stick with the model of care that we have now. To do so would be a betrayal of the families who lost loved ones in Bristol and who want nothing more than for the NHS to learn the lessons from their personal tragedies. So it is right we continue with this process, albeit in a different way. But it is also essential that the process should be performed correctly so that any decisions, as difficult as they might ultimately be, carry the confidence of the public. I commend the report and this statement to the House.

12:42

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of his statement. He was right to begin by reminding the House of the events that led to the Safe and Sustainable review. Terrible failings in the care of very sick children at the Bristol royal infirmary in the 1980s and 1990s led Sir Ian Kennedy to call for expertise to be concentrated in fewer surgical sites—a call supported by more recent events, including those at the John Radcliffe hospital in 2010. Since Bristol, Sir Ian’s important conclusion has had the full support of the health professions and of those on both sides of this House. As we digest what the Secretary of State has just said, two considerations must remain at the forefront of our minds. First, that this issue must continue to transcend party politics. Secondly, that the complexity it presents should not derail our determination to deliver the safest possible care for children in England.

That said, changes of this magnitude must be able to command public confidence and consensus, but that has not emerged since the decision on site selection by the Joint Committee. I fully support the reduction in sites, but when the decision was published I expressed concern about the distribution of the seven sites, which was skewed towards the western half of England and left a large swath of the east, from Newcastle to London, without a surgical centre. For a family in Hull or Lincoln, already at their wits’ end with worry, the wrench of leaving home to travel hundreds of miles, along with the cost of accommodation and time off work, would add to high levels of stress and anxiety. That is why the issue has aroused such strength of feeling, particularly across Yorkshire, the Humber and the east midlands—a concern well voiced and represented by Members throughout the House.

Although clinical safety must predominate, does the Secretary of State agree that the NHS needs to give more consideration to public access and travel times when reconfiguring services? The truth is that the NHS has a habit of minimising these concerns in all reconfigurations—in this case, as the IRP report points out, the Joint Committee considered access the least important factor. The IRP concluded, surely rightly, that

“the decision used a flawed and incomplete analysis of accessibility”.

Going forward, will the Secretary of State ensure that this is corrected and that access is made a significant factor in any future decision?

Turning to the review itself, the Secretary of State will know that one of the main concerns has been that the mortality data were not given enough weight. Although decisions of this kind cannot be based on death rates alone, we agree with John Deanfield, director of the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, who wrote in his letter to NHS England in April:

“Mortality is only one measure of quality, but currently is the most…available outcome.”

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these data will feature more prominently in the further process of review announced today?

My main concern with what the Secretary of State has just announced is the proposal to link the children’s review with the review of adult heart services, and the implications that might have for the timetable. The Secretary of State will know that there are around 30 centres across England carrying out adult heart surgery. The seven selected children’s centres are not all co-located with adult heart surgery and, indeed, a number of them are on specialist children sites, so the link between children’s and adult heart surgery is not clear. Is there not a real danger that by linking the review with adult heart surgery, the Secretary of State is introducing more complexity and, potentially, controversy, risking a loss of focus and more delay? By broadening out in this way, is there not a danger that we will lose the consensus that has already been gained over the future of children’s heart surgery? I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would say more on those points.

This decision will also have implications for the timetable of the children’s review and it will not have escaped the House’s notice that that Secretary of State has not announced a clear timetable. Can he set out more precisely a timetable for the decision making that will now follow? He says that the review will be concluded by the autumn. What people will want to know is when the decisions will be made and implemented. Can he say more about that? The statement sets out a major role for NHS England and questions may be asked about the independence of the review he has announced. What guarantees can he give that NHS England will operate independently of vested interests linked to the 10 sites?

Finally, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot risk any loss of confidence in the process, damaging confidence in all 10 existing sites. Will he say more about what he will do in the interim to support all existing units and ensure that there is no loss of expertise?

In conclusion, it is, of course, essential that the public have confidence in the process and the final decision. Balanced against that, however, is the fact that unnecessary delay will not bring the best results for the children who most need our help. The Secretary of State is right to say that we need a process that is seen to be fair by all concerned, but, equally, a point will come when decisions must be made. In the end, I want to assure the Secretary of State that when he comes to face up to those difficult decisions, he will have our support in doing so.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone of his comments and the bipartisan way in which he has approached these issues. I particularly welcome his last point. We have many debates in this House, but this is one issue where we are completely at one. If there is a difficult decision to be made that will save children’s lives, we must have the courage to take it. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support on that.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree with me that while this issue transcends party politics, it is one from which all of us—on both sides of the House, throughout the NHS and indeed in local authorities—have things to learn. I think that the biggest issue for us all to consider is the sheer amount of time that it has taken. The original concerns about what happened in Bristol were raised in 1989. I am pleased to say that they have been dealt with, but there are broader, system-wide lessons to be learnt. It took until 2001 for Sir Ian Kennedy’s report to be completed, it took until 2008 for the Safe and Sustainable review to begin, and now, in 2013, we are having to suspend the process yet again. What has happened is not the right outcome for children, and we must all learn the lessons from that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned site selection. I consider that to be one of the most crucial areas in which the process was flawed. Whether we should involve adult heart services is a difficult question, but one of the key recommendations in the IRP’s report is that they should be taken into account. I think that we should pay attention to that recommendation, because the panel thought about it very carefully. The reason for its view was that the same surgeons often operate on children and on adults. Adults also have congenital heart conditions that require operations. The panel also says that if the best outcomes are to be achieved for children, services must be concentrated in teams that have four full-time surgeons, provide specialist training, and conduct research. The knock-on impact of what is happening in adult heart services is relevant.

I agree with the thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman said about mortality data, but I know that he will also understand the difficulty of publishing such data on a very small number of cases when they may not be statistically significant. That was one of the great debates that we had over the temporary suspension of services at Leeds. We must be careful not to publish data that could lead the public to make the wrong conclusions. In principle, however, transparency is the most important thing for us to bring about.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the timetable. I think that we must get on with this process: I do not want to delay it any more than is necessary. I have talked extensively to NHS England about how it should be approached. NHS England—along with all the stakeholders involved—needs time in which to digest the contents of the IRP report, which was published only today. I consider that the minimum period that I need to allow it to come up with the timetable is until the end of next month. I appreciate that that is six weeks, but I think that it is a sensible period. I certainly want to be able to publish an indicative timetable by then, so that people can understand how the process will continue and how we will learn the lessons.

I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing in my statement should undermine the public’s confidence in the brilliant work being done by heart surgeons all over the country for adults and children. Our heart surgery survival rates have improved so much that they are now some of the best in Europe, and we can be very proud of the work that those surgeons do, day in, day out. However, that does not mean that we cannot strive to be even better.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, although, in a sense, I welcome it with a heavy heart. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Safe and Sustainable process could not go ahead because it had fundamentally lost the confidence of patients and clinicians, and therefore did not form a proper basis for necessary change?

Given that it is now more than 12 years since the publication of Sir Ian Kennedy’s report, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not a success for the NHS? Does he agree that it is a real challenge for NHS England to put a proper time frame around necessary change for these services, and then to use that as a basis for changes that we know to be needed in other specialist services in the national health service?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with my right hon. Friend on both those points, as, indeed, on many others. It is true that the Safe and Sustainable process did not have the confidence of the public. It should be emphasised that when a controversial and difficult change is proposed, there is always likely to be public opposition. However—as I am sure we shall hear from Leeds Members in particular—this process did not command confidence in Leeds, or in other centres, because there was a sense that the outcome had been determined before the start of the consultation. The public found that totally unacceptable, and indeed it is unacceptable. The point of a consultation is for those who initiate it to listen genuinely, and to engage with stakeholders. That must be one of the most important lessons to learn.

My right hon. Friend was also right to suggest that, in general, this is not a success for the NHS. We need a much better process to enable us to face difficult decisions about reconfigurations of services, and, in particular, carrying the public with us when we must make a difficult change that will save lives. We have not done that as well as we need to.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It has been clear to many of us for a long time that this process was flawed, and that has now been recognised by the IRP. I pay tribute to the extraordinary campaign in support of the Leeds children’s heart surgery unit in my constituency, which has helped to bring us to this day.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but does he agree that it is important for the process to be open and transparent this time, and to focus on what it is meant to be about, namely ensuring that the very best surgery is available for our very sick children?

[Mr Hunt]

That is entirely right. On this occasion, it is clear that the concerns of the campaigners were valid, and that the process was not conducted as it should have been. Interestingly, the campaigners commented that they felt that their engagement with the IRP was a much more open process than their engagement with the NHS.

Many people in the NHS believe passionately, and for absolutely the right reasons, that we need to change the way in which services are delivered. I agree with them, and specialised services such as those that we are discussing today provide a very good example of that. We know that the more operations a heart surgeon performs, the better he or she will become at his or her job, and the more likely a successful outcome is. However, if we are to carry the public with us—and they are, after all, the people whom the NHS is there for—we must do a much better job of genuine engagement.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an intelligent and thoroughly considered statement which will have brought great joy to many people in Leicestershire. I also commend the shadow Secretary of State for dealing with the matter on a cross-party basis. We in Leicestershire have dealt with it on that basis as well: my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) have been, if I may say so, the leading ladies in the Glenfield hospital campaign.

I am grateful for the respite that we are being given by the Secretary of State. What advice can he give us to give to the clinicians, nurses and parents of patients at Glenfield hospital about how best to present, or re-present, their case between now and the time at which he and his advisers will reach a final conclusion about the disposition of children’s heart services?

[Mr Hunt]

We must all engage with the process thoroughly and fully. We, as Members of Parliament, have a responsibility to engage with our constituents about some of the complexities involved. The issue of mortality rates, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is one of those complexities. They are very important, but they are not the only consideration, and, when it comes to specialised services, they are extremely difficult to interpret properly. We must engage in an intelligent and constructive way, and reassure our constituents that all of us—Government and Opposition—want the best outcome for children, the outcome that will save the most children’s lives.

Let me return to what the Prime Minister said earlier. I have no problem with explaining to my constituents that in the case of certain services, they are better off travelling further. I did not respond earlier to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about travel, so let me say now that I agree with him that it must be taken into consideration. According to the IRP’s report, the whole care pathway needs to be examined. That means not just the visit to the hospital for surgery, but follow-up care and early assessments. In that context, travel becomes much more important.

If we are honest with our constituents about the fact that there may be a difficult decision at the end of the process, we are much more likely to earn their trust.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

How much public money has been spent on taking us to the point that we have now reached? Is the IRP report available to Members of Parliament? Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the process that will take place between now and the day on which he must come to the Dispatch Box and announce very difficult and controversial decisions to the House, and will his decisions stick?

[Mr Hunt]

The cost to date of the Safe and Sustainable process is about £6 million and Members of this House will rightly ask whether that money has been spent well, given the flaws in the process identified today by the IRP. I would also say, however, that it is right to spend money on carrying out such processes properly. It would be the wrong approach to say that, based on the cost of the process, we are not prepared to consider how we can improve services.

On the timetable, now that the report is public—it is available to Members of the House and the public as of today—I have given NHS England and all stakeholders until the end of next month to come back to me with a revised plan.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I agree with the Secretary of State that families must come first. For me, that means the families of Ben Pogson and Joel Bearder, young constituents of mine who have been treated at the wonderful Leeds unit. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the new review will be based on the fundamental principle of patient choice and that doctors should go where the patients are, rather than the other way around?

[Mr Hunt]

Patient choice is very important, but it is also fair to say that there are other considerations in such a review, such as clinical best practice and what outcomes will get the best results for children. We need to be up front with the public that that will not mean specialist children’s heart surgery being offered in every major city in this country. There will be some difficult decisions at the end of the process. The broader point about patient choice, when it comes to considering mortality rates, is that it ties in very well with the concept of peer review. The way we can get better outcomes for children is by being able to compare what happens in different centres, and that is a very important part of the process.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge one fact that has complicated this process? A foundation trust that loses children’s heart surgery will probably lose paediatric intensive care and, therefore, all the rest of its paediatric service activities, doing potentially catastrophic damage to the budgets of some trusts. Are the institutional pressures on individual trusts not one reason why it has been so hard to get a collaborative approach to that fundamental change? How does the Secretary of State intend to resolve that issue as he moves forward with the review?

[Mr Hunt]

The independent review says that the knock-on effects on adult heart surgery, and the interrelationship between the two, need to be considered. There are always knock-on effects of a service reconfiguration. Within reason, one must consider them, but one must also bear in mind what the right hon. Member for Leigh said: one must ensure that one does not overcomplicate the reviews. If we consider every single knock-on effect of every single change, the danger is that we end up not being able to change anything at all, which on this occasion would be an abdication of our important responsibilities.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I have called consistently for leadership and accountability. I believe that we have had those things today, and I thank the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department for that. I have said consistently that there was something wrong with the decision-making process. We were right, whereas those who told us that we should be quiet and ignore the serious flaws, clear bias and utter lack of transparency were wrong. May we have a full investigation into the clear maladministration in the course of the review? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that lessons will be learned, which is key, and that those conflicted people who have let children down and wasted taxpayers’ money will play no part in any further review in the NHS?

[Mr Hunt]

I can confirm that a thorough process of learning the lessons will happen. As I said earlier, we must learn big lessons about the time it takes to make very important service changes in the NHS, not just in children’s heart surgery but in many other areas. We need to learn those lessons. The person who was responsible for the JCPCT, Sir Neil McKay, is no longer responsible and has retired from the NHS. We need to look at everyone who was involved in the process and see where the right calls were and were not made. If we do not, we will never be able to make important changes in the NHS—and we have a big responsibility to make those changes.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

The proposed reconfiguration of children’s heart surgery has gone on for years. Meanwhile, children are suffering and even dying. Why cannot the Secretary of State have a more rigorous timetable based on the lessons learned from the review so far?

[Mr Hunt]

That is what I absolutely want to do. One huge frustration for those on both sides of the House has been how the process has dragged on. If I could have come to the House today with a detailed timetable, I would have. Although we had internal access to the report before today while I considered its findings and reached a judgment, we believed that it was necessary for external stakeholders to see the report and give their view of how the timetable should proceed. That is why I have given NHS England until the end of July to come back with that timetable.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

The Health Secretary is absolutely right that parents in my constituency have found this process deeply destabilising. Although they also want to see quality, they felt that their concerns about building up a good relationship with their medical teams and about accessibility and co-located services were simply dismissed. Will the Health Secretary assure me that that will not be the case in the future, and will he look more closely at the networking solution we have in Oxford and Southampton, which strikes a good balance between having a quality site further away and providing aftercare in an accessible site with trusted medical teams?

[Mr Hunt]

That is a very interesting thought. My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the IRP report states that the whole care pathway, not just the surgery on its own, needs to be considered when we make this very difficult decision. I agree with her that this has been a very distressing process for every family involved and although we are suspending the process today, we have a responsibility to be honest with people. At the end of the process, there will be a difficult decision to take and we will honestly do our duty as Members of this House.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I know that all the families of children affected throughout Yorkshire will welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State. Will he reassure the House that any future review panel, following whatever timetable he decides, will comprise representatives fairly and equally chosen from all the centres that will be affected by any decisions? Secondly, what assurances can he give that rather than the data used in flawed reports, such as the now infamous National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research 8 April report on mortality data in children’s heart surgery units, we will use data that are consistent and reliable?

[Mr Hunt]

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, we need to be very careful about how we use any mortality data, particularly on specialist services where distortions can be based on just one or two operations. I know that he will agree, however, that we have a responsibility to act if we have genuine concerns. That is what happened and the process over Easter was very difficult. One lesson we have learned in the NHS is that in Bristol it took a very long time—years—before anything was done about the higher mortality rates and we do not want to make that mistake again. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s other point, too.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I know that many of the staff and patients at the Royal Brompton hospital will very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. Although the hospital is not in my constituency, many of the staff live in my constituency and other hon. Members have been extremely active in making the Royal Brompton’s case over recent months. There was particular concern about the possible impact on other specialisms of any decision to withdraw children’s heart surgery, so can my constituents be assured that such concern will be taken into account in any future process?

[Mr Hunt]

The IRP report says that we must consider the broader impact of any changes beyond the narrow question of children’s heart surgery, so I am sure that that is one of the lessons that will be learned.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On the assumption that Dr Lee has now put his phone away, may I say to Members that they should not stand to speak while at the same time fiddling with a phone? It is multi-tasking in a way that is perhaps a tad discourteous. We do, however, want to hear from Dr Lee, who is a distinguished physician, so let us hear from him.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

My apologies, Mr Speaker. As someone who has long argued for the reconfiguration of acute and surgical services, I consider the management of this clinical consolidation to be of great importance. Does the Secretary of State agree that best clinical outcomes should be the primary driver of any reconfiguration and that there is a need for a national plan for the reconfiguration of all acute and emergency services? If such a plan were drawn up, it should receive cross-party support.

[Mr Hunt]

May I commend my hon. Friend, because he is one of the few Members of this House who has been prepared to campaign for changes in acute services in his own constituency, which might not necessarily be what his constituents would want? He has shown considerable bravery on this issue. I will mention his idea of a national plan for acute and emergency services to Sir Bruce Keogh, who is carrying out the review of emergency services as part of the vulnerable older people plan. We definitely need to have a different national approach to service reconfigurations.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

What a waste of everybody’s time. Why should anyone believe that the new review process will be better than the last one or that the Secretary of State will make decisions at the end of it? Will he apologise now to the parents, the families and the staff for allowing this flawed and failing process to go on for so long and for the anguish that they have suffered during it?

[Mr Hunt]

I think we have been having a constructive discussion about an extremely difficult issue, in which I hope I have spoken for the whole House in saying that there are things that we need to learn on all sides, as the earliest signs went back as far as 1984 and still, in 2013, we have not been able to make the progress we should. It is important that we maintain that bipartisan approach, because at the end of this process there will be difficult decisions to make and we need to maintain public confidence that we are thinking about this in a non-party-political way.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I think I can hear the cheers in Leeds as I speak. May I put on the record my thanks to the IRP and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for listening to our concerns in a very difficult situation? These findings clearly vindicate what we have been saying all along, but as we move forward will he agree to meet me and clinicians to maximise confidence in the future review? Will he assure us that co-location of services, accessibility and patient experience are paramount and that all units will have the same scrutiny as the one in Leeds has undergone? May I invite him to visit the unit in Leeds, so that he can meet the patients, families and staff with whom it has been my privilege to work?

[Mr Hunt]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on campaigning for children’s heart surgery in Leeds in an exemplary way, and he deserves huge credit for the responsible approach he has taken throughout. I would be delighted to meet him and clinicians from Leeds. Many things need to be learned, but his points about the importance of the patient experience, of clinical outcomes and of an impartial process in site selection, which is at the heart of the concerns people had about this process, are ones we need to reflect on very hard indeed.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made today. Notwithstanding the fact that we would all want the best possible outcomes from this surgery, wherever it takes place, site selection or geography is a concern for us, for the health service and for patients and their families, so can we make sure it is taken into account? If skills are seen to be weak in certain geographical areas of the UK, we should improve those skills, not think about moving people elsewhere.

[Mr Hunt]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Site selection needs to be done by people who are completely independent of any local interest in where the surgery should happen. That is the crucial point we need to learn, but the point about skills is also important.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

May I praise my right hon. Friend for his brave and eminently sensible statement today on this most emotive of topics? However, will he assure the House that any future plans to remove children’s cardiac services from the Glenfield hospital in Leicester will take full account of the world-leading extra corporeal membrane oxygenation services which will also have to be moved? The Secretary of State is completely right on this issue and many others: we do not need a quick solution; we need the right solution.

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would actually like a solution that happens as quickly as possible, provided the process is done properly. He will be pleased to know that the IRP report does say that the impact of suspending the review and thinking again should be borne in mind in respect of decisions that have already been made as to the siting of ECMO services, and I know that NHS England will be reflecting on that.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State appreciate the sheer difficulty in respect of recruitment, retention, planning and maintenance of an excellent service that has been incurred by the units affected, particularly the one in Southampton? Is he prepared to look at the possibility of providing additional resources to those trusts affected to enable them to maintain those excellent services during a continued period of uncertainty? Not only is it a continued period of uncertainty, but there has been continued oscillation between near certainty, uncertainty, no certain and possible certainty as a result of this interminable review and the way it has been conducted.

[Mr Hunt]

I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman: one of the biggest casualties of the length of time it is taking to resolve this very difficult issue is morale at the excellent children’s heart units that we have across this country, and recruitment is one of the biggest concerns in that regard. Resources are now allocated independently by NHS England, but I know that its priority is to ensure the safety of services.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement? Once he received the IRP report, he had little choice but to make this decision. I feel sure that it will be met with a deep sigh in Southampton, just because of the lack of certainty that it now extends for the trust there. To what extent will the Safe and Sustainable process now be rolled back? How far will it be rolled back? Is the number of centres now back in the “not sure” box? As he has said, we still face an incredibly difficult decision and there is still a reduction in the number of centres—or is there?

[Mr Hunt]

There will be a reduction in the number of centres at the end of this process, as is clear from what the IRP report says. It thinks we would have better outcomes for children if we concentrated surgery in fewer places, with more comprehensive facilities offered in all those places. However, we need to get the process right in order to get there.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for, and congratulate him on, his decision. However, as an outsider I watched this process descending into almost a medical beauty contest, with comparing and deciding. Surely if we are rationalising the centres, the key starting point should be their placement for the maximum benefit of the populations, the patients and the parents, not this business of who has the lowest mortality rate. Doctors can move, but populations cannot.

[Mr Hunt]

The answer is this needs to be a mix of both; this needs to be about clinical excellence and issues such as accessibility and travel. A wide range of factors are involved. I accept, and this is widely accepted, that it is particularly difficult with specialist services to interpret mortality rates in a meaningful way, but that does not mean we should not look at them and seek to learn what we can.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s statement will have given great hope to all those in and around Leicestershire who campaigned to keep Glenfield hospital, and we welcome the acceptance that the original site selection was flawed and the implicit acceptance of bias against the east midlands and against the east of the country in general. On a positive note, if we are going to have the clinical case for change accepted and consolidation in the future, what is his understanding of the number of lives that would be saved if we have to go through this painful process?

[Mr Hunt]

I do not want to pluck a number out of the air; I want to listen to the clinical evidence on that. However, it is important to say that as a result of the excess mortality identified at Bristol the Kennedy report said that up to 170 lives could have been saved over a 10-year period in just one location. That is why it is so important that we get this decision right.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right to say that, sadly, the process did not have the confidence of the public. I very much welcome his statement. In moving forward, will he ensure that any data used are independent, transparent and credible, and that patient experience and access are given the right priority in the decision making?

[Mr Hunt]

Those are all things that the IRP talked about in its review, and I very much accept its recommendations in those areas.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on calling in the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which has successfully exposed this shambles. I imagine that my constituents strongly suspect that the thick end of the £6 million cost of the exercise has gone on fat fees for management consultants. Given that the IRP concludes that there was flawed analysis and too many questions left unanswered, surely those management consultants should be banned from taking part in any further NHS reviews?

[Mr Hunt]

If there are management consultants responsible for what went wrong, I am sure that the NHS will draw the appropriate conclusions.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear that care pathways as a whole will be looked at and given consideration. Will the Secretary of State confirm, as he made clear in response to a number of questions, that the genuine concerns of constituents, including mine in Hull, will be listened to? Transport and access are very important to my constituents because of the city’s geographical location. Whoever makes these decisions should fully understand the geography of the country and be able to make a proper decision.

[Mr Hunt]

I completely accept what the hon. Lady says, and obviously transport and access do matter; that comes out in the IRP report. However, we have to be honest about the fact that if we are conducting surgery at fewer sites, the end result is that some people in the country will have to travel further than they currently do. That is why this is such a difficult decision. She will understand that a choice has to be made in that respect.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Last Saturday I attended the funeral of a girl, with my wife and my daughter Delphine. The girl was a 16-year-old in my daughter’s class. A month ago, she suddenly dropped dead. She had not been aware of any problem. Arabella Campbell was a beautiful, highly intelligent, vivacious girl who had everything to live for, and nothing was known about her problem. Can Arabella’s death, and the death of hundreds of other children and young adults, be used as a spur to reinvigorate the NHS campaign to identify young people who may suffer a heart attack as a result of a problem that has not been detected before, difficult as that may be?

[Mr Hunt]

I know that the whole House will want to send its condolences to Arabella Campbell’s family, and the way that my hon. Friend has brought the issue to the attention of the House shows the seriousness of the issues that we are considering. Part of what the IRP talks about is a proper review of the screening process for people who have congenital heart failure. Yesterday I met a group of campaigners on sudden adult death syndrome who had an equally tragic story, and I am waiting for advice from the national immunisation and screening committee on the right way forward in this respect. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Clinicians at Glenfield hospital, and people across Leicester and the wider east midlands, will welcome what the Secretary of State said today on the suspension of Safe and Sustainable, but I want to ask him a further question on the point that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made about the future of the extra corporeal membrane oxygenation centre. The decision to move ECMO from Leicester to Birmingham was a direct consequence of Safe and Sustainable. That decision is now suspended—I hope that is what the Secretary of State is saying. Will he reconfirm that the future of ECMO provision will be fully taken into account by NHS England?

[Mr Hunt]

I can confirm that. One of the recommendations of the review was that the ECMO decision be linked to what is decided under Safe and Sustainable, and I know that NHS England will want to consider that carefully. I hope to be able to come back to the House to report what it decides as soon as possible.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

My Cleethorpes constituency is on the very edge of the area served by the Leeds unit, and I particularly welcome the acknowledgement that future investigations will consider geography, but as well as feeling isolated geographically, many of my constituents felt somewhat isolated from the whole process. We do not want to prolong the process unnecessarily, but will the Secretary of State assure me that there will be some mechanism allowing input from individual constituents?

[Mr Hunt]

I can absolutely give that assurance. The fact that the engagement with the public in this process was not as genuine as it should have been is one of the biggest lessons for the NHS to learn.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Two years ago, almost to the day, we debated the issue in the House. I said at the time, and reiterate today, that the issue must be resolved as quickly as possible to end the damaging delay and uncertainty, and to secure the safety of children and the best clinical care for them. The Secretary of State has given a variety of reassurances, but I would like to hear a cast-iron reassurance, for my constituents, that in any future decision, clinical expertise and care will be paramount, and that this will be resolved as quickly as possible.

[Mr Hunt]

I am very happy firmly to give both those assurances.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The Health Secretary is absolutely right to push ahead with specialisation in cardiology services. I represent one of the most rural constituencies in England, and I thank him for taking on board the need for more focus on access. In the future, I recommend that more money and time be spent working with members of review panels, because about a year and a half ago, when MPs met them, it was clear that some of them were out of their depth. It would do everybody a lot of good if we spent more money and time helping them.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sure that that lesson will be learned.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, as will concerned families across my constituency of York Outer, and across the county of Yorkshire. Will he ensure that the new review recognises that units where paediatric and maternity services are located on a single site offer the optimal patient experience?

[Mr Hunt]

I think we need to be guided by the clinical evidence in that respect, but I urge my hon. Friend and his constituents, if they have a strong representation to make in that respect, to make it to the review when it re-proceeds.

Point of Order

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

13:27

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apologies for my over-eagerness just after Prime Minister’s questions. Last night, the Labour party did not submit the motion for today’s debate until about 7 o’clock in the evening. Do you not think that is a gross discourtesy to the House? It does not allow Members time to prepare and reorganise their schedules. What can you do, through your office, to encourage the Labour party to get its act together and get its motions in on time?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. To be fair, I think that the motion was in on time, to use his words. However, I note what he says, and I think others will have noted it. Obviously, it is helpful to the House to have maximum notice of these things, so that people who wish to table amendments have the opportunity to do so. I emphasise that nothing disorderly has occurred, but the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to his concern in his characteristically rumbustious fashion.

Opposition Day

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[2nd Allotted Day]

Protecting Children Online

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

13:28

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House deplores the growth in child abuse images online; deeply regrets that up to one and a half million people have seen such images; notes with alarm the lack of resources available to the police to tackle this problem; further notes the correlation between viewing such images and further child abuse; notes with concern the Government’s failure to implement the recommendations of the Bailey Review and the Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection on ensuring children’s safe access to the internet; and calls on the Government to set a timetable for the introduction of safe search as a default, effective age verification and splash page warnings and to bring forward legislative proposals to ensure these changes are speedily implemented.

The motion is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).

The whole country was shocked and revolted by the trials of Mark Bridger and Stuart Hazell, the two men who brutally murdered April Jones and Tia Sharp. They sent a shiver of horror down the spine of every parent in the land. In both cases, they were found to have huge libraries of child abuse images on their computers. In both cases, this was the first known offence against children. Surely it is now beyond doubt that what a person sees influences how they behave.

Let us be clear: there is no such thing as child pornography. There is child abuse online. Any image depicting a sexual act with or on a child under 18 is illegal. Child abuse images are illegal under international law and in every country on the globe. The Internet Watch Foundation is the UK hotline for reporting child abuse. It has pioneered this work since 1996. It can disrupt and delete content on the web within an hour and it protects child victims by working in co-operation with the police at the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. It also aims to prevent people from stumbling across such images. We all owe an immense debt of gratitude to the IWF.

However, the surge in the scale of the problems threatens to overwhelm both the IWF and the police. The IWF’s independent survey by ComRes found that up to 1.5 million people have stumbled on child abuse images, yet last year the IWF received only 40,000 notifications and some 13,000 web pages were taken down as a result. Its latest figures show a 40% rise on last year.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I support the hon. Lady’s opening words. I declare an interest as an IWF champion; the IWF does great work. Does she accept that her figure of 1.5 million people having seen child pornography is based on a sample of 2,000 people, of whom about 50 said that they seen such images? We do not know how much people have seen, or if they have seen anything. To extrapolate that far may be misleading.

[Helen Goodman]

Yes; I discussed the numbers with the IWF, of course. It says that the survey on which it based that estimate was typical of surveys it has been doing over several years, so I think the problem is widespread and that we should not argue too much. It is clear that the numbers are far, far too big.

Up to 88% of the child victims appear to be 10 years old or under, and 61% of the images depicted sexual activity between adults and children, including rape and sexual torture.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

Google is one of the biggest hosts of child sexual abuse images, albeit inadvertently, and it should therefore accept the major responsibility for proactively monitoring and removing those images. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Google spent as much money on monitoring and removing illegal child sexual abuse images as it does on paying accountants to avoid tax in the UK, it might go some way towards living up to its motto, “Don’t be evil”?

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. By a happy co-incidence I received an e-mail at 12.35 pm announcing that Google is increasing its contribution to the IWF to £1 million.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend spoke about the number of reported cases. As an Internet Watch Foundation champion, I went into every one of my primary schools, spoke to the 10 and 11-year-olds at every one of those schools, and asked those children how many of them had seen indecent images online. Every child in every class had been exposed to such material. Is that not a national disgrace?

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is obviously doing great work in her constituency and what she says is truly shocking. It is confirmed by the statistics which the NSPCC has been collecting.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Reference has been made to Google. I do not defend that or any other search engine other than to say that this debate is highly technical and we need to be accurate. Google does not host anything; nor does any other search engine. Google merely provides the means of finding a site, and the hosting, which is an international problem, needs to be addressed appropriately.

[Helen Goodman]

This is not an occasion for nit-picking—[Interruption.] It is important to take an international approach and I am disappointed in the Government for, among other things, not taking any international initiatives.

The police say their resources are inadequate to the task. Peter Davies, the head of CEOP, said that the police are aware of 60,000 people swapping or downloading images over peer-to-peer networks but they lack the resources to arrest them all. In any case, the IWF currently deals only with images on the web, not peer-to-peer images.

In answer to my parliamentary question last week, the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) revealed that in 2012, despite the fact that the police are aware of those 60,000 people, only 1,570 were convicted of such offences. What do Ministers intend to do about the problem? I hope that in his winding-up remarks the Home Office Minister will tell us. There is no point huffing and puffing about the problem if Ministers do not take the necessary action. It is obvious to the whole country that the current situation is totally unacceptable. It is obvious that Ministers have not got a grip. It is obvious that we need a change.

That is why our motion proposes a complete shift in approach from a reactive stance to a proactive strategy. We are calling for three things—first, safe search as the default option. The industry has already made the filters that are needed to screen out not just child abuse but pornography and adult content generally. We are saying that the filters should be the default, either on all computers and devices connected to the internet or by requiring internet service providers to install them by default. Then we can institute the second part of an effective system: robust age verification. A person seeking to cross the filter would be asked to confirm their name, age and address, all of which can be independently checked. Again, we know that this works. It is what Labour did for gambling sites in 2005. It is what mobile phone companies do when someone opens an account and gets a SIM card. It is what people do when they get a driving licence.

[Dr Huppert]

Does the hon. Lady accept that if we had safe search and such controls, young people would not be able either to access information about homophobic bullying, about how to deal with child abuse and about a range of other subjects? Indeed, such things are already filtered out by mobile phone providers, to the great detriment of many children.

[Helen Goodman]

No, I do not accept that. I shall go on to explain why that is a misconception on the part of the hon. Gentleman.

The approach that we are suggesting would cut demand for sites as well as reducing the supply of them. It would tackle child abuse online and the other major issue addressed by the Bailey review and the independent parliamentary inquiry—children accessing unsuitable material online. In recent days I have had the benefit of energetic lobbying from Google in particular, pressing its view that except for child abuse images, which are illegal, all other images should be available unfiltered on the internet. I have heard its views and come to my own conclusion.

I hope the Government’s vacillation on this point is not because they cannot put children before powerful vested interests. I say safe search filters are not a free speech issue. This is not censorship. This is about child protection and reproducing online the conditions established over a long period in the real world.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the Council of Europe One in Five campaign, which is built on the fact that one in five children across Europe is likely to be a victim of sexual violence? Does she agree that the magnitude of sexual violence is enormously inflamed by the open gateway of internet child abuse?

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Once again, he emphasises the importance of the international dimension.

What we are proposing is aimed at reproducing the conditions that we have already established in the real world. The distinction between legal and illegal content is far too simplistic. For cinemas we have the highly respected independent British Board of Film Classification. It produces age ratings—12, 15 or 18. Any cinema found to be regularly flouting the age restrictions would lose its local authority licence. Furthermore, material classified as R18 can be seen only in certain cinemas, and some material deemed obscene is cut entirely. Yet on the internet it is all freely accessible to every 12-year-old. Indeed—this relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said a moment ago—the NSPCC believes that one quarter of nine to 16-year olds have seen sexual images online. We are not talking about young women baring their breasts—that is like something from Enid Blyton compared with the Frankenstein images now available.

The dangers are clear. On average, 29% of nine to 16-year-olds have contact online with someone they have never met face to face. Of course there is a real difference between child abuse online and extreme pornography, but unfortunately in the real world people who become addicted to pornography look for more and more extreme images, and that sometimes tips into child abuse images. Addiction is the issue. Users are found to have literally millions of images on their computer, and child abuse sites are signposted on pornography sites. Both are shared peer to peer.

Therefore, an effective age verification system would mean that paedophiles would lose the anonymity behind which they currently hide, and the denial of what they are really doing would be addressed by the third proposal in the motion, which is to have splash warnings before entering filtered sites. Work by Professor Richard Wortley at University College London suggests that that might halve the numbers viewing child abuse online.

Of course, those measures would have a cost to industry. TalkTalk, which has led the way in offering filters, has spent over £20 million. Some in the industry tell us that they do not want to lose their competitive edge, and some say that they do not want to act as censors. That is why the Government should act by putting a clear timetable for those reforms into law in order to speed up change, level the playing field and support parents. We know that most parents want to do what is right by their children, because 66% of people, and 78% of women, want an automatic block, according to a YouGov poll conducted last year, but the industry is not helping them enough. At the moment, some still require people to download their own filters—a near-impossible task for many of us—some see it as a marketing device, and others want to give the option of filters only to new customers. At the current rate of turnover, it would be 2019 before that approach had any hope of reaching total coverage. It simply is not good enough. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) wish to intervene?

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Helen Goodman]

So what have the Government been doing? Before the general election, the Prime Minister promised that he would lead the most family-friendly Government ever, but so far there has been lots of talking and much less action. After three years and two Secretaries of State, the Government still seem to think that a voluntary approach will work. Do they not know when they are being strung along, or do they not care? How many more years must we wait? How many child deaths will it take to shock them into action?

Let us look at the record. First, the Prime Minister set up the Bailey review, which reported in June 2011. It recommended that after 18 months the internet industry must, as a matter of urgency, act decisively to develop and introduce effective parental controls—with Government regulation if voluntary action is not forthcoming within a reasonable time scale—and robust age verification. But here we are, fully two years on, and nothing has changed. Contrary to the answer I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who is in his place, the fact is that BT, Sky and Virgin are yet to come forward to announce their proposals on how they intend to deliver.

Then we had the independent parliamentary inquiry into child protection online, an all-party group. It recommended an accelerated implementation timetable, a formal consultation on the introduction of an opt-in content filtering system, and that the Government should seek back-stop legal powers to intervene should the ISPs fail to implement an appropriate solution. A year later, no solution has been implemented. Why did the Government not introduce a communications Bill with appropriate measures in the Queen’s Speech?

Finally, last autumn the Government undertook a consultation. It was so badly advertised that 68% of respondents were members of the Open Rights Group, an important group but a lobbying group with 1,500 members, compared with the 34% of respondents who were parents of Britain’s 11 million children. Despite that, the Government concluded that parents did not want to see parental controls turned on by default.

The Government have zig-zagged back and forth but we have seen no action in the real world. The Secretary of State has called a meeting with industry representatives next week. What will she say to them? I hope that she will not engage in yet another round of fruitless pleas and requests. There is a total lack of strategy from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

I want to make an offer to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey): if he brings forward measures, with a speedy timetable, for the introduction of safe search as a default, robust age verification and splash warnings, we will support him. I gather that Ministers are urging their colleagues to vote against the motion. It is time that the Government stopped hoping that everything will turn out for the best and started taking responsibility. The time for talking is over. The time for action is now. We must put our children first. I hope that all hon. Members will vote for the motion in the Lobby this afternoon.

13:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

The House finds itself today debating an incredibly important issue, and one that has risen in prominence because of the worst of circumstances. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) referred at the beginning of her speech to the dreadful murders of Tia Sharp and April Jones, which shocked the nation and saddened all who read about them. They reinforce the need to take action and maintain vigilance.

This Government, and indeed the previous Government, take the continued availability of child sexual abuse images online extremely seriously. If I heard the hon. Lady correctly, she said that we should not refer to this as child pornography. She is quite right: it is child abuse, child torture and child rape. The creation of these images is abuse against a child, and that child is further violated every time the image is circulated and viewed by others. That is why the creation, distribution and viewing of child sexual abuse images is strictly prohibited in this country, and why we take action to stop it. We must take every possible step to prevent their production and distribution over the internet.

We must work together on that. We must recognise that that means using industry, law enforcement and the charitable sector. I think that we have made considerable progress. Let me start by talking about the Internet Watch Foundation. Before the IWF was established in 1996, this country hosted around 18% of the known child sexual abuse content on the internet, which is absolutely shocking. Since 2003, the IWF, working with industry, has reduced that figure to less than 1%. We fully support and welcome the work done by the internet industry in the UK, which uses a list provided by the IWF to block images of child sexual abuse. Blocking has a real and tangible benefit, as it stops people inadvertently viewing the images and stops paedophiles arguing that they found the images accidentally.

The IWF has a crucial role to play in the removal of these images from the internet. At the summit that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called for next week, we will discuss what further measures we can take. It is right and proper that we look at the role and funding levels of the IWF, and at what more the industry can do in terms of its role and scope.

[Mrs Moon]

The IWF does a fantastic job, but it can only do as good a job as the referrals it receives. When I speak to parents and children in my constituency, they do not know what to do. Often, the advice given to children is “Turn the computer off.” That will not help us to track down images and stop them coming in in the first place.

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution and pay tribute to her for the work that she does on these issues in this House and throughout the country. She is absolutely right. There is more we can do, and we need to look at a number of issues that will be raised at the summit next week.

First, we need to discuss the funding of the IWF. I note the £1 million contribution that Google has made this afternoon. We will discuss with the IWF what kind of funding it needs and what funding needs to come from the industry to help it to do the work that it needs to do. Secondly, we need to discuss the IWF’s role in peer-to-peer file-sharing. It is all very well, and absolutely right, to clamp down on and block the sites that host these vile and disgusting images, but we need to do more work on the activities of peer-to-peer networks where people are sharing them.

This involves the complex issue of how the IWF works with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. We have to clear the lines on that. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to international work. We, as a Government, support the Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online, which covers more than 40 countries. Both CEOP and the IWF work internationally, and it is extremely important to focus on that work. We can be proud of our success in this regard, but, as she rightly points out, the problem remains one of images posted abroad.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister agree that images of women being raped in pornography should also be illegal and banned from the internet?

[Mr Vaizey]

The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are looking very closely at that issue, which has been debated recently. It is right that my colleagues in the relevant Departments look to see what action it is appropriate to take.

CEOP works with UK police forces, which carry out excellent work in tracking down and arresting the owners of sites within the UK and rescuing and safeguarding the children who are subject to abuse. We will continue to support and promote the work of CEOP. It is important to note that the number of people working there has increased from 85 in 2010 to 130 now. CEOP is now a command within the National Crime Agency, and this will build on its success and allow it to work closely with other commands to ensure that children continue to be safeguarded. CEOP receives important support, in the form of a skills resource, from the business sector, including Microsoft, BAE Systems Detica and Visa, as well as children’s charities such as the NSPCC. At next week’s summit we will discuss what further resources we can bring to bear for CEOP, especially in terms of support from businesses that can bring particular skill sets to help it to carry out its work. As I said, we will also discuss with CEOP its close co-operation and work with the IWF.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to hear the Minister being positive about the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). I hope that the summit will be a very productive discussion. End Violence Against Women has come up with a specific proposal on how to tackle the production of so-called rape porn, both online and offline. Can the Minister confirm that that will also be on next week’s agenda so that it can be talked through with businesses and then inform the discussions between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice?

[Mr Vaizey]

We will certainly look at what we need to include on the agenda. The summit has to focus on what internet companies can do to help us to tackle not only child abuse images but the exposure of children to online pornographic content. If there are comments to be made that would inform the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, we will make sure that that happens.

We need to focus on closer co-operation between the IWF and CEOP and on resource from industry to help the IWF to do its work. There should be greater focus on peer-to-peer networks, and a clear strategy to increase our international work, which is already taking place.

As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, there is a clear distinction between illegal child abuse images and age-inappropriate content.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I must apologise because I am speaking in a Welsh Grand Committee later and will miss part of this debate, which is particularly important to my constituency and has become hugely important to me owing to the impact in Montgomeryshire of what has happened. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that Coral and Paul Jones, the parents of April Jones, should have an opportunity to express their views to Government at one level; we need to discuss exactly where it should be.

[Mr Vaizey]

I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says and will happily discuss with him what he thinks should be the appropriate way of ensuring that that takes place.

In protecting our children from online pornography, the Government are making a huge effort to minimise the harm that is caused by being exposed to age-inappropriate content. As the Minister with responsibility for the communications sector, I see the headlines that call for greater action from our biggest internet companies. I support those calls. We want more action because there are few more important issues than protecting children as they interact online. Let us be clear: the internet can be an amazing force for good. However, information available on the internet can also drive harm. Mobile phone operators, internet service providers, search engines and social media companies do act to protect children online, and I will come to some of the measures that have been developed through Government and industry co-operation.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Minister refers to age-inappropriate online pornography. Does he really understand what children as young as eight are viewing, does he know that the average age of a young man viewing hard-core porn online has dropped to eight, and is he aware of the social and psychological harm that stems from viewing those types of images?

[Mr Vaizey]

It is really important during this debate to make the point that everyone wants to see what we can do to minimise this harm. It is not appropriate to suggest that Ministers are not aware of the issues and do not want to act. [Interruption.] Nor is it appropriate to heckle me as I come on to setting out the points that I am here to set out. We need to work across Parliament. Members of the public will want to see cross-party action to tackle these issues.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

What are you going to do, then?

[Mr Vaizey]

I will tell the hon. Lady what I am going to do if she stops heckling me from the Front Bench. This is the kind of conduct that the Opposition seek to bring to the debate.

Since 2008, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, set up by the previous Government, has brought together industry, charities, law enforcement and academia to focus on developing measures to keep children safe online. In October 2011, under the auspices of UKCCIS, and under this Government, the internet service providers developed a voluntary code of practice on the implementation of internet parental controls. A year on, the biggest four internet providers met their commitment to offer parental internet controls to new customers. Now, in a further step, the biggest five have committed to delivering whole home, network-level parental control tools by the end of this year. That will allow parents to set, with one click, parental controls on all devices in the home.

When we began these discussions with ISPs, they told us that that was not technically possible, so we have moved a huge way forward. Making it easier for parents to block adult and age-restricted material was a Bailey recommendation and that has been achieved. Network-level filters for domestic broadband was also a recommendation of the independent parliamentary inquiry into online child protection.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The Minister has highlighted the success with the five ISPs. How does that compare with agreements reached in other countries in Europe and the United States?

[Mr Vaizey]

We can hold our heads high as being far more advanced than many other countries around the world. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman with details of what other countries are doing and where we rank compared with them. It is also important to point out that those five ISPs cover the vast majority of customers using the internet at home.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that we have not implemented the recommendations of the Bailey review, but I remind her that this Government set up that review because of this Prime Minister’s passion to protect children from the sexualisation of society. As Reg Bailey himself said in his recently published review of progress:

“I have been pleased to see that many parts of industry have risen to the challenge”

and that good progress has been made against his recommendations.

Bailey called for greater transparency in the regulatory framework through the creation of a single website for regulators. ParentPort, launched in 2011, is a single website, created by media regulators, through which parents can complain about inappropriate material. Bailey also called for a reduction in on-street advertising containing sexualised imagery that is likely to be seen by children, and the Advertising Standards Authority has issued guidelines on the use of such images in outdoor advertising. He also recommended restricting the employment of children as brand ambassadors and ensuring that magazines and newspapers with sexualised images on the cover are not sold in easy sight of children and that the content of pre-watershed TV programming better meets parents’ expectations.

Those recommendations and others have been met. Of course, that is not to say that every recommendation has been met in full. There is still work to do on, for example, online music videos.

[Stella Creasy]

The Bailey review also pointed out that, as much as we must try to adapt to many of the ways in which technology is changing, no filter or technology can compensate for parents and teachers giving positive examples. Yesterday the House had an opportunity to make sure that sensitive discussion of issues such as sexual consent, equality and respect in relationships was on the agenda, so is the Minister disappointed that his Government voted against putting sexual consent in the curriculum in a way that would allow young people to get training and advice on how to tackle these issues and let us build a filter in their heads about them, too?

[Mr Vaizey]

This issue was debated fully in the House yesterday and there are two Education Ministers present—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. As the hon. Lady knows, sex and relationships education is compulsory in secondary schools. We trust teachers, who are best placed to provide the appropriate advice, guidance and support to children in their schools. Teachers who teach sex education follow the statutory guidance laid out by the Education Secretary, but we do not believe it is right to remove the ability of parents to withdraw their children from sex education at any key stage, as the Opposition advocate.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that in sex and relationships education, particularly in primary schools, more guidance needs to be given on the age-appropriateness of the material? I know that he has already taken some steps to improve that, but what more can he do to make sure that children receive age-appropriate information?

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which she has campaigned on in this House. I pay tribute to her for the work she has done. We are introducing classification not just for music videos, but for DVDs used in schools for sex education. I will continue to have a dialogue with my hon. Friend on other appropriate measures. [Interruption.] The sneezing of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is appropriate, because she was a member of the panel for the independent parliamentary inquiry into online child protection—as was the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland—to which I now turn.

I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). My involvement in these important issues started with an Adjournment debate that she had secured, during which I said that I wanted to hold discussions and work with her to make progress. She decided that it was appropriate to set up an inquiry, which had my full support and which, I am pleased to say, was a cross-party inquiry, with Members from all the main parties on its panel. Since my hon. Friend set up that parliamentary inquiry, not only has it come up with some sensible recommendations, which I will turn to in a moment, but I am also delighted that she has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s adviser. Although I pay tribute to many hon. Members, I am sure that most would agree that my hon. Friend has taken a fantastically prominent role in this debate, that she has moved it forward in leaps and bounds and that she is a fantastic advocate for more action in this area.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points, but will he clarify whether the Government intend to support the Opposition motion?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is not in his place, pointed out how late this motion came to the House. As I have said, it is hard to support a motion that claims that the police lack resources when I have already pointed out that CEOP has significantly increased its manpower; that claims that the Government have failed to implement the Bailey review when I have already pointed out how many of the recommendations we have introduced; and that claims that we have not supported the independent parliamentary inquiry when we supported it from the start and have followed a lot of its recommendations.

The Opposition can decide whether they want to play politics with this issue or whether they want to have a serious debate about how to make progress. They cannot table a tendentious motion such as this and expect us to support it. What I am doing in this speech—and what other Government Members will do in theirs—is raising and addressing important issues, as some Opposition Members have done, and saying what the Government are doing.

[Claire Perry]

Does my hon. Friend share my almost despair that, while some Members present, such as the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), have been intimately involved in this agenda for two and a half years, others who are heckling and shouting from a sedentary position have, to be frank, shown no interest whatsoever in this topic until it became a front-page issue? Working together will solve the problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a terrible and dangerous example of bandwagonism?

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is an authority on this issue and she has shown, throughout her engagement with it, her willingness to work across party lines and to look for practical solutions that will help keep our children safe. I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what she has just said and take it on board.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister agree—I know that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) supports me in this—that credit card companies should be made accountable and perhaps face penalties if they are complicit in the downloading of child abuse images through online transactions, particularly those under £50 that can be facilitated by anonymous credit cards that can be accessed by children as well? Does he agree that the Government need to bring credit card companies to account and stop this abuse?

[Mr Vaizey]

That is very important. As I have mentioned, Visa plays a role with CEOP. No credit card company would say that it was actively encouraging or supporting people to download images of child abuse. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples, he should bring them to my attention. The credit card companies have an important and helpful role to play on this issue and many others, including piracy, and we must continue to work with them.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that many Members from all parts of the House have been interested in online safety for young people for a long time. Does he agree that it is slightly perverse that this country has legislation that gives courts the power to order ISPs or websites to remove material that is defamatory or that contravenes copyright, but no powers for the courts to deal with serious issues such as online child pornography or incitement to violence, which have a devastating impact on people’s lives?

[Mr Vaizey]

Companies that use the law to block sites that support pirated material seek an injunction through pre-internet copyright law. As has always been the case, what is illegal offline is also illegal online. People can therefore use existing law to attack sites. As I have said, the Internet Watch Foundation does block access to sites that host child abuse images.

[Dr Huppert]

The Minister is making a powerful case. Does he agree that it is somewhat misleading to imply that we have no powers to deal with such sites? In 2012, every one of the 73 UK webpages that hosted child pornography was removed within four days, and the vast majority within 60 minutes, of the IWF being notified.

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I must make progress because a lot of people want to speak on this issue.

We have responded to many of the recommendations of the independent parliamentary inquiry. For example, the report called for filtered public wi-fi. Through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, the Government have secured a commitment from the main public wi-fi providers that they will offer family-friendly wi-fi in public places where children are likely to use it.

I am conscious of the time, so I will wrap up with a number of key points. On child abuse images, we will work with the industry to secure appropriate funding for the IWF. We will work with the IWF on its peer-to-peer and international work. We will also work with CEOP and the IWF to ensure that their work is co-ordinated effectively. We have made huge progress on protecting children from inappropriate content online. New customers are now provided with filters that are in place when they first access the internet. ISPs regularly contact existing customers through e-mails and on their bills to tell them about internet filters. On age verification, ISPs are bringing in closed-loop e-mails so that when the filters are changed in a home, an e-mail is sent to the account holder and, therefore, to the adult. I hear the point about splash pages and it is worth debating. It is important to analyse whether that would be an effective change.

I will make one wider point in conclusion. When I held a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and other hon. Members some years ago, about 80 Members turned up from across the political divide. All of them, from the über-libertarians to the ultra-authoritarians, wanted action. We have made progress. The ISPs and others should be in no doubt about the mood of this House. If not enough is done, legislation will be required. We must get the message across to them that this is not something on which they should consider the competitive advantage, but something on which they have to work together and co-operate. They must work together on issues such as publicity and education for parents.

The summit that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has called next week is an important staging post. I pay tribute to everyone in the House who has campaigned on this issue, because they have pushed it up the agenda. The people who can make a difference have been left in no doubt that no amount of weasel words or hiding behind technical obfuscation will stop this House taking the action that is needed to protect our children and clamp down on child abuse images.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Many Members wish to speak, so I am introducing a time limit of eight minutes.

14:10

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I usually open my remarks by saying that I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in a debate. Today, I do not have that feeling. I raised my children in an age when we did not have to worry about the issues under discussion and when protecting children was far more straightforward, but I am conscious that my grandchildren are growing up in a very different world. I congratulate the shadow Culture, Media and Sport team for ensuring that we have the opportunity to discuss this matter.

I give credit, as many Members will, to the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) for her contribution. However, I think that she should reflect on her remarks about “bandwagonism”. This is the first time that I have spoken in a debate on this issue. She does not know what personal experiences other Members of the House might have had that make it difficult for them to make contributions on this issue, so she should be careful in her choice of words. I have worked with children who are victims of abuse, some of whom were subjected to pornographic images. Sadly, some of them even went on to sexually harm other children. I should not have to justify to her my right to stand here as a Member of Parliament, a parent, a grandmother and someone who has worked in child protection.

[Claire Perry]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. May I extend the offer that has been open for almost three years to every Member of this House who feels that they can help push this agenda forward to please share their experiences and be involved? Please do not make this a partisan issue, because when we do that, industry drives a bus through Parliament. That is what we must avoid.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I would have welcomed more of an indication of regret from the hon. Lady at the words that she used. If she had experience of working in child protection, she would know that those words should be used very carefully.

I welcome the Minister’s comment that this issue is about much more than just child protection and includes child abuse. Sadly, in this day and age, it is also a matter of life and death. Fortunately, children can and do use the internet safely, and we must not lose sight of that.

Although I might not have been active on this issue in the House, I have been in my constituency. Last Friday, I went to Burgh primary school in Musselburgh, where the children recently took part in a competition to talk about and devise ways of keeping themselves safe when using the internet. That is a great example of how we can empower children. I do not want children to be frightened of using the internet. It is an incredible resource that allows them to socialise, learn, have fun and access entertainment. We must be clear that we do not want to put children off. At Burgh primary school, I saw children being empowered to keep themselves safe. They even taught me a few lessons about how I could be safer. The head teacher and Mrs Gilbert, who leads the IT group, have the children running the school website. That is a great way to show children that the internet is a tool that could be useful to them at any point in their life and, at the same time, to ensure that they are aware of the risks.

Ofcom recently released figures showing that 91% of five to 15-year-olds have access to the internet at home. On average, they access the internet for about 90 minutes a day. A survey of 851 young children in 2012 by the ChildLine website also provided some interesting information. It was clear that what children really enjoyed was the fun, games, information and opportunities for social networking that they could access. What really concerned me, however—I hope the Minister or a Front-Bench Member will respond to this point—was that the survey showed that 69% of children are now accessing the internet through mobile phones, making it far more difficult for parents to supervise what they are saying and how they are interacting. I would be interested to hear whether the Government have any proposals for how we can deal with mobile phone companies and keep children safe, given that that is the way they are increasingly accessing the internet.

We all know horrific stories of bullying and of children accessing inappropriate material, and I have seen first hand through my work the impact that can have on children’s lives, development and their ability to become parents. I remember one child saying to me, “Fiona, I don’t think I should be a parent.” He had suffered such horrific abuse and seen such awful images that at the age of 10, this boy did not think he should be trusted to be a parent. We are discussing the most serious issues of children’s right to a childhood and a healthy adulthood.

We must do more to protect children, and this debate has caused me to reflect on an experience that I had around the age of 16—this was before the age of computers, certainly in the highlands of Scotland. I was getting ready for bed one night and I suddenly caught sight out of my bedroom window of a flashing light. I realised there was a man in the kitchen that overlooked my bedroom who had been watching me undress, and he was flicking the light to let me know that he was doing that. This is the first time I have ever shared that experience, because at the age of 16 I was too scared to tell anyone. I thought I had done something wrong; I was scared to tell my parents. My father had warned me that I should shut my bedroom curtains when getting ready for bed, and I was scared that he might go down and confront the man, or that my father—a very peace-loving man—might be hurt. I just did not feel I could do that, and I lived in fear for many months that the man was going to approach me or tell people what he had seen. We must remember just how difficult it is for young people to tell their stories—it has taken me until the age of 53 to tell that story.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children supports many of the recommendations in the motion, in particular having an opt-in option so that adults must choose if they wish to access adult material. That is the stage we have reached. I am no Mary Whitehouse, but I think we have reached a stage where so many children are at risk that we must do more.

[Alun Cairns]

I accept the hon. Lady’s thrust of where we need to get to. However, with such a relatively simplistic approach to an opt-in, how would we overcome encryption methods that would simply get around that?

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I confess that that is well beyond my level of knowledge. In this day and age we must at least challenge the issue, and I am grateful that the Government have called a summit next week, which will be a great opportunity. I hope we give a clear steer and that there will be time scales for internet service providers as well. I confess freely to the hon. Gentleman that I do not have the answer to his question, but we must set that challenge and tell the sector that it must get its house in order. It is clear that we must do more.

Not so long ago, we in this House took the decision to make it illegal to carry a child in a car without them being safely secured in an appropriate way. At this time I think there is a greater risk to children’s safety from accessing the internet than from getting into a car, and if we can intervene in such circumstances that will be absolutely in order. It is early in the debate but I am glad that so far we have not heard talk of the nanny state. We must act on this matter to keep children safe.

[Mrs Moon]

When I went into schools around Bridgend I took two leaflets—one for parents and one for children—about staying safe online. They were seen by Dr Tanya Byron, and agreed with Google and local head teachers so that the content was accurate. It was clear that parents did not have the technical savvy; their children were wiser than them and knew how to remove the constraints, which is why we need such constraints put in place by providers rather than by parents. Children can remove their parent’s constraints.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; children are often well ahead of the adults who are supervising them. I do not know whether the Government have any plans to involve children in the summit and this process. Children were part of the consultation, but what opportunities will the Government provide to allow them to be part of the debate? When I went into a local primary school I found that the children’s knowledge was well in advance of mine, and from my experience as a parent I know that children can be canny in finding ways round things that we are perhaps not aware of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

14:25

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I am grateful, as always, for the chance to speak in and listen to a debate in the House on this incredibly important topic, and I will not focus on the unfortunate partisan tone of some of the proposals. I would love to support the motion, and if it had been better worded or perhaps more accurate it would have been easier to do so.

I want to respond specifically to some of the criticisms raised in the motion and refute them absolutely. Criticism has been made of the implementation of the Bailey review recommendations, and those of the parliamentary inquiry in which I was joined by more than 60 Members from across this House and from the other place including—as I have said—two hon. Ladies from the Labour Benches and several of my colleagues from the Government Benches. The inquiry came up with a series of recommendations. In 2011, the Bailey review recommended active choice in which parents have to choose whether they want filters, as well as more help for parents. The four main fixed-line internet service providers control 80% of the home internet market—this relates to a point raised earlier. They signed a code of practice to offer such a filter, and said they would roll it out within a year by October 2012. That deadline was met, but as many Members will remember, a cross-party group of MPs and peers did not feel that it was adequate or went far enough.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend who has championed this cause in the House, including in an Adjournment debate back in November 2010, which also coincided with the Safermedia conference. She has been raising the issue of harm related to pornography, and making the point that it is not just a fringe issue for one campaign organisation but a concern shared across the House. That momentum has helped to drive these changes, which will continue, and we do not need to resort to partisanship.

[Claire Perry]

I came to this agenda as a mother, a feminist and someone who is deeply concerned about the long-term social experiment we are conducting with our young children. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said it was good that we had an atheist leftie on the panel as that helped balance out some of the others, and it truly was a coalition of many minds coming together—I hope that will not be depicted in Hansard as an accurate description.

Another recommendation of the cross-party inquiry was for internet service providers to introduce account filters that protect all devices in the home with one click. Only four out of 10 parents in the country have installed device-level protection of any sort on their home computers. That is completely unacceptable, but the situation is complicated. We all have multiple internet-enabled devices and it is simply not good enough to say that consumers are stupid. We called on internet service providers to introduce one-click filtering on the home network, but as the Minister said, we were told by more than one ISP that that was technically impossible. Guess what? They are all going to implement it by the end of the year—a testament to the ongoing campaigning of this House.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Is the real problem with the motion a conflation between the legal and the illegal, and is my hon. Friend worried that those on the Opposition Front Benches are getting this completely wrong? The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) tweeted that we should introduce filters for child abuse, but surely child abuse should be dealt with by the law. Paedophiles should be taken to prison and targeted by the police, working with internet service providers. My hon. Friend is doing the right thing by looking at the issue carefully and in real detail.

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have two separate buckets. Some imagery is unequivocally illegal, but we would find other imagery exceptionally unpalatable and not want our young people to see it. Given that 88% of mainstream porn involves violence against women, we need to improve the filters to try to stop that coming into the home.

Another recommendation of the cross-party inquiry was that public wi-fi should be filtered. There is no need to see adult content on public wi-fi. That has been implemented in the majority of cases and we are looking for universal clean public wi-fi to be implemented later this year.

[Ann Coffey]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her work and on the huge contribution she has made. Has she had any discussions with the retail industry on public wi-fi?

[Claire Perry]

I have not, but retailers source their wi-fi from a small number of providers, which have agreed to provide what is effectively clean public wi-fi.

We asked the Government for a formal consultation on opt-in filtering and got it. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has rightly said, it is not clear that the consultation was entirely representative and democratic. However, it was an open consultation and we did our damndest to encourage people to respond. Consultations are not always democratic, and that one was what it was. Basically, the consultation rejected the idea of opt-in, but the Government response was clear that we should have much better filters that protect all devices; robust age verification; and a system that people cannot simply click through, and in which the filters remain on unless people choose to take them off.

Those changes are being implemented by the four main ISPs, which control more than 80% of the internet market to the home in the UK, and will be rolled out to new customers by the year end.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Claire Perry]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will try to make progress before taking another intervention.

In addition, as the Minister has said, the ISPs are trialling ways in which to get the filter into the installed base. The sea change in attitude among the ISPs—British companies that are family-friendly trusted brands and want to sell us stuff—has been enormous. That is a tribute to all hon. Members and Members of the other place who have campaigned so hard. The change in the situation is like night and day.

The second problem with the motion is that the call for the Government to set a timetable for the introduction of safe-search as a default is confusing. That is the same proposal as mandatory opt-in—it refers simply to Google SafeSearch functionality. The Internet Watch Foundation pointed out to me this morning that that proposal would only screen out material that is sexual in nature, and that anyone seeking illegal child abuse imagery would simply switch it off. That is an important debate, but a slightly different one.

We are already focusing on age verification. The industry is testing much better age verification loops and splash pages. Splash pages alert people who are searching for blocked content that it is illegal and damaging, and that they should go somewhere else to look for help. There is widespread support for that proposal on both sides of the House.

Should we legislate further? As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland knows, I am not at all averse to calling for legislation, but my sense is that, in this space, it is not helpful. Let me explain why. To make protection work, we need three things. First, we need committed politicians who are completely clear on the ask for industry. Secondly, we need engaged companies. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) referred to one problem with legislation. Children now access the internet via mobile phone, but when the Bailey review came out in 2010, there was only one mention of access to the internet via smartphone. The technological world changes faster than we can possibly imagine. It is a falsehood to say that clunky politicians and—forgive me—civil servants can be ahead of that change, as opposed to the companies that monetise that change. We have to get the companies engaged. Thirdly, we need to educate users—parents, grandparents and children—which is why I welcome what has been done in the primary school curriculum to improve e-safety and digital safety.

Therefore, it is depressing that the motion has been presented in a partisan way. We have had a hugely productive agenda in the House for the past two years by working together. I believe that debates such as this one encourage industry to adopt a wait-and-see strategy, and to say, “Well look, the politicians cannot decide. Unless they make things illegal, we’re not going to engage.” That has been the problem with the internet all along. The industry has said, “We’ll wait till you tell us what is illegal, and that’s as much as we will do.” We must move beyond that situation, which we will do by working together.

I have one final point to make. The House will forgive me if I come across as a politician—I do not want to be a politician on this issue; I want to be a pragmatist. Our recommendations go so much further than the Byron recommendations, which were commissioned by the Government of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. Those recommendations used toothless language, did not require any form of legislation, and were not well implemented. They were also based on a completely false ideology that default filters would lull parents into a false sense of security. There is no evidence of that, but the thought has permeated the debate for the past four years. Hon. Members can tell me if they believe that these two of the Byron recommendations are forward thinking or appropriate, or whether they do more than what we have proposed. The first recommendation is that search engines should make it easy to turn safe search on, and the second is that parents should be given free parental controls when they get a new internet connection. Our Government, with huge cross-party support, have done far more than that and made far more progress.

I encourage the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion, to ask to come to the summit next week, and to build a cross-party consensus on the asks. That is how we will make progress and keep our children safe online.

14:29

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I do not profess any specific expertise, but if I have any, it is in relation to the work done on hate crime on the internet. I congratulate the Minister on his work with us. I also congratulate his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and Barbara Follett, who is no longer a Member of the House, on their initiatives. All have been effective, and are appreciated.

I initiated a working group in the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism two years ago. We have managed to get senior executives for content from most of the world’s biggest internet companies to sit on the group, including executives from Apple, Google, Facebook, PayPal, Microsoft and Twitter. We also have one of the key interlocutors in the US on free speech, Professor Jeffrey Rosen, and, from the Ministry of Justice, the seconded Association of Chief Police Officers lead on hate crime, Paul Giannasi.

A report has been produced—it has not yet been circulated, but will be in the next week in this country and throughout the world—that the Minister and the Government will find useful. The report is on the problem of hate crime, but the problem is the same as online protection of children in respect of the grey areas that need to be tightened, the technical solutions and approaches, and the mindset in the industry.

Part of the problem the group has identified is the shadow internet. It is fine setting up solutions, but if that happens in separate countries, people will break them if they want to—they have relatively easy ways to do so. The debate so far has concentrated on websites and search engines, but, in fact, even when it comes to child abuse, gaming is as big a problem and a vastly growing one. Texting, smartphones and social networking are equally significant, growing and changing problems—the modality is changing.

The group makes six recommendations in the report on hate crime—they are relevant to the debate. The first recommendation is to create clear policies and include them within the terms of the service of the internet company. That would be a significant change. The working group has the key players and the decision makers—they are not the sub-decision makers, but the actual decision makers. That recommendation is achievable, and it would be significant.

The second recommendation is for mechanisms to enforce those policies. How do intermediaries, including national Governments, enforce them? For international industries, the role of intermediaries, whether they are specialist groups or national Governments, is a second key principle in the approach that should be taken.

The third and vital recommendation, which resonates with this debate, is to establish clear, user-friendly processes to allow users to report abuse. Those processes are not currently there, but they are achievable. If mechanisms are in place, progress ought to be relatively straightforward—far more straightforward in relation to child abuse than hate speech, where issues of illegality are far more complex—where there is criminality. Clearly, there are technical solutions—I will not go so far as to suggest the software that the CIA has recently, allegedly, used—if the processes are in place.

The fourth recommendation is to increase transparency about terms of service enforcement decisions: case studies. For example, if an individual is prosecuted because someone has reported something that their child has stumbled across, the Government and other third parties have a critical role in how it will be reported and made public.

The fifth recommendation, which is probably specific to hate speech, is to encourage counter-speech. It is the same concept as the splash concept.

The sixth recommendation is to unite the industry. The industry will not always be American—with its concepts of free speech—so it is critical to achieve agreement within the industry while it still is.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

If I can bring the hon. Gentleman back to the third recommendation, he makes a good point about reporting and taking down material. The IWF does a good job in that area. Apparently, last year 1.5 million adults came across abusive content on the internet, but only 40,000 reports were made to IWF, which has the powers to do something about it. There needs to be much greater publicity on how to report to ensure that action can take place.

[John Mann]

Publicity on how to do so and technical ease of use in doing so, so that the democratic internet world can hit back effectively and the industry can be monitored, are key. The key members of the working group who really know what they are talking about would be more than happy to meet the Minister, if he would find that useful. We could bring them over from the US.

To get access to the right people, I went to meet industry leaders in their headquarters in California, and I made the point that their brands were in danger. If the users and third parties, albeit national Governments, can show successes in prosecutions, the industry will throw far more resources at the issue. The industry does throw at lot of resources at it. A third of all Facebook employees are dealing with it, because the dangers to its brand are so fundamental, but at the moment it is less of an issue for other companies. They do see the dangers to their brand, however, which is why senior people from PayPal now turn up to meetings.

I intervened on the Minister—it was not a hostile intervention—on agreements in other countries. One danger is that different countries will do different things. Of course, that is not an excuse for any Government to hold back, but the French Government are taking various legal actions against some of the key internet giants, as are the Italians, and there is a danger that the approach will become too bitty. May I suggest to the Minister that he try to up the stakes and achieve European Union consensus from Britain’s lead? If Britain is ahead of the rest of the European Union, that is a good opportunity to set the standards that others can push up to and take forward. That would be pragmatic and significant. We attack the industry—I am happy to attack the industry in various ways—but it does not want terrorists using its platforms to kill people and it does not want paedophiles using their products to abuse children. That is obvious to me and it is also obvious to the industry.

[Geraint Davies]

Some years ago when I first came across Twitter, I tracked a few people who were following various trends and discovered an image of a man who had been beheaded. I wondered then about the extent to which Twitter could be used as a route into child abuse and what should be done about it.

[John Mann]

I am pleased to say that Twitter participates in the working group that I have managed to initiate. The issues are complex, but all these issues are complex. Last night, I went on to the internet using a mobile device to seek the speech made by the Rev. Leslie Hardman when he went into Belsen concentration camp in 1945. I was immediately content blocked. These issues are not all straightforward, but some outcomes are exceedingly obvious and straightforward. I put it to the Minister that the industry and politicians have a mutual interest. That is the industry’s vulnerability. Finding the tools to expose those who refuse to participate properly and effectively is the key to real progress. If the Minister united the industry around that in Europe, he would make a phenomenal mark. My working group would be delighted to provide any help that it can.

14:47

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

This is an extremely important debate, which deserves wide and thorough consideration in this House. It is right that in recent years much attention has been given to this subject. I pay tribute to the Minister for the way he has responded to the debate, to the Prime Minister for the interest he has shown, and to his adviser, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who has driven the agenda from quite an early stage and to whom credit should be given.

It is also important to give credit to the press, which has fed back persistently and consistently on this subject. I have no doubt that the Daily Mail’s campaign and active interest have contributed to encouraging politicians’ attention on to something that is obviously very important to the public in general, and, dare I say it, to its readers.

I must say, however, that the motion, as it is phrased, is not very helpful. It conflates child sexual abuse content, which is illegal, and adult content which is legal but from which we need to protect children. The actions needed to tackle these different types of content are different and it is very unhelpful to confuse and conflate the two.

This is one of the most dynamic problems we face as a society. As soon as one issue seems to have been dealt with, another problem emerges. That is the nature of today’s fast moving society, but this area of policy is certainly at the leading edge of the speed of change. Technology is developing faster than any Government can legislate, and avoidance measures lead to anti-avoidance measures, which in turn go on in a cycle. This throws up the risk of Members and individuals believing that there are straightforward solutions. That is not the case, and I pay tribute to the Government for stating on the record that their policies will develop. That is the pragmatic approach we need to take. We need to develop clear principles: focusing on helping parents to introduce safety features; offering a choice of filters available from internet service providers; prompting parents towards security features; making it easier for parents to take charge; challenging the industry, which is exceptionally important; and working with law enforcement organisations to combat illegal content.

[Jim Shannon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such a balanced contribution. He will be aware that many companies have a zero-tolerance policy on child sexual abuse. One of those companies is Google, which helps fund and is a member of the IWF. Does he think it is now time that companies that are not members of the IWF joined and helped to fund it and adhered to its policies and principles?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the IWF—I should declare an interest as one of its champions—and would encourage all the industry to join and support its greater funding in the way that Google announced earlier today.

Before the Government’s welcome statement in response to their consultation on the debate over opting in and opting out of adult content, we ran the risk of presenting the situation as one that was relatively simple and where responsibility to protect ourselves could be conveniently passed over to others—for example, to ISPs. In reality, it is not that straightforward; it is far more complicated, and that is my issue with the motion, which, rather than helping, confuses the subject. Thankfully, however, the evidence to the consultation was clear.

I pay tribute to Reg Bailey, the chief executive officer of the Mothers’ Union, who recognised that complexity, against the general direction of the debate at the time and against those calling for a simple opt in/opt out approach—or an appropriate variant of it. A filter not only passes responsibility from parents to large organisations, whose judgments might be completely different from those of individual families, but makes false promises, because of the avoidance measures I mentioned earlier. Encryption, for example, is a typical problem that an ISP filter would not overcome, but a parent would not necessarily understand that.

At the moment, about 30% of customers choose to have an ISP opt-out. If the policy was reversed—so that people had to opt into adult content—the proportion would likely be much higher, which would run the risk of legal adult content providers using common avoidance techniques, such as encryption or proxy servers, which create further problems. Web proxies, which are a more recent development, and peer-to-peer networks are also not covered by ISP-level filters, but, believing their household computer to be safe, parents would be led into a false sense of security.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman not admit that some of these measures would make it safer for the average parent than the present situation?

[Alun Cairns]

I am coming to that very point. Challenges remain, but the last thing we want to do is create the impression that this is a simple issue and that children and families can be protected at the flick of a switch; it is much more complicated than that and deserves an intelligent debate. We need to recognise the differences in these areas, rather than giving the impression, as some Members have, that the flick of a switch will make the difference. An ISP filter would be oblivious to the very risks from which we need to protect children. Furthermore, such filters would not protect against bullying, grooming or other serious risks, but at the same time they would give parents a false sense of security.

One of the most effective answers—there will be several answers, and filters have a part to play, but they are not the only solution—is for a parent to show a genuine interest in what is being viewed online. I am pleased that the debate over the past year or so has focused the minds of technology providers on making device-level and even profile-level security features and filters easier to use and understand. Google has its SafeSearch, for example, while Windows 8 has made significant steps: it can e-mail parents a list of all the sites viewed by a householder so that they can check themselves what the child has been looking at. Furthermore, now when someone signs up to an ISP or sets up a new router, they are asked what settings they want, not only for the household, but for each computer. It needs to go even further, however, down to profile level, because the same computer can be used by different people. It is important, therefore, that we have the right profile filter settings to protect the children using the computer. Clearly, technology companies need to do more to communicate that message and help parents further.

My comments so far have related to legal adult content, but we would all agree that the far more serious issues surround illegal content, particularly that involving the abuse of children—the area on which most of the recent public debate has focused. It is extremely important that we distinguish between legal and illegal content. This should not be a party political issue and there are no easy solutions. Some content might be distasteful, but might well be available on shelves of newsagents or shops in Soho.

[Ms Abbott]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alun Cairns]

I am running short of time, but if the hon. Lady will allow me to make my point, I might answer her question.

We need to recognise, however, that the policing of such shops is relatively straightforward and that in general children cannot access or stumble across such material. Appropriate filters should stop the “stumbling across” element, but that leaves us with the policing. We need to publicise the work of the IWF and reassure people who might report issues to it that they will not necessarily be compromised. Much attention is focused on search engine companies, and it is important that they play their part—they have a responsibility here—but having researched their activities, I am aware of some of the technology they use to identify illegal content. They can claim to be playing a part, therefore, but search engines need to be at the cutting edge of image analysis and coding—they need to be one step ahead of the perpetrators of these terrible offences.

By focusing the debate on search engines, as some Members did earlier, we are forgetting that hosting is where the offence effectively lies. If a website has been scratched from the search engine, the URL still exists and those seeking to view illegal content can go straight to that address. The IWF, which has been mentioned several times—I welcome the extra money made available to it today—has made a huge difference. Some 1% of the content it removes from the internet is hosted in the UK; 54% is hosted in north America; 37% is hosted across the rest of Europe and Russia; the figure for Asia is only 1%; and for South America it is even smaller. Those are the issues. It is an international problem.

14:57

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate.

It is clear that neither the Minister nor anyone else can solve this problem on their own, but the Government can take action to help protect children online. My particular concern centres on the unmonitored use of the internet by those whom we already know to have a history of sex offending. The Government’s consultation on parental internet control stated that it was looking into the best way of shielding children from harmful and adult content, including sites that exposed children to online sexual grooming. Most of the debate and consultation in this area have focused on restricting access to adult, pornographic and child abuse material, but in looking at the most serious threat—of grooming and sexual abuse—we need to be serious not just about the online content, but about online users and those with whom children come into contact online.

In my maiden speech, I began with a few words about Ashleigh Hall, a young woman who lived in my constituency. When she was 17, she was murdered by a registered sex offender she met on Facebook. The 33-year-old offender used a fake identity, and for his profile took a picture of a younger man in order to start talking to and grooming Ashleigh. After she agreed to meet him, the offender posed as his internet personality’s father in order to pick her up, after which he abducted, raped and murdered her.

This man had a history of violent sexual offences, including multiple charges of sexual assault, rape and kidnapping. He was known to be dangerous and was a registered sex offender, but although he and his home were registered and expected to be monitored, his internet use was not. He was under no obligation to register his online identities, and I have learned that any refusal to do so would have been met with no action whatever. The authorities had no idea what images he was looking at or who he was communicating with.

We know that one quarter of 12 to 15-year-olds report using social networking sites to communicate with people they do not already know. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre receives more than 600 reports of grooming each month, yet as the situation stands, people we recognise as a serious threat to public safety are monitored in the community but not online, where they have as much access, if not perhaps more, to building relationships with young people and may pretend to be someone they are not.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the Labour party’s proposals refers to making extra resources available to the police to ensure that these things can be monitored. Could that have prevented that case from happening?

[Jenny Chapman]

It is very difficult to say what might have prevented this tragedy, but the Government need to look with some urgency at the power to monitor the internet use of people whom we know to be a threat to children.

It is not acceptable for a known offender to have unmonitored online access in order to socialise with young people. I have raised this issue in the House before and asked the Government to make progress towards requiring sex offenders to register their online identities. Child protection and online safety will be significantly aided if that is a notification requirement for registered sex offenders as a matter of course, and if failure to do so is regarded with just as much seriousness as an offender failing to register the fact that they were living with young children. In 2011, the Government consulted on the prescribed information that offenders are expected to disclose, including increased notification requirements for foreign travel and living arrangements, and even changes to ensure that an offender could not avoid the register by changing their name, but the issue of online identification was not addressed.

It is often repeated that parents must take the lead in protecting their children in online activity, and so they must. However, parents such as Ashleigh’s mum deserve to know that dangerous people who are already known to the police and authorities are not left with the unchecked freedom to groom further victims. We know who these people are, but false, manipulative online identities mean that young people such as Ashleigh do not know whom they are speaking to. Access to inappropriate material for young children is very concerning, but I expect that controlling it will be a constant battle, with technology inevitably outpacing the law. My suggestion is to make a simple change, which follows the accepted principles of existing requirements on registered offenders, but it could make all the difference to a family’s safety. I am glad that we are debating measures to protect young people online. I would simply ask that, as well as considering the broad safeguards that we seek to introduce, we also focus on the internet use of those whom we already know have a history of sexual offending.

15:03

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I am pleased to take part in this debate. I congratulate the Labour party on calling it and using up one of their Supply days to raise a serious and important matter to us all.

It seems that every great invention that we make as human beings brings both benefits and disbenefits. I think of the internal combustion engine, which led to the car, which gives us all great mobility but creates pollution and kills 3,500 of our citizens on the roads every year. Now we have the internet, which gives us amazing access to information and the ability to interact socially, but can allow access to all kinds of unsavoury and potentially harmful material. It is vital that we do a better job of protecting our children, and I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken so far.

I have just two points to make in this debate. I do not pretend to be an expert and I certainly do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) in his technological knowledge. These points have been drawn to my attention by the British Board of Film Classification, which I would describe as a trusted and familiar friend to most of us, as we see its image before films. I think back to the first film I went to see, the James Bond film “Thunderball”, in 1965—obviously I was a baby.

[Alun Cairns]

What was the certificate?

[Mr Streeter]

I do not know what the certificate was, but may I just get on with my speech?

My point is that we trust the BBFC’s classifications. When the Video Recordings Act 1984 was passed, more than 25 years ago, certain video works—I will come to online content in a second—were made exempt from classification because they were considered unlikely to be harmful. However, the content of exempt works has changed beyond recognition since 1984, which means that inappropriate and potentially harmful content can be legally supplied to children. On 24 May 2013, the Government announced that it planned to lower the exemptions threshold in order to prevent children from accessing potentially harmful material, so well done to the Government. This is a most welcome decision, for which the BBFC—along with the home entertainment industry, the recorded music industry, retailers and law enforcement bodies—had argued for some time.

Once implemented, the decision will improve the protection that children enjoy from potentially harmful media content by ensuring that video content such as drug misuse, strong violence, racist language and certain sexual content can no longer legally be freely supplied to children. Instead, the BBFC will classify such content to keep it away from vulnerable and impressionable children. The Government have said that they hope to have the new regime in place by April 2014, and I very much hope—I know that the Minister is listening carefully—that the Government will keep to that timetable, which requires secondary legislation. However, the legislation has never covered online content, and there is now particular concern about the content of online music videos.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about the Government’s welcome announcement. There is still a problem though, because although there is some classification of adult content and 18 video ratings in gaming now, Auntie Mabel who buys a video for her grandchild at Christmas needs to be made absolutely aware of the severity of some of the content to which she might inadvertently be exposing her grandchildren. We need better information in the shops and on the part of retailers at the point of sale, so that she can ask whether she really wants her grandchildren to see that sort of content.

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am sure that those on the Front Bench have taken it on board, and no doubt the Minister will deal with it explicitly in winding up.

The issue of online music videos, to which the Bailey report also referred, must be seriously considered. My attention was recently drawn to an online video made by a well known pop singer—I had not heard of her before, but never mind—which showed explicit shots of a young teenage girl, concerned about her body image, slitting her wrists in the bath. It is the video to a well known song—I remember hearing it in my house. Although it has a happy ending, I would argue that the graphic scenes in that video—which I am sure parents would allow their children to watch in a very relaxed way—are far too explicit and dangerous for young teenage children to watch. We all know that many of the children who follow these pop stars are very young and impressionable. At the very least, online videos should contain some kind of classification.

The Government are rightly pressing the music industry voluntarily to adopt age-appropriate ratings for online music videos. In response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) said:

“The Government will now take action to: make sure that online music videos carry labels that show their age suitability, in order to protect children from harmful material; and make it even easier for parents to keep their children safe online, wherever they are and in whatever way they might access the internet.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1263W.]

The onus has therefore been placed on the music industry to come forward with a system that will work.

The BBFC hopes to work with the recorded music industry towards the goal of achieving well understood and trusted age ratings and content advice for online music videos, as it has done successfully with the home entertainment industry in relation to other online videos. The BBFC has now rated more than 200,000 videos for online distribution by such companies as Walt Disney, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, Universal and Sony. BBFC ratings are used by platforms such as iTunes, Netflix, blinkbox, BT Vision and TalkTalk—some of which I had heard of.

[Tim Loughton]

Have you used any of them?

[Mr Streeter]

No, I have not used any of them.

One obvious solution that the music industry could consider in response to the Government’s demands for age-appropriate ratings for online music videos would be to adopt BBFC classifications voluntarily online. Does the Minister agree that that would be a constructive way forward?

My final point relates to user-generated content—UGC. Independent research from June 2011 shows that while the public believe that the internet brings greater choice, freedom and flexibility, the majority of viewers still consider it important to be able to check the suitability of the audio-visual content that they download, with 85% of the public considering it important to have consistent BBFC classifications available for video-on-demand content. The figure rises to 90% for parents of children under 16.

However, it is amateur user-generated content such as that seen on YouTube that makes up the majority of video content online. This might feature content that is potentially harmful to children—I accessed the video to which I referred earlier through YouTube this morning—and it is presently unregulated. The BBFC and the Dutch regulator NICAM have together developed a tool for ordinary people to age-rate UGC across different countries and platforms. I hope that my technological friend to my right, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, will consider that a good thing.

The tool is designed to enable those with responsibility for children to make fully informed viewing choices about non-professional content online. Through a single, simple, free-to-complete questionnaire, the tool instantaneously produces an age rating that can be shown on screen. The ratings can differ from country to country to reflect different national sensitivities and concerns over content. The tool is simple. It contains six questions about the content of the UGC, on behaviour, drugs, horror, language, sex and violence. Completing the questionnaire takes less than a couple of minutes. It also includes a facility for viewers to report content that, in their view, might be illegal. In the UK, such a report would go direct to the Internet Watch Foundation, about which much has been said this afternoon.

The tool is also flexible. For instance, the questionnaire may be completed by those uploading content. Alternatively, it may be completed by those viewing the content online. The ratings can be linked to online filters. This new initiative will shortly be trialled by Mediaset in Italy, and the BBFC and NICAM are looking for trial partners elsewhere, including in the United Kingdom. This is an example of the kind of initiative that can make the online world safer for children, and it has been welcomed by the EU Commission’s Safer Internet Coalition. I very much hope that our Government will get behind this initiative to help parents and children to make better informed choices about user-generated content. As we have heard this afternoon, there is no silver bullet on this issue, but with such incremental advances, our children will be better protected.

15:12

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The motion rightly starts with the issue of child sex abuse, recent cases of which have caused so many of us such distress. I want to start by praising the brilliant work of the Internet Watch Foundation; like many other Members, I am one of its champions. I thank the EU for funding it, and I say to Google, “We’re glad you have increased the amount you give to the foundation, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want your taxes.”

I want to focus on the second part of the motion, which considers the broader issue of child protection on the internet. We know that 90% of children live in homes that have internet access, and more than half of those children have internet access in their bedrooms. I got those figures from the report produced by the inquiry on which I was proud to serve with the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). It includes some excellent recommendations, and it has moved this agenda forward in an important way. She described me as fulfilling the need for a representative on that body from the leftie atheist end of the spectrum. We were able to put on the agenda an issue that had not been sufficiently addressed before. Since then, I have been thinking about how many children have internet access not only in their bedrooms but on the mobile devices in their pockets. I suggest that that applies to a substantial proportion of our children.

[Mr Burrowes]

This right-wing Christian served on the inquiry along with that left-wing atheist. Does the hon. Lady agree that the momentum created by the inquiry has led to internet service providers becoming more receptive and that it has moved things on? In some ways, it has created a sea change. We now need to work with them to ensure that they bring about real, practical change, rather than simply positioning ourselves.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I do not think that that is what is happening in this debate. I will come to that point in a moment, as it has also been raised by other hon. Members.

The conclusion of our cross-party report was that parents need help, a topic that has been dealt with to some extent already in the debate. We need to think of better ways of helping parents, because what we have is not enough. I genuinely think that home-level security controls can make a huge difference. The technocrats on the Conservative Benches might suggest that such controls are much less powerful than we think, but they are much more powerful than what is often used currently. We must not make the best the enemy of the good.

Companies need to step up to the mark, and we have been able to put pressure on some of them to do so. During our inquiry, TalkTalk showed how it would be possible to have home-level security arrangements, even though other companies said that it would not be possible to do it in that way. Now, those other companies are beginning to face up to the fact that it is possible.

[Alun Cairns]

I still want to underline the point that there are relatively easy ways of getting around some of those filters. We must not give the impression that having such filters will protect families and individuals.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Gentleman might well be right. Most filters are too complicated for someone like me to implement—a point that I kept making during the inquiry. I simply cannot do that thing where you have to type in about 25 digits and letters in order to make a filter work; and that is chronically true of mums.

[Ms Abbott]

The problem with those filters is that it takes a long time to master their installation, but it takes the average self-respecting child less than an hour to get round them.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend is right. However, what we can do by installing home-level filters is increase the base level of security. It is true that some people can get round them, but if we increase the base level of security, we are giving some extra help to some parents.

We also need to help children to protect themselves. I was really disappointed by yesterday’s debate, which I connect to this subject, on whether sex and relationships education in schools should be compulsory. We do not have to take the word of a leftie atheist on this; let us take the words of Ofsted, which has stated:

“A lack of high-quality, age-appropriate sex-and-relationships education in more than a third of schools is a concern as it may leave children and young people vulnerable to inappropriate sexual behaviours and sexual exploitation. This is because they have not been taught the appropriate language or developed the confidence to describe unwanted behaviours or know where to go to for help.”

The report also found that, in just under half of schools, pupils had received lessons about staying safe but few had developed the skills to apply their understanding effectively, such as assertiveness skills that enable them to stand up for themselves and negotiate their way through difficult situations. We need to give children those skills, and to ensure that they can keep themselves safe. Ofsted also pointed out that children understand the importance of applying security settings on social networking sites but that they did not always know how to set them, or did not bother to do so. Our sex and relationships education is failing children, leaving them unable to keep themselves safe.

The work of Laura Bates and the Everyday Sexism project was honoured at a dinner, held in memory of Emily Wilding Davison, that I attended last night. Everyday Sexism was honoured because it recognises how sexism can be really dangerous for young girls. I have heard Laura talk about how young girls who have been shown gross images of pornography and sexual violence by young boys are often frightened of sex. They think that sex is something cruel, horrible and dangerous. We have to bring back the connection between love and sex; it is being destroyed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has described as our “pornified” society. She is right; it makes society a dangerous place for young girls to live in. First of all, we need to help parents to protect them; we secondly expect the companies to improve their levels of protection; and we thirdly need to enable children to protect themselves. For that reason, I believe this debate is closely related to the amendment that Labour moved yesterday on compulsory sex and relationships education in schools, which needs to include the issue of consent.

Some Members said earlier, “Let’s make this a cross-party issue”, and I am willing to do that. I have worked across party on the excellent inquiry on the safety of children on the internet. If the Minister said to the Opposition Front-Bench team, “I will invite you to the summit dealing with URLs and providers, as you should be there”, I would then believe that this was a genuinely cross-party issue, and I would invite my Front-Bench team not to press this motion to the vote. I am thus challenging the Minister to do that in his response. I would hope that if he did so my Front-Bench team would say, “Okay, we do not need a vote; this is genuinely cross-party; we are unanimous and we will together do more to protect our children from a violent society that is making them frightened of sexual relationships.” We should feel very guilty if the result of what we do is to create a world in which sex is scary.

15:21

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I was not planning to speak, but I found the tenor of so much of what has been said so frustrating in its lack of accuracy that I had to speak. I would exempt some speeches, particularly that of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who used technical accuracy, which does matter. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for whom I usually have great respect, but she gave it away when she complained about “the technocrats”. Technical accuracy matters if we are going to do things that work. We need to know exactly what “inviting urls to a meeting” is supposed to mean.

There is a huge danger of falling into the trap of the politician’s syllogism: we must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this. That is the danger we face. Is there a problem? Absolutely, there is a huge problem with child pornography, which is nasty, cruel and illegal. We have to stop it. The Internet Watch Foundation does an excellent job in trying to do so. Is there a problem with young people having inappropriate access? Yes. Is there a problem with online grooming? Yes. Is there a problem with online cyber-bullying? Absolutely. Is there a problem with the widespread sexualisation of young women in particular? Absolutely, and I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for her consistent work to combat it.

The approach highlighted today, particularly by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), simply will not work. I find that frustrating, as it does not engage with the facts or reality of what is happening. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was heckling earlier and said that we should not focus on the detail. If we do not focus on the detail, we will not get something that works.

What would work? I absolutely endorse the work of the Internet Watch Foundation. It does excellent work and I am delighted to see it getting more funding, as I think it should have extra support. I am pleased, too, that the Government are supporting CEOP so that when we find people carrying out illegal activities, we take the correct legal action. That is what should happen. We should never allow a situation in which the police simply do not have the money to arrest somebody who they know is doing something illegal.

The things we have heard about today will not make a difference. The people who are heavily engaged in child pornography will not be tackled. Those people are very internet savvy. They will use virtual private networks that are not listed, so nothing we have heard about today will tackle any of those problems. We have to work at the technical level to get things right rather than just try to make it look as if we are doing something.

In some ways, child pornography is easier to deal with because it is possible to define it. We know what is illegal and there are clear definitions. The IWF has a manual check for the sites. Certain sites can be blocked only when it knows that there is something wrong. That is very different from the space around legal material, or trying to come up with ways of filtering out things that are fundamentally legal and making a judgment call based on them.

[Helen Goodman]

We are making judgment calls all the time.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but writing algorithms to do that on millions and millions of websites simply cannot be done correctly. I shall come back to that, although I know that the hon. Lady and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham are not concerned about the errors that would be made.

It is absolutely right to provide tools for parents to control what is happening. They should be the ones empowered to look after their children. I would rather trust the parents to look after their children than require state-level controls. It is absolutely right to have those available for people to use and to make them easy and clear to use. I think there should be no default because I think we should encourage parents to engage with the question before they make a decision. They should be faced with a box that they have to tick, but they should be in charge. The Byron review was very clear that a false sense of security could be created if we just tell people that everything is safe.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The problem here is that we are not dealing with simply looking at a book or magazine and deciding whether it is suitable for a child. We are dealing with something that many people have said—this has been the focus of much of the research—they find very difficult to operate. The outcome is that many parents are not able to use those filters.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is right, which is exactly why we need simpler filters. The work done by Talk Talk and others provides precisely that. There should be simple clear filters with simple clear questions so that parents can have a look and make a simple clear decision. I do not want to force parents to abdicate that responsibility because there are other consequences of these filters.

Any filtering system will have large errors. There will be errors that mean it does not filter out some things that we might want it to filter out because it cannot be sorted out perfectly. There is no way of indentifying automatically what counts as pornography and what does not; what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. That is simply impossible to achieve, so stuff will get through that we are not expecting to get through. There is also the problem of filtering some useful things out. There are already many cases—when it comes to advice for lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, for example—where mobile phone providers automatically filter out the content, which can cause serious harm to young people trying to get advice. Trying to get advice about abortion services is another problem. There are a whole range of such issues that are automatically filtered out by many mobile phone providers. If we are telling children that we do not want to let them have appropriate information, that can be damaging.

[Tim Loughton]

I should declare an interest as a champion of the Internet Watch Foundation. I am slightly disappointed at the rather defeatist attitude taken by the hon. Gentleman. The solution is not a silver bullet. It is not any one of the individual things that have been mentioned; it is a jigsaw. Empowering and giving resilience and confidence to our children—and confidence, resilience and expertise to their parents to be able to filter what they believe to be right and wrong—is an important part of that jigsaw. Filters have their flaws, but they are part of that jigsaw as well. Will the hon. Gentleman admit that some of the things mentioned during the debate are part of the solution and that we should not dismiss them simply because they are not absolutely perfect?

[Dr Huppert]

I agreed with almost everything the hon. Gentleman said, until the end. Yes, I think we should empower parents to make the correct decisions, and I believe we should educate children so that they can think for themselves and be empowered. I absolutely agree with all of that, but that is not what the motion says and it is not what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland emphasised. The hon. Gentleman and I would agree that there are some important measures for empowerment: the problem is, if we provide an illusion of protection, which gives people a false sense of security, that can make people less safe. It can leave children more exposed than doing things that actually work. It also downgrades the role of parents and parenting.

Moreover, we must accept that any filter can be bypassed. It is easy for those who know what they are doing to carry out a quick Google search and find out how to bypass any filter that they encounter, and there is no way in which we could prevent that from happening. We must therefore try to engage with people rather than introducing state control in the form of legislation to force search engines to run in a particular way, because that does not work. [Interruption.] The motion calls for legislation. If the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland does not believe that it should, that is her problem. Perhaps it suggests that motions should be tabled rather earlier than a few hours before the deadline for any changes.

Yes, we must do something, but what we do must work, must be proportionate, and must make things better for the people about whom we are concerned. That, rather than what was suggested by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, is the way forward. I commend the Minister—it is good to see him back in the Chamber—for his work on the issue, for his commitment to trying to deal with the problems in a way that will make a difference, and for the position that he has taken today.

15:29

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

While we are all patting ourselves on the back and saying that there is widespread agreement—and there clearly is widespread agreement—we should also bear it in mind that there is a considerable campaign against the taking of steps in this direction. It has not really been represented in the House today, but it is clear from earlier debates, and from communications that we have all received, that there is another point of view which is very different. There are people who want a degree of freedom in society that can actually be damaging, and we must be prepared to have a proper debate about that as well.

The issue of freedom is very important in the history of events such as the women’s movement, but there has often been a confusion between freedom in a fairly abstract sense—for instance, the sexual liberation of the 1960s—and the effect that some material can have on, in particular, those who are vulnerable. Much of what appears on the internet and elsewhere is damaging because of the way in which it portrays women, the way in which it portrays relationships between men and women, and the way in which it allows people to see a version of human relations that is deeply damaging.

People sometimes say that such material will not be harmful to many people, but it probably will be. It is interesting that the same argument is never advanced about advertising. People do not advertise because they think that advertising does not work; they advertise because they think that advertisements influence us, and indeed we are all clearly influenced by them. We have all found ourselves going into a shop and buying something that we may not have meant to buy because we saw or heard an advertisement for it, and thought “That sounds like a good idea.” I am not suggesting that someone who stumbles across pornography, online or anywhere else, is bound to turn into a violent person, but there will be some people whose attitudes, particularly their attitudes to what is acceptable between men and women, will be affected by it.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend has made an important point about the availability of images on the internet. There are more child abuse images circulating on the internet now than ever before. As a result of freedom of information requests by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, about 26 million images were seized in two years by five local forces. Does my hon. Friend agree that the availability of such material is leading to a potential normalisation of it, and that that is one of the most important problems that we must tackle in the interests of our children today?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree that we should take that problem very seriously, and should take action to deal with it.

This is not only about protecting children, although that is extremely important. It is also about protecting older young people, and about protecting adults and, hopefully, changing their views. I think that if certain types of behaviour are normalised and become commonplace, they will eventually be seen as broadly acceptable, and the relationships that are portrayed between men and women will be considered not unacceptable, but something that women themselves are almost expected to accept.

I think that it is important to deal with this. I thought that it was important many years ago when groups were campaigning about, for example, pornography in magazines, but this type of pornography is pervasive in a way that even that was not. Going to buy a magazine in a shop was a more difficult transaction for many people than what we now see happening in our homes.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does my hon. Friend also think that ISPs have a vested interest in that regard? If adults had to opt in to view adult sites and pornography, that would almost certainly have an impact on business and the number of people choosing that option.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In many ways, I would hope that that was not the case. I do not know where the ISPs make their money, but many of us are critical of their reluctance in this matter. One or two Members have suggested today that, because some of the proposals would not be perfect and would not screen out everything and because some organisations and people might be clever enough to get around them in various technical ways that we do not necessarily fully understand, we should not take those steps. As in so much of our political and social lives, we should not make the best the enemy of the good. If we can do something to improve things, we should do it.

[Alun Cairns]

I want to highlight that I am a strong advocate and fan of filters, but I think it is very dangerous to give the impression that they are the whole answer. The solution is far more complicated than that and we must be clear about it.

[Sheila Gilmore]

We must not approach this at cross purposes. I do not think that anyone is saying that any of the proposals are perfect; we are merely seeking to improve the situation and to give greater protection. I have no doubt that there will be some very clever people who can find ways around all sorts of things—we know that that happens—but to say that we should not put such measures in place for that reason would be wholly wrong.

Let me address some of what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said. He seemed, perhaps surprisingly, to be setting the state against the parent in a way that is not helpful. Of course parents should be making decisions for their children, but there are many circumstances in which we have to rely on others in schools and in the wider world to protect our children. That is not an abdication of parental responsibility, because parents cannot be with their child all the time. They will not be able to supervise every social contact they have. As a parent, I would certainly prefer to be confident that I could let my children out into a world that I could regard as reasonably safe—whether that was the physical or virtual world—than to be unable to do so. Perhaps that is not what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, but that was how it came across to me. Suggesting that such an approach somehow does not leave things to the parents and that it wants the state to step in is a wholly wrong way of considering the matter.

[Dr Huppert]

The concern is that the filters will be easy to bypass and that a huge proportion of young people will be able to get past them. If parents are led to believe that such things mean that their children will not be able to access inappropriate material when they are up in their room on their computer, that will lead them to make the wrong decisions about how best to look after their children. It is not that parents do not know how to do that—as we know from when parents were asked about the subject by Ofcom, this is a question of supervision, which is far more effective than a misleading sense of security.

[Sheila Gilmore]

One of the practical problems with that approach is the notion that someone is, in any sense, going to be there supervising their children through all this—we all do our best. We attempt to instil the values and behaviours that we want in our children, but it would be wrong to suggest that that will always work, even for those of us who think, or hope, we are or have been very good parents. Children grow older and they are out in that wider world—in friends’ homes or out in all sorts of other social contexts. I want my children to be protected from being able to buy alcohol when they are too young to buy it. I do not want to have to accompany them everywhere to make sure they do not do that; I want to be sure that they are, within reason, protected. However, I know that that can be got round as well, because I know that children are very good at getting fake IDs. That does not mean that we should just abandon the attempt to control these things.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The wind-ups are due to start at 4.10 pm, so I am establishing a time limit on all Back-Bench speakers of six minutes. If there are lots of interventions and speeches run for longer than six minutes, the last few speakers will have their time cut again. Please remember that interventions are supposed to brief and relevant to the point being made at the time. I call Diane Abbott.

15:40

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be speaking in this important debate. Throughout it, we have heard a lot about committees, working parties and foundations, but I want to bring the debate back to what is at the heart of this issue—children and families. I say to the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) that I bow to no one in my respect for the enthusiasm with which she has embraced this issue since she became a Member of Parliament in 2010, but she must be slightly careful about sounding as if politics began when she became a Member of Parliament. It is also appropriate to give some credit to all the individual activists, and to organisations such as the Mothers’ Union and the Everyday Sexism Project, for campaigning on these issues for very many years before 2010.

A number of Government Members have made the distinction between legal and illegal internet images, as if the legal ones are in some sense benign. Let me remind the House that it would not be legal to show those images to under-18s in a cinema, so why should we be complacent about under-18s accessing them online? Over and over again, I have heard Members of this House say, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) did, “Parents should look after their children. It is all about the parents.” One of the problems with this particular issue is that the technology and the drive of the industry has completely outrun parents’ understanding. When I was a child, if a young person wanted to see pornography, they had to go to a newsagent and purchase a top-shelf magazine. No newsagent would have sold such a magazine to a child as young as 11, yet the average age of boys accessing hardcore porn online has dropped to eight. That is what we are talking about. We would not allow eight-year-olds to go into a cinema to see hardcore porn, so why are Government Members so complacent, or unwilling to take decisive action, about eight-year-olds accessing this online—on their computer, on their phone or wherever?

People who say, “The parents should sit by them” are not living in the world that parents do. I have sat next to my son when he was a much smaller child and we have been innocently googling “Disney” or “Pokémon” only to find that these pornographic pop-ups appear on the screen. If the child is there on their own, all they have to do is click through to see thoroughly horrific images—that is the reality.

This is all about ease of access, the way in which the technology has come on in leaps and bounds and the harms of online porn. In the few minutes available to me, I want to touch on that. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) spoke from her own experience about it. We are dealing with an increasingly sexualised and pornified culture. Even if our own children are not accessing porn, the extent to which young people are doing so is affecting girls’ self-image and boys’ sexual demands. Girls now think it perfectly normal to sext pictures of their naked bodies to boys; otherwise they are not accepted—not part of the gang. We in this country have more plastic surgery than people anywhere else in Europe. Accessing online porn is associated with domestic violence and, as we have heard, murder and brutality. There are real harms attached to the increasing access by very young children of online porn, and I wish some Government Members had taken the matter more seriously.

As for the role of the industry, I am very glad that everyone is sitting round the table with the industry, and I am glad that the industry is being nice, but this House must remember that pornography is the biggest driver of traffic to the internet. Porn is the most frequent search term on Google. We cannot allow an industry that makes millions out of porn, month on month, to dictate the pace of change.

What needs to happen? No one is saying that there is one technological fix; not a single speaker has said that. First, we need to help parents to talk to their children. Through Sure Start and other initiatives, we need to encourage young parents to understand how to talk to their children about these matters, and to understand the dangers. Most young children do not understand that if they text or put on Facebook a picture of their naked body, it never disappears. We need to help parents to talk to their children, but we also need statutory sex and relationships education. No one will take the Government seriously on the matter of access by children to online porn while they continue to set their face against statutory sex and relationship education.

Of course, we need a willingness to legislate. I am very glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), sits around the table with the industry, and that many members of the Government have personal connections with Google and so forth, but women and families watching this debate do not want the industry to dictate the pace of change. They want a Government who are prepared to stand up to the industry and to legislate, because only with a realistic threat of legislation will the industry meet these needs and concerns, and address the unhappiness and misery that children’s access to online porn is causing in our society.

15:46

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My constituency is not that far from where the tragic death of April Jones took place, and there was much reflection in the communities that make up my constituency on the issues surrounding that death, and on the mindset of Mark Bridger. I do not make any pretence of great technical knowledge, and I was reminded of that point yet again yesterday when I failed to add a printer to my computer; instead, I went on to another. That is not the issue. For me, this is not a general, abstract debate on what is, and what is not, censorship. It is about how things that would not in a million years be legal offline seem to be legal online. That is a matter of great concern. Offline, we would not allow young children access to the sort of images that they can access online, and that is of great concern.

Some people will try to portray this as a debate about censorship. We know what censorship means; it happens in certain countries, where there is the total blocking of social networking and references to the Dalai Lama, and a ban on certain political viewpoints. We are not talking about that.

Various American states have brought in legislation on the issue, including, in some cases, state-mandated internet filtering on various computers. Certain states have passed laws against digital harassment. The state of Illinois has criminalised electronic harassment outside the school setting. That is interesting, and it is important that we learn from those experiences.

I was heartened by what the Minister said when my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) brought up the issue of closing the loophole regarding rape pornography websites. It has been illegal to publish portrayals of rape in the UK since 1959, but such material is legally available to download online if it comes from foreign websites. I am heartened by what the Minister said; I think I detect a certain softening of what the Ministry of Justice has previously said on that, and I hope that the Government take the views of many individuals and groups into consideration.

The Minister and other Members have spoken at length about the excellent work of CEOP. Figures provided by CEOP show that only one in every 15 people caught viewing child pornography on the internet is arrested. The NSPCC has said that when agencies such as CEOP track down people viewing pictures of child abuse, they should

“feel the full force of the law”,

making the point that it was shocked by the figures and calling on police chiefs to take the issue more seriously because of the strong link between viewing child porn and attacks on youngsters. As a spokeswoman for YoungMinds, a charity committed to improving the emotional well-being and mental health of children and young people said, the link between viewing child pornography and the sexual abuse of children means that

“thousands are at risk of serious harm”.

That is an important point highlighting the need to arrest more of the people involved.

In 2008, for the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, Professor Tanya Byron stressed the importance of building children’s resilience; for example, teaching them not to give out contact details online. I, too, was disappointed that we did not have the debate on relationship education yesterday and I hope it will come back in another format.

Finally, many of us have been interested in the debate taking place on Facebook where to some extent we are seeing citizen power, with people contacting the advertisers of various sites and stating that they will not buy their products unless they put pressure on certain social networking sites to take down, for example, jokes relating to rape. We all know that we cannot totally police the internet but it is important that we try to do that in diverse ways, and that we come together as a House to do so. This is not an issue about social liberals or social conservatives. I am quite happy to say that I am a social conservative inside the Labour party, although my more socially liberal friends are not always pleased about that. It is important that the issue brings us together and that we continue to work on it because, as we saw in the case of April Jones, in its most extreme form its consequences are truly devastating.

15:52

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). I declare myself a dinosaur where online issues are concerned. I was going to say the same thing about my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), but she is much more modern than I am. Although she, I and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were elected 26 years ago yesterday, she is thoroughly modern in her approach. She was able to name the Pokémons as one of the groups that children look at online, though Pokémons are perfectly fine as creatures and they probably need protection from the children.

In the short time available to us to speak, let me say that I normally go to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee, for advice on these matters, and I listened carefully to what he said about filters. However, I think the real responsibility is on the internet companies and the service providers. They have got away with murder—literally, in some cases—because people have been able to use the internet to groom young girls and children and to behave in an irresponsible way. The internet companies throw up their hands and say that is freedom of speech.

We recently had some of those companies before the Home Affairs Committee during our last inquiry and also during a previous inquiry, so we have questioned them about both the roots of radicalism and e-crime. We will invite them again when we look at this matter again. They are very reluctant to intervene, and a tiny proportion of their profits—a tiny proportion—goes to the Internet Watch Foundation. It is not enough. They cannot sit back complacently and allow these things to go on without intervening and cleaning up the internet.

The Home Secretary has made positive statements, after what happened in Woolwich, about her desire to get things done. I am glad that there is a summit next week. I hope that she will be invited and that this is not just being seen as an issue for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because when dealing with crime it is important to ensure that the police are fully involved.

[Tim Loughton]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Keith Vaz]

I will get into trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will give way briefly.

[Tim Loughton]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the search engines, most of which are based in America, pleading freedom of speech. Does he agree that every search engine could have a simple sign on its home page alerting users to how they can report material they are concerned about, which would cost nothing? That way, there would be no excuse for not knowing what to do. They could also put money into having moderators to ensure a rapid response to unacceptable material.

[Keith Vaz]

Yes, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all the work he did in that area as Children’s Minister and since then. The internet companies must be proactive. They have to go in and clean up the internet. They cannot just sit back and allow others to do it for them. It is so difficult to get internet companies to appear before Select Committees. It takes an age to find them, and then they always respond by saying that they are based in California or New York and therefore do not come over to the UK. They send us their public relations officers, but they, very nice people though they are, are not the decision makers.

I am full of praise for the work CEOP does. I have visited it, along with members of the Home Affairs Committee, and encourage other right hon. and hon. Members to go—it is just across the Vauxhall Bridge road—and see the fantastic work being done. I pay tribute to Jim Gamble for his work in setting it up in the first place and to Peter Davies, who leads it ably. I say to the Policing Minister—he is now in conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who has done a great deal of work in these matters, for which we are grateful—that it is very important that we protect CEOP’s budget. The Home Affairs Committee expressed concern that CEOP was being put into the National Crime Agency. We accept what the Government have done and understand the need to rationalise the policing landscape, but it is important to maintain CEOP’s budget and focus. I understand that its budget will be cut by 10% over the next four years. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me that that is not the case and that CEOP, even though it is in the NCA—the Committee thinks that is fine for the moment, but we will revisit the subject—will still retain its focus. Ultimately, it provides terrific expertise that could benefit police forces across the country.

Finally, I recently visited Europol and Interpol. I urge the Policing Minister to visit those organisations, because I gather that no Home Office Minister has visited Europol in recent years. They are doing some fantastic work internationally. I know that the Cabinet Office has funded a project in Interpol specifically dealing with online child exploitation. I think that we can take credit for the work we are doing internationally. To return to my first point, the internet is a marvellous invention and a power for good, but as we have seen, and as we have heard today, it can be used in a different, darker way to exploit children. I hope that internet service providers and others involved in this whole area will understand their responsibilities and act accordingly.

15:58

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

On Monday the Home Affairs Committee launched its report on child sexual exploitation and grooming. Rotherham is one of the areas that figures in that report, due to its historic failings in tackling that vile crime. Since my election six months ago, I have made it my mission to ensure that we do not let Rotherham children, and indeed all children, down like that again. Rotherham council and South Yorkshire police are now working collaboratively with the national charity Barnardo’s and local charities SAFE@LAST and GROW. Together they will implement preventive measures and investigate and prosecute abusers.

Since January there have been 34 investigations into child sexual exploitation. Seven offenders are now being prosecuted and there are four major ongoing operations. I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this House that I will be watching like a hawk to make sure that the authorities continue to protect our children. However, child sexual exploitation has been steadily increasing in the UK. Barnardo’s, which runs 24 sexual exploitation services across the country, saw a 22% increase in the numbers of sexually exploited children in 2011-12. The internet has been used in the majority of those cases.

The dramatic rise in the use of communications technology and the development of new forms of social interaction online have hugely complicated child protection in Britain. Social media have greatly increased the ability of gangs and individuals to target vulnerable children. Children naively share a great deal of information online and are often unaware of the risks in doing so, or of the security measures that are there to protect them. Abusers have always been able to identify vulnerable children, but social media and mobile phones now make it easy for them to make contact with them.

Technology has left parents with an extremely difficult task in monitoring their children’s interactions and recognising potentially dangerous situations. Children and parents must be better educated as to the risks of online communications and the safeguards that are currently available. I recognise the comments of the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), which others have echoed, but I still urge the House to support our proposal to have safe search as the default option on computers and search engines. Filters already exist to screen out harmful material, but 54% of parents whose children use the internet at home have no parental controls installed on their devices. Making filters the factory setting removes this risk, and parents have the option to opt out of the system if they see fit.

Social media have increasingly exposed ever-younger children to sexualised material. Some 24% of nine to 16-year-olds in the UK say that they have seen sexual images in the past 12 months, online or offline. A number of services have linked exposure to overtly sexual content via the internet with children displaying inappropriately sexual behaviour. Such behaviour has been highlighted as contributing to greater vulnerability of increasingly young children. I do not believe in censoring the internet, but it is important that children are protected from inappropriate content.

In the past, increased sexual behaviour among children has led to a perception that they are somehow complicit in their abuse. Regrettably, this has frequently been an obstacle to proper safeguarding measures being taken. Equally horrifyingly, the child’s sexual awareness has been successfully used in courts to enable abusers to get a lesser sentence. Work is being done to tackle this attitude among authorities and police forces, but it is imperative that proper training is provided to staff to ensure that they take all cases seriously and recognise the need to protect children, regardless of the child’s own attitude or behaviour.

Technology is, by its nature, evolving. Agencies face an extremely complex task in keeping up with developments and ensuring that procedures are adequate and that staff are well trained to meet existing and developing challenges. The complexity of these challenges has demonstrated the need for better co-ordinated operations. Agencies must ensure that there is a free flow of information between them because in the past it has proved too easy for vulnerable children to fall through the gaps due to poor communication. Levels of co-ordination vary widely throughout the country, and that should not be allowed.

While child protection must always be the primary focus, prosecution must not be allowed to become an ancillary concern. I recognise that prosecutions in these cases can be extremely difficult, but without a proper deterrent the risk of child abuse will continue to rise. We must ensure that the law is fit for purpose. New forms of abuse and grooming, especially online, might not always fall under existing laws. It is our duty to provide our police and child protection officers with the tools they require to ensure that vulnerable children are protected and offenders are prosecuted.

A number of recent cases, including in my own constituency, have highlighted the need for further action to tackle child abuse. Good work is being done to ensure that children are protected, but I stress that more needs to be done to meet the demands of a complex and fast-changing problem. We must ensure that vulnerable children are not failed.

16:04

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Google, Facebook and Twitter are the new gateways for abuse and pornography—Google historically so. Google has donated £1 million, but it is important that such enormous companies pay their tax and take their responsibilities. I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) about the appalling death of one of her constituents and agree with her call to track sex offenders online.

I am glad to see the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), in his place—I hope he knows something about this—because we need to confiscate the passports of known sex offenders involved in sex tourism, which I have discussed in the Council of Europe. There needs to be more international collaboration, including DNA sharing.

I mentioned earlier the responsibility of credit card companies such as Visa. If they are found to be complicit in the downloading of child abuse imagery they should be fined. It is a startling fact that across Europe about one in five children are likely to be subjected to sexual violence. This is the appalling world we now live in, hence the Lanzarote convention, which is an international agreement to protect children’s rights, stop exploitation and increase co-operation. I hope that, despite the inward-looking tendency of the current Administration vis-à-vis Europe and the world, they will reach out in the interests of children.

I intend to table an early-day motion on the issue of rape imagery on the internet. I mentioned it on Twitter and received a barrage of responses from, of course, men—some of whom were lawyers—saying that the Ministry of Justice says that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between the portrayal of women being raped and encouraging rape and rapists. That is an extraordinary thing to say, but even if it was true it is wrong to think that it is all right for men to get off on online images of women being raped.

The reality is that children take their mobile phones to schools and freely download images of—how can I put it?—“normal” pornography and more abusive pornography, which is leading to a new idea of what is culturally acceptable in human relationships. That, in turn, puts pressure on women to go through a process of various pornographic acts that are regarded as the norm in a relationship. There is a danger that boys are being encouraged to be more forceful in their pursuit of girlfriends and what they expect them to do in emulating what is regarded as normal adult behaviour.

The motion’s call for an opt-out, therefore, is completely right. The facile comments made by various Members about filters not being perfect so we should not have any are ridiculous. It is like saying that a safety belt or another form of protection cannot protect us completely. Obviously they cannot, but when children are given phones by their parents they should be locked out of accessing imagery that they can share with others—this is true of the male community in particular—while endless pressure is put on the female community. We want schools to be a protected environment for our children. That must be part of the answer.

I am drawing a wider picture of the appalling situation with regard to child sex abuse imagery. As the normality of viewing this sort of stuff penetrates our school environment, affecting younger and younger children, the whole thing becomes an endemic problem. We need to act now. It is true that we need cross-party consensus, but we cannot simply rest on our laurels, hope for the best and get grudging, belated co-operation from the industry, which is making so much money out of internet pornography.

16:09

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

All hon. Members agree that child abuse is an horrific crime. I am pleased that the Opposition have provided the House with the opportunity to discuss how to tackle it this afternoon.

I am disappointed that the Government will not support the motion. We tabled it in good faith and it is wrong to accuse us of playing politics on this important issue. After all, all of us in Parliament are politicians and we are debating the big political issues of the day. I am sorry if it is politically inconvenient for the Government to discuss this subject today. It is also a great shame that they were not able to stir themselves to table an amendment to the motion.

Members may be interested to know that in the course of this debate, reports have come in of material that should be taken down. It is therefore good that this debate has taken place.

I would like to mention a few of the contributions that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) talked in a very personal way about how difficult it is for young people to deal with abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke of his experience of hate crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) talked about the dreadful murder of Ashleigh Hall and the need to regulate the use of the internet by sex offenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) talked about the important role of PSHE and said that it should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) spoke, as usual, with enormous common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made an excellent contribution about the pornified culture that has developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) set out clearly how things can be illegal offline but legal online. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee talked about the importance of working not just with the DCMS, but with the Home Office and other agencies on this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke with great knowledge about what is happening in her local area, and the problems and challenges that it faces. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) had an excellent idea relating to the role of credit card companies in helping people to download porn.

There were contributions from other Members of the House, including the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). It is important to acknowledge her hard work on this subject. It is unfortunate that she was unable to stay for most of the debate and did not hear the contributions of many hon. Members who have been concerned about this issue and taken it up for many years. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made a sensible proposal about music videos that I hope the Government heard. The hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) also spoke.

The estimate of the number of people in the UK who access child abuse images online is truly shocking and cannot be ignored. I was pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport agreed that it is important to realise that everyone who accesses such material on the web is an abuser, because accessing images of abuse is an inherent element of the process of abuse.

In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) talked about the important work of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, as did the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. The work that CEOP does is unpleasant and complicated, but it has the expertise to profile offenders and understand the processes of abuse. However, it is being lost as a separate, dedicated agency and will become part of the National Crime Agency. We have already lost its former head, Jim Gamble, and his 20 years of experience in fighting abuse. He did not feel that the new framework would protect the work that CEOP does. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee also raised concerns about its budget. I hope that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will reassure the House on that issue.

Police forces up and down the country are attempting to prevent abuse and to prosecute those who are involved. However, they are having to deal with a 20% cut to the policing budget, which means that they are losing thousands of officers from the front line, as well as back-office staff who investigate crimes and support victims. Will the Minister say whether he considers the work that is carried out in this area to be front-line policing? Although reported crime is falling overall, will he say where the 500,000 people who reportedly access child abuse images online appear in the crime figures?

Dealing with technology for keeping our children safe is not always the forte of the House of Commons, but I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, and many other Members, for their work on how we can utilise technology in the fight to keep children safe. Sometimes, that will mean working with the industry, and in many cases we are grateful for the research it has done and the work in which it has invested. As the motion points out, however, where the industry—particularly ISPs—do not respond, it is our role as law makers to make it act. The Government must have their own technical advisers so that they do not have to rely on the industry saying whether something is or is not possible. At the summit next week, I hope that Ministers will make clear the need to act swiftly and resolve issues that have been outstanding for some time, with a clear timetable.

In the context of abusive material being freely available, we should be looking to help parents protect children from accessing pornography. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland made an eloquent case for how the three measures that Labour is calling for in the motion could be a practical solution to try to stop children accessing pornography.

The report from the Children’s Commissioner, appropriately entitled “Basically...porn is everywhere”, found that a significant proportion of children and young people are exposed to or access pornography, and it is not uncommon for children as young as 10 to access it. Perhaps more important are the report’s findings on the effect that is having on young people. Access and exposure to pornography affect children and young people’s sexual beliefs, leading to unrealistic attitudes about sex and beliefs that women are sex objects. There is a clear link between access and exposure to pornography, and children’s and young people’s engagement in risky behaviours. Exposure to sexualised and violent imagery has a particular effect on the development of young people’s attitudes to relationships. That is why one of the commissioner’s main recommendations was for proper sex and relationship education to tackle attitudes premised on pornography.

The logic is clear. With children being exposed to ever more graphic and extreme images online and through social media, we should use schools as a forum to have an informed discussion with children about sex and relationships. Of course we want families to do that too, but many parents are asking for such discussions to be part of the school curriculum as well. We should explain to children what constitutes consent and what constitutes abuse.

[Claire Perry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I will not give way because the hon. Lady was not present for most of the debate this afternoon.

The Government repeatedly claim that good schools are already providing good personal, social, health and economic education. That may be right in some schools, but they cannot continue to deny research that shows that the overwhelming majority of schools do not provide good PSHE. Yesterday, the House had the opportunity to ensure that all schools provide such education, but the Government blocked the measure. Shockingly, the Liberal Democrats voted against their own long-standing party policy on PSHE being made statutory.

It may be too early to talk about the long-term effects of witnessing pornography from a young age, but it is not too early to talk about the current environment that girls face at school. I pay tribute to the work of the End Violence Against Women coalition, and its Schools Safe 4 Girls campaign. It has highlighted the fact that one in three teenage girls has experienced sexual violence from a partner. In a survey of year nine children as part of the From Boys to Men project, 40% of children interviewed reported that hitting a partner was okay in at least one of the circumstances highlighted. If we are serious about tackling child abuse, we must be serious about tackling the climate in which children and young people grow up, and the images to which they are exposed.

As well as stopping child abuse, we need to tackle staged rape and child abuse—the so-called rape porn industry that depicts rape and child abuse and that, because it is staged by actors who are over 18, is legal. The End Violence Against Women coalition and the South London Rape Crisis centre have highlighted the material that is available. It includes: “Young schoolgirls abducted and cruelly raped. Hear her screams”, “Little schoolgirl raped by teacher”, “Tiny girl sleep rape” and “Girl raped at gun point”. One expert, Professor Clare McGlynn of Durham university, has said:

“It is undeniable that the proliferation and tolerance of such images and the messages they convey contributes to a cultural climate where sexual violence is condoned.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said in opening the debate, both Mark Bridger and Stuart Hazell had viewed violent and misogynistic pornography before they murdered young girls. Labour is committed to looking at how to ban such violent content. I hope the Minister joins the Opposition by committing the Government to the principle of banning such material.

In a free society in the digital age, we cannot protect young people from every danger they could encounter, but we can tilt the odds in their favour. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support the motion.

16:20

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

Protecting children online is of huge and growing importance. I thank all hon. Members for a useful and thought-provoking debate. I join the many tributes rightly paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) for her energy and work. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) was uncharacteristically churlish in her remarks to my hon. Friend. I will not reciprocate in kind by naming the Labour Members who asked me to respond to points at the end of the debate who are not now in their seats.

Along with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am appalled by the continuing misuse of the internet in the various ways they have discussed. As the debate has shown, we have made significant strides in tackling the problem through collaborative work by the Government, law enforcement, the industry and charities. Of course, there is a great deal more to do. We are fully committed to tackling the creation, sale and possession of child abuse images.

The Government strongly support the work to prevent access to such images. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in his opening speech, a lot of work has been done, with 98% of domestic broadband lines covered by blocking based on the Internet Watch Foundation list.

We note the findings in the IWF report regarding the difference in the speed of take-down of illegal images between IWF members and ISP hosting providers that are not members. We urge all ISPs and hosting providers to join the IWF and improve their take-down times. We expect all companies to do their utmost to protect our society from such images through implementing blocking using the IWF list and by taking any other action they can take. For example, Google is a member of the IWF, and works to remove child abuse images as soon as it becomes aware of them. The IWF has recommended that as a further deterrent its members return an error page notifying users that they have tried to access indecent images of children.

Let me deal with as many of the individual points that have been made as I can. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre budget has been relatively protected. More importantly, by modernising the structure and processes, and through the effective harnessing of other funding sources from outside the Government, CEOP has increased the number of people who work for it from 85 in November in 2010 to 130 currently. More people currently work in CEOP than at any time in its history. As its recent annual review illustrated, the centre is more productive than ever. Therefore, the line in the motion on the lack of resources available to the police to tackle the problem is simply factually wrong.

In 2012-13, CEOP safeguarded and protected 790 children, an increase of 85% on the previous year, and the highest yearly figure since the centre launched in 2006. That brings the total number of children who have been protected to 2,255 in that seven-year history. Its chief executive, Peter Davies, has said:

“This past year has not only seen increases in the number of reports to the Centre from the public and industry, but also a large increase in the number of children CEOP has been able to protect and safeguard from some of the worst offenders who seek to exploit our children.”

CEOP is doing a good job. It is getting better and better at doing that job, and it will get better still as part of the National Crime Agency. There seems to be some misunderstanding on the Labour Benches. CEOP will retain its identity within the NCA, but being part of the NCA will enable it to become even more effective.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North in her winding-up speech, raised the issue of simulated pornographic images depicting rape. It goes without saying that rape is an abhorrent crime and I understand the concern about the availability of such content. We are meeting internet providers to consider what more can be done. The issue will also be looked at by the new national group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which I am now chairing. It is a very serious issue for the Government.

Various hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), raised the issue of content that is characteristically accessed through mobile devices. Since 2005, mobile network operators have signed up to a voluntary code to apply default filters for pornography via mobile devices that are internet-enabled. I hope that provides her and the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) with some reassurance.

I mentioned the national group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people. The issues we have been discussing today are part of its work, but only a small part, as consideration of the recent cases of organised predatory child abuse will be a significant part of the group’s activity. In response to whether the Home Office will be at the summit next week, I will be there in my role as chairman of that group.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) asked about online video labelling. Ministers have called on the industry to develop solutions by the end of this year to ensure that online videos, particularly those that are likely to be sought out by children and young people, carry advice on their age suitability and content. I hope that provides him with reassurance. The British Board of Film Classification is on the board of UKCCIS—the UK Council for Child Internet Safety—so it is intimately involved with all our work on this matter. Various Members mentioned the effect on gaming online. All major games consoles have parental controls that allow parents to restrict online gaming by their children.

I am happy to reassure Members who asked whether we were working closely with other EU countries. We are looking at several key areas on an EU-wide basis, including: better notice and take-down of child sex abuse images, better promotion of parental interest controls, better reporting and better privacy settings. As has been said, the UK is a leader not just in Europe but around the world in its response to this difficult matter, and I think other European countries would acknowledge that.

There has been much discussion about parents. Although the majority of parents feel that they have the information they need to help their children stay safe online, 81% say that they talk to their children about their internet use. Again, there is more to be done. There are good private sector initiatives, such as Vodafone’s Digital Parenting magazine and the Parent Portal website, which contains useful online safety information. This September, the ISPs will be launching a campaign to improve parents’ awareness of internet safety.

There has also been much discussion on what happens in our schools. I should emphasise that the Secretary of State’s guidance on teaching sex and relationships in secondary schools will address key issues such as consent within relationships. The discussion of online safety for children, which already takes place in secondary schools, will soon be switched to primary schools too. That should address the point about very young children accessing such material.

I hope the House will see that a huge amount has been done. We part company from the motion over the thought that not much has been done. This is a very difficult area and we are doing a lot, and to suggest that nothing much is happening is simply wrong. I hope, therefore, that having listened to this very serious debate, the Opposition will withdraw their motion, but if they decide not to do so, I urge the House to reject the motion and endorse the effective action taken by the Government on this important matter.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31 (2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

16:30

Division 27

Ayes: 227

---

Labour: 213
Scottish National Party: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2

Noes: 280

---

Conservative: 239
Liberal Democrat: 40
Independent: 1

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013. The Ayes were 272 and the Noes were 209, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

16:44

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that amongst other EU police, justice and home affairs measures, the UK should remain part of the European Arrest Warrant, the Schengen Information System II, Joint Investigations Teams, EU Council decision 2000/375/JHA on combating internet child pornography, EU Council decision 2002/348/JHA on international football security co-operation, Exchange of Criminal Records and Europol; supports reform to improve the operation of the European Arrest Warrant; and notes that without these measures the UK’s efforts to fight crime and ensure internal national security would be adversely affected.

Before speaking to the motion, I want to welcome the agreement of the Jordanian Parliament today to the treaty that the Home Secretary has negotiated, which we hope will speed the departure of Abu Qatada.

Today’s debate is about fighting cross-border crime. It is about whether the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are going to back the police and victims in the fight against cross-border crime or whether they are going to back the Eurosceptics on their own Back Benches who oppose things simply because they have the word “Europe” in the title. It is about whether the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are prepared to show leadership in the national interest, as Downing street claimed it would do in last week’s briefing, or whether they will cave in again. It is about what the Government believe is or is not important in the fight against crime.

We are still in the dark about the Government’s view on European co-operation, justice and home affairs. We all know that crime does not stop at the channel; criminals do not stop at our borders. There are an estimated 3,600 organised gangs operating across Europe, and they are involved in things such as drugs, human trafficking, online child exploitation and theft. We know, too, that as people trade and travel more than ever, cross-border crime is likely to keep increasing—whether we are inside the European Union or outside it. The police need to be able to keep up. That means they have to be able to deal with European police forces and they have to have a legal framework within which to operate, pursue and share evidence on a legal basis.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Once again, the Labour party is banging on about Europe. Since it always seems to do so in this place, do the Labour party and the right hon. Lady support invoking the block opt-out? Yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have said very clearly that we think a blanket opt-out, which means losing things such as the European arrest warrant or important data co-operation, would present a serious problem. Let me set this out in today’s debate. We know, for example, of the case of an 18-year-old student who was beaten until her eye sockets shattered in an attempted rape in Ireland. Her attacker, Arunas Cervinskas, left Ireland for London, but was returned by the Met three weeks after his European arrest warrant was issued. He is now serving an eight-year sentence in an Irish prison. That was the result of the arrest warrant and European police co-operation.

What is the Government’s position on this? Last year, the Prime Minister said:

“we will be exercising that opt-out”;

the Deputy Prime Minister then said, “No, we won’t”; and the Home Secretary said that

“the Government’s current thinking is that we will opt out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then negotiate”—[Official Report, 15 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 35.]

to opt back in. We know that Conservative Back Benchers have made their view clear: they want to opt out of the lot and do not want to opt back in to any of them. A letter signed by more than 100 Tory MPs says we should opt out of 130 of them. They certainly want out of the European arrest warrant, but what does the Home Secretary think? We have silence from her on what she thinks.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I wonder why the right hon. Lady’s party negotiated the opt-out in the first place.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Government were given plenty of time to look at all the measures, see whether any of them were redundant and make up their minds. Instead, they are leaving it to the last minute, dithering and putting at risk important measures in the fight against crime, creating immense uncertainty for our police forces. They are still not telling us what their view is on some of the most important measures of all—data sharing, criminal records or the European arrest warrant, for example.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I cannot resist the temptation to give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood).

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am very grateful that the right hon. Lady is so attentive. Why does she not understand that what we want is to have democratic accountability to the British people through this House of Commons? We want these things done by agreement between our country and the European Union, but not under European law. Her party gave away 138 vetoes over crucial policy areas, which makes it very difficult to govern this country democratically.

[Yvette Cooper]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is really aware of the detailed implications of what he has said. He is arguing for a huge number of different bureaucratic arrangements with every country, whether on extradition or on legal frameworks. Let me give him an example of how the current framework operates. James Hurley, who was convicted of killing a police officer and escaped from custody, was returned two years ago under a European arrest warrant, and is now back in a British prison.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way, but then I must make a bit of progress.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Lady keeps talking about these awful situations as though the only possibility were some Europe-wide collective agreement under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Does she not accept that it is perfectly possible for there to be extradition agreements between different countries that do not become subject to the European Court?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is indeed possible for there to be a huge number of extradition agreements that take long periods to negotiate. Let me give the hon. Lady one example. Before we had the European arrest warrant—when we simply had separately negotiated extradition arrangements—it took 10 years to extradite a suspected terrorist from Britain to France. That is the consequence of the kind of haphazard framework that the hon. Lady wants us to adopt. Meanwhile, we have a European arrest warrant that allows decisions to be made swiftly, and to be made in the interests of the victims of crime.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly cannot resist the temptation to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Cash]

The right hon. Lady may recall several cases in which British citizens have been caught up in arrest warrants, including one in Staffordshire, where someone was found guilty in absentia and given a monumentally long prison sentence although he was not remotely connected with the murder concerned. There are serious questions to be asked about whether the judiciary, as it is described, is actually run by politicians in certain cases.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. When the European Union Committee in the House of Lords was considering precisely these issues, and discussing cases in which there had been allegations of injustice, it commented:

“these arose from the consequences of extradition, including long periods of pre-trial detention in poor prison conditions, which could occur under any alternative system of extradition. Relying upon alternative extradition arrangements is highly unlikely to address the criticisms directed at the EAW and would inevitably render the extradition process more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.”

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must make a bit of progress first.

We have been struggling to find out what the Government are actually doing, and what their position actually is on these important measures. Today’s edition of The Guardian gave us some clues. It states that the Prime Minister is expected to opt into 30 to 40 measures, that a deal is being done by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who sits in the Cabinet Office, and that

“the Tories want to opt back in to no more than 29”

so that they can say that they opted out of 100.

“The Lib Dems, who had been pressing for… 70…recently settled on a figure of about 45.

Ministers are planning to split the difference between 45 and 29, meaning the coalition will sign up to about 35 of the measures.”

This, it appears, is a numbers game. It is no way to decide on serious issues that affect the fight against crime and future justice for victims. However, we think it excellent that the Government have handed over negotiations to the right hon. Member for West Dorset. We recall that the last time the Prime Minister tried that, in relation to Leveson, the Cabinet Office Minister came over to our place and allowed us to draft the policy. We are quite happy to do that again if the Government cannot sort it out.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I realise that my right hon. Friend would quite like the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) to be involved in these discussions, but I am a bit perplexed by the situation. Such an important question should really involve the Home Secretary. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Home Secretary should be there making the deals, rather than the Cabinet Office and the Treasury?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The issue is immensely important and there must be a question about where the Home Secretary is in these discussions. Where is the voice for British policing? Where is the voice for law enforcement? Where is the voice for British victims? If she is not being heard on behalf of the police and of victims, she is letting them down.

Let me consider some of the key measures that the Government are threatening to opt out of. The police have said that the most important to them is the European arrest warrant, which gives them the power to arrest people here who are wanted for crimes back home, gives the courts the power to send them swiftly home to face justice, means that police forces abroad will act to arrest suspected criminals who have fled from justice here and means that courts across Europe can send those suspects swiftly back.

The teacher who ran off to France with a pupil was arrested under the warrant and returned within weeks. The man who tried to blow up the tube at Shepherd’s Bush was quickly returned from Italy. However, as I told the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), it took 10 years of legal wrangling to send a suspected terrorist back to France before the European arrest warrant was introduced.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend resist the urges of the Government parties to play the game of trying to broker how many measures they can opt in or out of? She is absolutely right to raise the issue of counter-terrorism. Is she aware that about 10% of the work of Europol is related to counter-terrorism? Is that not the compelling reason why we must keep these arrangements in place?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, because terrorists do not respect international borders; they work across them. We know that many of the growing threats to this country involve cross-border crime or terrorism and that is why the police and those who seek to protect us must have the powers and tools to work across borders.

Let me give another example of the use of the European arrest warrant. The Salford armed robber, Andrew Moran, was found hiding in a villa in Alicante just four weeks ago. He had escaped from court after being convicted some years ago, but when the Spanish police found him they were able to arrest him straight away under a European arrest warrant. Let us turn back the clock to Ronnie Knight, the east end armed robber who fled to Spain before the days of the European arrest warrant. He did not have to change his appearance or his identity or hide behind the walls of a villa; he could wander around and do as he liked, because we had no means of getting the Spanish police to arrest him or the Spanish courts to send him home. He was able to open an Indian restaurant and a nightclub, ignoring British justice and the victims of crime.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the European arrest warrant and we in the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly want to see it kept. Does she agree that there have been cases in which it has been misused and that it could be improved by a proportionality test and the new Eurobail proposals, which could avoid problems such as Mr Symeou having to spend time in Greece? We must ensure that it works properly.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some aspects of the warrant should be improved and reformed and there are other areas of European co-operation that we should seek to improve. For example, we should ensure that the European arrest warrant is not used for too many minor crimes. We should also work with other European countries to ensure that when people become victims or suspects of crime abroad, they can be assured of proper legal support and justice. But it is still better to stay in and argue for reform than to pull out of the European arrest warrant when it is so important to our police and to victims.

The Prime Minister has said in the past that the European arrest warrant is highly objectionable, yet the Association of Chief Police Officers has said that opting out of it means

“higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety.”

What is the Home Secretary’s view? Are we in or out of the arrest warrant? In or out? In the last year alone, Britain sent 900 people back to other countries under an arrest warrant, 95% of whom were foreign nationals. The Home Secretary makes great play of complaining that she cannot send back enough foreign criminals, but now she wants to make it harder to send back people suspected of serious crimes abroad—why?

The European arrest warrant—in or out? The prisoner transfer framework—in or out? That is the one that means we can transfer prisoners back to their home country without their consent. What about the Home Secretary’s position on joint investigation teams, which have helped to stop a human trafficking ring bringing young Czech women into Britain for prostitution and rape. Thirty-three victims were found and nine people were convicted as a result of a joint investigation team. A similar operation undertaken with the Romanian police stopped a gang trafficking children into the UK and meant that victims were protected. So joint investigation teams—in or out? What about sharing criminal records? The UK has received more than 500 notifications of British citizens convicted in other EU member states who need to go on the sex offenders register here at home. I am happy to give way to the Home Secretary if she will stand up and tell us whether she supports the sharing of information about sexual offences so that people can be put on the sex offenders register here. Yes or no? In or out? [Interruption.] Again we have silence from the Home Secretary, who cannot tell us, whether it be on sharing criminal records or on the European arrest warrant, what the Government’s position is on these vital measures.

[Mr Raab]

The Opposition motion refers to eight specific measures out of the 135 or so, so I just want to clarify the Labour party’s position: is it advocating the exercise of the block opt-out and then selectively opting back in, or is it saying that there should be no exercise of the block opt-out at all?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not yet told us whether she actually has a workable way to do that, and we wait to see whether she has a workable way to deliver that at all. She has said that she wants a blanket opt-out, but most of her Back Benchers want to opt out of the lot and not opt back into anything. Our clear view is that we should not have a blanket opt-out that puts at risk the European arrest warrant and the crucial things needed for the fight against crime.

On criminal records, is the Home Secretary in or out? Again we have no answer from her. Sharing alerts on suspected criminals, or trafficking or kidnapping victims, crossing borders—in or out? Minimum standards for tackling online child exploitation—in or out? Information sharing on football hooligans—in or out? Co-operating on seizing criminals’ assets—in or out? Taking account of foreign convictions in court cases—in or out? Working with other countries on dealing with international genocide and war crimes—in or out?

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Lady if she can tell me about any of those. I understand that her view is to opt out of all of them and then simply on each measure to negotiate individually a separate agreement with every single country. That is her position. Perhaps she can tell me whether she has had any success persuading the Home Secretary of her position or whether the Home Secretary simply does not have a view on any of these matters.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Lady can always intervene on me when it is my debate and my motion, but this is her motion, so I am asking her something. Presumably she is aware that the only alternative is to opt out en bloc—that was the negotiation that her Government agreed when they were in power. So does she intend to opt out en bloc and then opt back into certain measures—if so, which ones? Or does she not intend to opt out at all? She is speaking as though we have the alternative of simply picking and choosing, but she knows, or should know, that that is not the case.

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that the hon. Lady in not in fact clear about what the position is, because she does not know what she is actually going to be able to opt back into. When Denmark tried to opt out and then opt back into a series of measures half its requests to opt back into measures were refused. That is why we do not believe that anything should be done to jeopardise the European arrest warrant, the data sharing and many of the other measures that I have set out today.

Two different positions are coming from Government Members at the moment. We have a simple position from the Back Benchers, which is that they just want to opt out of everything, and we have a blank sheet of paper from the Front Benchers, whereby they seem to hint that they might opt back into a few things but they will not tell us which. I can tell the House very clearly that, on the European arrest warrant, we should be in. We think that we should be in when it comes to proposals to take account of foreign convictions in our court cases, and when it comes to working with other countries on international genocide, yet we have heard nothing from Government Members on which of these vital measures they support, and on whether they have any workable way of opting back into the proposals.

The House of Lords European Union Committee looked at all this in some detail, and it says:

“The European Arrest Warrant is the single most important of the measures which are subject to the opt-out decision…opting out would have significant adverse negative repercussions for the internal security of the UK and the administration of criminal justice in the UK”,

so why are the Government doing this? The truth is that none of these questions is about crime or justice. All the points that Government Members are raising are about Europe, and the anxiety and hysteria about Europe among Back Benchers. Those Back Benchers want to ditch all European crime and security co-operation, which the police say is vital, and the work that children’s charities say helps victims.

The Government’s amendment to the motion says that they are looking at the issue, but that we should not worry because there will be a vote before any opt-out is exercised. It would be helpful if they could clarify whether there will be any vote on opting back in again, or whether they are simply planning to have a vote on opting out. They should also tell us today whether they know if they will be able to opt back into any of the measures, and which ones they think are so important that they should not be put at risk.

The truth is that this is not about crime; this is about politics. This is not about helping victims; it is about division on Europe. For the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to give in to their Back Benchers, who simply want to oppose all things European, would be shameful. It would be ignoring the evidence and expert advice. It would be helping criminals and betraying victims. That is why we are holding this debate and this vote today.

I want to remind the House what this is really all about. I have an e-mail from Beatrice Jones—the mother of Moira Jones—who set up the Moira Fund to help families. She first got in contact with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, who passed on her concerns to me, and I have spoken to her. She says:

“I have been appalled to read that a group of Tory MPs is putting pressure on the Prime Minister to use his right to pull out of EU crime and policing, including the EU arrest warrant. You may remember that my beloved daughter Moira Jones was assaulted, abducted, and savagely raped and murdered by an EU national who was allowed to come here in spite of a long criminal record of violence. He fled the country but because of the dedication and determination of Strathclyde police along with the cooperation of the Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country. We know that because of much work at the Home Office, with the Border Agency, and with the implementation of the ECRIS”—

the European criminal records information system—

“there is more cooperation and information between a much greater number of EU states….We want it to go much further so that another murder like Moira’s cannot occur and we did think that things were moving slowly in the right direction.

To read of this backward step is simply awful. As long as EU nationals are allowed to freely enter the UK and vice versa, then EU police cooperation is essential for the safety of all. The current system needs further development not to be disbanded.

Clearly there are those around who have no conception of what it is to lose a daughter in truly horrific circumstances. We continue to struggle and I have persisted in trying to bring about change…But there are things that with the best will in the world, we cannot do….If there is anyway you can do anything to highlight our concerns, I implore you in Moira’s name to do what you can.”

That is why we are holding this debate today.

17:08

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from ‘House’ to end and add

‘believes that the decision on exercising the UK’s opt out from EU former third pillar measures should be taken in the national interest, with consideration given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms; and welcomes the commitment made by the Minister for Europe on 20 January 2011 to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the Government makes a formal decision on whether it wishes to opt out.’.

Let me first set out some of the background to this important issue, because judging from the speech that we have just heard, there seems to be some confusion among Opposition Members. Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, which the Opposition signed up to, the United Kingdom must decide by the end of May 2014 whether we opt out of, or remain bound by, roughly 130 EU police and criminal justice measures that were adopted before the Lisbon treaty came into force. I provided a full list of those measures to the House on 21 May. The Government are required, under the treaty, to reach a final decision by 31 May 2014, with that decision taking effect on 1 December 2014.

Let me also set out the commitment that this Government have made on this matter. On 20 January 2011 my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe set out in a written ministerial statement that a vote would be held in both Houses of Parliament before the Government make a formal decision on whether they wish to opt out. That remains the Government position and I am happy today to reiterate our commitment to hold a vote on this matter. That is why I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion as premature, and support the Government’s amendment.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary knows that there has been considerable correspondence from the European Scrutiny Committee to the Government at all levels asking them to list those measures that they intend to opt into. We have the practical problem of how that will be done. Will we be able to vote to opt in or opt out knowing exactly and in detail what the Government will then opt back into before the vote is taken?

[Mrs May]

Yes. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is indeed the Government’s intention to provide Parliament with a list of the measures that we wish to opt back into, so Parliament will have that before it votes on the matter.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The Government have repeatedly said that they want to engage with Select Committees as part of the process, but still, many months after they were promised, we do not have the explanatory memorandums, and Committees are not in a position to factor into their work the consideration that will be required to inform the vote that the Home Secretary has just referred to.

[Mrs May]

I recognise the point that my right hon. Friend makes. We will supply the Select Committees with explanatory memorandums and the list of measures that the Government propose to opt back into, and we will also discuss with relevant Committees how the vote will be taken in Parliament.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Given the importance of the European arrest warrant, to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding and to achieve maximum clarity, will the Home Secretary say here and now that it is the Government’s intention to opt into the European arrest warrant because she recognises that it is so important to this country?

[Mrs May]

I will announce what the Government will do in relation to the European arrest warrant at the time that I list those measures that we wish to opt into or not rejoin, so the hon. Gentleman will just have to be a little more patient.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I hope that part of the consultation will be with the devolved Parliaments, because the Home Secretary will know of the very real concern from the Scottish Government and from Police Scotland about the loss of the European arrest warrant. The Justice Secretary said that could have appalling consequences for Scottish justice. Will the Home Secretary make sure that she consults properly and listens carefully to what Scotland has to say on the matter?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has slightly pre-empted something that I was going to say a little later in my speech, so I will bring it forward in answer to his question. Following my announcement in October, Ministers have engaged with the devolved Administrations and their operational partners. The Minister responsible for security has visited both Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is, of course, a particular issue in relation to Northern Ireland and we are aware of the importance of taking into account any implications that the 2014 decision might have for policing, given the land border with the Republic of Ireland, and we will continue to work with both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to ensure that those matters are fully considered.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Have negotiations on the measures that the Home Secretary hopes to opt back into commenced or is she planning to wait until December 2014 and then seek to opt into various measures? Has she had any indication which ones our European partners will accept?

[Mrs May]

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have listened to the remarks I made earlier in my speech, when I made it clear that a decision by the Government has to be taken by 31 May 2014, while 1 December 2014 is the date by which the opt-out takes final effect, so by definition any negotiations in relation to opt-in must take place before that takes effect.

This is an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly, despite the entreaties of the Opposition. I want to make it clear that no final decision has been made on this matter.

[Yvette Cooper]

Under what circumstances does the Home Secretary think it would be acceptable to stay out of the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

I will move on to the principles that the Government will follow when looking at each and every measure and considering whether to opt back in. In her speech, the right hon. Lady made something of an issue about the timetable and asked why we had not yet come to a decision. I refer her to the remarks of the former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, in the debate on the Lisbon treaty in 2008. She said that

“on the whole body of police, criminal and judicial measures that are transferred, it is our decision—six months before that five-year period finishes—as to whether we want to continue in those measures, if they have not been renegotiated or repealed during that time. We will make that decision on the basis of whether continuing in those measures, with ECJ jurisdiction, is in the national interest. We have negotiated the ability to make that decision and we have negotiated that transitional period.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 175.]

That is precisely what this Government are following.

My statement on 15 October last year set out the Government’s approach: we intend to opt out of all police and criminal justice measures that pre-date the Lisbon treaty and then negotiate with the Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures that it is in our national interest to rejoin. That remains the Government’s position.

As I explained in a letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), in November last year, we will consider how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if it was pursued by other means. We will also consider the impact of each measure on our civil rights and traditional liberties.

[Keith Vaz]

The Home Affairs Committee certainly looks forward to receiving the list when the Home Secretary has it ready. There is a measure on her desk at the moment concerning Europol that is not related to the opt-in/opt-out issue. It is very important that we sign up to it, because it affects the governance of that organisation, and I know that she is a supporter of Rob Wainwright and Europol. Is she now in a position to sign up to that new regulation?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Commission has brought forward some new proposals relating to Europol. Some parts of the proposals cause concern to the Government, and indeed those of most member states across the European Union, but there will be a debate in this House—at the beginning of July, I believe—on whether the Government propose to opt back into that measure. The scrutiny is continuing, but obviously the Government will make clear our position when the debate takes place.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicion that what is really going on here is that the Labour party would love to sign up to all this European justice agenda but dares not say so because it is frightened of the UK Independence party?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was not at all clear from the shadow Home Secretary’s speech what the Labour party’s position is on this. Does it wish to exercise the opt-out it negotiated, or does it wish to be bound by all the measures? We are at a loss to know where it stands on the issue. I am also at a loss to see what she can object to in the approach I have just set out regarding the policies and principles we will follow in looking at every single measure. It involves exercising a treaty right that was negotiated by the previous Government. Why on earth did they bother negotiating it if they were not going to use it? The Labour party, when in government, laid the paving stones, but it criticises us for walking down them. I am at even more of a loss in trying to untangle the Opposition’s position from the confusion of today’s debate.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On the subject of the Labour party, I think that we need to reassure the public, because the shadow Home Secretary gave a series of grisly examples of murders, people being beaten up and eye sockets being staved in. The implication is that if we are not part of the European arrest warrant none of the perpetrators would be dealt with. Can we at least have a sensible debate and say that those people could be dealt with after reciprocal arrangements are made?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is correct that we have extradition treaties with other countries that are not members of the European Union, and we had extradition arrangements before the European arrest warrant came into place. However, as I set out earlier, we will look at each measure to determine whether it contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if it was pursued by other means. I think that those are entirely sensible principles on which to base the proposals that the Government will bring forward in due course.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the Home Secretary also take into account the impact that all these things have on British democracy? Some of us are deeply worried that Ministers do not have enough powers and cannot be accountable to this House because they can be trumped by perverse European Court of Justice judgments.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is right. In looking at these decisions, we have to bear in mind the fact of ECJ jurisdiction, which will now be applicable to these measures but was not when they were originally established. I have to say that one of the more interesting exchanges I have seen this afternoon raised the idea of the shadow Home Secretary being tempted by my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I think that I had better move swiftly on.

We are now in complete confusion as to whether the Opposition want to exercise the opt-out and whether they want to change anything about our justice and home affairs arrangements. If they do not want to change anything, why does their motion refer to reforming the European arrest warrant? In their motion they list seven measures that they think we should be opting back into, but the right hon. Lady raised other measures that she implied we should opt back into. She talked about party politics. I am afraid that the only party politics lie in calling this debate, and it is the Opposition who want to put narrow politics before the national interest.

The shadow Home Secretary suggests that our approach, which her own Government set in train, will play into the hands of criminals. That is an outrageous accusation. As Home Secretary, I am absolutely clear in my duty to protect the United Kingdom against crime and terrorism and to keep our borders secure. She said that crime does not stop at the borders, and she is absolutely right. That is exactly why this Government are creating the National Crime Agency, which will be a powerful crime-fighting body that deals with crime across borders, particularly serious organised and complex crime. The UK is a sovereign nation, and we must not carelessly hand over more and more powers to the European Commission or the European Court of Justice.

It is clearly important that law enforcers have the tools they need to work with our European neighbours and protect the British public. That is why we have been listening to the views of law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies on this matter. The Justice Secretary and I have met representatives from the Association of Chief Police Offices, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the security services, and the Serious Fraud Office, as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are listening to, and taking seriously, what those on the front line have to say. As I said, we have also had discussions with the devolved Administrations. But this is a decision for the Government to take, and we will not absolve ourselves of that responsibility by delegating the decision to others as the Opposition apparently wish us to.

As I have said to this House previously, under the terms of the treaty signed by Labour, the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, cannot pick and choose the measures from which we wish to opt out. The shadow Home Secretary may well prefer that we could, but thanks to her party’s negotiation we can only opt out en masse and then seek to rejoin individual measures. Operational experience shows that some of the pre-Lisbon measures are useful, while some are less so and some are now entirely defunct. For example, one measure establishes a directory on organised crime competences that was closed by Europol in February 2012. Although the directory is closed, it remains a measure subject to the 2014 decision under which, arguably, member states are still obliged to update their contributions to it. We do not see any reason to subject this measure to formal enforcement powers. Some other measures have not been implemented and doing so would require considerable time and money. Not being ready by 1 December 2014 would immediately open the UK up to substantial risk of infraction and the very real risk of being fined millions of pounds.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I am being very indulgent to the hon. Gentleman, but I give way.

[Michael Connarty]

The Home Secretary is well aware of the position. In fact, her own Government are making quite a hue and cry about the fact that the European Commission can strike out any of these things as redundant and has been doing so for the past three or four years. Regarding this nonsense about being trapped in some directory that does not exist any more, it is very simple: the European Commission can simply strike it out, as it has on many occasions. She might like to consult the Europe Minister, who could inform her of the facts.

[Mrs May]

I am well aware of what is and what is not in the list of the 2014 decision that we have to take, and the measure that I have referred to is in it.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary is right to refer to that particular directory as being defunct. Arguably, therefore, it is relatively harmless. If she has such a precise view on that measure, will she tell us her view on the European arrest warrant? That, not all the defunct directories, is the central subject of the motion and the most important measure at stake. ACPO has said how crucial it is and it has been used in countless different criminal cases. Why does the Home Secretary seem to be the only person who does not have a view on the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

Sadly, the right hon. Lady does not seem to understand what the decision is about and, therefore, what her debate is about. Her debate is about the fact that her Government negotiated a situation in which we can either opt out of all the measures and then try to opt back in, or opt into all the measures.

I have been very open that it would not be appropriate to opt into any measure that we think would take considerable time and money. We will not be in a position to immediately rejoin Prüm, which requires member states to allow the reciprocal searching of their databases for DNA profiles, vehicle registration data and fingerprints, because implementing it fully will take years and require substantial funding. The previous Government estimated that it would cost more than £30 million back in 2007—that figure may well be higher now—and they subsequently did nothing to implement it.

The shadow Home Secretary’s spurious accusations about the Government’s European policy seem to be a cover for the confusion on her own Benches. I note that in response to a number of interventions she did not clearly state what her own policy is. It seems to be to negotiate an opt-out but not exercise it and to sign up to costly measures such as Prüm but not implement them. That is not the sort of leadership that the United Kingdom needs in Europe.

[Wayne David]

The Home Secretary says that she has had discussions with ACPO. What advice did it give her?

[Mrs May]

ACPO, as it has made clear to Committees of this House, has set out those measures that it feels will be useful in a policing sense. There is absolutely no secret about what ACPO has made clear.

[Mr Raab]

It may help the Home Secretary to know that in its submission to the House of Lords European Union Committee, ACPO reckoned that only 13 of the 135 measures were vital for law enforcement. Is she aware of that and does it not cast a shadow on the spurious law enforcement claims of the Opposition?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I believe that ACPO went on to say that 55 of the measures had no practical effect whatsoever.

[Dr Huppert]

ACPO said a number of things. It also said that opting out of the European arrest warrant

“would result in fewer extraditions, longer delays, higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety.”

We should take all of ACPO’s advice, not just some of it.

[Mrs May]

I say to my hon. Friend that, given that I have not published a list, he is not in a position to know which parts of ACPO’s advice I have listened to or not. What I have said is that I have listened to ACPO’s advice and it is absolutely clear that it thinks that a very limited number of measures are beneficial to policing and that a significant number are of no practical benefit whatsoever. We have also listened to a number of other organisations with relevant experience in this particular field.

The Government have been clear that we must consider the full impact of ECJ jurisdiction on each of these measures. The European Union Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding has made it clear that the old third pillar often led to outcomes at the lowest common denominator, mostly in order to secure unanimity. The vast majority of these measures were not negotiated with ECJ jurisdiction in mind, and the drafting often reflects that. We should be very careful about allowing the ECJ to interpret such measures.

Why do I say that? Because it is for this House to write the UK’s laws. For example, where Parliament agrees with the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, Parliament can pass a law to make its will clear and remedy the effect of that judgment. However, judgments passed down in Luxembourg by the European Court cannot be addressed in this way. Instead, they require a change to EU law, which cannot be brought about by the UK alone. That is an important point for us to consider.

In the Metock case, for example, the European Court of Justice made a ruling that extended free movement rights to illegal migrants if they are married to a European economic area national who is exercising those rights. Since the Metock judgment, we have seen a steady increase in sham marriages involving EEA nationals. However, the UK cannot fix that issue alone, despite there being agreement on both sides of the House.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that there is never a role for the European Court of Justice. If that was the case, we would never opt into any new measures. However, as a question of policy, we need carefully to consider the Court’s ability to interfere in our criminal justice system and weigh that against any benefits that the measure may bring.

As the shadow Home Secretary has said on quite a few occasions, the opt-out decision involves the European arrest warrant. I know that that measure is of particular interest to many Members. Let me start by refuting the fatuous suggestion that we would consider opting out of it simply because it has the word “European” in its title. The Government are looking at each measure on its merits and nothing else. When the case is made that a measure is in our national interest, we will participate in it. As I have said previously, we will consider how each measure contributes to public safety and security; whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it; and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if we pursued it by other mechanisms before making a final decision. The European arrest warrant is no different in that respect.

The arrest warrant has had some success in streamlining the extradition process within the EU. The shadow Home Secretary referred to the arrest last month of Andrew Moran, one of Britain’s most wanted fugitives, by the Spanish police. However, as I set out in my statement in October, there have also been problems. The Government are concerned about the disproportionate use of the arrest warrant for trivial offences and its potential use for action in the United Kingdom in relation to activity that is not considered to be a crime in the UK. We also have concerns about the lengthy pre-trial detention of British citizens overseas.

The motion and the shadow Home Secretary’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) suggest that the Opposition finally share our concerns about the European arrest warrant and would like to see its operation reformed. If that is the case, the whole Government welcome the admission that Labour got it wrong on the European arrest warrant and I am glad that we will have its new-found support if we wish to make any changes in that regard.

We may not have had much clarity from the Opposition today, but I am grateful for the opportunity to hear the views of Parliament on this important matter. This Government, more than any before us, have done our utmost to ensure that Parliament has the time to scrutinise our decisions relating to the European Union and that its views are taken into account. As I have said, we have made a commitment to hold a vote in both Houses of Parliament before we take a final decision on the opt-out. That vote will take place in good time before May 2014. However, I remind hon. Members that current and forthcoming proposals in the EU will have an effect on the 2014 decision.

[Sir Alan Beith]

In giving that assurance, will the Home Secretary indicate when Select Committees will receive the explanatory memorandum that we have been promised for so long?

[Mrs May]

I am not able to set a date for the right hon. Gentleman. I recognise his enthusiasm for seeing the explanatory memorandum, but we are still looking at the structure of the list of measures that we want to opt back into.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee mentioned the new Europol regulation, which is a good example of the way in which the measures in the 2014 list are being affected. The existing Europol regulation is on the list, but we must decide whether to opt into the new regulation proposed by the European Commission by the end of July. Ultimately, our decision on whether to participate in the new proposal, either at the outset or post-adoption, will determine our long-term participation in Europol. The Government have offered a Lidington-style debate on the opt-in decision. That is a new parliamentary term that I am sure the Clerks will put into Standing Orders at an appropriate time. The debate will be held in the House on 3 July and I look forward to hearing the views of Parliament on that issue.

Similarly, we expect the Commission to publish proposals on Eurojust and a European public prosecutor’s office shortly. Again, we will have opt-in decisions to make. However, I remind all Members that the coalition agreement could not be clearer on this point: we will not participate in the creation of a new and needless pan-European public prosecutor. That is out of the question.

What we have heard today from the shadow Home Secretary is another example of her carping while the Government get on with the reforms our country needs. She was the one who said we could not cut police budgets without crime going up, and she was wrong. She was the one who argued against the Winsor review, and she was wrong. She was the one who opposed our immigration reforms, which have already cut net migration by more than a third—she was wrong. On measure after measure, the shadow Home Secretary has been left on her own, moaning from the sidelines.

The decision on exercising the UK’s opt-out will be taken in the national interest, with questions of public safety and security, and practical co-operation uppermost in our minds. I am delighted to reiterate the commitment made by the Minister for Europe in 2011 to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the Government make a formal decision. In the meantime, the country needs a careful, considered and constructive debate, not the sound and fury we have heard from those on the Opposition Benches today.

17:35

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

The Whips will be pleased to know that I support the motion, but I do not have too much problem with the amendment. The problem is the timing of the amendment because it deals with generalities when we need to start talking about specifics, particularly if the Home Secretary’s pledge that this should be a matter for Parliament to decide is to be honoured. Truth to tell, the opt-out in article 10 to protocol 36 was negotiated as an insurance policy to give us the time and ability to look at all the measures. We must remember that police and criminal justice issues were not part of the European Union until the Maastricht treaty—which was agreed by the previous Conservative Government—introduced them, and even then there was no competency for the European Court of Justice. That was a big change, and if we could have negotiated the option to look at each individual policy and decide whether to stay in or out we would have done, but that was unachievable. No other country is subject to article 10 to protocol 36, and the transition we managed to achieve is exclusive to this country.

We are in a process of considering how we deal with this crucial matter. The Home Secretary mentioned that we were getting confused about the timetable. I heard no confusion about that from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, but the Prime Minister was certainly confused. On 28 September 2012 he said that the opt-out decision had to be made before the end of the year, and he added:

“We’ll be exercising that opt-out.”

Soon afterwards in October, the Home Secretary came to the House of Commons to clarify that and say that the Government’s “current thinking” was towards an opt-out.

In terms of a parliamentary process—remembering that Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal jurisdictions—there was no consultation whatsoever with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Scottish Government, or the Northern Ireland Administration, let alone with Committees of this House, before the Home Secretary announced that Government thinking was to opt out. Given how the process started—the Prime Minister getting the deadline wrong, and the Home Secretary’s lack of any consultation before saying where Government thinking was leading—you will forgive us, Mr Speaker, for having a certain concern about how it is going.

In July last year, the Foreign Secretary announced a review of competencies between the UK and the EU. Again, we are concerned about how that process is being dealt with, and I struggle to think of the kind of competencies that such a review will address—indeed, there is a fair amount of suspicion that this is some kind of Wilsonian trick. Leaving that aside, one would think that such things would be relevant to the 130 measures to which we must opt in or out. However, the process for the balance of competencies will begin looking at police and criminal justice measures in spring or autumn 2014, after the deadline for the decision to opt in or out has passed. That, to me, is incomprehensible.

We are, therefore, left with extreme concern about how the current thinking came about and about the absence of proper input from Parliament. Nine months have passed since the Home Secretary’s statement to the House. Apart from a couple of minor points I picked up in her speech today, the position remains exactly as it was nine months ago.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union has produced a splendid report, but without any information from Her Majesty’s Government on the measures they might seek to rejoin when they exercise the opt-out. Conservative Members make a valid point about the importance the Opposition place on the European arrest warrant. In a sense, the suspicion, which might be valid, is that the Opposition would accept the other 129 measures just to keep the precious EAW, and that we believe the EAW is that important. However, we have not heard from the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should have said Conservative Benches. We have not heard from Conservative Members their equivalent to the EAW if they opt out completely. If they read the motion from Her Majesty’s Opposition, they will see that we think a number of measures are important. However, I do not get any sense of what measure is worth risking our being unable to opt back in to all 130 measures. Why is the Government’s thinking to opt out rather than to opt in?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman perhaps gives the House a greater insight into Opposition policy than the shadow Home Secretary has. I take it from what he says that he believes Labour party policy is to opt in and not to opt out of any of the measures.

[Alan Johnson]

My point is that the Government came to the conclusion that they are minded to opt out. We have no idea where that thinking came from—there was no consultation with anyone. It is just as valid for the Government to be minded to opt in, but we have no sense of what big issue prevents them from doing so.

The Home Secretary said in October and has repeated today that some of the measures are useful, some are less useful, and some are now defunct, but she has never defined which measures are useful. There was a small concession in her speech, but the House of Lords EU Committee—an important Committee of the democratic process—had to do its work completely in the dark, with no sense of what was useful, what was not useful or what was defunct. Eventually, she gave three examples to the Committee of defunct measures, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has said, if the measures are defunct, they are harmless, and we need not worry about them because they will be weeded out and tidied up. The defunct measures are not the important part of the debate; the important part is on useful or not useful measures.

In its report, the House of Lords Committee, which is not the Labour party—in fact, most members of the Committee have been hostile to the Labour party throughout their political careers—states:

“The most effective way for the UK to cooperate with other Member States is to remain engaged in the existing EU measures in this area.”

The Committee’s current thinking, therefore, is to opt in to those measures. It says that clearly and backs it up with strong arguments—it interviewed a cross-section of people, including the Home Secretary.

The Christmas quiz is this: what is the common theme to all 130 measures? They were all agreed by unanimity. They were all agreed under a system where the UK had the veto. They were all then brought before this House and were agreed by various Committees—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was the Chair of one of them—to be scrutinised. Not a single one of the 130 measures was foisted on the UK against our will by a hostile European Administration. Even if the Euro myth of creating a superstate with an integrated criminal law, as propagated by some of the swivel-eyed loonies, were true, nothing in the 130 measures would contribute towards that aim. In fact, the opposite is the case: the vast majority relate to a mutual recognition of the diverse systems throughout the European Union.

There is as good an argument for the Government to be thinking about moving towards opting in as opting out, but I am persuadable. I just want to know where the Government stand as we get closer to 2014. I want the Justice Committee and the Home Affairs Committee to consider the matter. I want the arguments to be revealed.

My main concern is the European arrest warrant. I overcame minor antipathy to the other 129 measures to keep it. If we pull out and try to renegotiate, we will be in a much weaker position. The case has been made not just in the House of Lords Committee, but in the Scott Baker report commissioned by the Home Secretary herself. There are things we could do to improve the warrant—a proportionality test was a major issue raised by Scott Baker. I have to say, however, that adopting the European supervision order that would allow British citizens to be supervised in the UK until the trial in the requesting member state is being held would go an awful long way to meeting the objections of Scott Baker and of others on both sides of the House.

Politics is about the personal more than anything else. The shadow Home Secretary mentioned the savage murder of Moira Jones. I met her mother Beatrice when I was Home Secretary. The current Home Secretary would have had the same difficult job to do. When I met Beatrice Jones, she pointed out to me that the murderer of her daughter fled this country immediately. A European arrest warrant was issued 14 days later. Two days after that, he was arrested in Slovakia and brought to justice. I promised Mrs Jones that I would do my best to ensure that the European arrest warrant remains. I plan to keep that promise.

17:47

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this welcome debate. We all know that the ability to invoke the block opt-out was negotiated as part of the Lisbon treaty—on which we did not have a vote—by the previous Labour Government. According to the refreshed Government list deposited in Parliament last month, 127 EU laws currently fall under the block opt-out. They are gradually being eaten away, so we will have fewer to debate by next May. They include the European arrest warrant, which has been mentioned and to which I will come in a moment, and legislation defining various criminal offences and rules for associated penalties. There are many measures—with 127 laws, that is to be expected—which is why it is important to have this sort of debate on the Floor of the House to enable the House to inform the Home Secretary and others on the Front Bench of its thinking. I therefore welcome the Opposition’s giving us the time to talk about this issue today.

Under the arrangements introduced by the Lisbon treaty, the UK has to opt out of all these EU laws en masse—it cannot opt out selectively. If the UK wants to opt out, it must notify the EU of its wish to do so by 31 May 2014 at the very latest, so we have plenty of time for this debate. If the UK does not opt out, under the EU treaties it will become bound by these laws indefinitely—there is no subsequent opportunity to opt out. Furthermore, from December 2014, the European Court of Justice will for the first time gain full jurisdiction over these laws under a change introduced by the Lisbon treaty, meaning that the European Commission could take the UK to the Court for what it believed to be a breach of one of these laws. Consequent rulings from the Court would be binding. In addition, the Court could rule on questions about the interpretation of these laws referred to it by UK courts—rulings that would then be applied by British judges.

Why is that an issue? It was raised by the House of Lords European Union Committee, and one particular case illustrates the great concern about the Court’s judicial activism: the Metock case in 2008. Four nationals of a non-EU state applied for asylum in Ireland, but their applications were rejected. In the meantime, however, the men had married women from other EU states, exercising free movement rights in Ireland, and they reapplied. The Irish Government refused each application, their regulations stating that the rights under the free movement directive did not apply to family members, unless they were already a lawful resident in another member state and seeking to enter Ireland with an EU national or to join an EU citizen in Ireland. The Grand Chamber of the European Court ruled that national legislation could not require the third country national spouse of an EEC citizen to have been a permanently lawful resident in another member state and therefore that they could benefit from the free movement directive. In other words, this highly controversial ruling rewrote EU law and Irish immigration law, so there is a reason to be concerned about the possibility of the Court’s being involved in such decisions.

If the UK invokes the opt-out, the European treaties allow our country to apply to opt back into particular EU laws covered by it. For most of these laws, a UK application to rejoin would be first considered by the European Commission, but if the Commission did not approve UK readmission, the Council of Ministers could decide, by qualified majority voting among member states bound by the relevant law, to admit the UK. For the remaining laws, which are considered part of the Schengen body of law, a UK application to rejoin is decided by unanimity in the Council, without formal Commission involvement. Opting back in is irreversible. If the UK is readmitted by the EU institutions, it could not opt out of the relevant laws again and the Court would have full jurisdiction over the laws concerned. That is why we have to tackle this sensibly and probably deal with each of the 127 measures in turn.

[Michael Connarty]

The hon. Gentleman and I are both members of the European Scrutiny Committee, but he has the advantage on me, in that he was a Member of the European Parliament, and he has obviously looked closely at what happens. It is always a deal, and the question of opting out of something permanently would be balanced by the fact that other countries might wish us to be in it for their advantage—even if we might think it to our disadvantage. In those situations, is it not likely that we would have to do deals and opt into things, such as what he has just illustrated, to get what we want on other things? Is it not time to talk about that sensibly in the European Scrutiny Committee and in the Lords Committee, instead of this smoke and mirrors? We do not have long between now and then to have those kinds of debate and to advise the Government about whether it would be advantageous to do the sorts of deals they might be faced with in the future.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He will know that a Home Office Minister gave evidence to our Committee when we talked about that. We were doing our job on that Committee and trying to prise out of the Government, quite legitimately, what the position would be. That is why I have no issue with this debate.

The Government have said that some of the EU laws subject to the block opt-out are obsolete, and I thought I would list some of them for the benefit of Opposition Members, because there are more than three of them. First, there is the joint action 96/747/JHA on the creation of the directory that the Home Secretary mentioned. There are various laws under the block opt-out that have little or nothing to do with cross-border co-operation. They include framework decision 2000/383/JHA, which defines the criminal offence of currency counterfeiting and sets rules and attendant penalties, and framework decision 2003/568/JHA on corruption in the private sector, which requires member states to criminalise intentionally

“requesting or receiving an undue advantage of any kind,”

and so on. These are not great big European deals or blockbusters; they are things that we can take or leave. Indeed, it is questionable whether they needed to be decided at the European level in the first place.

Numerous EU laws requiring member states to criminalise particular actions oblige them to punish such offences with

“effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties”—

an ambiguous phrase that is massively open to interpretation and causes some concern. If the UK deems it necessary to change its criminal law to facilitate cross-border co-operation, we are perfectly able to do so through our own democratic processes. We do not have to sign up to EU control to do so.

Other EU laws under the block opt-out purport to establish cross-border co-operation. In some cases, laws that sound as though they would be useful do not seem to be so in practice. For example, the Government have said that the UK has not sent any requests to other member states to freeze suspected criminal assets or evidence under framework decision 2003/577/JHA since it was adopted more than a decade ago. There are several laws under the block opt-out that the UK has so far declined to implement fully, sometimes on grounds of cost. They include Prüm decisions, as we heard earlier, which involve the police sharing information such as fingerprints and DNA—perhaps the precursor to a European Prism programme or something like that. In other cases, such as the European arrest warrant, the laws on cross-border co-operation do not have sufficient safeguards for the rights of British citizens. In too many cases, British people have been arrested in the UK under the European arrest warrant and extradited to other EU countries, where they have ended up suffering serious injustices owing to foreseeable problems with the domestic criminal justice systems in those countries.

There are a number of problems with the European arrest warrant, which have been highlighted by many other countries. The stats are quite simple. Nearly 1,000 requests for a European arrest warrant are issued each month. In 2009, the Serious Organised Crime Agency here in the UK received 4,004 requests for a European arrest warrant to be issued. To put that in context, between 2003 and 2009, the UK extradited 63 people to the United States, whereas in 2009-10, the UK extradited 699 individuals to the EU. Perhaps there is a problem with what the warrants are being issued for, which causes a great deal of concern out there in civil society. The fundamental problem for people such as me is the extension of powers to the European Court of Justice. Given our experience of this matter nationally and internationally, we should be wary about that extension.

Let me try to bust some of the myths about this issue. There is a myth that if we do not opt in, we will lose all co-operation with EU partners on crime and policing. By opting out en bloc, we avoid sacrificing UK democratic control over 127 crime and policing measures to the European Commission and European Court of Justice. We can opt back into those measures that serve the UK national interest. This is an opportunity to re-cast our relationship, so that it is based on practical law enforcement co-operation but is not part of the EU Commission’s drive towards a single EU criminal code, enforced by a European public prosecutor and the European Court of Justice. I can remember debates in the European Parliament nearly a decade ago in which a single European criminal code and a European public prosecutor were talked about very seriously.

Another myth is that the UK needs to give the European Commission and European Court of Justice the last word on UK crime and policing policy to strengthen public safety. One of the UK’s closest security relationship is with the United States, yet we do not give the FBI or the US Supreme Court supranational control over our policy making, so why should do the same we in this case? Another myth is that we could lose vital areas of co-operation such as data sharing on criminal records. That is rubbish. We have always co-operated on those matters.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I spent many a good time in a bar in Strasbourg. Doubtless we will both be extradited back there at some point for the crimes of the past.

[Chris Bryant]

In that case, we might have to exchange criminal records; and I am sure that he has bought many. When I arrived in Parliament in 2001, the police in this country were crying out for the exchange of criminal records with countries such as Poland that subsequently became members of the European Union, particularly in relation to child sex offenders. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that situation has now completely changed?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is a fair point that I take on board in this debate.

I am slightly concerned by the Opposition’s tendency to say that we would be unable to extradite to European countries if we opted out of these measures, or that each extradition case would take 10 years. I believe that we could consider opting back into the European arrest warrant, but only after it had been reformed so that it no longer sacrificed UK citizens to face incompetent justice systems, as in the Colin Dines case; corrupt police, as in the Andrew Symeou case; or appalling prisons, as in a number of cases. We should seek to reform the European arrest warrant, and then have a sensible debate about whether we should opt back into it once it had been reformed. A number of other European countries want to reform it, including Germany, France and the Netherlands. Picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), I do not think that our EU partners would want to lose such a major partner as the UK in a field in which we have unique expertise, intelligence and experience.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is better to achieve change on the European arrest warrant by co-operating with other countries?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is exactly what this Government are doing, so I have no issue with that point, or with what the Government are doing.

There is concern that the opt-out is all about ideological hostility to the European Union. I do not accept that, especially coming from Labour Members. The last Government signed up to a vast array of measures without putting in place any proper means of empirically assessing or evaluating their benefits to this country. They simply signed away power after power. I actually think it is quite nice to see this Government properly scrutinising an important decision on policing and criminal measures in this way. I welcome this debate and I look forward to its continuing over the next year or so. I also look forward to voting on these proposals, because it is right that this Parliament should eventually decide for itself whether we have the block opt-out or not.

18:02

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I had the privilege of serving in Her Majesty’s Government for three years as a Minister in the Home Office, negotiating justice and home affairs issues to ensure that our country was a safer place. I had the great privilege of working with the Home Secretary’s two immediate predecessors, both of whom were excellent Home Secretaries who had the interests of the public very much at heart. I therefore have enormous respect for the position of Home Secretary, and I extend that respect to any incumbent in the role because I know the challenges they face. I believed this Home Secretary when, on taking on the job, she said that she took her role of protecting the public very seriously. I therefore have to ask why she is playing such games with the safety of the British public in her approach to the opt-out on justice and home affairs issues. Is this an example of dog-whistle politics as she burnishes her credentials in preparation for taking over from the Prime Minister in due course? If so, she is not doing very well today, given that not many of her Eurosceptic friends have even bothered to attend the debate or listen to her speech.

We need to look closely at the proposals. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) talked about the rights of British citizens in relation to these EU measures. I want to talk about the rights of British victims, which should be at the heart of what any Home Secretary does. If we were to opt out of all the justice and home affairs measures, we could in theory opt back into certain mechanisms. However, it is important to make it clear that that is not an automatic right. Because so many EU member states rightly support the European arrest warrant, there is a strong likelihood that they would agree to a UK opt-in on that particular issue.

Let us be clear about what the Government are saying to us. They are not clear on a lot of points, but on one thing they are quite clear. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and many other Conservatives on both the Back and the Front Benches are telling us that they will negotiate, or renegotiate, an entry into the European arrest warrant on more favourable terms, or stay out of it. At least, that is what the hints we have heard suggest—nothing very concrete, but that is what has come through in numerous debates in this House.

The reality, however, is that the treaty does not allow for automatically amending the European arrest warrant. We know that it is popular among other EU member states and it has been hard fought for and hard negotiated. As the hon. Member for Daventry highlighted and as others have said, there is a mood for change here and there in how the arrest warrant works, but that is much better done by all 27 nations working together in justice and home affairs Councils and negotiating together to make any amendments. That is better than the UK going it alone, but the UK going it alone is the sort of dog whistle approach that this Government adopt, ensuring that they talk in any language that will appeal to the Eurosceptic Back Benchers of the Conservative party rather than talk about the safety of the British public.

[Michael Connarty]

I want to confirm that my hon. Friend’s analysis is accurate. Along with other members of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have just returned from Lithuania where the Lithuanians were being harangued by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) about how everyone in Europe was turning against the EU, how we are all going to withdraw and he gave the example of the opt outs. They could not believe that any UK parliamentarian could talk about withdrawing from what, as my hon. Friend says, was a hard-negotiated agreement.

[Meg Hillier]

Absolutely. In my three years of negotiations, I was certainly struck by how positive other EU member states were in comparison with our Eurosceptic parliamentarians about the benefits of being members of Europe. We need to be really clear that there is no guarantee that we will be able to amend and then opt back in later. Even if that were to happen, there is no timetable for it, and we could be left uncovered for a period of time. We would have to negotiate 26 separate treaties with our EU colleagues. I cannot see them being very positive about that. Even when we were in government, I was told many times by my European colleagues that the UK was trying to have its cake and eat it. Through detailed and hard-working negotiation across government, however, we made sure that we got the best deal we could for the British public. My personal view is that we need to opt in; we need to amend, if necessary, on a cross-EU 27-member-state basis.

I am still puzzled about why the Home Secretary is lending her name to this risky game and why we are seeing such strong anti-European rhetoric from the Prime Minister. Perhaps it is all about Conservative Back Benchers and the threat to this Government of the UK Independence party. This Home Secretary and this Prime Minister are gambling with the security of the British public and the rights of victims—and we need to make that crystal clear.

That brings me to the other part of this coalition Government. The Liberal Democrats are now a party of government. That sometimes seems difficult to believe, but it is the case. We hear very little from Lib Dem Members, so I was heartened to hear from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that he is pro the European arrest warrant. That is not the impression I gained about Liberal Democrats in my full eight years in Parliament, so it is great to hear that and I look forward to his speech. He has talked about making some technical amendments, so the question for the hon. Gentleman when he stands up to speak on behalf of his party tonight is, “will they or won’t they?” Will the Lib Dems support the rights of British victims by voting with us, or will they sit on the fence as they often do and hedge their bets?

The UK’s reputation in Europe is also put very much at risk by this approach. Over the years, we have built up a strong reputation as good negotiators, using our influence in a positive way—for the UK in Europe, but also for Europe more widely. The Home Secretary has not really answered the questions about the support and role of the devolved Administrations. When I was negotiating for the Government, I would be accompanied by members of those devolved Administrations who would be at our side as we discussed and negotiated. What sort of discussions has the Home Secretary had?

I do not have time to go into all the measures today, but it is important that Prüm was mentioned. There were arguments about how it was handled and how the technical and IT administration was carried out, but it will nevertheless introduce important protections. At present, those in this country who, in a global world, employ people from abroad do not know much about where those people have come from, and do not know whether they have criminal records. Proper data exchange can make our country a safer place.

It would be good to know when the House of Commons will vote on the opt-out. As many Members have pointed out, we are within a year of making a final decision, and we shall need to discuss the issue at length. There are barely six weeks before the summer recess, and we shall want to look at the details of the Government’s proposals. I should have thought that, in three years, the Government would have got further than they have. We need to see full details of the opt-in measures; when will we see those? How will the Liberal Democrats vote? That is another important question, which I hope will be answered by the hon. Member for Cambridge. Finally, what is the Home Secretary doing to protect victims?

We are not a teenage debating society. We are talking about real, serious measures that would protect or threaten the British public and other citizens in Europe. We need to ensure that the debate continues beyond today, and that we winkle out of the Government much more detail than they have been prepared to offer on this occasion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, because I hoped that self-discipline would suffice, and in significant measure it has. Let me simply point out that five Members are seeking to catch my eye, and there is less than half an hour left, so the self-denying ordinance is now especially important.

18:11

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I find myself in a very unusual and difficult position: I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). I do not know whether he or I should be more alarmed by that, because we do not often agree when we discuss things.

I believe that the European police and judicial co-operation legislation structure has been good for Britain over the last 15 years, and I should like us to continue to be involved with it as much as possible. I think it a shame that we have the oddities of the Lisbon treaty. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the problems involved in negotiation. It would be much better not to have the block opt-out, but we are where we are. It is a shame that we were not left with something easier to work with.

What do the public think? Seventy-seven per cent. of them think that the UK should work “very closely” or “fairly closely” with the EU on counter-terrorism, policing and border security, while only 9% think that we should not. I am sure that the Members—most of them on the Government Benches—who always argue that we should listen to the public’s views on Europe would agree that we should listen to them in this instance, and hence stay firmly involved. Some of those on the Eurosceptic fringe have concerns, but I disagree with them. I believe that working with Europe helps us to extradite foreign criminals and bring back those who are suspected or convicted of crimes, and enables us to share information, intelligence and best practice. However, the deadline is approaching.

My current position is that it seems much cleaner, much easier and much simpler not to opt out at all. If we did not opt out, we would not have to go through the negotiation, there would not be the risk of not being able to get back in, and we would not face the potential costs of doing so. The Home Secretary rightly observed that some of the measures were useful, some were less so and some were defunct. That is true, but we can cope with the defunct ones. We do not have to worry too much about them. I was disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary did not take that line, although the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle did. However, I realise that the Home Secretary cannot simply do as I suggest, because of her problems within her own party. It is therefore appropriate for us to look at the details, and to focus on the most important aspects.

We must listen to the experts, such as the Association of Chief Police Officers. A senior former police and security chief has said that pulling out of many of these measures risks putting national security, public safety, and the UK’s reputation and international leadership in this area at risk. Commander Allan Gibson of ACPO has said:

“When you need to have someone arrested abroad, it”—

use of the European arrest warrant—

“is a simpler, faster and more certain process of getting a person before your courts. The police service benefits from that. It is much easier than what went before.”

That has been said many times, and I agree wholeheartedly. I definitely want us to remain within the European arrest warrant.

It is interesting to see some—although not all—Conservatives who pride themselves on being tough on crime taking a very “soft on crime” approach in this instance. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to take the “tough on crime” line quite clearly and distinctly, because this does matter. The European arrest warrant has been used in many cases, some of which have already been mentioned. For instance, Hussain Osman, one of the individuals involved in the attempted bombings in July 2005, was brought back from Italy under the arrest warrant.

The European arrest warrant could certainly be improved. It is not perfect and I agree with many of the criticisms levelled at it. It is clear that we need a proportionality test and I think we should go ahead with the Eurobail approach to allow foreign criminals to be extradited to their home countries on bail while awaiting trial. That would mean that British citizens awaiting trial overseas could spend that time here and that foreign citizens awaiting trial could go back to their home countries before coming back. Those sound like sensible improvements and I think that we should have them. If we stay inside those systems, we can improve them and have a European arrest warrant that is much better.

Procedures such as Europol and Eurojust are key. For me, the absolute red lines are the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust. That is one reason I prefer the Government amendment as a way towards my vision, because the motion completely omits Eurojust from the list. Although they both offer a way forward, I slightly prefer the one that sets out the procedures rather than just a list.

It would be harder to negotiate on some of these matters externally, given the tenor of the interactions between the Government and other European countries, and it is important to work with people on a more friendly basis from within the circle rather than from outside it. Eurojust is not often talked about, but it offers us huge benefits. Some 29 joint investigation teams involving Eurojust have made a huge difference to the safety of our country. How would we do that work if we were to opt out?

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) asked for some clear positions. I hope that I have been as clear as possible—and certainly clearer than some—that we must be in the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust and that the European arrest warrant must be improved to make it more workable to support British citizens and others. So many other things are important: customs co-operation, the European criminal records information system, financial penalties, Schengen II, the European police training college—the list goes on and on. I agree with those who have mentioned dealing with child pornography, the subject of our earlier debate, and football disorder. We should be taking a lead.

We must consider the debate without some of the hyperbole that has drifted in. This is not a question of whether we should be in or out of the EU—that is a completely different discussion, which we will have—but of whether we want our country to be safe and secure and to be able to co-operate to achieve that. My position and that of my party is clear.

I started my speech with a slightly awkward confession, when I said that I agreed with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. I must say that I think the Home Secretary will get this one right. I think that when we have the final list she will listen to the powerful advice given by the police, the security chiefs and this House and will agree that we need to stay in the European arrest warrant, in Europol and in Eurojust. I look forward to voting for that when she does.

18:17

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) who, along with other Members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, will consider the list of opt-ins and opt-outs when the Home Secretary eventually sends it to the Committee, to the Select Committee on Justice and to the European Scrutiny Committee. I agree with a lot of what he said. International co-operation in the EU is vital and Europol and Eurojust are important. I have just returned from a visit to Europol and was very impressed by the work done by Rob Wainwright and his team. I am glad that the Home Secretary is giving the House another opportunity to debate the issue in July before she decides whether to sign the important regulation that will allow us to be part of framing the next steps for Europol.

I congratulate the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), on all the work they have done. My thanks go more than to anyone else to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for giving us the chance to discuss this measure in her precious Opposition time—and to do so in prime time, rather than at the end of the day, which is when we normally discuss European issues. I repeat what all other right hon. and hon. Members have said about the importance of data-sharing, of knowing who is coming into our country and who is going out and of ensuring that those who have committed crimes and need to be returned to their country are returned as quickly as possible.

European co-operation also means that if there are problems with certain measures, we should consider them. There are problems with the European arrest warrant, although not with the principle or vision behind the scheme. We certainly need it, for the reasons given by the shadow Home Secretary. The difficulties are that some EU countries are issuing European arrest warrants for fairly trivial offences and at the moment each extradition under the European arrest warrant costs £18,000. The total cost to the British public in 2012 of actioning these warrants was £27 million, and figures from the Council of Europe showed that other European countries made 6,760 extradition requests to Britain in 2011—that is more than 130 a week, representing a 48% rise year on year.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) will speak in this debate, but since he came into the House he has highlighted the importance of this issue, and other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House have given specific examples of when their constituents have not been, in their view, fairly treated by the operation of the European arrest warrant.

In the same 12 months when the 48% year-on-year rise took place, the United Kingdom made just 205 requests for suspects wanted for crimes here and only 99 were handed over. Poland generates four in every 10 arrest warrants sent to Britain, and there has been an example of someone being extradited back to Poland and charged with stealing a wheelbarrow. I do not know whether that justifies £18,000 of taxpayers’ money, but it seems like a lot of judicial time and expense for something fairly trivial. I am glad that the motion talks about not only supporting the European arrest warrant, but reforming it, because asking individual countries such as Poland to think carefully about what they are doing is extremely important.

[Alan Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he accept that one of the problems from Poland is that the Polish prosecution service does not have the discretion not to prosecute? Does he also accept that the work going on within the European Union with Poland has led to a 40% reduction in applications? Their number is still too high, but it is declining.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that and it explains why part of the process is to talk to these countries and bilaterally engage, not on how they could improve their system, because that would be too patronising, but by explaining the effect their system is having on our country. That is why I welcomed your recent historic visit to Romania, Mr Speaker, when you were the first Speaker of the House of Commons to address the Romanian Parliament in session. The importance of your visit and of the discussions that my right hon. Friend has mentioned is that we can try to persuade other EU countries of the need to co-operate. With Romania, that came through Operation Golf; it came through smashing those gangs that had ensured that so many young Romanian women and men had been trafficked. If we do not have this dialogue, it cannot work.

There are a few months left before this Government bring the measures before the Select Committees. I know that it is the Home Secretary’s decision, but the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), is very assiduous, and I know he enjoys appearing before the Home Affairs Committee—and we enjoy having him—so I say to him that we would prefer that not to be done the week before the House votes, as is sometimes the case. Until I raised the issue of Europol with the Home Secretary she had not replied to my letter and told me that there was going to be a debate on Europol in the first week of July.

I am sorry if I sound like the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—perhaps I am turning into him—but the issue is that Parliament cannot scrutinise the measures in the European Parliament, and that is why the EU gets such a bad name: we get these measures in the British House of Commons far too late, we do not have enough time to debate them, only the usual suspects turn up at the debate and people think there is something wrong with all of us just because we want to talk about European issues. The best way to avoid that is to let us have this list quickly.

We are deciding on our programme in the Home Affairs Committee and we are going to visit Poland to talk to the Polish chief justice and others, including the judges. These are the people who are issuing the European arrest warrants in such numbers—as I said, 40% of these warrants come from Poland. We can arrange all that only if we know when the list will come to us. I hope that when the Minister winds up we will have a decision on that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is approximately five minutes for each of the three remaining speakers.

18:24

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I regret the nature of the amendment, because the Opposition motion is a genuine attempt to help the coalition. It would have been helpful if the Home Secretary had revealed, as we have done, the key measures that she supports. This distasteful horse-trading to see if there is some compromise, or a handful of measures that the Government can agree on, is a very funny way to handle the issue of crime and security. If the Government accepted our motion, they would be agreeing to the European arrest warrant, but of course they cannot, because the last Conservative manifesto was against it. That is why the Home Secretary is having to duck and dive. The Government would be supporting joint investigation teams; agreeing to joint action on internet child pornography, which worries so many of us; and agreeing to joint action on drugs, people trafficking and football security—all things that we should be able to support.

Nearly 10% of Europol’s work involves counter-terrorism, and the UK is involved in more than 200 Europol investigations into organised crime and terrorism. Surely that is right. I want concerted action to tackle the 3,500 or so criminal gangs active across Europe. They do not recognise national boundaries, and we should not be obstacles to cross-border action to deal with those people.

The Government’s position is riddled with inconsistencies. Government Members say that it does not matter if the European arrest warrant is lost, because extradition can be organised through the 1957 Council of Europe convention, but that would require decisions to be taken by Governments, not judges, and that is the very role that the Home Secretary wants to give up in relation to extradition.

Of course, the UK has already opted into post-Lisbon measures concerning the sexual exploitation of children and procedural safeguards for suspects and victims. Will we end up being obliged to agree to assist in the investigation of particular crimes at the request of EU states, but unable to make arrests or share key information at vital points in the inquiries?

If the coalition cannot decide on its position soon, we will have to opt out of all the measures and rely on the approval of 26 other countries to let us opt back in on a case-by-case basis. What happens if the anti-European hysteria makes opting back in much more difficult? The Government risk placing the needs of the coalition and Tory Eurosceptics ahead of the security and justice concerns of the people of this country.

18:28

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s speech and the broad strategic approach that she outlined. For my part, I want Britain to be a strong operational partner in Europe, but I do not believe that we need to give up democratic control over such a vital policy area to achieve that. We should consider all measures against the criteria of the UK’s national interest.

Few would object to European-wide criminal record checks to protect the public, but signing up for pan-European data sharing on every ordinary citizen is Orwellian and dangerous. As the UK’s surveillance of its people has expanded, data sharing with EU Governments has exposed the innocent to far greater risk. The classic case is that of Peter Hamkin, a Liverpool bartender wrongly arrested in 2003 for murdering an Italian woman because of a botched DNA match. He never set foot in Italy. New EU regulations risk a flood of such cases. Brussels wants foreign police to have access to the details of 38 million motorists on the UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database, as well as DNA and fingerprint records. Even the Commission concedes in its impact assessment that systemic flaws could lead to false matches sucking the innocent into foreign investigations. Everyone has been so sensitive about this, but the raw truth is that I do not trust the criminal justice systems or safeguards in many EU countries; I am thinking particularly of some of those on the periphery of the EU, but also some of the long-standing members.

According to the Association of Chief Police Officers, only 29 of the 135 EU measures that are subject to the block opt-out benefit UK law enforcement at all, and of those only 13 are vital. Far from enhancing law enforcement, the vast majority of measures that the previous Government signed Britain up to were utterly pointless. That is what ACPO’s evidence means. [Interruption.] It clearly does, but I will not take an intervention because of the time. We do not need to be part of efforts to harmonise national law in areas such as drugs or corruption, and certainly not in areas that cover free speech.

The EU spews out legislation, but where is the evidence that it delivers? The previous Government never had proper impact assessments or evaluations of it. Let us take one example—the six laws on corruption under the EU. Transparency International says that EU standards have barely budged over a decade. In fact, corruption got worse in 10 countries. Then there was the push on criminal justice standards, whereas Fair Trials International found that violations of pre-trial rights trebled across the EU in the past four years and unfair trials doubled. Hyperactive supranational legislation has proved a fig leaf for the lack of national institutional capacity building that really raises standards of justice for all Europe’s citizens.

I spent three years in the Foreign Office in The Hague monitoring Europol and Eurojust. I have no problem at all with a college of prosecutors or police officers engaging in practical authority-to-authority co-operation, but that is a snapshot of the present, and the question is where all this is leading. There is already a new EU regulation on Europol and one is expected on Eurojust. They are clearly envisaged by the Commission—I have the draft policy papers here—as stepping stones towards a pan-European criminal code enforced by Europol and Eurojust, backed up and interpreted by the European Court of Justice. We need to look not just at the current state of co-operation, but where this is headed.

The most controversial measure is, of course, the European arrest warrant. I understand entirely that police rely on it and I understand that it has expedited process, but Commander Gibson of the Metropolitan police has highlighted the fact that

“resources are stretched dealing with the amount of EAWs we receive”,

because the regime is utterly lopsided. The number of hon. Members who complain about the lopsided nature of US extradition, yet turn a blind eye, because of their Europhilia, to the EAW is quite remarkable, so let me give them the facts. For every EAW that Britain issued in 2011, we got 33 back. We receive a third of all European arrest warrants.

I know from many cases—that of Andrew Symeou and in my own constituency the case of Colin Dines—the extremely rough justice that perfectly innocent people have been through. Why? Because we cannot trust the justice systems in many countries. It is not just the new members. Italy and Greece have incompetent justice systems and appalling prison conditions, and we are and have been hanging our citizens out to dry for far too long. We need reform and the strongest way to press for reform is to opt out and, as a condition of opting back in, to insist on a number of basic safeguards. The proportionality test has been mentioned, and there are other safeguards.

The EAW is supposed to allow hit-and-hope warrants that involve extradition for the purposes of investigation, rather than prosecution. That happens all the time. I have proposed amendments, which Members in all parts of the House thought would be a good idea, to enact in UK law a basic safeguard to make sure that extradition under the EAW can take place only in a case that is trial-ready, for prosecution and not for investigation, yet we have never achieved that. If we want to exercise some leverage over our European partners, who get much more out of the system reciprocally than we do—I accept that there is a strong law enforcement advantage to the UK—we should use our leverage from the block opt-out to press for those reforms.

We should not take into account only what the police say. We do not live in a police state. Their view is very important, but we should also take into account the views of the most senior extradition judge in this country, Lord Justice Thomas, who told the Baker review that the EAW system has become “unworkable”, that unfairness is a “huge problem” and that there is widespread consensus among the judges in northern Europe that this is a problem, but there is obviously great sensitivity, and sensibilities, among some of the Mediterranean countries.

Beyond the individual cost-benefit analysis of these measures, we need to grasp the big picture and the long term. EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso has made it clear that he wants a pan-European criminal code, enforced by the Commission and the European Court, and an EU public prosecutor. If we want to preserve our common law system and democratic oversight in this vitally sensitive area, is now the right time to seek broader and more flexible arrangements for co-operation?

That is why this specific opt-out decision should not be divorced from the need to renegotiate Britain’s wider justice and home affairs relationship. There are plenty of precedents. We are not a full-blown member of Frontex, but its executive director has said

“we do not see any difference between our UK colleagues and the others”.

That is a good example of where we co-operate operationally but do not need to be signed up, lock, stock and barrel, with the cessation of democratic prerogatives that that involves.

The way this has been presented as some kind of life-threatening problem for UK law enforcement is incredible, when one thinks of our relationship with authorities outside Europe. The strategic alliance group, which includes Britain, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, collaborates on cybercrime and intelligence under a non-binding framework. Frankly, Brussels is the odd one out in insisting on a Faustian bargain that requires us to sacrifice democratic control as the price of co-operation.

The ideologues in this debate are not those calling for a renegotiation in justice and home affairs, based on operational co-operation rather than supranational control, but the dogmatic Europhiles who would blindly sacrifice British standards of justice and democratic accountability when the law enforcement case is so utterly weak.

18:36

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I will try to make some brief comments in the short time available. I walked up and down many streets in Hyndburn and Haslingden during the recent county council elections, and it was clear to me that many people are unaware of how important the European arrest warrant is, so this debate is welcome. Among those constituents who had some knowledge of the EAW, there was universal support for it.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) have pointed out, there are some 3,600 organised criminal gangs active in the EU, and they are involved in drugs, human trafficking, online child exploitation and theft. Cross-border crime is a reality, and we need 21st-century tools to meet the challenge.

We all remember Spain’s costa del crime, where British nationals wanted for serious crimes would simply buy a luxury pad and put their feet up, safe in the knowledge that they were beyond the reach of UK law. In 2002 the BBC suggested that some 230 criminals were hiding out in Spain. How things have changed! Last month The Daily Telegraph ran a story with the headline, “Why Spain’s Costa del Crime is now the worst place to go on the run”. It reported:

“Once a land of Ferraris, cocaine and women, it was the flashy destination of choice for the most notorious fugitives of Britain’s underworld. Now, as the arrest of Andrew Moran shows, Spain’s ‘Costa del Crime’ is the worst place to go on the run”.

These are important issues for our national security and public safety. Sadly for my constituents, the Government have stated that they will opt out of everything but have not been clear about which measures they will opt back into. Their position, in my view, is utterly confused. My constituents are concerned that opting out of these measures will affect public safety. Sadly, the Conservatives seem to be in hock to their Europhobic Back Benchers, who prioritise getting rid of anything with the word “Europe” in the title regardless of what value it has.

Policing and criminal justice co-operation strengthens our national security and means we can identify dangerous people coming into the UK. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) highlighted, Hussain Osman, who was identified as a suspect in the failed bomb attack at Hammersmith tube station on 21 July 2005, was extradited on a European arrest warrant and sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment. According to David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, there are a number of EU

“measures relevant to counter-terrorism that are considered by SO15 to be essential tools”.

We must be mindful—this has been commented on already—that 10% of Europol’s work is related to counter-terrorism.

It is crucial to our future that there are strong powers to tackle cross-border crime and prevent criminals from using the UK as a haven. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) mentioned Operation Golf, which involved the Metropolitan police and the Romanian national police and tackled a Romanian gang that was trafficking children into the UK for the commission of crime. It resulted in the arrest of 126 suspects for a wide range of offences, including human trafficking, benefit fraud, theft, money laundering and child neglect, and 272 trafficking victims were identified.

Over 600 criminals have been returned to the UK to face British justice for crimes they have committed here. Over 500 UK nationals convicted of sex offences in other EU states since 2006 are now managed in the UK within the sex offender management system, including paedophiles who without EU co-operation on crime may well have escaped justice. Exchanging criminal records is crucial to discovering serious offenders who have come to the attention of the police. Operation Veerde, a joint collaboration between the UK and the Czech Republic on human trafficking and rape of young women, resulted in 33 victims being located in the Czech Republic and nine suspects indicted and convicted in England on behalf of both states.

Combating internet child pornography has been part of collaborative EU policing. ACPO has said that the Schengen information system is a vital measure that the UK is already heavily committed to, and as such it is vital that we opt back into it. Easy access to this information will enable the UK to exchange information across Europe in real time in order to fight cross-border crime and rapidly repatriate UK criminals who have fled to other EU countries. This is not just about capturing British criminals who are attempting to hide within the EU. The UK has deported over 4,000 criminals under the EU arrest warrant, 95 of whom are foreign nationals removed from the UK. That is a considerable number of foreign prisoners who no longer languish in British prisons.

My constituents will suffer if polluted anti-European politics result in this Government withdrawing from effective EU cross-border policing measures. That risks sex offenders, child traffickers and violent criminals, as well as foreign criminals, escaping justice and could result in their being on the streets of my constituency and all other hon. Members’ constituencies.

18:41

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting debate, although we are absolutely none the wiser about the Government’s policy. I am delighted that the Home Secretary has come back into the Chamber; perhaps she will be able to provide us with some answers later.

Last year the Prime Minister said that he would be exercising the opt-out, then the Deputy Prime Minister disagreed, and then the Home Secretary said that the Government’s current thinking was to opt out. We have therefore tabled an Opposition motion to try to tease out the Government’s position and precisely what they intend to do, because we know that this is a matter of national security. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), was absolutely right when he said not long ago that we should not be naive about the process of renegotiation if we want to opt out and then opt back in. As he said, the Commission would attach conditions—for instance, it might allow us to join groups of related measures, some of which we like while others we might not.

Our view is that thus far this has been a pretty shabby process. When we tried to enable the House to debate the European arrest warrant during the progress of the Crime and Courts Bill, Government Ministers and Back Benchers talked out the debate so that we never managed to discuss the matter at all. All the relevant Committees in this House and in the House of Lords have complained that they have been given negligible information by the Government. We have been given no clarity of any kind as to what measures they might be considering opting into—not even a clear idea on their final resolution of whether they intend to opt out in general—and we had no clarity today.

We still have no clarity about what kind of votes we are going to have. The Home Secretary trumpeted the fact that last year the Europe Minister, who is in his place, charming chap that he is, said that we would have a vote in both Houses. However, he did not say whether they would be binding votes—just that they would be votes before the Government made their final decision. He did not say whether the votes would be on a list of what we are to opt into and opt out of. He did not say whether they would be on amendable motions. He did not say what would happen if one House voted one way and the other House voted the other.

The truth is that a double tug of war is going on, as we know from The Guardian today. The first is between the two sides of the Government—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is great that the man who actually boasts of having invented the poll tax when he worked at No. 10 under Mrs Thatcher is now in charge of these negotiations as the Minister for Government Policy. The other tug of war is between Conservative Members, some of them on the ultra-right and some on the moderate right. Some might be referred to historically as the H-block—the Heaton-Harris and Hannan end of the Conservative party. It reminds me of the Old Testament—two women claim that a baby is theirs and it is only when Solomon says that the baby should be cut in half that one of them owns up. I am worried that the Government’s policy-making process means that they are simply playing a numbers game in which they spin different things to different parts of the media and the end result will be that British security will lose out.

It is all pretty sad, really, because historically the United Kingdom has led and campaigned for greater co-operation on many of these issues in the European Union. It is a simple matter of fact that ease of travel, faster telecommunications and the ability to send money from one country to another much faster mean that no country is hermetically sealed any more. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has said, criminality does not stop at the channel. When I first typed out that sentence, it said, “does not stop at the Chanel”, which is rather different.

On joint investigation teams, our advances in recent years and the increased number of such teams mean that we are able to tackle forms of criminality that we were never able to deal with before.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has been mentioned many times. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) that, just because a police officer says something, that does not necessarily mean that we need to put it into law. However, ACPO has pointed out:

“The presence of fugitives from justice fleeing to the UK is a significant public safety issue.”

It stands to reason that if we make it more difficult for people to be extradited from this country by resiling from the European arrest warrant, we will, in effect, open ourselves up to the danger of being a haven for them.

[Mr Raab]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way, because we have very little time left and the hon. Gentleman took up quite a large amount of time himself.

I believe that the European arrest warrant is invaluable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has said, it is invaluable for victims apart from anything else. Without it, ACPO says that

“It is not just foreign criminals who would sit for years in UK jails. UK court cases would stall for many years as we waited to get our fugitives back, robbing their victims of the chance for justice to be served.”

Similarly, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) referred to the case of Hussain Osman, who planted a bomb on 21 July 2005 which, thank God, did not go off. Within eight days he had been arrested, having gone through Paris to Rome, and by September he was back in this country, thanks to the European arrest warrant. Without it, such a process might take up to 10 years in future. That is precisely the kind of thing that we want to avoid.

We have only to look at the statistics for 2011-12. Sometimes the hon. Member for Esher and Walton—whom I respect enormously in many regards, but not in what he says about this—often suggests that this is all about British citizens being extradited, but the vast majority of people surrendered from and to the UK under the European arrest warrant are not British. In 2011-12, Government statistics show that 922 people were extradited from the UK, just 32 of whom were British nationals. They were not extradited to the kinds of countries referred to by the hon. Gentleman: eight went to Ireland, six to the Netherlands and five each to Spain and France. The flow in the other direction was similar: 17 from Ireland and the Netherlands, and 14 from Spain. Of the extraditions, 50 were for homicide, 20 for rape and 90 for robbery. The thought that we might surrender the European arrest warrant and have no sure knowledge of what would stand in its place must be of serious concern to everybody in the country.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), charming though he is, was quite casual about whether there would be an alternative to the European arrest warrant, but all the work of the Lords Committee, the Bar Council and others suggests that we might have to rely on the 1957 convention, which would not solve any single one of the problems with the European arrest warrant that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton referred to. In fact, it would make many of them considerably worse, because it would lead to a longer process and people like Andrew Symeou might end up being imprisoned. Bilateral agreements, for which the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has argued—she is not present, but she leads the charge for many of the more ardent Eurosceptics—would not help either. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said, there is a danger that we will create a new version of the costa del crime in this country.

There are measures other than the European arrest warrant that we think are vital to our national security. The Schengen information system, the second incarnation of which is not yet fully in place, will mean that every country in the EU will be able to access real-time information on anybody who is of interest to the criminal justice system of any other country at their border and elsewhere. That is an important system and it covers 23 of the measures that we are discussing.

David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that SO15 considers many of the measures that we are talking about to be essential in tackling terrorism. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned one person who made his concerns about the European arrest warrant known to the Baker review. However, I point out to hon. Members who are deeply troubled by the European arrest warrant that the Baker review said clearly:

“we believe that the European arrest warrant scheme has worked reasonably well.”

[Mr Raab]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will still not give way to the hon. Gentleman because hon. Members wish to hear from the Minister.

I will end by making one further point. I know that there are many pragmatic, sensible pro-Europeans on the Government Benches. Sometimes they remind me of Nicodemus in the New Testament, who was only able to visit Jesus at night because he did not want to own up to his Jewish colleagues on the Sanhedrin about his real views. I can see some of those sensible pro-Europeans now and I am tempted to name them—to out them. Of course, there are plenty of Liberal Members who are sometimes sensible. There are also plenty of Conservatives. It is just a shame that they dare not own up to their true views.

I hope that what comes out of this process is a proper consultation with all the Select Committees and a proper list that does not come out only on the day after the end of May 2014—we know that the Home Secretary is not very good at getting her dates right. I hope that we have a proper process whereby everybody in the House can declare their commitment to the systems that work well in the national interest, and that there is an amendable motion for which all Members can vote.

18:52

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Before I respond to the points that have been made by various Members, it is important in the short time that I have to restate a few simple points to ensure that this debate is understood and placed in its proper context, particularly in the light of the last contribution and some of the other contributions this afternoon and evening.

First, the decision that the previous Administration left us to make is whether to exercise the opt-out by 31 May 2014. The Opposition motion and a number of the contributions this evening have given the impression that this is a rushed decision. Before coming to a final view on such an important matter, the Government must be satisfied that they have worked through all the options, understood the implications of them, provided Parliament with as much information as is practical and given Members the chance to debate the issues in an informed way. That is the proper way for a Government to conduct business and that is precisely what we are committed to doing.

Secondly, I remind Members that some 130 measures are subject to this decision, not just the handful named in the Opposition motion. While the Opposition may view those measures as the most important ones that are subject to the decision—although in the light of the contributions this evening, I am not so sure about that—I do not agree that we should single out individual measures when making the large opt-out decision. Instead, we should look at the measures in the round. That is to say, we should consider all 130 or so of them. We must take a decision based purely on what is in the national interest.

My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have been consistently clear to this House and in evidence to the other place that the Government’s current thinking is that we should opt out of all pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures, but seek to rejoin measures where it is in the national interest to do so. The Government have given a clear commitment, reiterated today by the Home Secretary, to hold a vote on the matter before any formal decision to opt out is made.

I am proud to be a member of a Government who have done so much to allow Parliament to scrutinise EU matters more fully than ever before, and who are allowing a vote on such an important matter. When such an unambiguous commitment has been made and repeated by the Government, I am not clear what benefit is to be gained by holding a vote on a motion that only partially deals with this matter. Surely it is better to welcome the Government’s commitment to a vote, and for the Government to ensure that any vote takes place in a fully informed manner.

The decision on exercising the UK’s opt-out will be taken in the national interest. After contributions from hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), let me say clearly that this is not about playing games or not acting responsibly—something the Home Secretary made crystal clear in her contribution this afternoon. Consideration will be given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental effect on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms. That is the correct and measured approach the Government will take.

Important contributions have been made this afternoon, and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) highlighted the impact of European Court of Justice jurisdiction. Much of the third-pillar legislation was made to the lowest common denominator in order to secure unanimity, and it was not negotiated with European Court of Justice jurisdiction in mind. Much of the drafting reflects that and is not of a high standard. Indeed, some of it is ambiguous and could lend itself to expansive interpretation by the Court—a point effectively made by my hon. Friend. He also referred to the Metock case that highlights the issues involved and why this matter must be considered so carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) highlighted evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers which said that 55 of the measures in the basket have no practical effect, and that is why the evidence presented must be weighed carefully. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) highlighted the balance of competences review, but that is a separate matter concerning modifications to treaties. The issue currently before the House concerns the utilisation of a measure in an existing treaty.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) seemed to imply that there was no room for practical co-operation, but there absolutely is. Much of our co-operation to fight crime and terrorism does not depend on EU-level instruments. Indeed, our operational partners co-operate closely on a daily basis and that will not change. We have been clear throughout this process that where there is a case for practical co-operation with other European partners, the Government will support it.

Some hon. Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, highlighted Europol. Obviously, the Commission has published a new measure and there will be a separate debate on that at the start of July. Therefore, our decisions on Europol will clearly be framed in the context of the new measure and existing measures that fall within the basket. We also expect the publication of new instruments in relation to Eurojust.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The question is—[Interruption.] I do not think we need any help from you, Mr Browne. Thank you. You are very good at giving advice, but we do not need it.

Question put forthwith, That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

18:59

Division 28

Ayes: 217

---

Labour: 208
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2

Noes: 282

---

Conservative: 234
Liberal Democrat: 42
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Independent: 1

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

Question agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).

Resolved,

That this House believes that the decision on exercising the UK’s opt out from EU former third pillar measures should be taken in the national interest, with consideration given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms; and welcomes the commitment made by the Minister for Europe on 20 January 2011 to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the Government makes a formal decision on whether it wishes to opt out.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 4 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electricity

That the draft Planning Act 2008 (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects) (Electric Lines) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 10 April 2013, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Licences and Licensing

That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Descriptions of Entertainment) (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 April 2013, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

National Health Service

That the draft National Health Service (Direct Payments) (Repeal of Pilot Schemes Limitation) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 April 2013, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Alistair Carmichael.)

Question agreed to.

Work Capability Assessments

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Alistair Carmichael.)

19:13

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Most people here will probably be familiar with the employment and support allowance. Between the introduction of the assessment in October 2008 and February 2012, 1.36 million new claimants were assessed and of those 794,000 were declared fit for work. Of those, 311,900 appealed their decision and 116,400 were successful. That means that nearly one in 10 of all ESA assessments have been overturned. Although the proportion of decisions overturned has started to fall, the overall number remains very high. And those figures do not include all the incapacity benefit claimants currently being migrated to ESA—a process that started last year and is due to be completed in 2014. The cost of appeals is a considerable issue for the Government. This year it is projected to rise to £70 million, up from £50 million.

I have considered a number of detailed aspects of this issue. In May last year I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the recommendations for new descriptors for mental, intellectual and cognitive conditions that were drawn up by a number of charities. In December last year I secured another debate, in which I highlighted the fact that people are regularly called back for reassessments just months after their previous claim has been granted. Today I want to focus on the provision of audio recording equipment in assessments. I sent the Minister an advance copy of my speech, because this is a serious issue that deserves an attempt to reach a constructive solution. I will spare him the need to spend time telling me that it was my Government who started the employment and support allowance. I know that. It is people’s experience of the system that has shown many of us that it needs substantial reform.

The assessments carried out by Atos have been much criticised. Assertions have been made about some of the questions asked and the attitude of assessors. For example, I recently met a constituent—by no stretch of the imagination is she a disability activist—who told me that the assessor made a comment about her handbag, saying, “Well I couldn’t afford that, even on my salary.” My constituent tells me it was a present, but she felt the comment was irrelevant and carried the implication that she did not need the benefit. Such assertions are regularly denied by Atos and not accepted by the Department for Work and Pensions. We even have differences of opinion on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, with some members feeling that campaigning organisations exaggerate such claims.

Audio recording of assessments would allow such disputes to be settled once and for all. Importantly, they would provide new evidence in the event of appeals, but should also improve the quality of assessments, thereby reducing the number of appeals and helping to get things right first time. Assessors would be prompted to ensure that their work was of the highest possible standard—for example, taking more time, asking open as opposed to closed questions, and probing for possible follow-up issues.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the importance of quality in the work capability assessment. May I bring to her attention the situation of my constituent George Rolph, who is currently on the 23rd day of his hunger strike about his treatment at the hands of Atos? When he failed his work capability assessment, he felt he had no choice but to take such drastic action to bring to the Government’s attention the failures of the system.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving such a graphic example of the human issues that lie behind what might seem to be quite a dry subject in many respects.

I was pleased when the year 1 Harrington review recommended that Atos should undertake a pilot to test the hypothesis that audio recording would make a difference.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a vital issue in my constituency. Every week my office deals with issues arising from the Atos work capability assessment. People who go in for the work capability tribunal test receive no points at all or very few points. The question they ask is: “How can they disregard my health?” Would not the introduction of audio recordings enable my constituents and the hon. Lady’s to have confidence in the system?

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is exactly the point I am trying to convey. We want to improve the scheme and give people that confidence.

I was quite interested today to come across an online headline in the Daily Mail that said: “Record your builder to make sure he sticks to his word”. That was the recommendation from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). She was suggesting that that would help to resolve disagreements in those situations.

The pilot went ahead in Atos’s Newcastle assessment centre between March and May 2011, and an evaluation report was submitted to the DWP on 4 June 2011. In a Westminster Hall debate on 1 February 2012, the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), set out the Government’s position. He said that owing to a lack of demand, audio recording would not be rolled out for all assessments. Specifically he said:

“We decided not to implement universal recording because, based on the trial experience, people did not want it.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 292WH.]

I am afraid that that assertion is not justified. The Atos pilot concluded that

“68% of customers agreed to the recording when contacted by telephone prior to the appointment.”

Owing to some claimants not turning up for their assessment, or eventually deciding that they did not want a recording, the figure for those whose assessments were recorded dropped to 46%. That figure is still substantial, however, and the demand for audio recordings is reflected in one of Atos’s key conclusions, which stated:

“Our recommendation would be that recording should be become routine as it is in a call centre or, for example, NHS Direct.”

Parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests have yielded another metric to defend the Government’s position—namely, that only 1% of the claimants in the pilot requested a copy of their recording. However, that cannot be regarded as an accurate reflection of demand, for two reasons. First, assessors in the pilot used hand-held devices and the recordings had to be transferred to computers and burnt to CDs after the assessments. That meant that claimants could not pick up their recording on the day but had to go to the added effort of making a request in writing. In effect, that required claimants to opt into the pilot and then opt in again to get their recording. We also do not know what the claimants thought the pilot was about. Often, when we phone helplines, we are told on a recorded message that the call will be recorded for staff training purposes. It is possible that the claimants in the pilot were not clear about its purpose.

Secondly, claimants were told that recordings would be of use to them only in the event of an appeal. Given that the report was completed just days after the pilot concluded, most of those involved would not yet have received a decision on their claim, let alone come to a view on whether they would appeal. Demand for copies might well have been higher had this metric been measured after a longer period. I therefore ask the Minister to accept that the number of claimants in the pilot who requested a copy of their recording is not an accurate reflection of demand, and that the number of people acquiescing to their assessment being recorded is a more appropriate metric to use.

Turning to what has happened in the two years since the pilot, I want to refer back to the statement given by the previous Minister in Westminster Hall on 1 February 2012. In addition to claiming that there had not been much demand for audio recordings, he said that

“we will offer everyone who wants it the opportunity to have their session recorded.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 291WH.]

In practice, however, it is hard for anyone to have an assessment recorded. The option to request recordings is not mentioned in the official DWP communications to claimants. I was reassured to see that the DWP website was updated last week, on 6 June, and that it now states that the Department and Atos are going to amend written communications. It states:

“We are working to introduce more widespread information for all claimants as soon as possible.”

However, it is now two years since the pilot, and the Department is still “working” to have this included in its communications. It does not seem to be too complicated a sentence to include in letters to claimants.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said in a debate on 4 September that even when requests are made, they are not always met because of a lack of equipment. A freedom of information response from 22 May this year indicated that Atos now has some 50 audio recording machines, but this is inadequate given that over 11,000 assessments are undertaken across the country every week. Another freedom of information request from 23 May suggests that this national roll-out may even be a temporary measure that will end later this year.

Will the Minister confirm when DWP communications will be able to inform claimants that they can have their assessment recorded? To how many audio recording devices does Atos now have access? Will he confirm whether the recordings currently taking place are part of a wider roll-out that is intended to be permanent or merely a further pilot?

The report from Professor Harrington in 2010 prompted the Newcastle pilot, and it is worth looking at what he has had to say on this issue since then. In his December 2012 report, which was his third and final one, he said:

“The pilot of audio recording of assessments has also been subject to much debate…The Review has seen little evidence from the DWP evaluation of the audio recording pilot of 2011 that the universal audio recording of assessments would improve their quality…further monitoring and evaluation work needs to be completed before a decision can be made.”

The Minister might like to interpret Harrington’s reference to “little evidence” as suggesting that audio recordings make no difference, but I would argue that what he was getting at was the inadequacy of the pilot commissioned and accepted by the DWP, which was why he called for more examination of the issue.

What the assessors did in this pilot was to take a small number of reports, review them in light of the recordings and conclude that they tallied with each other—that what the written report said and what the recording said were the same. Subsequently, to justify their policy, the main arguments from the Government have both highlighted and ignored the various metrics of demand mentioned in the report. Neither of those approaches answers the key question: do audio recordings improve the quality of assessments?

Instead, I would contend that the key performance indicator for the work capability assessment should be the proportion of decisions that are subsequently overturned on appeal. A more robust pilot would have involved taking larger samples of both recorded and unrecorded assessments and examining the proportion of successful appeals for both. If they were the same, it would have been fair to conclude the recordings make no difference; but if there were a smaller proportion of successful appeals from those that were recorded, it would be equally fair to conclude that they were worth while.

We need to be clear, too, whether the current roll-out is actually just another pilot still to be evaluated. If it is to be evaluated, it would be useful to know what is going to be evaluated. This has a relevance beyond the employment and support allowance because the DWP now says that it will make a decision about audio recording of personal independence payment assessments after the evaluation of the ESA experience. That is despite the fact that one of the companies tendering for that PIP assessment, Capita, originally offered to audio record all its assessments. Asking the right questions about what the evaluation is for is crucial.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Is it not important to test not only the impact on quality but the impact on the confidence of those assessed?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Indeed. As I think I said earlier, this may well answer some of the issues. If people are anxious about these assessments, their confidence would certainly be improved in this way. If, as some suggest, the assertions made by claimants are exaggerated, that would be established, too, and we would all be happier. We need to know—it is a bit unclear—whether we are going to re-run another pilot, whether what is going on is a pilot and, if so, how it is going to be evaluated.

In conclusion, I want to raise three sets of questions. First, will the Minister accept on the basis of how the pilot was carried out that requests for copies of audio recordings should not be cited as a reflection of demand, and does he accept that the number of people who want to have their assessment recorded is a more appropriate measurement to use? Secondly, will the Minister tell me exactly what steps are being taken, and how quickly, to inform claimants that their assessments can be recorded? If people do not know that that service is available, they will hardly ask for it. Will the Minister also tell me how many audio recording devices Atos now has access to, and whether there will be a wider, permanent roll-out or merely a further pilot? Finally, will the Minister accept Professor Harrington’s call for more work to be done, so that there can be a proper evaluation?

19:30

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing the debate. I also thank her for being unusually helpful and supplying a copy of her speech to my office in advance. I hope that that will enable us to engage in a reasoned debate on how we are to introduce the audio recording of work capability assessments. It is important, and we must get it right. It accords firmly with our commitment to improving the WCA process continuously.

The interest in audio recording that has been expressed in parliamentary questions, freedom of information requests and, indeed, today’s debate demonstrates the importance of this issue. We fully appreciate the benefits of offering audio recording to those who request it as part of their face-to-face assessments, but, while we accept that there has been an increase in demand for its use, we must be sure that we understand the evidence base, including that relating to the value to claimants. Making knee-jerk policy is not an option. The evidence needs to be balanced against potential costs, and that is the process in which my officials are currently engaged. I shall say more about that shortly.

As the hon. Lady said, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), made a statement on audio recording back in February 2012. He said on that occasion:

“we will offer everyone who wants it the opportunity to have their session recorded.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 291-92WH.]

Since then we have striven to honour that commitment, and all those having face-to-face assessments have been able to request that their sessions be recorded.

The present policy is that claimants can ask for their assessments to be recorded, either by means of the service offered by the Department for Work and Pensions and Atos Healthcare or through the use of their own recording equipment. Requests for an audio recording, whether through the use of Atos Healthcare’s equipment or through the use of equipment provided by a claimant, must be made in advance when a face-to-face assessment is arranged. The purpose of that is to provide adequate notice so that recording equipment can be made available and ready for use.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

A constituent of mine provided her own equipment for her son’s work capability assessment. One tribunal judged that it was admissible while another judged that it was not, because it was not clear that the nurse involved had given consent. Allowing claimants to provide their own equipment leads to complications. It would be much better if the equipment were clearly offered, and, indeed, if its provision became standard.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to how difficult it is for people to provide their own equipment, and to the importance of ensuring that proper controls govern such matters as consent.

Atos has access to 31 audio recording machines, three of which are currently being repaired. It also has access to 21 cassette machines which are on loan from the DWP. We constantly monitor the updating of audio recording assessments to ensure that the supply of the equipment meets demand.

Let me put our commitment into more context. Those who want an audio recording can request one, but a claimant has no legal right to an audio-recorded assessment, and neither the DWP nor Atos Healthcare has a legal obligation to provide an audio-recording service or equipment. Our commitment is based on our intention to provide the best possible service for claimants, but the unavailability of audio recording facilities does not mean that the WCA process can be delayed indefinitely. That could slow down the process unnecessarily. Since the introduction of audio recording, only nine requests have been refused owing to the unavailability of equipment.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, Professor Harrington’s first independent review of the WCA recommended that the Atos Healthcare pilot audio recording of assessments should be used to determine whether such an approach is helpful for claimants and improves the quality of assessments. In making that recommendation, Professor Harrington rightly noted the need to balance potential drawbacks such as the increased burdens on tribunals and the sharing of sensitive personal data, with potential improvements in both assessor and claimant behaviours.

Following that recommendation, the audio pilot took place in the Newcastle assessment centre during spring 2011. The pilot involved 500 claimants being offered the chance to volunteer to have their assessment recorded. The results of the pilot showed that less than half of those offered ended up having an audio recorded assessment and only a handful, less than 1%, requested a copy of their assessment.

The hon. Lady has raised concerns about the metrics we use when considering demand for audio recording. We feel that the metrics used are key in showing the exact demand during the pilot.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Perhaps the Minister was about to come to this point, but I am sorry that he has chosen simply to repeat the 1% figure without addressing the criticisms that have been raised—I have heard them from others, too. The context of the pilot made it difficult for people to get a copy and the pilot was then evaluated very quickly.

[Mr Hoban]

I do not think that it was that difficult to get hold of a copy. The recording might need to be held on a handheld device before it is transferred to a computer and a transcript is printed, but that does not stop people asking for a copy. I thought that was one point in the hon. Lady’s thoughtful speech that was not well substantiated.

The results also provided little evidence that audio recording of face-to-face assessments improved the quality of assessments. There was only limited evidence of improvement in the customer experience for some individuals. Of those who took part, fewer than half the claimants thought that audio recording would be helpful to them. Those are the key areas that Professor Harrington wanted to understand when he called for the original pilot. As a result the Department decided not to introduce audio recording of face-to-face assessments universally on the basis that a facility for all assessments would be extremely costly, with no apparent substantial benefit or improvement in the quality of assessments. We ensured that when claimants asked for an audio recording, we were in a position to provide that facility. That was not intended to provide a permanent solution, but it is important in helping to provide the evidence for further changes.

Let me say a little about current demand. Since the introduction of a limited audio recording facility in September 2011, fewer than 4,000 claimants have requested a recorded assessment. To date, Atos has conducted more than 2,000 audio-recorded assessments. During that period almost 1.5 million face-to-face assessments for both ESA and incapacity benefit reassessments have been completed. Therefore, the proportion of recorded assessments is less than 0.2% of all assessments carried out during the period. We need to continue to monitor that take-up, but universal recording for such low numbers does not seem prudent and might not provide value for money.

We have always been clear that the provision of a limited audio recording service is a temporary measure that needs to be evaluated fully before a final decision is taken on the future of the service. As I have already said, we need the evidence to show that investing potentially large sums of money into the provision of universal recording will improve quality and will be used by claimants.

We agree with the comments in Professor Harrington’s third report in which he expressed views about audio recording needing to improve the quality of assessments. He said that

“further monitoring and evaluation work needs to be completed before a decision can be made”.

That is why we have decided to extend the evaluation period until the end of the summer to allow us to gather additional data on quality and potential take-up for a subsequent robust decision on any potential future audio-recording provision. We now have a benchmark for current take-up but, as has been rightly pointed out, we cannot get a true comparison until we routinely let people know about its availability. I am pleased to say that we are therefore taking steps to boost awareness of audio recording.

The Department and Atos are in the process of amending written communications to claimants by updating the WCA AL1C form. The document is sent to claimants when they need to arrange a face-to-face assessment and will provide more information on how to arrange an audio-recorded assessment. We expect the revised form to be sent out to claimants by the end of next month, once the necessary changes have been made and the form has been cleared for use.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Perhaps the Minister might be able to explain why it has taken nearly two years to make that amendment. If I understood him correctly, he said that the evaluation of all this process was being extended to the end of the summer, so if the revised letter is not going out until the end of this month or the end of next month, there will be very little time to judge whether that has made any difference.

[Mr Hoban]

The volume of people going through the WCA on a monthly basis is significant—I believe that 100,000 claims are made for ESA every month—so it will not take long to find out the take-up rate, although we need to make sure that the pilot has the right amount of time to gather sufficient evidence. Earlier the hon. Lady was arguing in favour of a shorter pilot and now she is potentially arguing for a longer pilot in order to get the evaluation right, but she makes an important point.

In addition to the letter I mentioned, the Department has recently provided more information about the audio-recording facility on the “Inside Government” section of the gov.uk website. By ensuring that more people are aware of the facility we will get a much better picture of how many people are applying for an audio recording and a better assessment of the level of demand. The hon. Lady rightly made the point that we do need to understand what the demand actually is.

In the past, the Department has asked Atos Healthcare to apply a processing safeguard whereby requests for audio-recorded assessments should be accommodated within four weeks, and where that was not possible, the assessment should go ahead without a recording. However, during the remainder of the evaluation period, to help ensure that claimant expectation can be met, the four-week safeguard for requesting audio-recorded assessments has been removed. That will enable us to gather a fuller picture of demand and capacity, in order to inform a full and robust evaluation.

To conclude, we are continuing to evaluate the costs and benefits of the current approach, and will await the results of a further evaluation during the summer before making a further decision on the future of this service and how it can improve the WCA.

[Heidi Alexander]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I just want to finish these remarks.

Although I acknowledge the increase in audio recording and potentially the recommendation of Professor Harrington on this matter, we also need properly to evaluate the cost and benefits of the extension of recording. We are doing just that. By raising awareness of the service we will be able to gauge demand, assess usage of the recordings by claimants and tribunals—it is important to understand where tribunals want to see transcripts of recordings—and evaluate the wider impact on quality.

As a word of caution, I say that the original evaluation demonstrates a reasonable level of interest from claimants but a low level of take-up of the actual recordings and no impact on quality. I am determined, as I have made clear in debates in this House since I took on this role, to improve the WCA, but I am prepared to do so only where the benefits are demonstrable.

Question put and agreed to.

19:43

House adjourned.

Division 26

Ayes: 272

---

Conservative: 226
Liberal Democrat: 46

Noes: 209

---

Labour: 194
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1
Conservative: 1

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 12 June 2013

Energy and Climate Change

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Energy Bills

The following is the answer given by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), to a question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) during Energy and Climate Change Question Time on 6 June 2013.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that smart metering gives the consumer—the householder—real information on how much energy they are using? How quickly can we get smart metering into every home in Britain, hopefully along with a carbon monoxide detector that will save people’s lives?

[Gregory Barker]

First, on carbon monoxide detectors, the hon. Gentleman is the champion in this House of that very important technology and I thank him for his engagement with my Department. We are working closely to ensure that the green deal will push through the roll-out of carbon monoxide detectors.

On smart meters, we now have what we believe to be the most ambitious programme in Europe, beginning in earnest in 2014 and completing by 2019. It is very exciting and very radical.

[Official Report, 6 June 2013, Vol. 563, c. 1645.]

Letter of correction from Gregory Barker:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 6 June 2013 to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

The correct answer should have been:

[Gregory Barker]

First, on carbon monoxide detectors, the hon. Gentleman is the champion in this House of that very important technology and I thank him for his engagement with my Department. We are working closely to ensure that the green deal will push through the roll-out of carbon monoxide detectors.

On smart meters, we now have what we believe to be the most ambitious programme in Europe, beginning in earnest in the autumn of 2015 and completing by end 2020. It is very exciting and very radical.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12 June 2013

[Mr Jim Hood in the Chair]

Rakhine and Kachin State (Human Rights)

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Randall.)

00:00

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to open this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. The issues of human rights, equality and justice, and the plight of the persecuted people of Burma, are potent for Members of both Houses and have caused considerable concern to a number of my constituents in Bolton South East who have family and relatives living in Burma. Indeed, a number of them formed a small campaign group called the Burma Action group, which has organised two peaceful vigils in Bolton town centre. I thank both that group for its hard work in raising awareness of human rights abuses in Burma and the London-based charity, Burma Campaign, for its excellent work. I acknowledge and pay tribute to Members who have worked hard to raise the awareness of some of the issues, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali).

The Foreign Secretary once said that the Government of Burma must be judged by their actions and not their words, yet over the past 18 months the UK Government have reversed a decade-long policy of prioritising human rights in Burma and supported the lifting of all European sanctions on the country despite the fact that none of the human rights benchmarks of the European Union has been met. Even The Daily Telegraph described that decision as “deeply embarrassing”. Undoubtedly, there have been some changes in Burma over the past two years, but still more need to be encouraged. However, the policy must be carefully calibrated, taking into account the wide disparity between words and action. Burma still has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Since Thein Sein became president, human rights abuses, which violate international law, have increased.

In June 2011, the Burmese army in Kachin state broke a 17-year ceasefire with the Kachin Independence Organisation, and for the past two years it has pursued a brutal war against the Kachin people, targeting civilians and violating international law. The United Nations special rapporteur has documented widespread abuses, which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rape and gang rape, torture, executions, arson, mortar bombing of civilian villages, beatings and the use of child soldiers are commonplace. The UN Human Rights Council resolution on Burma, passed in March 2013, highlighted serious human rights abuses that violate international law, including arbitrary detention, forced displacement, land confiscations, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as well as other violations of international humanitarian law. None the less, the Government of Burma still deny that human rights abuses have taken place, and when asked about the abuses in a recent interview, Lieutenant General Myint Soe said:

“Don’t believe everything you hear.”

Perhaps one of the most disturbing elements of the conflict in Kachin has been the widespread use of rape by the Burmese army. It is reported that more than half the women raped or gang raped by soldiers were also tortured, mutilated and killed. Perhaps the Minister could explain why, in the G8 summit, the Prime Minister decided to leave Burma out of the preventing sexual violence initiative? I would have thought that highlighting the increased use of rape by the Burmese army was of more importance than promoting an inaccurate positive image of Burma, which is what we have seen in recent months. I urge the Minister to press the Burmese Government to enter proper political dialogue on Kachin state to ensure that they address the root causes of the violence instead of constantly delaying such talks.

In Rakhine state—or what is now known as Ankhar state—we see the heartbreaking plight of the Rohingya people, described by the UN as the

“most persecuted group in the world”.

They are a little publicised Muslim people, who are historically located in the coastal Rakhine state, dating their ethnic lineage in the region over centuries. When the military junta under General Ne Win, an ethnic Burmese, came to power in 1962, it implemented a policy of “Burmanisation”, which was based on a nationalist ideology of racial purity. It was a crude attempt to bolster the majority Burmese ethnic identity and to strip the Rohingya of any legitimacy. The Rohingya were declared foreigners in their own native land and labelled illegal Bengali immigrants. By stripping them of citizenship and denying them citizenship, the Government institutionalised discriminatory practices in Rakhine state.

The Rohingya have no rights to own land or property and are unable to travel outside their villages, repair their decaying places of worship, receive education, or even marry and have children without rarely granted Government permission. Although I am sure that hon. Members will recall the events of last summer, I will none the less run through them quickly. In June 2012, deadly violence erupted between the Buddhist Rakhine community and the Rohingya Muslims. Human Rights Watch, a respected and independent international body, reported that state security forces failed to intervene to stop the violence or protect civilians, and in some cases they directly participated. Rather than defuse the situation, President Thein Sein was highly provocative. He called for the “illegal” Rohingya to be sent to a third country. Since most Rohingya, even those whose families have resided in Burma for generations, lack formal legal status, his language implied that the great majority of Burma’s Rohingya did not belong in the country. His comments were eagerly seized on by those who favour the expulsion of all Rohingya from Burma.

In a recent Human Rights Watch report, a copy of which I have with me, it is documented that the violence that resumed in October was a co-ordinated campaign of ethnic cleansing that sought to remove or relocate the state’s Muslim population. The October attacks were organised and carried out by local Rakhine political party officials, Buddhist monks and ordinary Rakhines, often directly supported by state security forces.

The report says that Rohingya men, women and children were killed; some of them were secretly buried in mass graves, and their villages and neighbourhoods were razed. In the months since the violence, the Burmese Government have done little to investigate the killings and abuses or to hold people to account for such crimes.

Along with their complicity in crimes against humanity, the Burmese Government have contributed to the severe humanitarian crisis facing the displaced Rohingya and other Muslim communities. More than 125,000 people are now living in internally displaced persons camps in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, yet the Government have consistently obstructed the delivery of aid to them. The camps are overcrowded and lack adequate food, shelter, water and sanitation, as well as medical care. Unless there is a dramatic improvement in conditions in the camps, including unfettered access for international humanitarian organisations, the situation will almost certainly deteriorate further, especially with the coming monsoon season.

We are faced with considerable evidence of crimes against humanity; ethnic cleansing; mass graves; and the obstruction of humanitarian aid to displaced communities. Those claims should not be taken lightly. There has been a tendency to describe the violence in Rakhine state as communal and a reflection of deep-seated hatred between communities on the ground. However, the findings in the Human Rights Watch report tell a very different story—of extensive state involvement, and planned killings and destruction of property, as well as the forced displacement of a population.

Only last month, the Foreign Secretary congratulated the Burmese Government on their role in leading “remarkable changes” in the country. That upbeat assessment was premature, just as the EU was premature in its haste to lift economic sanctions on Burma. Human Rights Watch, an internationally respected non-governmental organisation, has carried out more work and it has found that ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity have been committed, and that Government forces were involved.

There are some questions that we naturally ask. Why have no steps been taken to hold to account for their actions those who are responsible for organising the violence? It is easy to call on the Burmese Government to investigate themselves when we are fully aware that they will not do so. The Burmese Government-organised Rakhine commission, which was set up to investigate the violence, did not even consider any issues relating to who was responsible.

There needs to be an international investigation into the violence. I urge the Minister to support the establishment of a UN commission of inquiry to examine the allegations of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. After all, we worked with the rest of the international community to set up the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, precisely because there had been ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in those countries. I do not see why there should not be a similar inquiry in Burma; even if there is not a tribunal, at least in the first place there should be an independent inquiry led by the UN, which can investigate and deal with all the issues that have arisen. Obviously it must be an impartial international investigation. Then we will know the truth, and we will be able to hold to account the people responsible. Of course, such an investigation may also provide useful information and act as the basis for future reconciliation.

The Rohingya people have no place on earth to call home; they are a stateless people. The Burmese Government should face international pressure to repeal the discriminatory 1982 citizenship law. All the Rohingya people want is reinstatement of their citizenship in their own land, and the dignity, human rights and opportunities that come with it. Human rights must be the single most defining test for the Burmese Government’s commitment to democratic change and the rule of law. It is a test that they are failing.

I sincerely ask our Government to push for an independent inquiry into what is going on in Burma, because the evidence is clear. These are not just communal riots because different communities do not get on with each other. Since the 1960s, there has been a deliberate policy of effectively trying to drive out people who are not ethnic Burmese Buddhist.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this timely debate on a very important matter. Does she agree that, on occasions such as this, it is international pressure and the embarrassment and shame of the individual Government responsible for many of the actions that will bring the necessary change, and that we all have a part to play in applying pressure and bringing embarrassment and eventually shame to the Government responsible?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. That is why we are asking other Governments to put pressure on the Burmese Government. There have been suggestions that we are almost in haste to have negotiations and win contracts with the Burmese, to increase financial gains or financial stability. That is all very well, but the human rights issue is paramount, and the Burmese Government must be told that what they are doing is wrong.

As I was saying, the issue is not just that different communities are not getting on with each other, as it has been described. Those who have studied the history of Burma, particularly what has been going on since the 1960s, know that there is a deliberate, calculated policy effectively to get rid of people in Burma who are not ethnically Burmese Buddhist. In Kachin state, which I have talked about, most of the people who are persecuted are, in fact, Christians; they are treated badly. The Rohingya people are Muslims. In another state, the Karen people are treated just as badly because they happen to be neither Christian, Burmese Buddhist nor Muslim. It seems that there is a pattern. There is not just one group the Burmese Government are against; there is a very sinister and deep underlying issue. The motive behind most of these actions is to get rid of other communities and other religions in Burma, not only to leave the Burmese Buddhist community as the main community but perhaps to keep Burma almost ethnically pure Burmese and Buddhist.

That is why the state has been completely complicit, as has the army. Yes, Burma held elections last year, which we thought would bring progress, but everybody knows that all that happened was that most of the generals took off their uniforms and got into civilian clothes, and the majority of the people who are involved in Parliament are military people. There is still very much a military dictatorship in every form. The situation should not be seen as conflict between communities who are not getting on; a much worse and far more sinister agenda is being pursued by those in power at the moment in Burma.

In the past, other Governments have gone into various parts of the world on the basis that there were human rights violations. I am not for one minute suggesting a military intervention, but there should be robust sanctions and a robust programme against what the Burmese Government are doing. They should be held to account.

At the G8 summit that is taking place, rape will be looked at in different countries. Burma has been omitted from those countries, yet Burma is the place where most rapes are taking place. As the Minister may be aware, many years ago an international case held that rape is, in fact, a form of genocide, because the idea of carrying out rape—not to get graphic—is effectively to ensure that the women of the population being attacked are impregnated by members of other ethnic groups, and therefore rape is effectively about trying to get rid of that particular generation. There is a high level of rape in Burma, and it is an indicator of what I described earlier, which was not scaremongering or exaggeration; it seems to be part of a ploy to make Burma a Buddhist Burmese country. Surely that cannot be right, when there have been communities made up of different ethnic or religious groups living in Burma for hundreds of years.

I thank the Minister for listening to my speech, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will be able to take this matter further.

09:49

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I am pleased to take part in this debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing it. This is the most recent in a series of debates, each of which has shown that hon. Members are passionately committed to seeing Burma emerge as a successful, flourishing country with a mature and maturing society at peace with itself. Unfortunately, although a lot of progress has been made, that is not the case at the moment.

I am also here because, like the hon. Lady, I have been approached by constituents concerned about the human rights situation in Burma—not exclusively the matters on the Order Paper today. As the hon. Lady rightly said, conflicts in various parts of Burma involve all the minority groups in the country, including minority religious groups such as Christian and Muslim groups as well as animist groups and those from other marginal religions, and they seem to involve just about any group that does not have some claim to what might be described as pure Burmese heritage or lineage. That cannot be right. The persecution of religious and racial minorities—of those who have been excluded from citizenship—is what this debate is about and what I want to spend a few minutes talking about.

It would be wrong not to recognise that there has been progress, as shown by the 42 by-elections last year that resulted, for the first time, in Opposition Members being elected to Parliament. We need to recognise that the restoration of some stability in the country has led to rapid economic growth, the rate of which the Library briefing states was estimated at 6.5% last year. Let us face it: that is something we cannot match in this country. There are plans for fair and free elections in 2015. Those are all things that we ought to celebrate and encourage and not in any way undermine.

The reality is also that Burma is the poorest country in south-east Asia; it is a by-word for poverty and under-investment and, as the hon. Lady passionately pointed out, for discrimination as well. I support exactly what the hon. Lady said—that discrimination is not casual and not accidental; it is clearly orchestrated and state-sanctioned, or at least the state allows things to proceed with complete impunity. Reports of destruction of mosques and homes, and attacks on individuals, with the police and security forces standing by and simply allowing it to happen, illustrate that point.

I do not want us to be blind to our own history, either. There is a tendency for us—perhaps particularly in England, but certainly in western countries—to imagine that we have lived for the past 1,000 years in countries with secure human rights, where these things could never have happened, and we seek to export that to other people. I remind hon. Members that 200 years ago I would not have been permitted to be in this House, because I am not a member of the Church of England.

So we have history ourselves. Even 70 years ago, we had a somewhat flaky history about what to do about the Jews—the internment of Jews who came from Germany, for example, is not necessarily something that we would want to celebrate. The idea of universal human rights is politically contested, even now, within this building. We sometimes need to stand in other people’s shoes.

Burma is having to catch up with 200 years of our history and our developing understanding of what it means to have a civilised, mature democracy. It is only to be expected that that will be a difficult and sometimes painful process.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Although the right hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge the time it took us to achieve the standards that we hope other countries will achieve, would he not agree that now our role and that of the EU, in engaging with Burma, is to apply our influence to ensure that history does not repeat itself and that people in Burma who are being persecuted do not have to wait hundreds of years before they have the kinds of rights that he enjoys now, and which his forefathers should have had?

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Lady, for whom I have a lot of time, could have been reading the next paragraph of my speech, so I have to agree with her. Indeed, our own history should give us the determination to help and support other countries and ensure that they do not have to spend 200 years getting to where we have got.

I give credit to the work that successive Governments have done, particularly in the past three years, in making this country the biggest aid donor to Burma at the moment. That gives us a significant role and voice in respect of Burma’s future and how it should develop. A contribution of some £1 million was made last year towards improving governance and civic society in Burma, and humanitarian help was in the order of £2 million or £3 million. That means that it must be right for us to engage strongly, as a country, as well as through EU and UN institutions, with the Burmese authorities to ensure that our voice, and our learning, can be shared with them.

Of course, the humanitarian aid and support is going in not simply because there are poor people and a harsh climate in Burma, but because of the purges and the cleansing that the hon. Member for Bolton South East outlined so well. That is part of a bigger pattern, as she also said. It is to be welcomed that the military forces have signed some kind of ceasefire in 12 out of the 14 different conflicts that had been going on in Burma, but those remain fragile and do not in any way seem to represent the military power structure’s accepting the legitimacy of alternative views and alternative religious persuasions, let alone alternative ethnicities as having legitimacy inside the country. We can welcome the fact that there is less conflict in some parts of Burma, but we also need to recognise that that does not mean that the underlying problems have been confronted and resolved.

I think—perhaps the Minister will comment on this—that there is a certain amount of game-playing by the military authorities in Burma. They gave in to international pressure, and pressure from their own citizens, to go through at least the appearance of sharing power and drawing in the Opposition, but, as the hon. Lady said, the current President is a general, but not with his uniform on.

Some of the macho posturing that we have seen in conflicts inside Burma comes in the category of flexing muscles and demonstrating the role and strength—and perhaps the necessity, as the military authorities would see it—of continued military participation in the governance of Burma. That is surely something we need to keep a close eye on, and I hope Britain will challenge it.

I notice, again from the papers prepared for the debate, that the UK was proud to boast that its military officials were the first foreign military officials to visit Burma since 1950 or some other early date. I can see the value of getting alongside the military forces in Burma and of demonstrating to Burmese military officials and leaders our forces’ values and their role in civic society, but I would be concerned if we were showing them how to be better at suppressing internal dissent. It would be interesting if the Minister commented on the role of our military mission and on the placing of a defence representative in the embassy in Burma.

At the moment, we are seeing a denial of citizenship and deliberate tactics to drive out minorities. That is all cloaked in a dangerous racial nationalism, which we in western Europe have, thankfully, utterly rejected. I hope the Minister will be forthright in saying that we are determined to help Burma to do the same and to reject utterly that nationalism, as it develops its state, which it very much needs to do. Perhaps we could start by simply saying that if a country denies people within its borders citizenship, that does not mean that it is entitled to deny them law, basic services and human rights. The right to life, the right to family life and the right to practise one’s religion are not dependent on citizenship, and it is a function of any state to ensure that those within its borders are free to worship and live as they wish.

Let me echo the words of the hon. Lady by saying that it is puzzling why Burma is not on the preventing sexual violence initiative list. I have seen some of the parliamentary answers on the issue. As somebody who was giving parliamentary answers himself until last September, I know how they are written and what lies behind them. There really is no good reason why we should not be saying that we want to put Burma on the list. It is an excellent initiative, which is capable of doing a lot of good. We should take real credit for initiating and promoting it, but there is a strange reluctance to apply it in this case.

The hon. Lady commented on the removal of sanctions. It is perhaps worth underlining that military sanctions remain in place, and rightly so. However, I would like to hear from the Minister whether consideration has been given to making the withdrawal of sanctions conditional on further positive developments. Sanctions have been lifted, but they could be reimposed, and the Burmese authorities need to be clear that that is a consideration.

The hon. Lady talked about the UK supporting a UN commission of inquiry, and there are established mechanisms for doing that. What is the Government’s view of how such an initiative might be proceeded with? If the Minister’s brief does not allow him to say that, will he at least tell us that the views of Members speaking in this debate will be taken back to the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister, to assist them in forming the view that they need to support that inquiry initiative as soon as possible?

I am not one of those Members who have been to Burma and seen it first hand; I have only newspaper reports and briefings. Some of those briefings have been eloquently put to me by constituents with first-hand, or at least immediate second-hand, knowledge of the country. There are real prospects for peace and development, and we celebrated that in this very building only 18 months ago. However, there are worrying and dangerous signs that the process is going off track, and I hope the Minister will reassure us that the Government are determined to help the Burmese authorities to get back on track, stay on track and deliver a peaceful, prosperous and inclusive Burma in due course.

10:05

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate. As she knows, I recently visited Rakhine state, courtesy of Refugees International and Burma Campaign UK. I had the opportunity to visit Rohingya, Kaman and Rakhine camps. I went because I wanted to see first hand the humanitarian challenges faced by those communities, and particularly by the Rohingya Muslims, whose situation I, like other hon. Members, want to highlight. Many constituents have come to me to raise concerns about what is happening in Burma and about the treatment of the Rohingya community, not to mention the many other minorities that form 40% of the Burmese population.

Since inter-communal violence erupted a year ago almost this month, Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state have been forced into segregated settlements and camps, and many have been cut off from life-saving aid. The humanitarian situation in Rakhine state is dire. Tens of thousands of people are still living in makeshift camps, where they lack food, water, sanitation, adequate shelter and access to health care.

The violence has caused not only massive internal displacement, but loss of life, livelihoods and property. Many have seen their homes and villages burned to the ground. I witnessed places where there was row after row of cut-down trees and nothing else. Such places used to be people’s homes, where Rohingya lived side by side with Rakhine neighbours. Muslim and Buddhist communities that had previously been able to live together, albeit not necessarily in full harmony, remain deeply divided, and the violence is spreading around the country. It is directed particularly against the 9% of Burma’s population that is Muslim. As the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) said, Christian minorities are also likely to be affected.

During my visit, I met displaced Rohingya who were forced to flee to remote areas of the countryside completely unsuitable for displacement camps. I also saw informal camps, which were not registered, or allowed to be registered, by the UN, and which therefore had no access to humanitarian assistance. They had to rely on the good will of local people and Muslim charities, whose access to the camps is also extremely limited. Those camps need to be registered, but the UK Government and other Governments have been unable to get state authorities and the national Government to agree to register them. By any standards, these camps should be a high priority for registration and should be recognised as being desperately in need of help. They are adjacent to the registered camps.

One camp I visited, in Pauk Taw township, was accessible only by means of a two-hour boat journey. Non-governmental organisations had to bring drinking water in on boats, and primary health care was provided just one morning a week. The shores adjacent to the camp were covered in faeces, and dead rats floated in the water just metres from children who were bathing to keep cool in the scorching heat. Their home is a camp on a beach; I was there for only two hours, and that was long enough for me and the delegation I went with. I recommend that the Minister and his ministerial colleagues from the Department for International Development visit that camp. It is only when we see the desperate situation those children and families face that we can truly understand the plight of Burma’s internally displaced people.

Most of the shelters I saw were made of tarpaulins and rice bags, which cannot withstand even moderate rains. One Rohingya man told me that displaced people—particularly those living near the coast—were growing increasingly frightened of the rains. With the start of the rainy season there are serious concerns that flooding will exacerbate the humanitarian situation and increase the risk of waterborne diseases.

I visited a hospital that was set up with state assistance. A couple of charities were allowed to provide some additional funding, but the only people able to help there were untrained nurses. Doctors were not allowed in, even though international NGOs had offered to provide doctors. The only other place where people can get emergency care is the local Rakhine hospital, where there is a unit of 12 to 14 segregated beds for the whole population of 140,000 people. What I saw was shocking. A man was waiting for an operation. I did not see any sign of anaesthetics, and the hygiene was appalling, yet doctors could go in there if they were allowed access by the state and national Governments.

We need the British Government, and particularly the Foreign Office, to apply pressure on the state government and national Government to provide unfettered humanitarian access. There is no shortage of good will from international NGOs and foreign Governments or of willingness from UN agencies to provide help. The World Health Organisation needs to step up and apply pressure for access, so that emergency care can be brought to people. I heard stories of many people—particularly women—dying unnecessarily because of the lack of health care. That experience—observing hospitals turning people away in life-and-death situations because of their ethnicity and the fact that they are not recognised—echoed, to me, apartheid. I do not use that term lightly. Being forced into camps and not allowed out is the equivalent of being a prisoner in one’s own country.

Will the Minister reassure the House that he is working with his colleagues in the Department for International Development to help to improve the conditions I have talked about? Given that there are flood-prone areas, the need for shelter should be dealt with urgently. It is likely that the existing crisis will turn into a catastrophe if we do not act immediately.

The Burmese Government recently evacuated 120,000 people in Rakhine state, ahead of cyclone Mahasen. However, the lack of safe evacuation sites remains a key concern during the monsoon season. The Foreign Office has significant influence over the Burmese authorities, so in making representations, what pressure is it using, with DFID colleagues, for people to have the security to return voluntarily and safely to the places they came from, or places nearby? At the moment there is little hope that they will be able to return. Many people said to me that they had pretty good relationships with their neighbours. It was not those neighbours who caused the violence, but Buddhist extremists, who came and stirred up tension and conflict. Now, people are too frightened to go back, as are the Rakhine refugees who were caught in the violence. These are ordinary civilians, who were getting on with their lives. Both sides need security so that they can return. However, there is concern that the state government’s agenda is not to allow that, but to keep people in the camps. That is not sustainable.

The movement of the Muslim community in Rakhine state has been heavily restricted, as I have said. The story is one of segregation and desperation—a humanitarian catastrophe that cannot be dissociated from the fact that the Rohingya population do not have the right to Burmese citizenship, or, therefore, any further consequential rights, including access to humanitarian assistance, freedom of movement, or connecting with their Rakhine neighbours to trade with them.

One of the things that I experienced was trying to get to one of the few Rohingya villages that are left in the part of Rakhine I visited. Half way through the journey the Rakhine driver had to stop. He was too frightened to go beyond the point where he saw the military. He would not go further, and we had to find a Rohingya driver to take us further. On the way back we had to do the same thing. Likewise, we had an interpreter who was supposed to go to Pauk Taw with us. However, we were refused passage in the boat, because we were going to visit Rohingya Muslims in the camp, which was two hours away by boat, so we came close to not having access. The Rohingya interpreter was not allowed to go in with us to interpret, and we had to find another one. Rakhine interpreters were not prepared to go with us. One person agreed in the end, subject to anonymity. That gives an idea of the scale of the problem, and it is why we need to act fast. We need to ensure that what little good will remains between people—it is being annihilated by the understandable fear in the different communities—does not become overwhelmed, with little room left for reconciliation and reintegration with security.

I mentioned that the Muslim community’s movement is restricted. The critical point is that its members cannot do anything: they cannot do business, or trade, and supplies to those who still trade are blocked. They are therefore increasingly vulnerable, and the only route by which they can get food, shelter and help is through international agencies. The displaced Rohingya and Kaman told me they would never be allowed to return home because, in their words, the local authorities were trying to create Muslim-free zones. As the recent Human Rights Watch report highlighted, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that what happened was well orchestrated and backed by the state government. At best the national Government turned a blind eye, and at worst they were complicit.

A recurring theme that came up in my discussions with internally displaced people was the threat to their security and safety, which often prevented them from returning to their place of origin, even if they were allowed to. Will the UK Government use their position and influence to exert pressure on the Burmese national Government and state government in Rakhine, to ensure that security forces on the ground provide adequate protection to all ethnic communities, and particularly the Rohingya community? There are concerns—and this has been documented—that police who were present during the violence tended to stand by. There seems to be much more confidence in the security forces, and that must be encouraging. However, it would be helpful to know what the Minister thinks the UK Government can do to encourage the authorities both to help people to return home, and to resettle them with the protection they need to avoid further similar events: I am thinking of what happened in the key events of June and October last year, and March this year, in Meiktila.

At the heart of the humanitarian crisis, as hon. Members have already said, lies the question of citizenship. The Rohingya have been described by the UN, as my hon. Friend has said, as the

“most persecuted minority in the world”.

When I visited camps, where malnutrition rates are dangerously near emergency levels and where people are forced to live in segregated areas cut off from their livelihoods and are struggling to survive, I did not expect citizenship and identity to top the list of issues that people wanted to talk about. However, every group of Rohingya men and women, including children, to whom I spoke told me that their priority was recognition of their Rohingya identity and the restoration of their Burmese citizenship rights, which were taken away from them in the 1980s. Many Rohingyas were keen to insist that ethnic Rohingya Muslims had been in Burma for centuries, yet the national and state Governments deny them their Burmese citizenship and their ethnic Rohingya identity, instead claiming that they are “Kala”, a racist derogatory term, or Bengali migrants from Bangladesh.

One woman lost her entire family—I met a group of women, many of whom had similar stories—and she told me, “If, after having lost everything, including my whole family, because we are Rohingya Muslims, the Government still don’t recognise me as Rohingya in my own country, then I might as well be dead.”

During my visit, the authorities were conducting a “verification exercise” in displacement camps, trying to force Rohingyas to sign forms admitting that they were Bengalis. Citizenship is key to the rights of freedom of movement, work, marriage and much more. The displaced Rohingyas are effectively living the lives of prisoners in the camps with no right to get out.

The authorities in Rakhine state recently issued a directive placing a two-child limit on Rohingya couples in predominantly Muslim townships in the region, which is a chilling development and a gross violation of their human rights. Will the Minister tell us what his Department is doing to prevent the Burmese Government from applying such discriminatory practices?

An urgent resolution is needed to the question of Rohingya human rights and citizenship. The future of Burma and its reform process can be assured only if the question of citizenship for the Rohingya minority is properly addressed. The UK Government need to act urgently to end the segregation and human rights violations in the region. I hope the Minister will work with his counterparts to apply pressure, and I echo the points raised by my hon. Friend about the need for international inquiries into what happened and how we can move towards reconciliation and the protection of all minorities, including the Rohingya minority, in Burma.

I hope the Minister takes on board my hon. Friend’s point about the need for the Foreign Secretary to include Burma in his anti-sexual violence initiatives. Will the Minister explain, given that the EU has lifted sanctions, what leverage he thinks the UK Government and the EU still have to exert influence on the Burmese authorities to get the results that we need on this important issue? Why does the US have a different position? What does he make of that? How can we work with our US allies on this matter?

This is a critical issue for Burma’s transition to democracy. We all welcome the changes and improvements that have been made overall, but if people’s human rights are not secured—some 40% of the Burmese population come from minority backgrounds—Burma’s transition to democracy could be at risk. I hope the UK Government will not put trade alone at the top of their agenda. Trade is important, but human rights are integral to our discussions on trade and investment. The Minister should not overlook this vital and important issue, which is critical to Burma’s advancement over the coming decades.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

There are three other speakers on my list, and I doubt whether I will be able to call all of them. I will be calling the Front Benchers at 10.40 am at the very latest. If speakers are quick with their contributions, we may get a contribution from all three Members.

10:19

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I will be brief, because I want to give the other two hon. Members an opportunity to be involved.

The UN has a key role to play. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on bringing this matter to the Chamber. There have been some impassioned pleas on behalf of the Rohingya people, which is good because the House has an important democratic role to play in promoting the matter. The situation in Rakhine and Kachin states is one that must be highlighted internationally in the House today, as it has been in the past.

Some 125,000 Rohingya and other Muslims have been forcefully displaced. There is an ongoing humanitarian crisis and there are questions about access to aid; the hon. Lady has spoken about the amount of aid that goes towards that humanitarian crisis. Burmese officials, community leaders and some Buddhist monks organised and encouraged ethnic Arakanese, backed by state security forces, to conduct co-ordinated attacks on Muslim neighbourhoods and villages in October 2012, and they forcibly relocated the population. Christians have also been attacked, abused and displaced.

I believe the Burmese Government have engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya that continues today through the denial of aid and the use of restrictions. There have been violent mass arrests, aid to displaced Muslims has been blocked and there have been months of meetings and public statements promoting ethnic cleansing, all of which builds up to a co-ordinated plan. A number of mass graves have been found. The news last night carried stories of displaced people and of hundreds—indeed thousands—of people murdered and buried.

Human Rights Watch has outlined the issue, too, and given many examples of those who have witnessed or suffered abuses. There are examples of state forces participating in some of the events. The local police have stood by in many cases. One soldier told a Muslim man who was pleading for his protection, “The only thing you can do now is pray for your life.” There is clearly no compassion or help from the security forces, which is disconcerting.

On 23 October 2012, 70 Rohingya were killed in a day-long massacre in a village, and the security forces stood by and let it happen. Imagine the situation of those who had not yet been killed but who were listening to the screams, shouts and murders. Twenty-eight children, 13 of whom were under five, were hacked to death. Children of that age—look at what happened to them. The security forces told them, “We will look after you and protect you,” but they did not look after or protect them.

There are many other examples out there. Local authorities, politicians and monks have also made public statements and used force to deny Muslims their rights to freedom of movement, opportunities to earn a living and access to markets and humanitarian aid. All those things are disconcerting. On 13 June 2012, a Government truck dumped 18 naked and half-clothed bodies near a Rohingya displaced persons camp outside Sittwe, the Rakhine state capital. That is another example of what is going on.

I will conclude with a couple of points, because I want to give the other two hon. Members a chance to speak. The main Opposition party in Burma has been unfortunately quiet. Why are the Opposition quiet in their own country whenever we are highlighting the issue here? I am not being disrespectful to the Opposition leader, because I respect her greatly, but I think that has to be said. I ask for direction from the Minister on the effective delivery of humanitarian aid, on disease and deadly waterborne diseases and on the right of the displaced to return to their original townships—there is also the question of their citizenship. We must address all those issues, and I ask the Minister to take them on in his response.

Burma should accept an independent international commission to investigate crimes against humanity in Arakan state, to locate victims and to provide redress. Burma’s donors need to wake up and realise the seriousness of the Rohingyas’ plight, and they must demand that the Burmese Government urgently stop abuses, promote the safe return of displaced Muslims and Christians and ensure accountability to end the deadly cycle of violence in Arakan state.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, and I give an opportunity for the other two hon. Members to speak.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

There are 10 minutes left.

10:29

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

My remarks will be brief, because I have previously spoken at length on these matters in both Westminster Hall and the Commons Chamber. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her excellent speech and the kind remarks she directed towards me. I will cut down my comments so that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) may take part in the debate.

I should say at the outset that it is right to praise the progress that Burma has made, as hon. Members have done. Freedom of expression and media freedom have increased, political prisoners have been released and moves have been made to a form of democratic election, even though some seats are reserved for the military. Aung San Suu Kyi has been released.

However, I will focus, as have other hon. Members, on the treatment of the Rohingya in Rakhine state. The last time we debated the subject in this Chamber, all Members referred to the plight of the Rohingya. The deaths number in the hundreds—or the thousands, according to some reports—and many Rohingya have been displaced to camps that have been described as some of the most dire in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) was particularly eloquent and moving in describing what she saw there on her recent trip. Rohingya mosques, madrassahs and homes have been burned down, and shops looted.

Although the violence has not been on the scale that we saw last October, small-scale violence remains. The perpetrators have been allowed to continue and have not been brought to law. Anti-Muslim sentiment appears to be increasing across Burma. In recent weeks, in the Mandalay area, clashes and deaths have been stoked by extremist monks from the 969 movement, and the security services seem to stand by and do nothing. There are parallels with what happened in Rakhine state last year.

We know that the Burmese Government set up an inquiry, but it was their own internal inquiry. Every speaker in this debate has said that that is not satisfactory and that we should have an international inquiry at UN level. I hope that the Minister will endorse that. As many Members have said, we also need complete, unfettered access to the camps, which are in a dire situation, for all humanitarian and human rights agencies. I hope that he will support that also.

I would like to press the Minister on the stories that have emerged in the past few days about the two-child policy in Rakhine state. A couple of days ago, the Burmese Minister for Immigration and Population endorsed the policy, saying that it would benefit “Bengali women”. Note the phrase: he still refuses to recognise the Rohingya people.

Human Rights Watch says that the law violates international human rights protections and endangers women’s physical and mental health. Aung San Suu Kyi calls the policy discrimination and not in line with human rights, and health workers have reported an increase in illegal abortions and in women giving their children to other women in order to avoid fines or arrest. That is an appalling abuse of human rights, and it is another example of the unacceptable way in which the Rohingya people of Burma are treated.

At the root of the issue is the citizenship question, which has been referred to many times. I remind the Minister that even though the current Burmese Government consider the Rohingya to be illegal Bengali refugees, the first President of Burma said many years ago that the

“Muslims of Arakan”—

that is, Rakhine—

“certainly belong to one of the indigenous races of Burma…if they do not belong to the indigenous races, we also cannot be taken as indigenous races”.

I am sure that everyone would agree that the citizenship law must be sorted out. It is absolutely unacceptable that Rohingya children born in Rakhine are being denied the citizenship that they deserve. It is a moral disgrace. Does the Minister agree that it contravenes various UN protocols on the treatment of children?

We are a significant donor to Burma, and the UK has supported lifting sanctions. Given that we have done so, what other diplomatic tools does the Minister have at his disposal to put pressure on Burma to deal with human rights abuses? We are rightly and understandably positioning ourselves to take full advantage of the economic opportunities of that mineral-rich country. I understand that, and I support international trade, but if we go down that route while doing nothing to insist on human rights, it will be a tragedy for the Rohingya people, who are some of the most oppressed in the world.

10:34

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I pay tribute to all hon. Members, who have made thoughtful speeches. I will move on quickly to my speech in the remaining time.

Let us remember that Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy won the election in 1990 with 60% of the vote and 80% of parliamentary seats. Although those results were not recognised, we must acknowledge that Burma is moving forward and taking steps as part of the reconciliation process.

My contribution will focus on three main issues: the Kachin state, land grab and humanitarian issues. I apologise for the speed. Kachin is predominantly a Christian state. I was pleased that Mr Speaker granted my urgent question in January. On the day of that debate, a child of 15 and a pastor were killed. I got a helpful response from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), saying that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. What we see as crimes go unrecognised in that state. The police stand by. Some 100,000 people have been displaced in Kachin. Although a ceasefire has been announced, it appeared to be on the very day that General Thein was in America. Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports that abuses are still taking place, even after the ceasefire.

The second issue is land grab. People who have been living on the land and using it to feed themselves have been displaced. The Asian Legal Resource Centre, in a submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council in June, warned that Burma is in danger of a land-grabbing epidemic. Forests have been cleared, dams and pipelines are being built and the people are just being ignored. The Burmese Parliament has a land investigation committee, but it has seen only about 500 complaints, and many ethnic minorities do not even know that it exists.

Thirdly, on the humanitarian aspects, all Members have rightly mentioned the reports from Human Rights Watch, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and even the Kachin Women’s Association. There is a global movement against human trafficking. Women are being trafficked into China and back again. They cannot do anything with their lives once they have been humiliated in that way. Attacks are consistently systematic. The reports are clear, and they all say the same things: people are being threatened. Local aid groups say that workers are also being threatened by local administrations. A child died after drinking from a stream poisoned by pesticides.

Daw Suu Kyi has gone the extra mile to ensure that her country moves on. Although EU sanctions were lifted, with some criticism in some quarters, I ask the Minister to raise a number of issues in exchange. First, will he raise the human rights issues set out in the reports and ensure that he speaks to the Burmese Government or his counterpart and that the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights finds a place in Burma, as agreed by the Burmese Government? Will he ensure, more importantly, that aid given to Burma goes to the correct people in a transparent way, so that women who have been raped get the support that they need?

In the long term, a constitutional solution is needed, as is a second Panglong conference. We must use our resources and expertise to ensure that the NLD’s aim of equality of nationalities is supported. Religion must not be used to divide people; people must be allowed to live and choose their own religion, whatever it happens to be. We have a long history with Burma, and we should be able to walk hand in hand as Burma finds a new constitutional settlement that respects human rights and the rule of law. As one worker said, we need to move away from the ceasefire process to a peace process. We can help Burma to step out from behind the faded politics of the past. That can be achieved only through dialogue, respect for each group and the rule of law and, most importantly, reconciliation.

10:38

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) both on securing this debate and making an excellent speech. It is a matter of great concern to her constituents, to Members across the House and in the wider community.

We should start by welcoming the major changes made in Burma over recent years. The country had been so long isolated from the rest of the world, had suffered severe repression for many years and was of concern to the world community. That is why this Parliament was so pleased to welcome Aung San Suu Kyi to Westminster Hall and to hear her message of hope, and why the world is renewing and expanding business and other relationships with Burma. We welcome the corresponding economic growth that is taking place.

It is also right to acknowledge the significant persuasive role of President Thein Sein in bringing about change, and the patient diplomatic role played by Burma’s fellow members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which worked steadily to persuade the previous regime, often facing criticism for what seemed to be their cautious approach. All that offers hope for the future, for Burma and for its people.

As we have seen elsewhere in the world, however, such rapid change can often release old tensions and conflicts that have been repressed under the old regime. That is why we must acknowledge the progress that Burma has made towards peace and democracy. The conflicts in Rakhine and Kachin states demonstrate all too powerfully why there can be no complacency, whether from President Thein Sein or us and the international community. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) alluded to that.

The Rakhine conflict started a year ago, following the rape and murder of a young Buddhist woman and the killing of 10 Muslim men. June and October in particular saw shocking inter-communal violence, with more than 200 deaths and by now an estimated 140,000 internally displaced persons, predominantly Rohingya. Conditions in the camps are shocking, as ably reported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali).

The conflict also raises fundamental human rights concerns, including the seemingly arbitrary arrest of hundreds during the Government-imposed state of emergency. The special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Burma noted

“harsh and disproportionate restrictions on the freedom of movement of Muslim populations in the IDP camps”

and received “credible allegations” of

“widespread and systematic human rights violations by state officials targeted against the Rohingya and wider Muslim populations”.

That includes

“extrajudicial killings, rape and sexual violence, arbitrary detention and torture and ill-treatment in detention, deaths in detention, and denial of due process and fair trial rights”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow also mentioned the chilling report from Human Rights Watch “All You Can Do is Pray”, which expresses considerable concern about possible state collusion in what is argued to

“amount to crimes against humanity carried out as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing.”

I understand and welcome the fact that our ambassador has raised that report with the Burmese Government. Will the Minister tell us the outcome of those talks, and whether the claims will be discussed at the highest level between the UK and Burma? The senior Minister of State at the Foreign Office commented that

“further independent investigative work would be required”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 2013; Vol. 745, c. 1248.]

Will the Minister here today elaborate on what investigations the Government would like to see and on what steps the UK is taking to secure an inquiry and to ensure that the Burmese Government recognise the gravity of the report?

President Thein Sein initiated an inquiry into the inter-communal violence last year, and the Rakhine investigation commission finally reported at the end of April. Unfortunately, it seemed to provide further evidence of the rejection of the Rohingya community, as the report referred to them as “Bengali” throughout. That reinforces the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Bolton South East. There were a number of comments on the birth rate among the community and, as mentioned in the debate, the two-child policy imposed on the Rohingya was reaffirmed last month, a move I am pleased to see was condemned by Aung San Suu Kyi as discrimination that

“is not in line with human rights”.

What discussions have there been with the Burmese authorities and in the European Union or the UN about the Rakhine investigation commission report?

In particular, the report notably failed to support a review of the 1982 citizenship law, which denies the Rohingya citizenship and renders them stateless. What recent representations has the Minister made in support of a review of the law and of positive action to address the prejudice and discrimination suffered by the Rohingya community? Does he agree that continued segregation, as endorsed by the commission, should not be seen as a permanent solution? There was also a strong emphasis in the report on a greater presence for the security forces. Given that we have already discussed grave concerns about their past role, is the Minister satisfied that they can be deployed as a force for good and to calm the tensions, and that they will be held accountable for their actions?

Non-governmental organisations have reported worrying difficulties in supplying vital humanitarian support to the thousands who have lost their homes, and that was acknowledged by the investigation commission, which concluded that 15% of food needs are unmet and that

“some 90% of needs are unmet in the construction and provision of shelter”.

Can the Minister provide an indication of how reliable those figures are and tell us what steps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development are taking to ensure unhindered access for humanitarian support, an issue stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South? Can the Minister also update us on the current safety of internally displaced persons and on efforts to protect them from the monsoon season? What recent representations have been made to the authorities in Thailand and Bangladesh regarding the treatment of Rohingya asylum seekers? Is the Minister aware of any work by the Burmese authorities to stem the violence and to promote inter-religious dialogue?

The focus of today’s debate has been primarily but not only on Rakhine, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East is absolutely right to say that the human rights situation in Kachin state also requires international attention. That conflict intensified in November last year, after the 17 years of ceasefire. There are now estimated to be 90,000 internally displaced persons, to whom humanitarian support was reportedly restricted. There is also evidence that, unfortunately, those fleeing Kachin and seeking asylum in China have been turned back, adding to the humanitarian crisis. As has been mentioned, the UK has contributed £3.5 million in humanitarian aid to people affected by the Kachin conflict. Is the Minister confident that assistance is reaching those who need it, and can he update us on the humanitarian situation?

Amnesty International has received claims of extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary detention, forced labour and sexual violence, and concerns about the involvement of elements of the Burmese army. What investigations have the Government made into the actions of the armed forces in Kachin. What representations has the Minister made in support of justice for the Kachin civilians?

We support the Government in welcoming the agreement in the past couple of weeks between the Burmese Government and the Kachin Independence Organisation to begin dialogue and to work towards a ceasefire. Does the Minister consider that to be a likely scenario? What assistance can the international community and regional bodies provide to ensure that the talks prove successful.

As a number of colleagues mentioned, the Foreign Secretary has been rightly commended for his work on tackling sexual violence in conflict. Understandably, there have been calls for Burma to be included in the initiative. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), stated:

“Over the summer, the British embassy in Rangoon will be scoping options to expand the initiative to Burma.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1120W.]

Can the Minister assure us today that the urgent need to end the sexual violence and to hold those responsible to account has already been discussed with the Burmese Government? Can he elaborate on how and when the preventing sexual violence initiative could be expanded to Burma, as was also discussed by the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell)? Furthermore, will the issue be raised at the G8 next week?

In April, the EU Foreign Affairs Council took the decision to lift sanctions, with the exception of the arms embargo. Some have argued that that was premature, and this morning’s debate has certainly highlighted that far too many people in Burma are still waiting for sustainable peace and respect for human rights. That is not to say that those things cannot be achieved, but does the Minister agree that the EU’s decision to lift sanctions must place an even greater obligation on Burma to comply with international law? Will he assure us that the UK, bilaterally and through the EU, will use the lifting of sanctions to press for more concerted action on human rights? What discussions have the Government had with the authorities in Burma since the sanctions were lifted, and what expectations have been set out? Answers to those questions will enable Burma to move on and start to build the democratic, peaceful and prosperous society that its long-suffering people richly deserve.

10:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I am pleased to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Hood, and I am delighted to be under your guidance.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate, and on the articulate and passionate way in which she put her case. She is absolutely right to highlight the concerns about human rights, sexual violence, displaced people and other ethnic violence, as well as the humanitarian concerns that she articulated. Many other hon. Members made a significant number of points, which, unfortunately, I will not have time to address in their totality this morning, although I will try to deal with the particular points made in the debate. If I do not have time to respond to all of them, I or the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), will of course be happy to do so in writing after the debate.

I must first reiterate a point that the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and other hon. Members have made. There has been progress in Burma in the last two years. Hundreds of political prisoners have been released, most notably Aung San Suu Kyi, who now sits in the Burmese Parliament building alliances and working to strengthen the process of reform. There has been a general relaxation of the crippling censorship and onerous infringements of freedom of expression that once characterised Burma. Civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations, unions and individuals are freer to organise and to act. The international community—Governments, NGOs and others—deserve praise for their significant pressure on successive Burmese Governments, which has led to the improvements of the past two years. However, that does not mean that there are not significant issues that need to be addressed, as we have heard this morning, and that progress is not still a long and difficult road ahead.

It is right to acknowledge the strides that have been made in Burma since President Thein Sein took office, and it is also right to continue to express our concerns and to take action. Human rights and ethnic reconciliation remain at the heart of UK policy and our discussions with the Burmese Government. I assure hon. Members that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development are significantly engaged at senior ministerial level with Burma. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, was the first EU Minister to visit Rakhine last year. He visited five camps for people displaced by the violence and heard for himself the terrible stories that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) outlined in her articulate contribution. He also heard the stories of loss and abuse. He raised at all levels in the Burmese Government the need for a co-ordinated humanitarian response, accountability and security. That has been followed up by the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development.

I want to take the opportunity to address head-on the point made by hon. Members about European Union sanctions. As the right hon. Member for Warley rightly said, the arms embargo has not been lifted. Its purpose, which was agreed in the EU, was to deepen engagement and to encourage reformists. It was also agreed and suggested by Aung San Suu Kyi, although she has said that it

“is time we let these sanctions go...we can’t go on relying on sanctions forever to aid the democracy movement.”

I assure hon. Members that human rights will be at the centre of UK and EU policy on Burma. EU Foreign Ministers have agreed a comprehensive framework that sets out how we will work with the Burmese Government and apply pressure on them to address the many challenges that Burma still faces.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) made a key point about the importance of humanitarian aid and the alleviation of suffering in parts of Burma. It is not just about those who are suffering from being internally displaced, although that is of course a pressing concern. The UN is building temporary shelters for 24,000 people, but 40,000 more remain vulnerable to flooding, a point that hon. Members rightly made. We must continue to do more. Significant work has been done and continues to be done, but I want to ensure that hon. Members understand that we do not pass UK taxpayers’ money through Burmese Government mechanisms; we do so through the NGO community, most if not all of which does sterling and excellent work on the ground.

We are a leading donor to Burma and in the past few years no country has given more humanitarian aid to the Burmese people than the UK. Our commitment to aid for Burma is £187 million over four years until 2015. If hon. Members are interested, I will be happy to provide details of the geographical breakdown of where that money is being spent. It is focused on health care, responsible investment, good governance, improving livelihoods, strengthening the work of Parliament and civil society, and, importantly, assisting people affected by conflict with a focus on ethnic reconciliation.

Britain also has a package of emergency measures. Nearly 80,000 people will be able to access safe drinking water and improved sanitation facilities. Acutely malnourished children will receive treatment in the rural camps to which some hon. Members referred, and hygiene kits will be available for 40,000 people. There is significant co-ordination and co-operation between the FCO and DFID to ensure that we maximise the impact on the ground of UK taxpayers’ money.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove referred to the relationship between the UK and Burmese militaries. At the request of Aung San Suu Kyi during her meeting with the Prime Minister last year, we have an accredited defence attaché in Burma. She specifically recommended that appointment as a key channel for engagement with the Burmese military. As my right hon. Friend said, the Chief of the Defence Staff visited Burma from 2 to 4 June as the next stage of our engagement. I assure my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members that the focus of that engagement will be on adherence to the core principles of democratic accountability and human rights. There must be accountability for those who took part in and organised last year’s violence. The process of justice must be in accordance with the rule of law and should adhere to international standards. Accountability is important in its own right and underpins the process of reconciliation between the Rohingya and Rakhine communities.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East made an essential point related to the recent report from Human Rights Watch—the UN special rapporteur raised similar concerns in his report in February. I reiterate the point that she rightly articulated: the report contains disturbing and specific allegations, backed up by evidence. We will follow up those allegations directly with the Burmese Government. If serious crimes have been committed, those who perpetrated them must be held to account for their specific actions. That should be done through a clear and transparent investigative and prosecution process that meets international standards. Further investigative work must fully establish the facts that will be required for an informed assessment of whether ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity have been committed. The Government are looking carefully and seriously at the contents of those reports.

Some hon. Members referred to the two-child policy. I want to put on record the fact that a presidential spokesman in Burma said on 2 June that the central Government did not announce the Rohingya two-child policy and that it would be looked into. I am happy to keep the House informed as the matter develops.

Finally, I want to address a point that several hon. Members made about the initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. There is support for the initiative throughout the House, and significant progress has been made in engaging the international community, including at the G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in London in April. Sadly, Burma is not the only place that suffers from terrible and unacceptable levels of sexual violence. Somalia, Mali, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and Syria are but a few examples. As the right hon. Member for Warley pointed out, during the summer the British embassy in Rangoon will scope options for increasing UK engagement and embedding the initiative to tackle sexual violence in Burma. Wherever it occurs, whether in conflict or elsewhere, sexual violence is completely unacceptable, and the impunity that has existed for too long must be stopped.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) rightly raised the issues in Kachin state. Although significant challenges remain, there has been progress recently, which we should encourage. With its expertise in Northern Ireland, the UK is playing a positive role.

In conclusion, the UK will remain a constructive, supportive and critical partner for Burma, committed to supporting reform efforts to ensure that the Burmese people, wherever they live in Burma, can live in peace and harmony, for the betterment of themselves and their families.

Media Sexism

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. Few things are more important than ensuring that every member of our community feels safe in their own home, workplace, community and school. Sadly, for far too many women and girls in the UK, that is simply not the case, and there is strong evidence that media sexism is playing a significant contributory role.

I want to start by outlining some consequences of the fact that objectifying women has become so normalised in our society, before exploring the extent and nature of media sexism, as well as what action is required. The shocking facts are that here in Britain 60,000 women are raped every year. Two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. Sexual harassment in our schools, communities and workplaces is routine. In Brighton and Hove, which is home to my constituency, an estimated 11,000 women experience physical and emotional violence every year, and last year more than 2,700 women experienced sexual assault.

The city’s new strategy for prevention offers valuable insights into the way in which violence is normalised—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I tell the hon. Member that there are standards of dress that Members must comply with, both in the House and in Westminster Hall? I ask her to respect that and to put her jacket back on, which she was wearing when she came in, please.

[Caroline Lucas]

I will of course comply with your ruling, Mr Hood, but it strikes me as a certain irony that in this place people can get copies of The Sun. Perhaps I can even show you what is in The Sun. In eight places in this House—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not commenting on what the Member may wish to say in the debate; I am only addressing the appropriate means of dress. If she does as I asked, she can carry on with her speech.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Hood. I was simply going to say that it strikes me as an irony that this T-shirt is regarded as an inappropriate thing to be wearing in this House, whereas, apparently, it is appropriate for this kind of newspaper to be available to buy in eight different outlets on the Palace of Westminster Estate. That is why I have written to the Palace asking for them to be withdrawn, and for them not to be on sale until page 3 is removed.

I was describing a violence against women strategy in Brighton and Hove and was about to quote from it. The city’s new strategy for prevention offers real insights into the way that violence is normalised, saying that

“violence against women and girls is a continuum: it is the basic common characteristic that underlies many different events in women and girls’ lives, involving many forms of intimate intrusion, coercion, abuse and assault, that pass into one another and cannot always be readily distinguished, but that as a continuum are used to control women and girls. Many women and girls learn to discount and minimise forms of violence and abuse both as a way of coping but also because much of it is normalised.”

This is not just about extreme cases. It is an epidemic, with the symptoms identifiable at an early age. A YouGov poll for the End Violence Against Women coalition found that more than 70% of 16 to 18-year-old boys and girls said that they routinely heard sexual name-calling towards girls at school, and even more disturbingly that one in three girls said that they experienced “groping” or other unwanted sexual touching at school. A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children study reveals that almost half of teenage girls believe that it is acceptable for a boyfriend to be aggressive towards a female partner, while one in two boys, and one in three girls, believe that there are some circumstances in which it is okay to hit a woman or force her to have sex.

The point I want to make this morning is that none of that is happening in a vacuum. We have to recognise the impact of wider culture, and today I want to focus on just one aspect of that: the objectification of women in the media. Women have been degraded, belittled and served up as sex objects in some of our daily newspapers for many years, despite the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women repeatedly identifying the links between the portrayal of women as sexual objects and attitudes that underpin violence and discrimination against women and girls.

The Government-commissioned “Sexualisation of Young People” review found that evidence suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects, and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm. The American Psychological Association reports that viewing media that portray women as sex objects leads people to become significantly more accepting of gender stereotyping, sexual harassment, interpersonal violence and rape myths.

The scale of the sexism that pervades our media was highlighted last year by women’s groups, including the End Violence Against Women coalition and OBJECT, which gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and later published a report called “Just the Women”. It examined how domestic homicide cases are reported as “tragic” one-off incidents, rather than as part of a well understood pattern of behaviour; how rape cases in some papers are routinely placed next to pictures of half-naked women; how cases of forced marriage or “honour”-based violence are explained in terms of culture or religion, or almost anything except violence against women and girls; how news reporting upholds myths about sexual and domestic violence, often implicitly blaming women for violence committed against them, or eroticising such violence; how images and stories that sexualise and objectify women are normalised; and how women, particularly those in political office, are frequently vilified and infantilised by the media.

Lord Justice Leveson’s response concluded:

“The evidence as a whole suggested that there is force in the trenchant views expressed by the groups and organisations who testified to the Inquiry that the Page 3 tabloid press often failed to show consistent respect for the dignity and equality of women generally, and that there was a tendency to sexualise and demean women.”

I am not suggesting that the media are solely to blame, but their objectification of women goes some considerable way towards explaining why prejudicial attitudes to women are so deeply entrenched and normalised.

A few months ago, inspired by the brilliant Everyday Sexism and Everyday Media Sexism campaigns, I asked constituents to help me gather evidence of the problem. I have since joined forces with women’s groups in Brighton and Hove to launch the Spot the Sexism campaign, which is a month-long campaign dedicated to sharing experiences of how women are portrayed in the media.

I would like to give a sense of just a few contributions that I have received so far. More are coming in, and I hope that the Minister will agree to a meeting later in the year, as some of my constituents would very much like the opportunity to talk about their experiences.

Let me start with a Mail Online story about Britney Spears that appeared on 8 March—ironically, on international women’s day. It opens like this:

“Like many women Britney, who has a net worth of nearly $200 million dollars, appears to struggle to find the right bra…On this occasion Britney ‘booby trap’ appears to be caused by a lack of support—and a sure sign that she needs to use some of her earnings to splash out on some correctly sized lingerie.”

The website used eight photos of the singer to make its point.

On the same day, the website also carried this headline about a Girls Aloud singer: “Being on tour certainly suits you! Kimberley Walsh shows off her tiny hourglass figure in a clinging white dress”. The story was illustrated with three virtually identical photos of her in the said dress. The spurious news element in both pieces was presumably that two women had bothered to get dressed before leaving the house, but the subtext is that they are worth nothing more than the content of their wardrobes or the shape of their bodies.

The frequency with which women’s looks are used to undermine them was underscored by a Telegraph piece that irritated another of my constituents. It was about the Conservative candidate for the Eastleigh by-election, in which far more was said about her appearance than her policies—specifically, the fact that the journalist decided that she must have been airbrushed in the billboard posters because the real-life version looked tired and harassed, rather than sleek and happy. Another constituent cites every single story in the so-called sidebar of shame in the Mail. The irony, of course, is that that is part of the content aimed directly at women.

The Daily Mail comes in for more criticism than most, including for the way that it is still struggling with, as one constituent puts it,

“the right—or is it the wrong—age to have a baby.”

She is referring to the endless stream of articles critical of women having children later in life, as well as of those having them too young, or of working mothers, or those who stay at home. The articles accused women of being too old for IVF and quizzed career women who have “failed” in their so called “duty” to produce offspring.

Another constituent sends this example of media sexism, saying:

“The Sun’s leery front page on Reeva Steenkamp a fortnight ago was particularly outrageous. They wouldn’t print a picture of a recently murdered man in his swimming trunks, one hopes.”

A constituent who complained about a BBC trailer for a children’s TV programme, in which girls are shown answering phones and applying makeup, while boys are shown operating cameras and reading the news, got this reply:

“I can assure you that the trail certainly wasn’t designed to perpetuate any negative gender stereotyping…However, I fully recognise your concerns about how girls are shown throughout the trail. To that end I’d like to assure you that I’ve registered your concerns on our audience log…The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.”

Well, the message does not seem to have got through. I myself was incensed to see even a trailer for BBC Parliament, that august channel, use clips of exclusively male politicians—there were 12 politicians, all of them male—to depict the cut and thrust of politics. I wonder what message that gives to any young girls or women who might be considering going into politics.

Then, of course, there is page 3—a symbol of the fact that pictures that are illegal on workplace walls because of equalities legislation are still allowed to be featured in our newspapers. Sexually objectifying images that would be restricted on broadcast media before the 9 pm watershed are printed in national newspapers that are not age-restricted and are displayed at child’s-eye level. Defenders of page 3 argue that adults should be able to choose to look at images of topless women and that anyone who does not like it does not need to buy The Sun. As the nation’s most popular newspaper, The Sun is seen by about 7.5 million people every day, according to market data. Many have not chosen to view those images, but they cannot be avoided, whether they have been left lying around in cafés, on the bus or in the pub. That means that children in particular are at risk of being exposed to page 3.

These are a few examples of how page 3 helps to normalise the objectification of women’s bodies—and the consequences. A schoolgirl wrote to the Everyday Sexism project, saying that the boys in her school hold up page 3 in the corridor and mark the girls out of 10 as they walk past. A teacher who asked the class to bring in newspapers for art class had to explain why there was a naked woman in a so-called newspaper. A mother who took her six-year-old daughter to a café for a treat and found page 3 lying open on a table was asked, “Mummy, why isn’t that lady wearing a top?” A father felt outraged that a man was looking at page 3 while his three-and-a-half-year-old daughter was having a haircut. None of those people buys The Sun and none wants to look at images of topless women in newspapers, yet they had little choice.

As Lucy Holmes, founder of the wonderful No More Page Three campaign, says,

“We are all affected by Page Three whether we buy it or not, because we all live in a society where the most widely read paper in the country makes ‘normal’ the idea that women are there primarily for men’s sexual pleasure.”

The answer is not to “turn over”, as the Prime Minister has suggested. Turning the page on inequality, prejudice, harassment and violence does not make it go away. Nor is the fact that some page 3 models say that they feel empowered by men looking at their bodies any justification, because many more women are disempowered by the objectification of their and other women’s bodies. Lucy Holmes says that we

“see page after page of men doing all of this stuff, like running the country and achieving in sport, and then there’s an image of a woman standing there in her pants.”

The impact on young girls’ self-image is especially worrying, as has been recognised by Girlguiding. It is supporting the No More Page Three campaign with this message:

“We need to get used to the idea that women are not for sale.”

In common with the No More Page Three campaign, I do not think that women’s breasts are acceptable daily content for a family newspaper. For that and a whole host of associated reasons, I join the campaign in calling on the paper’s editor to consign page 3 to the rubbish bin, where it belongs. To date, public pressure has secured the most public sign from the proprietor of The Sun that the paper might scrap page 3, but the clock is ticking and we still have not seen any concrete action, so I think that if page 3 still has not been removed from The Sun by the end of this year, we should be asking the Government to step in and legislate.

There are other areas where the Government could act as well. The National Federation of Retail Newsagents issued updated guidelines on displaying adult or top-shelf titles in December 2012. The Government could, as a small but important step, consider whether to make those guidelines mandatory, rather than voluntary as at present. It could also extend them to a wider range of publications to ensure that young women in particular are better protected from page 3-type images. Hon. Members may know that there are also currently moves to hold supermarkets and newsagents to account under equalities legislation for stocking publications that degrade women. I hope that the Minister will look at that as well.

Women’s groups such as the End Violence Against Women coalition also argue that newspapers and magazines that are not age-restricted should always be suitable for wider audiences—in other words, audiences that include children and young people. That means that all content, including advertising, must be suitable for children to consume if they choose to buy the publication or if they should come across it unawares. The groups recommend that sexual material, such as images of nudity and/or language of a strong sexual nature that are not justified by the context, is not printed in newspapers or magazines that are not age-restricted. Those principles already exist for broadcast media, and I am interested in what the Minister thinks about introducing some consistency.

Crucially, we also need the wider media culture to change. We could start by ensuring that the new editors’ code of conduct, introduced in the wake of the Leveson inquiry, has a much stronger clause on the definition of discrimination, in line with equalities legislation designed to protect people from violation and with the Government’s international obligations on equality. People with expertise in equality should be an integral and permanent part of drawing up and overseeing implementation of the code. That would help to deliver media that better reflect their audience. Half of us are women, yet there is still a notable absence of women presenters and journalists. It is the case that 72% of “Question Time” contributors are men and 84% of reporters and guests on Radio 4’s “Today” show are men. Just 18% of presenters over 50 are women—that is evidence that women are battling against media ageism as well as sexism.

It is not just TV that is the problem. Researchers have found that from July 2011 to June 2012 women wrote less than one third of the articles in the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian and only 26% of the opinion pages. Only one national newspaper is edited by a woman, and there has only ever been one instance of a woman editing a daily broadsheet newspaper in the UK. That was 15 years ago when Rosie Boycott became editor of The Independent for just three months, from January to April 1998.

Women are fighting back with wonderful initiatives such as The Women’s Room and HerSay to promote women experts on a range of topics, yet in a media culture that degrades women as standard, they are swimming against the tide. We need media that feature women in all their diversity as well, rather than media that inadequately reflect women’s roles and contributions to society, yet that, too, is an uphill struggle when the industry is dominated by men.

A Women in Journalism analysis of UK newspaper front pages from 2012 found that not only were more than three quarters of the stories written by men but that men also dominated the news stories themselves. Of all those quoted or mentioned by name in the lead stories, just 16% were women. The analysis also found significant differences in the roles that named men and women played in news stories. For example, three quarters of so-called experts were men and 79% of so-called victims were women. Women are twice as likely to be quoted in their capacity as celebrities and 10 times as likely to be featured as victims when compared with men. If it is true that a picture is worth a thousand words, the photos that make the front pages—not just page 3—of our newspapers also tell us a great deal about media sexism.

Women in Journalism’s analysis further underscores how much men dominate the news agenda and examines the particular function that women fulfil for newspapers. Although there are generally strong news-related reasons for the appearance of most images of men on a sample of front pages, the same cannot necessarily be said for the women who feature. It cites as an example the Middleton sisters, for whom

“the wearing of a new hat or new dress could be enough to prompt a lead front page picture, in a way that would be unlikely to be the case, say, if Prince William or Harry stepped out in a new tie.”

An improved code of conduct needs to go hand in hand with ensuring that the proposed new regulatory bodies are fit for purpose. That means that the post-Leveson regulatory frameworks need to institute and include a statutory body with proper women’s representation on it and full rights for third parties and groups to complain about prejudicial treatment in the media. That is essential if the press is to be held accountable through fair public scrutiny in line with its own press code.

Sexualised and sexist representations of women in the media provide a conducive context for violence against women and girls; it is one in which such violence flourishes. Earlier, I cited the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. I welcome the fact that the Government have this year joined other member states at the UN Commission on the Status of Women in making a formal commitment to act. It has specifically promised to

“promote balanced and non-stereotypical portrayals of women with a view to eliminating discrimination against and the exploitation of women and girls and refraining from presenting them as inferior beings and exploiting them as sexual objects and commodities and instead present women and girls as creative human beings, key actors and contributors to and beneficiaries of the process of development”.

That is a very worthy and positive objective, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what practical action the Government will be taking to that end to confront media sexism. I should also like to know whether he agrees with me that it is a sexist anachronism that The Sun is still available so widely across the Palace of Westminster Estate and whether he will join me in taking action to try to get rid of it. I hope that the Minister will lend his full support to the measures that I have outlined today.

11:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

This is an unusual and refreshing debate. I probably have to choose my language carefully; I am reluctant to praise the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on her dress sense, but she certainly made a fantastic impact in the initial stages of the debate. I note that you, Mr Hood, reminded us all of the current code of conduct for dress in the House, but she did make an impact. She has also made an impact with a powerful speech.

I note in passing the remarks the hon. Lady made about the opening credits of BBC Parliament, which I confess is not a channel that I watch a great deal, but I know that the BBC monitors debates such as this extremely carefully. The debate today is one of the few in which the BBC is mentioned when somebody from its public affairs department has not texted me furiously to put points on its behalf. I hope that the BBC has noted what the hon. Lady said about the opening credits of BBC Parliament representing the cut and thrust of debate with 12 male Members of the House and that it notes that there are many women Members of the House, who make a fantastic contribution to our debates.

The debate covers a crucial and wide-ranging issue, which impacts all of us in this country. I welcome the hon. Lady’s recent campaign and her ability to secure today’s debate. In responding to her remarks, I will describe some fundamental principles in the Government’s approach to media regulation and, as she challenges me to do, provide a flavour of how we are addressing media sexism more generally.

Media representation of women is rightly of great concern to many people. As discussed in the debate, it can include, in particular, images or text that are sexually explicit or objectifying, reporting that trivialises violence against women and girls, or accumulated imagery that restricts the diversity of representation of women. The Government fully recognise that concern, and the potential that such representations have to impact negatively on women’s participation in public life, as well as how they can affect the way women view themselves and how they might be viewed by others.

It is also worth reminding the House that the media play an invaluable role in our cultural and democratic life. The Government are utterly committed to supporting a vibrant and diverse media industry. The press has a crucial role to play in our society: shining a light in dark places, holding the powerful to account and supporting vibrant local and regional communities. Freedom of expression is a vital part of our society. As well as maintaining that freedom, we as a Government are committed to maintaining media that command the respect of the public through high standards and are capable of appropriately protecting the rights of individuals. While on the one hand we must promote vibrant, diverse and free media, we must also maintain and protect the rights of ordinary people. The focus of Government regulation has therefore always been on supporting those standards and protecting individuals who find themselves, often through no fault of their own, the focus of the media. I will talk briefly about the different types of media regulation in this country, including press regulation, broadcasting regulation and advertising regulation.

The hon. Lady spent some time on press regulation in her speech. It is important to point out that newspapers are, of course, already bound by the law of the land, including the Obscene Publications Acts and the Indecent Displays Act 1989. The Press Distribution Forum has published guidance on the display of adult material. The majority of newspapers already sign up to the editors’ code of practice, which the Press Complaints Commission is continuing to enforce until new arrangements are in place.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, the Leveson inquiry considered the issues in detail. Although the Leveson report concluded that the editors’ code of practice is generally recognised to be sound, its central recommendations were about how the code could be more effectively enforced. Although it sets out a range of requirements around the treatment of individuals who become the subject of the news, it does not veer into the regulation of press content. That is because content regulation is not something that we have applied to the press in this country, and on the whole, Leveson was clear that the distinction should continue. Leveson recommended a reformed system of self-regulation, including independence of appointments and funding, an arbitration service, a fast complaints-handling mechanism, and the power to demand apologies and levy fines. He urged the press industry to work towards establishing a new, independent self-regulator to address those issues and suggested that press self-regulation should be independently verified through a process of recognition.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, Lord Justice Leveson specifically examined evidence concerning media sexism, taking evidence from organisations such as Eaves, the End Violence Against Women coalition, Equality Now and OBJECT, which jointly published a landmark report late last year entitled “Just the Women.” He summarised thus:

“The evidence as a whole suggested that there is force in the trenchant views expressed by the groups and organisations who testified to the Inquiry that the…tabloid press often failed to show consistent respect for the dignity and equality of women generally, and that there was a tendency to sexualise and demean women.”

Among other points, he concluded:

“What is clearly required is that any such regulator has the power to take complaints from representative women’s groups.”

Consequently, his 11th recommendation was that a new self-regulator should enable third-party complaints, from, for example, representative women’s groups, to help counteract media sexism, as well as other issues, and provide redress.

The Government have considered the recommendation, and it is now reflected in the cross-party charter that we published in March. However, we considered it appropriate to apply a threshold to the consideration of group complaints by the regulator, to ensure that the future regulator was not inundated with complaints whose motive was to forward the campaigning agenda of a group or organisation, and to make sure that complaints did not impact on the freedom of the press to express an opinion, which is a very important principle. To summarise: the underlying principle of press regulation has always been that provided something remains within the law and so long as it does not inappropriately interfere with the rights of individuals, it is for adults to choose for themselves what they want to read. The Government therefore do not regulate and have no intention of regulating the content of the press itself.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister has talked a lot about how current press regulation means that the press are bound by the law of the land, but the point I am making is that the law of the land does not go far enough. Does he not agree that if Rupert Murdoch does not take steps himself and listen to the campaigners who are asking for page 3 to be ditched, the Government have a role and should step in at that point? The existing law is not enough.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Lady says and I know that she is campaigning for a change in the law, but the Government’s position is that we do not interfere in press content. There are no plans to change the law in that regard. She mentioned other points in her remarks, which it is appropriate to address while I am on the subject of press content.

The hon. Lady suggested that I meet her constituents when the results of her campaign have been collated. That would be an appropriate meeting; I would go further and suggest that other Ministers involved in these issues also take part. She mentioned the guidelines of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. I take the approach that self-regulation can often be more effective than legislation, because it is more flexible and can be updated more rapidly. I suggest that, with the NFRN, the Government look at how effectively the guidelines are being applied, and that we maintain a dialogue with the NFRN, the hon. Lady and campaigning groups on the guidelines.

I do not have time to go into detail about broadcast media, but it is important to point out that there is a difference between broadcast regulation and press regulation. Broadcasting is pushed into the home, whereas it is often a matter of choice whether print media are brought into the home. That is why the level of regulation is tighter for broadcasting.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vaizey]

I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention, but I have very little time to conclude.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister is very kind. With the 40 seconds left, I want to point out that page 3 is not a matter of choice; it is everywhere—in shops, on the tube and on buses. That is why, in the last few seconds, I again invite him to take action with me to, at the very least, get it off the premises here in the House of Commons.

[Mr Vaizey]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am not planning to join her campaign to keep The Sun out of the Palace of Westminster. As I said, it is a matter of choice whether people read The Sun and I do not think that campaign would be appropriate. I have only three seconds left, so I congratulate her on this effective debate.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

I suspend the sitting until 4 pm, as the 2.30 debate has been cancelled.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Financial Products (Mis-selling)

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]

15:59

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I thank you, Ms Dorries; as always, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I want to discuss the limitations set by the Financial Services Authority, now called the Financial Conduct Authority or the FCA, in respect of its June 2012 review of the mis-selling of financial products to companies by UK banks in 2005 and 2006, which I shall refer to hereafter as “the FSA review”.

The FCA now holds the compensation fund contributed to by the banks that were guilty of such practices. The fund was set up to provide recompense to small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs—that were mis-sold certain financial instruments. I seek the Government’s support in challenging the FCA’s definition of a SME as contained in the limitations of the FCA review, so that all businesses and not just the smaller ones may be permitted support and assistance from the FCA in claiming compensation for being mis-sold financial products.

I also wish to challenge the limitation placed on the types of financial products that were part of the FSA review. In 2007, the FSA implemented new conduct of business rules, which derived from the EU’s 2007 markets in financial instruments directive. Under those rules, customers are afforded different levels of protection according to the category into which they fit.

The three categories are retail, which includes private individuals and smaller businesses not regulated by the FSA; professional, which includes larger firms, some of which are regulated by the FSA; and eligible counterparties, which includes financial institutions such as investment banks and stockbrokers.

Before 2007, the boundaries between retail and professional customers were significantly lower than they are now. Today, as a direct result of the 2007 rule changes, the banks are prohibited from selling many products they used to sell to their customers. Recognising, however, that we had insufficient legislation and protection for our businesses against the banks’ mis-selling of financial products back in 2005-06, I question why the FSA review protected only some and not all of those affected.

I suggest that the limitations set by the FSA fly in the face of logic and reason, and wrongly exclude a number of organisations from deserved recompense. I therefore ask the Minister to require that the FCA increase the scope of the compensation fund. We should afford protection to all affected companies, regardless of their size and of which financial products they were mis-sold. Quite simply, if they were mis-sold anything, they should be entitled to the protection of the FSA review, and compensated accordingly by the FCA.

In June 2012, the FSA issued a statement regarding the banks’ mis-selling of financial products. The statement reads as follows:

“The FSA has today announced that it has found serious failings in the sale of interest rate hedging products to some small and medium sized businesses (SMEs). We believe that this has resulted in a severe impact on a large number of these businesses. In order to provide as swift a solution to this problem as possible we have today confirmed that we have reached agreement with Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS to provide appropriate redress where mis-selling has occurred.

The banks will move to provide redress directly for those customers that bought the most complex products. They have also agreed to stop marketing interest rate structured collars to retail customers.

Interest rate hedging products can protect bank customers against the risk of interest rate movements and can be an appropriate product when properly sold in the right circumstances. During the period 2001 to date, banks sold around 28,000 interest rate protection products to customers.

These products range in complexity from comparatively simple ‘caps’ that fixed an upper limit to the interest rate on a loan, through to the more complex derivatives such as ‘structured collars’ which fixed interest rates within a band but introduced a degree of interest rate speculation.

Over the past two months the FSA has conducted a review of these sales. We have reviewed a significant amount of documentation from the firms (including sales files, customer complaints and taped conversations). We have also talked to over 100 customers who have come forward.”

In its investigations, the FSA found a number of poor sales practices by the banks, including poor disclosure of exit costs; failure to ascertain customers’ understanding of risk; non-advised sales straying into advice; over-hedging, which is where the amounts or the duration did not match the underlying loans; and rewards and incentives being a driver of the practices.

In its statement, the FSA concluded that

“not all businesses will be owed redress”,

which means that only SMEs, and only those SMEs that were sold interest rate hedging products, were entitled to redress. Those conditions left certain businesses, simply because of the number of employees they had or the amount of turnover they generated, being declared by the FSA as “sophisticated investors”, and not entitled to redress via the FSA, or the FCA in its new form.

For the FCA, a sophisticated investor is an organisation that is bigger than an SME, but I suggest that the term must surely apply to a person, firm or organisation that has a degree of sophisticated knowledge or understanding of financial products, and that the level of sophistication cannot be determined merely by size.

From information provided to me by a constituent, the FCA’s definition of an SME—a “non-sophisticated investor”—which has been agreed with the banks, is that it is an organisation with an annual turnover of less than £6.5 million, a head count of fewer than 50 and protected assets of less than £3.26 million. If a company cannot satisfy two or more of those criteria, it is considered outside the FCA’s scope for the compensation fund.

The definition hardly covers all SMEs, especially when we consider that they are differently defined by the Companies Act 2006. Under that Act, a medium-sized company is defined as having fewer than 250 employees—considerably more than 50—and a turnover of less than £12.9 million.

Furthermore, under European Commission guidelines adopted on 1 January 2005 with a view to harmonising the Europe-wide definition of an SME, there is a third definition whereby a medium-sized company is defined as having fewer than 250 employees and an annual turnover of less than €50 million, which is the equivalent of £42.5 million and therefore considerably larger than the figure in the FSA’s definition.

The FSA created its own definition of an SME with no public consultation and no logic or reason behind it, and in a way that seems to contradict legislation and EU guidelines. Perhaps it was influenced by the banks—perhaps not.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

We are talking about the very sector that has been hit hardest by the mis-selling of interest rate swap agreements. All we seek is growth, most of which will come from small and medium-sized businesses, so does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that group of companies and organisations should be given the best assistance possible, so that they can get out of these appalling agreements and carry on with their businesses?

[Bill Wiggin]

I partly agree, but I would like to see justice for all companies, irrespective of their number of employees or the size of their turnover. As a former banker, I know that the degree of sophistication needed to understand these complex products is extremely high. If companies were not properly educated into the deals they were doing, why should the FSA pick one particular group to protect? I agree with the emphasis on SMEs as a very important sector, but they are not the only sector.

We know that many businesses were mis-sold different types of financial product. In many cases, they were mis-sold products that were even more complicated than the interest rate hedging products covered by the review, but because they were mis-sold a different and more complex type of product, they, too, are not entitled to redress via the FCA compensation fund. Could it be that companies outside the FCA’s definition of an SME, such as my constituent, that were mis-sold complex financial products have suffered even greater financial losses than those that have redress available to them?

In the FSA statement of last June, Martin Wheatley, managing director of the conduct business unit, said:

“For many small businesses this has been a difficult and distressing experience with many people's livelihoods affected. Our work has focused on ensuring a swift outcome for these businesses that form such an important port of the economy.”

That was rather what my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) said.

Surely all businesses, large and small, form an important part of our economy. For my particular constituent, whose case I will cover in detail, the effects of the banks’ negligent malpractices were unquantifiable. It is almost impossible to predict how the company might have grown, how many more people it might have employed and how its development might have impacted on the local economy of Herefordshire had it not lost in excess of £2.25 million over just a few months, which it spent five years paying off. Because it had more than 50 employees at the relevant time and was doing well in turnover during the relevant period, it did not get access to the justice to which others were entitled from the compensation fund.

Despite my constituent’s company being clearly recognisable as a medium-sized enterprise under the Companies Act definition, it falls outside the FCA’s unique version of what constitutes an SME. I suggest that it is not alone, and that it is time that the floodgates were opened to provide redress to all organisations that have been the victim of bank malpractice, regardless of their size and of what they were mis-sold.

I think that we would all agree that the FSA review was necessary to bring order to the banks, to create accountability for past negligence and malpractices and to provide deserved recompense for those that had been misled and badly advised by the banks. However, it is now time to do more.

My constituent’s is a privately-owned, limited company, called allpay Ltd. Entrepreneur-led and owned, the company rapidly evolved from a groundbreaking idea in the 1990s—the owner re-mortgaged his house to get the business off the ground—and has now become one of Herefordshire’s biggest success stories. It was the first company to use magnetic swipe cards to collect payments for Departments, local authorities and registered social landlords cheaply, efficiently and safely. It now offers several bill payment solutions, and processes nearly £5 billion of central and local authority and RSL payments every year. The business deserves recognition and reward for its services to the public sector, its innovation and its creation of hundreds of jobs in the most rural county in England. The company is still growing.

In 2005-06, allpay was the victim of mis-selling by its bank, HSBC. Originally, allpay asked HSBC to advise it on the very type of product that was covered by the FSA review, but it was ultimately mis-sold something significantly more complex: three multi-callable range accrual interest rate swaps—products that, although speculative in nature, were sold as hedging by the bank.

The company had banked with HSBC for many years and felt that it could trust the bank to recognise its needs and understand which products were suitable. It was required to sign HSBC’s private customer terms and conditions, which confirmed that it did not rely on advice from the bank, but fully understood the risks as it was a sophisticated customer. The word “sophisticated” was not defined.

There is no evidence that allpay was made aware of the risks, yet HSBC continued to present more complex products for sale. The beauty of the bank’s sales pitch was to offer differing products—some suitable, but with a price attached, and some unsuitable, with a slight additional return and a purchase price of zero. The bank relied on an unsophisticated customer not to spot the unlimited risk associated with the free products should there be an adverse rate movement.

Under the terms of the agreement, allpay initially received from HSBC the difference between the interest rate that was first set and LIBOR on a notional sum, provided that LIBOR remained below 5.5%. We are all aware of the LIBOR manipulation scandal, and it is impossible to suggest that my constituent’s company was not one of its indirect victims.

The agreement was for five years. HSBC, not allpay, had an option to terminate the agreements at the end of each quarter; allpay had no documented exit route. It did not realise that at the time, because in no way was it ever a sophisticated investor with any degree of sophisticated financial knowledge about its entering into something akin to betting on a horse—in essence, gambling on LIBOR rates staying at a certain level. At the time, my constituent’s company entirely misunderstood the risks. Furthermore, even when it explicitly asked HSBC, allpay never received an explanation about the level of compensation that the company would have to pay if the bet was lost.

To go back to the FSA’s investigation of bank behaviour, there were several findings. It found poor disclosure of exit costs, and my constituent told me that allpay had no contractual right to exit and that no exit costs were stated. It found that there was a failure to ascertain customers’ understanding of risk, and I know that HSBC failed to explain the risks to allpay. It found that non-advised sales strayed into advice, and allpay told me that it asked for advice on hedging products but was ultimately sold something more risky. It found that rewards and incentives were a driver of such practices, and in this case the rewards for the employees who carried out the sale were significant. Therefore, despite ticking all the boxes looked into by the FSA review, my constituent still has no form of redress.

Ultimately, the horse did not win: my constituent’s company lost more than £2.25 million and overnight, with a change in the LIBOR rate, found itself haemorrhaging almost £5,000 a day—£35,000 a week or £455,000 a quarter—in interest. That was completely unsustainable, and would be for most businesses for any period. Worse still, those figures were the least amounts payable: if interest rates moved further from the agreed price, they could easily double, treble or more.

My constituent’s company was left in a very difficult position—completely over a barrel—facing certain insolvency and the probable loss of hundreds of jobs. The managing director attempted everything that he could: he threatened, begged, cajoled and applied to exit out of an agreement that had no exit clause. It cost the company dearly, not just in the interest payments made, but in additional costs of £1.5 million to cover the bank’s lost income. Ironically, HSBC provided the loan for the exit payment that it agreed to take.

My constituent’s company was advised to sue the bank for negligence, but by that time it did not have the resources to take on HSBC in expensive and lengthy High Court litigation. It asked the FSA to consider allpay in its review, but the request was refused due to its size at the relevant time and the type of product it was mis-sold.

The company asked HSBC for recompense. Appallingly, HSBC ignored it and responded to its correspondence only when I stepped in to offer my support. HSBC’s in-house lawyer finally engaged with my constituent’s company and entered into some dialogue, eventually inviting my constituent from Hereford to its offices in Canary Wharf on a “without prejudice” basis to discuss a settlement. The meeting was a waste of time: it lasted no more than 30 minutes, and it appears that HSBC dragged my constituent to London essentially to be told to get lost. The bank made it clear that it will discuss the matter further only if it is compelled to do so by the FCA, and if the case is brought within the review.

In March, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) queried why other products were excluded from the FSA review. A constituent of his was mis-sold a fixed-rate tailored business loan and was excluded from the review. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is ready to press the FCA to extend the review’s remit, which I wholeheartedly support. An extension of the scope of the original FSA review is necessary.

The decision to limit the scope of the FSA review was perverse, because it did not take into account the categories into which companies fitted and what definition they met, nor the fact that companies, through no fault of their own but entirely due to a banking institution, were mis-sold a financial product and suffered significant financial loss. There is no logical explanation for the exclusion from redress of companies due to their size or to the type of product that they were mis-sold.

I appreciate that an extension might open the floodgates to a wave of new claims against other banks and trigger a significant increase in their provisions for mis-selling liabilities, which have already more than doubled to £2 billion, but the banks might just learn a lesson. I hope that the Government will support all affected businesses of whatever size, ensure that the banks are called on by the FCA to provide compensation for their malpractices and that the FCA is compelled to extend the scope of the review.

16:19

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

This is the first opportunity that I have had to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and it is a real pleasure. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on securing this important debate. I acknowledge the strength of his feeling on this particular subject. He has put forward a considered and eloquent argument to the Chamber, and made a strong representation on behalf of his constituent.

I am sure that everyone present is keen to see a speedy conclusion to the Financial Conduct Authority review of the mis-selling of financial products. It is only right that businesses that have been mis-sold products are compensated accordingly.

The Government have been clear from the start that such practices are unacceptable. We take extremely seriously the abuse that has taken place, and we are determined that any wrongs that have been inflicted on businesses should be put right. My hon. Friend shared with us the example of allpay Ltd, which is a company in his constituency that was sold a hedging product but is not eligible for the FCA review. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not go into the specifics of that particular case right now, but I am happy to look into any case, including the one that he has raised, in further detail.

I want to take this opportunity to address the key points that my hon. Friend has raised. First, he challenged the definition of an SME as used by the FCA in its review. He has argued instead that all businesses, not just the smaller ones, should be given support and assistance from the FCA in claiming compensation.

The FCA used the criteria for non-sophisticated customers, as set out in the UK Companies Act 2006, in its objective test. That is because those criteria are used for classifying companies that are subject to the small companies regime, and that have lighter reporting requirements. They are therefore the companies that are less likely to have staff or advisers with appropriate knowledge and skills to advise directors on the purchasing of financial instruments.

Moreover, I understand that the FCA review also changed the sophistication test in January to ensure that certain customers who were classified as sophisticated under the Companies Act test are instead classified as non-sophisticated and therefore brought into the scope of the review. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that move, particularly as his constituency in Herefordshire, like mine in Bromsgrove, has many farmers. Had the change not happened, many farmers who typically have larger work forces and balance sheets than other SMEs could have been excluded.

The Government have been clear that where a business lacks the necessary skills and knowledge to understand fully the risks of such products, it should receive the appropriate redress. However, we do not agree that all businesses should have access to the FCA review. Instead, there needs to be a defined cut-off point where more sophisticated businesses are able to take responsibility for understanding the products or services they are entering into. There will be organisations that took one of these product with a full understanding of the risks involved if interest rates changed, and it is not for the Government to perform due diligence for such large, sophisticated organisations. Any such action would weaken incentives for businesses to act sensibly when purchasing financial instruments, and would potentially open the floodgates—a word my hon. Friend also used—to any businesses that have lost out from a financial transaction. I am therefore confident that the FCA has found the right balance to ensure that all non-sophisticated businesses fall inside the scheme.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the limitation placed on the type of financial products that are part of the FCA review. Given the widespread sale of the particular products included in the review to small businesses, it is reasonable that the FCA has established the parameters of its review on that basis. The FCA did that based on a full review of what products were sold to which businesses and by whom, and the full review includes all those products that were widely sold to small and unsophisticated businesses.

The FCA must also consider how to allocate its resources economically and efficiently, and it therefore seems reasonable that the review is focused on the products where the bulk of sales took place.

In closing, I reiterate that the Government take extremely seriously the abuse that has taken place in very many cases.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am most grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to reply to this debate. He is right that there are some things in there, but will he agree to think about how a regulator such as the FCA should proceed in the future so that we get regulation across the board, and not just for specific groups of companies? It strikes me that it does not matter how many employees a company has or how big its balance sheet is, it should be behaving responsibly. In the case of larger companies, more jobs are put at risk if financial mis-selling takes place, and we rely on the FCA to be a regulator. I would be grateful if he bore that in mind.

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I can bear that in mind. My hon. Friend makes a characteristically good point. Throughout this debate, he has raised a number of important issues, but I hope that he accepts that the FCA is an organisation that needs a degree of strong independence so that it can make robust decisions and not be influenced for the wrong reasons.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister consider this particular situation? If a company has gone into administration because of the mis-selling of an interest rate hedging product, it is by definition excluded. If it is in administration, only the insolvency practitioner can represent the interests of that company, but the insolvency practitioner is often appointed by the bank and is extremely loth to sue the bank for redress, and if it does, it has a direct interest, which means that there is a conflict of interest in that sort of situation. The company can never get redress because, effectively, the company owner has gone down the pan—his house will be gone and so on. It is an appalling situation. Will the Minister address that point for me?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. The issue of insolvency, insolvency law and our approach to that is, as she will know, looked at in great detail by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Given the connection between that issue and the one we are discussing, I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is aware of it and responds accordingly.

Let me reiterate that the Government take extremely seriously the abuse that has taken place in many cases and I am determined that these wrongs will be put right. I want to see a quick solution to the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products to allow those businesses to continue to operate and contribute to the ongoing recovery of the UK economy. Once again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire on securing this debate.

In Amenas Hostages

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

16:28

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, in what is a very sensitive and important debate.

When you look into the eyes of a mother who has just lost her son, you begin to understand what true heartbreak is. On Friday 8 May this year, when I met Margaret Barlow and Jan Barnes, the mother and sister of Garry Barlow, an innocent victim of the In Amenas terrorist attack, that heartbreak is what I saw. It is on their behalf that I have secured this debate.

Five months have now passed since the attack and the family still have too many unanswered questions. They still do not know the full and exact details of how, or when, Garry died. In a statement to the House on 21 January this year, the Prime Minister said:

“There is still some uncertainty about the precise facts”.—[Official Report, 21 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 25.]

I trust that the Minister can begin to enlighten us about some of those facts today.

One of the main areas where we are short on facts is how and why the attack happened. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, it was rationalised as retaliation for the French involvement in Mali. However, that view is now rejected. Other motives that have been speculated on are kidnapping, ransom, suicide bombers, or that the attack was an attempt to secure the release of Islamic terrorist prisoners. There are even some reports that suggest that the Algerian security services may have had some involvement. At the moment, we just do not know the truth.

I would be grateful if the Minister provided an explanation of the facts, particularly—

16:30

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:40

On resuming—

[Rosie Cooper]

To recap, I should be grateful if the Minister could provide an explanation of the facts, particularly the motivating factors for the attack and its purpose. We really need an answer to the most fundamental of all the questions, which is how, despite the Foreign Office and BP, independent assessments and local intelligence, were Garry Barlow and the other foreign workers at the plant left in harm’s way? How could that happen, when the Foreign Office issues travel advice, companies are paid to provide strategic risk assessments and advice on areas throughout the world, including Africa, major multinational companies running those projects employ on-site security advisers, and employees on the ground feed back information to their companies?

In November, the Foreign Office amended its travel advice to increase the threat level in Algeria. An article in the Financial Times on 24 January stated:

“‘there were no known specific threats to the site’”.

Yet previously, in July 2012, a report by Executive Analysis named the In Amenas plant as a potential target for a terrorist attack. In the same article, BP is referenced as arguing

“that there was no need for private guards in In Amenas”,

owing to

“large numbers of Algerian security forces”

located nearby, with a full arsenal, including helicopters and tanks. Alongside that,

“access to the complex was controlled by Algerian gendarmerie.”

Yet somehow, 40 heavily armed gunmen travelled unnoticed across the desert, according to reports, and took control of the plant.

The uncorrected transcript of the Foreign Affairs Committee sitting on 21 May contains interesting evidence from Jon Marks, an associate fellow at Chatham House. He says that

“the plant was being softened up for such an attack, at least as far as we understand at present.”

The most damning critique of the official picture is in Garry Barlow’s own words, in an e-mail to his sister on 30 November 2012. He wrote:

“situation is getting dodgy here, local drivers have been on strike for 6 months, they are now on hunger strike, place is practically crippled and can’t go on much longer.

Government would normally step in and shoot them, however they belong to the Tuareg tribe. The Tuareg are nomadic and occupy a large area of the Sahara crossing many borders. They recently staged a coup in Mali and took control, as they are militant Islamists. Al Qaeda are now starting to settle in Mali, this is making the Algerian Government very nervous and they have sent a few battalions to the southern region. They have not intervened in the strike as they don’t want to inflame the situation.

Local Tuareg have said that if any of the hunger strikers die then they will kill 30 expats at the In Amenas gas plant. As most expats have been demobbed, there are only 10 of us left, they must be planning to kill us all three times over, ha ha. Don’t start any candle lit services yet.

Due on Wednesday…not sure if there will be a job when I am back on site though.”

Somehow, somewhere, between the information available and what was being communicated by the companies to their staff there was a disconnect, which cost lives and needs to be explained.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Garry Barlow was my constituent, and his widow and their two children are still trying to find out precisely what happened to Garry. Mrs Barlow recently sought my further assistance, to try to get more and better information about what happened to Garry, because she feels that that has not been advanced at all since his death. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in responding.

[Rosie Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister satisfied that the companies employing British staff at the In Amenas plant provided the correct advice and assurances to ensure those workers were safe? What is his evidence for being satisfied of that, beyond the companies’ verbal assurances?

In the light of Garry Barlow’s e-mail, does the Minister believe that the Foreign Office failed to react to the changing circumstances on the ground in Algeria? Can he explain why so many foreign workers had been demobbed, as Garry stated in his e-mail? Was that related to the security situation? If so, why were not all the foreign workers removed? Did the FCO have any conversations with BP or the Algerian authorities about the situation within the region and about any developing threats to the safety of foreign workers?

I am sorry that I have such a series of questions, but there is a mountain of unanswered questions. Does the Minister believe that the companies employing British workers, or the Algerian authorities as the host nation, fulfilled their duty of care to the staff at or returning to the In Amenas plant in January? British citizens working abroad need to be confident that the Government play an active role in monitoring the security provisions of multinational companies with British interests such as BP. It is really important that there are such assurances.

I will now turn to the Government’s response during and after the hostage situation. On 17 January 2013, the Prime Minister made a statement saying that the families should expect “bad news”. The families learned that information like everyone else, as it was being broadcast through the TV in their living rooms. Even the police liaison teams had not been informed that a statement was to be made, much less the content.

All the Barlow family have ever sought was to be told information before it was given to the media so that they were able to prepare and protect their family, especially the children. I know how badly affected Mrs Barlow was. The whole family were affected, but I have seen Mrs Barlow and my heart goes out to her. Mrs Barlow Sr is in a dreadful state.

That one aspect of control in the whole situation was taken away from the family, and I have been asked to convey their deep disappointment at the Prime Minister’s failure to make personal contact with them; there was not even a telephone call to offer condolences to Mrs Barlow on the loss of her son. That is in contrast to the Norwegian Prime Minister, who personally met the families of the Norwegian victims of the terrorist attack. Anyone who has suffered the loss of a loved one understands that such words of condolence do not take away the pain of that loss, yet there is the smallest comfort in those simple words, which are respectful and demonstrate that the human life lost is valued. Public statements such as laying wreaths, as the Prime Minister did in Algeria, have their place, but care and compassion in communicating with the families should have been paramount.

I acknowledge the work of the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), in trying to keep the families informed, but the Prime Minister told the families via TV and radio that their relatives were in mortal danger, which is a very sad indictment of his priorities. I urge the Minister to review the manner in which his Department and the Government as a whole handled communications with the family and to resolve any issues.

Finally, I turn to the investigation that is currently being conducted by SO15 officers and the effectiveness of that investigation. At the time of the attack, an SO15 officer was sent to Algeria. Between Algiers and In Amenas, the officer was accompanied by a BP representative. During his time in Algeria, the investigating officer was prevented from gaining access to the In Amenas site not once but twice, despite the British Prime Minister having sought assurances on access from the Algerian Prime Minister. Even the media were allowed access. SO15 was not allowed access, but the media were. On the last occasion the SO15 officer spoke to my constituents, he still had not managed to gain access to the In Amenas plant, where operations are already back up and running.

How can the families have confidence that that investigation will offer any real answers when the crime scene has been compromised and vital forensic information from the site and the bodies have been lost? Why does there appear to be little or no co-operation from the Algerian authorities on allowing British investigators access to the site? Can the Minister explain the efficacy of BP’s involvement with the investigating team given that BP has not conducted its own investigation, unlike its partner Statoil? Is it not appropriate that, rather than joining the investigation, BP be considered as a body to be investigated? Will the Minister comment on the appropriateness of the investigating officers speaking at conferences on the situation when the families have been given little or no information on the current progress of the investigation?

I thank the Minister in advance for responding to my questions, and I hope he is able to restore some of the Barlow family’s faith and confidence that the Government are on their side, with care, compassion and feeling for all members of the family being paramount.

16:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I am pleased to be under your guidance this afternoon, Ms Dorries.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on securing this important debate and on the measured, calm and detailed way in which she set out her concerns and those of her constituents and other hon. Members. Before I respond to her points, I put on record that my thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected by the terrorist attacks at In Amenas. I am personally very sorry for the tragic loss of Mr Barlow and all those, UK citizens and others, who lost their lives in that terrorist atrocity.

No one will forget the horror of those days in January, when six British nationals and one British resident lost their lives. I can only begin to imagine how difficult those days must have been for those anxiously waiting for news and how painful every moment has been since that news was received. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: no words, however well meaning and however often they are repeated, can relieve the suffering of the loved ones of those British citizens and others who lost their lives in Algeria.

I remind hon. Members that Her Majesty’s coroner is legally responsible for determining the cause of death, and my response must not in any way prejudice the course of her inquiries.

The hon. Lady raised very serious, significant, substantive and important issues, and I will try to address them in my remarks. I hope she and other hon. Members will be patient. What happened at In Amenas was abhorrent, and it was the terrorists who were responsible for the tragic deaths of so many. We know that the terrorist threat in the Sahel comes from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which aspires to introduce Islamic law across the Sahel and north Africa and to attack western interests wherever it can. The hon. Lady is right to say that we should not assume a straightforward link to events in Mali given the complexity of the attack, but we do not know now, and we may never know, what motivated the individuals at In Amenas. What we do know is that their actions—the cold-blooded murder of innocent workers—can never be justified. That is why the world stood united in its condemnation, and why the actions of the extremists have only confirmed our implacable opposition to terrorism and our resolve to fight it together.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is holding an inquiry into terrorism in north and west Africa. To our mind, it seems that many of the terrorists who carried out the attack, and who were involved as well in the destabilisation of the Malian force, were trying to help Colonel Gaddafi before his regime in Libya fell. Many of them are not from Algeria but from neighbouring countries in the Sahel. Does he accept that the outcome of the Libyan conflict had some bearing on the attack, and indeed on what is happening in Mali?

[Mark Simmonds]

Of course I am aware of the detail of the Foreign Affairs Committee investigation. The hon. Gentleman is partially right, in that the perpetrators of that terrorist atrocity were not all from inside Algeria, but he will also be aware that the borders in that part of Africa are extremely porous. It is a significant challenge that countries in the region must resolve, with the co-operation and assistance of the international community at both multilateral and bilateral levels, if we are to ensure that that sort of situation does not occur again.

To pick up on one of the key elements of the contribution made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire about the safety of the British nationals involved, the repatriation of those killed and the evacuation of the wounded and freed hostages was the top priority of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and of the international community as it related to people of other nationalities. Staff in London and Algiers worked around the clock to support the Algerians in resolving the crisis, and our embassy in Algeria was strengthened by 18 consular experts, six experts from the Red Cross and specialists from the Metropolitan police. We gave direct assistance to the British nationals involved in Algeria, and our ambassador was the first to reach In Amenas. Our response involved playing a leading role among the countries affected, including sharing information with them and supporting the identification of victims. We have continued to take a lead since then, for instance by co-ordinating work on the return of possessions.

As hon. Members will remember, In Amenas is two days’ drive from Algiers; it is in the middle of the Sahara desert and is one of the most remote places in the world. Information was therefore difficult to come by, not least since we were not informed in advance of Algerian operations. None the less, I understand and regret that the unpredictable nature of events and a lack of detail caused distress for those waiting for news.

The attack was on a significant scale. From the outset, the Prime Minister led the United Kingdom response, chairing Cobra on a number of occasions. He continued to do so in the month after the attack, making a ground-breaking visit to Algeria, closely followed by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). We believe that early, proactive and personal engagement with families and relevant MPs is essential. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lancashire for her commendation of my hon. Friend, who did a sterling job in difficult circumstances.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately offered ministerial contact, via police liaison officers, to all affected families and MPs, a number of whom took up the offer, including the family of Mr Barlow. I know that my right hon. Friend has recently spoken with them again and regrets sincerely that he cannot be here in person today.

I accept that we may not always get contact right in crises where information is limited. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office always seeks to learn from such incidents, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire will be doing so. He has discussed the police liaison process with the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police to see whether it can be improved in future.

The hon. Member for West Lancashire specifically made the point that what happened was unclear. It is still unclear. Some of the details are still not known. I know how hard that must be for the families, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on behalf of the Algerian authorities or BP. Instead, we very much hope that the investigation, on which the Algerian authorities are leading, and the coroner’s inquest in the UK, will answer some of the hon. Lady’s questions, and those of her constituents and others.

We continue to discuss the detail of the In Amenas attack with the Algerian authorities at every available opportunity, including at ministerial level, as we did when the Prime Minister and the Minister for the middle east visited in the weeks following the attack. We will support their investigations in any way that we can. We continue to seek assurances from the Algerian authorities that they will share details and access to the site in the aftermath of the attack. None the less, it must be said that Algeria is a sovereign country and, just as we would expect to do here, the Algerians must be allowed to conduct their investigations in accordance with their own laws.

The coroner’s investigation will take place early in 2014. The Government are supporting that process. A small team of Metropolitan Police Service officers travelled to Algeria on 18 January to lead on the identification and repatriation of those who died, and they continue to gather information. They last travelled to Algeria in May. Her Majesty’s coroner for West Sussex will hold a preliminary hearing on 1 July, which will set out the scope of her investigation.

It is important to understand that this is a complex inquiry into deaths that occurred at a site staffed by multinational personnel. Nationals from nine other countries lost their lives, and individuals from a total of 29 countries were involved, so much of the information that might assist the coroner is not automatically available in the UK. The police are therefore liaising with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Algerian authorities and other international authorities and partners to progress enquiries and get that information on the coroner’s behalf. Regrettably, that will take time, but I am sure that the hon. Member for West Lancashire will agree that it is absolutely essential that the investigation is thorough and benefits from the maximum availability of the appropriate amount of information.

[Rosie Cooper]

I am happy to agree that the investigation should be thorough and proper, but can the Minister comment on the fact that SO15 officers were not allowed access to begin that investigation when members of the media were? Surely that is the starting point for a thorough investigation, is it not?

[Mark Simmonds]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. She was right to emphasise in her initial remarks the assurances that the United Kingdom Prime Minister received, but I am sure she also understands that the Algerians are leading the judicial investigation. They have allowed some access to the site for the repatriation of personal property and possessions, which the UK took a lead on. I assure her that we will continue to press for the appropriate level of access for the UK investigative team in support of the Algerian and coroner’s inquests. I assure all hon. Members that the Government will continue to do all they can to support the families in their search for answers to their very appropriate questions.

[Maria Eagle]

Is the Minister aware that the relatives of Garry Barlow know no more now than they did in January about when and how Garry died? They are becoming distressed at the passage of time, without any commensurate increase in the amount of information they have.

[Mark Simmonds]

That was one of the first questions I asked my officials. I prefer not to put the response on the record, but I am happy to talk privately to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for West Lancashire to give them a more accurate assessment as to why that situation is the case. Perhaps we can find a moment to do that.

I also want to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire about travel advice, which was integral to the thrust of her initial remarks. I assure her that we did not have advance warning about the attack or about specific threats that would have warranted further changes to our travel advice. As I am sure she is aware, our advice already made it clear that western interests were specific targets for terrorism in Algeria.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office closely monitors and keeps under constant review travel advice around the world, including for Algeria, and the advice was updated several times in the months before that appalling attack. It needs to be said, however, that travel advice is what it says—advice. It is up to companies and individuals to heed that advice, or to follow their course of action in the full knowledge that the advice is there.

The advice noted the increased risks following the French military intervention in Mali. Having reviewed our advice once again, I am confident that it accurately reflected what we knew at the time. Had we had any specific information relating directly to In Amenas, it would have been passed to the company immediately. Protecting our citizens is a priority. We try to establish as much information about terrorist activity as we can, and to communicate it both to relevant companies and to the public. The tragic reality is that sometimes there is no warning.

From the outset, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided support to those caught up in the attack and their families, and we will continue to assist in any way we can. Police family liaison officers remain appointed to each family and are in regular contact.

The hon. Lady mentioned concerns about BP. Companies, ultimately, are responsible for the security of their staff and assets. As investigations continue, however, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the security arrangements at the site, or on how BP and the other companies used the information that was available about the threat. Any specific questions on those issues must be addressed to them. Nevertheless, looking ahead, we are doing everything we can by engaging closely with industry representatives to ensure that we are aware of their concerns and that we take steps to give them the best support we can in keeping their staff and assets safe.

To that end, since the In Amenas attacks, we have actively engaged with UK industry in the region and the extractive industries sector to review and refine how we work together on crisis and threat management: first, to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government and industry understand each other’s crisis management mechanisms through information sharing, exercising and using lessons learned from this and other crises; and, secondly, on threat management, to ensure the most effective channels between industry and Government on threat contact, informing our bilateral engagement with partners such as Algeria on their response. I assure the hon. Lady that that work is ongoing.

I also assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to provide the best information possible through our travel advice, and we will work with countries in the region to reduce the risk to British nationals in Algeria and elsewhere in the Sahel and north and west Africa. As the Prime Minister said, we are determined to root out and defeat the terrorist scourge and those who encourage it anywhere in the world, including in north Africa. That issue will be debated at the G8 meeting next week.

In conclusion, the In Amenas attack was a stark reminder of the threat we face throughout the world, and of the importance of a global response to terrorism, not only over months, but over years. I hope that the Algerian investigation and the coroner’s inquest will help to answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Lady this afternoon, and that families in West Lancashire and elsewhere, whose lives were changed for ever by those terrible events, will get responses to their questions. Through the police liaison officers, we will continue to inform them of progress. Finally, I offer again my sincere condolences and those of the Government to the families who lost loved ones in that terrible atrocity.

Question put and agreed to.

17:14

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Written Statements

Wednesday 12 June 2013

Draft Consumer Rights Bill

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

Today the Government are publishing their response to the recent consultations on consumer rights and, alongside this, a draft Consumer Rights Bill with explanatory notes and impact assessments.

UK consumer law is currently unnecessarily complex, ambiguous in places and has not kept up with technological developments. The Government therefore propose a simple, modern framework of consumer rights, which is set out in the draft Bill. This will help consumers and their advocates understand their rights when things go wrong, with the aim of empowering consumers and promoting growth through competitive markets.

Part 1 of the draft Bill sets out clearly, in simple words and in one place, consumer rights to minimum quality for goods and services, which are currently contained within eight separate pieces of legislation, and the new category of digital content, such as e-books or software. It also establishes what should happen to rectify matters if those rights are breached.

The proposed reforms will make it easier for consumers to understand and access their key rights, including the:

Right to clear and honest information before you buy

Right to get what you pay for

Right to goods and digital content being fit for purpose, and services being performed with reasonable care and skill

Right that faults in what you buy will be put right free of charge or a refund or replacement provided.

Part 2 of the draft Bill clarifies which contract terms can or cannot be challenged in court for fairness; and part 3 consolidates powers of consumer law enforcers—for example trading standards—to investigate breaches of consumer law, which are currently contained in around 60 pieces of legislation.

Part 3 also contains provisions to enable consumer law enforcers to ask the civil courts to require traders to compensate consumers where they have breached consumer law; and to provide faster and lower cost redress for consumers and businesses where there have been breaches of competition law.

Overall, the draft Bill reduces regulatory burdens for business, with the aim of making markets work better. For example, businesses should have fewer and less costly disputes with customers, because rights are clearer. Disruption caused by unplanned enforcement officers’ visits should be reduced by the proposed requirement to give reasonable notice to businesses when carrying out routine inspections. It should be easier for businesses and consumers to hold to account those who have breached competition law.

A copy of the Government’s response to the consultations on consumer rights and the impact assessments can be viewed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ draft-consumer-rights-bill.

A copy of the draft Bill and explanatory notes can also be found on the website.

Credit Union Maximum Interest Rate Cap

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

Last December the Government published a consultation on raising the maximum interest rate cap for credit union loans. This consultation sought views on the proposal to increase the maximum interest rate that credit unions can charge, from 2% per month to 3% per month.

Following this consultation, the Government today publish their response. The vast majority of the responses to the consultation were in favour, including individual credit unions, trade bodies, and consumer groups. The Government will therefore introduce legislation in the autumn to increase the interest rate that credit unions can charge from 2% to 3% per calendar month.

Allowing the maximum rate of interest to increase will enable credit unions to become more stable over the long term, and reduce the losses that they currently make on small, short-term loans. This means that low-income consumers will have greater access to reliable, affordable credit. Even with a 1% increase in the monthly rate of interest, credit union loans will still be substantially cheaper than the alternatives for many consumers with no mainstream options. It is important to note that this increase in the interest rate is permissive; it does not require credit unions to increase the interest rate they charge but simply permits them to do so if they judge that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Many credit unions are strongly embedded in their local communities and are committed to assisting those on low incomes. Research shows that credit unions often appeal to low-income consumers as bodies which are local, accessible and convenient, and which are community-based. Giving credit unions more flexibility in their lending will enable them to recruit new members, and further establish their role in helping the financially excluded.

I am placing copies of this document in the Libraries of both Houses.

Asset Protection Agency

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

The annual report and accounts for the Asset Protection Agency (APA) has today been laid before Parliament.

The report contains commentary on key developments in relation to the APA and the asset protection scheme (APS) and the annual accounts over the period from 1 April 2012 to 31 October 2012.

The APA closed on 31 October 2012, following the Royal Bank of Scotland’s (RBS) exit from the APS on 18 October 2012.

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The Government’s review of non-departmental public bodies in 2010 recommended that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) should be abolished as part of wider goals to improve efficiency, effectiveness, economy and accountability.

Having considered the matter carefully and taken account of the consultation responses received, I am today announcing that I have decided not to proceed with abolition, but to retain DPTAC as the Department’s expert advisory panel on accessibility issues relating to disabled people.

A public consultation was held between 11 June and 14 September 2012, on whether DPTAC should be abolished and, if so, on possible alternative arrangements. Following the consultation, I have concluded that abolition would not lead to any discernible improvement in economy and accountability.

However, I have also concluded that there is scope for restructuring DPTAC to ensure it is a more efficient and effective body. I am satisfied that the savings identified from such reforms would exceed earlier expectations. My officials will now work together with those from Cabinet Office on the restructuring of DPTAC. As DPTAC has the characteristics of a non-departmental body, it will continue to be subject to review every three years.

This announcement will end a considerable period of uncertainty for the existing members of DPTAC, and I hope will be welcomed by the majority of respondents to the consultation who were in favour of its retention.

Grand Committee

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 12 June 2013.

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates)]

My Lords, in the unlikely event of a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Second Key Stage) (England) Order 2013

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:45

Moved by

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Second Key Stage) (England) Order 2013

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to debate the Government’s proposals for the introduction of compulsory foreign language teaching into primary schools in England. As noble Lords will know, the study of languages is currently a compulsory national curriculum subject in maintained schools in England at key stage 3 only.

In January 2011, the Government launched a review of the national curriculum in England. After consideration of evidence from competitor nations, advice from subject experts and responses to the review’s call for evidence, the expert panel advising the review recommended that the teaching of languages should be introduced at key stage 2. Following this, in June 2012, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education confirmed that it was the Government’s intention to include the teaching of foreign languages at key stage 2 and, in doing so, build on the good work that many primary schools are already doing, and bring us into line with practice in many other countries.

I will say something about why we think this change is essential. Learning a language benefits individuals’ social and economic prospects and the economy more widely. It improves the mind, provides an opening to other cultures and deepens our understanding of the world. It is one mark of an educated person and we want all children to develop confidence and enjoyment in being able to speak another language early in their school life.

It is a sad fact, however, that the state of languages teaching in secondary schools has been in decline for a number of years. One sign of this can be seen in the fall in the numbers of those taking languages GCSEs. It is startling to note that the proportion of the cohort entering for at least one modern foreign language GCSE has declined from a high of 79% in 2001 to 40% in 2011. Other evidence also points to a decline. For example, the 2012 European Survey on Language Competences highlighted the poor state of languages ability among school pupils in England. Specifically, in the first taught foreign language, England had significantly more pupils at the lower proficiency levels and significantly fewer at the highest levels than our European counterparts.

We are committed to changing this situation and improving the teaching of languages. The English baccalaureate performance measure has already started to address the number of pupils studying languages at key stage 4. We believe that introducing languages earlier will improve take-up further still and also help pupils to achieve higher levels of performance at GCSE level and beyond.

We recognise the importance of making foreign languages compulsory at key stage 2, as recommended by the expert panel appointed to advise the national curriculum review. There is evidence that suggests that children are better able to learn the sounds of new languages when they are younger. We have also taken into account previous recommendations, made by Lord Dearing, that the teaching of foreign languages should be compulsory at key stage 2, and the similar conclusions of Sir Jim Rose’s review of the primary school curriculum conducted under the previous Government. Learning languages at an early age also helps general cognitive development. Researchers from University College London in 2004 found that learning other languages altered grey matter—that is, the area of the brain that processes information—in the same way that exercise builds muscles.

We have also taken into account the international evidence that shows that many other jurisdictions recommend the teaching of foreign languages in the primary phase. Indeed, evidence from Europe shows that many countries start a compulsory second language much earlier than at age 11. In Austria, France, Norway and Spain, for example, pupils will have started to learn a second language by the age of seven. We also considered evidence from secondary schools, which told us how difficult it is to plan languages teaching for their new intake that builds on what they may have been taught in primary school. This means that in some circumstances teaching is not built on effectively when pupils start secondary school.

We were encouraged by the recent CfBT Language Trends survey, in which 97% of primary schools reported that they were already teaching a language. The same survey found that more than 80% of primary schools were reasonably confident about meeting the statutory key stage 2 language requirement from 2014. It is uplifting to see examples such as St Paul’s primary school in Brighton, a leading school for the teaching of Spanish, which is taught from reception to year 6.

All pupils should enjoy the benefits of learning a language for at least four years during their primary education, which will enable them to make significant progress. We also believe that making languages compulsory at key stage 2, underpinned by a statutory programme of study, will give secondary schools a much more secure base on which to build.

We have sought views on this proposal both through the national curriculum review call for evidence and a specific consultation exercise on making languages compulsory at key stage 2. Responses on this issue in both exercises were overwhelmingly positive. The large majority of respondents to the consultation—more than 90%—agreed with the Government’s intention to introduce foreign languages at key stage 2. Their arguments included the view that young children have a natural disposition for learning languages. They claimed that making the subject compulsory was important to ensure its place in the curriculum of all schools. They also argued that doing so would lead to better attainment at key stage 3, and greater take-up at key stage 4, and that pupils would benefit from a more global outlook and enhanced career prospects.

Only a very small proportion of respondents—3% —opposed the proposal. Their key argument was that languages should not be a priority for this age group compared with other subjects such as literacy, numeracy and science. The majority of respondents, however, were of the opinion that all children benefited from learning a foreign language and that it widened opportunity.

In November last year, we therefore announced our decision to proceed with the necessary legislation to make languages compulsory at key stage 2. As noble Lords may be aware, on the same date we sought views on a proposal to require primary schools to teach one of the following languages at key stage 2: French, German, Italian, Mandarin, Spanish, Latin or ancient Greek. Responses to this second consultation were divided, but the matter for debate today is whether we should make foreign languages a statutory subject at key stage 2. A separate order will be laid subsequently on the proposed list of languages.

We also published, in February this year, a programme of study for key stage 2 languages in draft, along with one for key stage 3. These programmes set out the purpose and aims of study, as well as the subject content to be taught. The intention behind them is that children should enjoy learning a language, with the goal of being able to speak it with increasing confidence and fluency, and finding ways of communicating what they want to say. Having the confidence and ability to use a foreign language for their purposes, as well as for academic study, is very important. We have been extremely encouraged by the very positive response with which these programmes of study were greeted. Our belief that they will provide a challenging, rigorous and appropriate standard has been supported by many respondents.

On the implementation of the proposal, we are carefully considering the responses to the recent consultation on the Government’s wider proposals for reform of the national curriculum. This included a specific question asking for views on the support that schools will need to implement the new national curriculum. Clearly, system leaders, such as teaching schools and national support schools, will play a key role. We are also working with subject associations, publishers and others to ensure that high-quality support is available.

As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Childcare said in her speech to the National College Fellowship Commission last month, the implementation of this edition of the national curriculum will be unlike previous revisions. There will be a much greater emphasis on freeing up teachers from central government prescription to enable them to make these reforms work in their schools.

Language teaching requires expertise both in using the language and in age-appropriate pedagogy. Many primary schools have already successfully addressed these needs. Making languages compulsory at key stage 2 will build on this good base and on the investment made by previous Governments to support primary languages teaching.

We recognise that training and continuing professional development will, of course, be important, particularly with the new emphasis on written as well as spoken language, but needs will vary from school to school. The Government, therefore, believe as a general principle that schools themselves are best placed to decide what arrangements they need to put in place to support their staff to deliver the new national curriculum.

Making foreign languages compulsory at key stage 2 is a hugely significant step, and one that has and will attract widespread support from the teaching profession and employers. Many primary schools have already made significant progress towards providing languages in key stage 2. Once we have completed the analysis of the responses to the consultation exercise and reflected on the feedback received, we will publish what we intend to be final versions of the new programmes of study. Subject to the will of Parliament those programmes of study will be confirmed in the autumn. I believe that the reforms that we are making will be crucial in helping to improve the standard of languages teaching in England. I therefore commend the order to the House.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the order. I should make it clear from the outset that we are not in principle opposed to the requirement to teach a foreign language at key stage 2. In fact, the previous Government led the way on this and were already legislating for it in the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 when the then Opposition refused to support it in the run-up to the general election. If our proposal on the primary school curriculum had been allowed to continue, modern foreign language teaching in primary schools would have been compulsory from 2011; it will not now be compulsory until September 2014.

The order is set against the backdrop of much broader curriculum changes that have been subject to detailed debate and criticism both in your Lordships’ House and in the wider education world. While I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to repeat all those concerns today, some of them are specific to this discussion and I shall address those now. First, the whole process of curriculum reform has been marked by secrecy and a lack of transparency, which is equally true of the foreign language proposals. The Government have carried out two consultations on this issue but the responses were available only when sought by a freedom of information request, so we have to take the summary in the Explanatory Memorandum on trust. Nevertheless we were pleased to see that the vast majority of respondents supported the change in principle.

However, we share the fundamental concerns also identified in the memorandum about the prescriptive list of languages to be taught. It is not at all clear how the list was drawn up and what the evidence base was to determine that these and no other languages should be taught. Why not, for example, include Bengali, Hindi or Arabic, or other languages with strong roots in local communities? I was a school governor a decade or two ago in a south London school with a strong local Portuguese community. Why should that school not be able to benefit from the advantages of pupils who already have some bilingual knowledge in their classroom? I appreciate that the specifics are subject to a separate order and will take note of the Minister’s justification of the list, but I would like to return to this later.

Secondly, we are concerned that the current broad aims of learning set out in the old curriculum are being replaced by a much narrower concentration on pupils acquiring core knowledge. We are concerned that this will have an impact on the way in which any foreign language is taught, will militate against developing a love and respect for other languages, and will be replaced by a more formulistic count of words and phrases that have to be memorised. With a technical emphasis on learning in the curriculum, there appears to be a lack of understanding of the wider benefits of intercultural understanding, access to a global community and greater transferrable skills, although I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness making some references to those issues in her introduction. Can she provide any insight into the teaching guidance that will be given to language teachers to ensure that pupils learn in a broad global context?

16:41

Thirdly, we are concerned at the tight timetable proposed for the implementation of the changes. I would like some further reassurance that this has been thought through. What assessment has the department made of the capacity of primary schools to recruit sufficient suitably qualified staff to teach a language by September 2014—or will it be the case, as I suspect, that it will be added on to the teaching portfolio of existing non-specialist staff?

Has any thought been given to the adverse effects of teaching a language badly? I speak with some painful personal memories in this regard, having been in a French class for three years that consisted of collectively being played audiovisual tapes. Needless to say, it was rather too late to take any remedial action by the time it was realised how little any of us had learnt over that period. I have to say that maybe my grey matter has suffered as a result of not learning that language at that time. Will the Minister clarify what steps are being taken to boost the number of language teachers prior to September next year to ensure that potential teaching programmes and materials are in place and to guarantee that quality specialist teaching exists from day one?

The recent Ofsted report on modern languages acknowledged that significant progress had been made under the previous Government, and that there was a commitment of senior leaders to introduce modern languages in primary schools. Again, the Minister made reference to that progress. However, it also recommended that the department should consider how best to support, both nationally and locally, the effective consolidation of modern languages and increased liaison with secondary schools to provide continuity of learning. How has the department responded to that challenge?

Meanwhile, the Education Minister in the Commons, Elizabeth Truss, in reply to a recent Question about the availability of resources to help with the new curriculum, was quoted as saying that schools were best placed to decide what teaching resources and professional development met their needs and that it was down to them to identify their priorities. Again, I think I heard an echo of that comment in the Minister’s introduction. I have to say that that feels rather like passing the buck, given that these changes will be a requirement on all maintained schools. I hope that the Minister can give a slightly more encouraging response about the scale of support that will be provided centrally.

In conclusion, I repeat a point that has been made repeatedly in other contexts: if the teaching of a foreign language at key stage 2 is important to the Government, how can it be right that a proportion of children, including those who attend academies, free schools and independent schools, are outside the scope of these proposals and therefore unaffected by the changes?

I have focused my comments today on the principle and practicalities of introducing a language teaching requirement at key stage 2. However, as I have made clear, we have considerably more concerns about the specific list of languages that are being proposed and which will be dealt with in a separate order to follow. We reserve our position on this. In the mean time, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points that I have raised today.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response on this. The number of participants in today’s debate means that we must regard this as quality rather than quantity. I appreciate the dialogue that we have sometimes over these matters outside the Chamber, which helps us come to better responses.

On the point about secrecy and transparency, the first consultation report on introducing statutory language teaching was published on the DfE website on 16 November 2012, and responses continue to come in. The consultation report was published on 7 February 2013 together with the draft programmes of study, and the consultation report on the programmes of study will be published in due course. I assure the noble Baroness that we have made every effort to ensure that there is no secrecy on these matters, and that the information is available and people’s contributions have been welcomed.

The noble Baroness mentioned the choice of modern languages; we both recognise that that is not the subject of this instrument. The list of modern languages proposed reflects the languages that primary schools told us that they were mostly likely to teach and therefore have the expertise for teaching. Mandarin is particularly important to our future economic success. Latin and ancient Greek were added because they provide an important foundation for a number of foreign languages. We recognise that the list will provoke debate. My right honourable friend has received representations on behalf of a number of languages that are not included, including Japanese and Hebrew, is considering those representations carefully and will take all the points raised into consideration before putting the order in place.

Of course, we are not preventing any school from teaching any language it wants to. All children should have opportunity to learn one of the major world languages on the proposed list; it may, for example, be a language that they already learn at home or, as the noble Baroness has said, a language which is prevalent in the particular school. There is no restriction on that.

The noble Baroness mentioned academies. Although there is no specific regulation for the academies to teach a language, they will fall under the same regulations about teaching a balanced curriculum as other schools. It is unlikely that parents of children at an academy would not insist, if the academy were not offering a language, that it should be part of a balanced curriculum. Again, however, we will monitor that.

The noble Baroness mentioned the effectiveness of teaching of foreign languages. I agree that, again, we must ensure that we keep up with this. I assure her that her grey matter does not seem to be in short supply due to her language learning. There is of course now a great deal of technology which can assist with the teaching of languages; although I recall as a one-time language teacher being faced with language labs; there only ever seemed to be one person in the school who knew how to work them and they were almost inevitably on the far side of the sports pitch. Some technologies have not been as useful as others. These days, however, there are some exciting developments for helping to teach modern languages, but they are no substitute for a good teacher.

We know from the recent annual reports that the majority of schools already have good practice and good teachers, but that is not to say that the recruitment of new teachers with relevant expertise will not also be important. We will continue to prioritise attracting foreign language graduates to the profession through bursaries and working with professional bodies to try to ensure that modern language graduates see teaching as an excellent career choice. We will work closely with subject-specific expert groups to ensure that primary-level standards will be maintained. I repeat my acknowledgement of the work of the previous Government in increasing modern languages at particular stages in schools. We are building on that.

We recognise that in certain situations it may be appropriate for the Government to consider what we can do to facilitate the provision of support to ensure high-quality teaching in key subjects. We will continue to monitor that. The National College for Teaching and Leadership has established an expert group, chaired by a leading primary head teacher, which has been meeting to develop the sign-posting of resources, to identify high-quality teaching materials that are freely available and looking at ways in which initial teacher trainers and schools could best prepare for the introduction of key stage 2 languages. We will be considering the group’s recommendations carefully as we prepare for implementation of the new national curriculum from September 2014.

The resources currently available include the Primary Languages training zone developed by CILT, the National Centre for Languages, which supports the teaching of French, German and Spanish in primary schools. We hope that the availability of staff expertise, including support from secondary schools, will encourage a greater dialogue between primary and secondary schools to ensure that there is a smooth transition for youngsters who have learnt a particular language in primary school to be able to continue, if they wish, with the same language into secondary school. In 2013, there will be initial teacher training bursaries of up to £20,000 to attract foreign language graduates. I have already mentioned our wish to attract more bright foreign language graduates.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the points she has raised, and I hope that I have reassured her on some of them. I look forward to debating at a later stage the list of languages.

Motion agreed.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Referral Fees) Regulations 2013

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:10

Moved By

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Referral Fees) Regulations 2013

Relevant documents: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, these regulations concern the ban on referral fees introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. They make provision for the implementation of the ban in two specific areas. First, they provide for the ban on referral fees to apply to certain types of financial services firm—namely, those in the insurance sector. Secondly, they provide for the enforcement of the ban, as it applies to financial firms, by the Financial Conduct Authority.

I turn first to the rationale for the ban. In late 2008 Lord Justice Jackson was commissioned to undertake a review of the rules and principles governing the costs of civil litigation in England and Wales and to make recommendations to promote access to justice at proportionate costs. His report set out a number of proposals to tackle the disproportionate costs of civil litigation. In responding to these proposals the Ministry of Justice included provisions to ban referral fees in relation to personal injury cases in the LASPO Act 2012. Referral fees are typically paid by solicitors to third parties who refer business to them. Most personal injury claims are referred to solicitors by claims management companies. However, other parties, such as insurers, are also often involved. In cases where policyholders contact insurers to make a claim on their motor insurance policy, the insurer may check whether there is a related personal injury claim and refer the policyholder to a lawyer in return for a fee. If the case is successful, the lawyer’s costs, including the referral fee, would be recovered from the losing defendant. In many cases, the losing defendant could be another insurance company.

Referral fee payments have increased from around £250 per case in 2004 to around £800 per case in 2009. Both the Law Society and the Association of British Insurers raised the concern that the circular flow of money generated by referral fees incentivises and rewards making claims and therefore inflates the cost of claims and ultimately insurance premiums. According to the ABI, the average insurance premium increased by approximately 10% from 2009 to 2010 in order to make up for insurance underwriting losses of over £2 billion in 2010, when 20p was lost in every £1 of premium earned.

Lord Justice Jackson recommended that the payment and receipt of referral fees should be banned. A ban discourages lawyers from bringing unnecessary claims for compensation, including unmeritorious lower-value claims, while reducing the overall level of legal costs in personal injury cases and related insurance costs. The Ministry of Justice took forward Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations. Rules against referral fees in personal injury cases were included in the LASPO Act 2012. The rules cover both the payment and the receipt of referral fees. The ban captures all the main businesses involved, such as solicitors, claims management companies, insurers and insurance intermediaries. Under the provisions of the 2012 Act, the individual regulators in each sector are required to effectively enforce the ban. For regulated financial services firms, the relevant regulator is the FCA.

I will now explain the specifics of the regulation. The provisions in Sections 56 to 60 of the LASPO Act 2012 introduce rules against the payment and receipt of referral fees for legal services in relation to personal injury cases. The ban on the payment and receipt of referral fees generally came into effect on 1 April.

16:15

The 2012 Act confers two main powers on the Treasury that are exercised through these regulations. The first relates to the scope of the ban. The ban on referral fees applies only to financial services firms of a type described by the Treasury in regulations. The regulations specify the financial services firms to which the ban on referral fees applies. The ban is applied to those primarily conducting insurance and insurance mediation or those in the same group as such persons. The second relates to the monitoring and enforcement of the ban. The 2012 Act provides for the Financial Conduct Authority to be the regulator for financial services firms. It allows the Treasury to adapt the existing regulatory powers of the FCA to this new regulatory function.

The FCA has existing powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to supervise, monitor and enforce regulatory requirements imposed on financial services firms. These regulations provide the FCA’s existing powers of monitoring and enforcement to be applied, with appropriate modifications, to the ban on referral fees. This will enable the FCA to use those powers to enforce the ban. For example, it can impose financial penalties where a firm breaches regulatory rules under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. These regulations provide for the FCA to be able to use the financial penalties power where a financial services firm breaches the rules against referral fees.

Another example is provided in investigatory powers. Under FiSMA, the FCA can require financial services firms to provide it with information where this is relevant to the authority’s functions under the 2000 Act. These regulations allow the Financial Conduct Authority to use this power to require information to be provided where this is relevant to enforcing the ban against referral fees, as it applies to financial firms.

The ban on referral fees will apply to those conducting insurance and insurance mediation and those in the same group as such persons. It will mean that insurers and insurance brokers are likely to incur compliance costs related to ensuring that they are not in breach of the ban. Firms can also expect to be subject to monitoring by the Financial Conduct Authority and enforcement action where breaches are identified. The FCA has published a one-minute guide for firms affected by these regulations on how it will supervise the ban on referral fees in relation to financial services firms. Supervision of the financial sector’s compliance with the ban will form part of the existing supervisory regime of the FCA. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, today is perhaps the first bite of the regulatory apple in as much as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has a Question on Monday, to which the Minister will be replying, on the impact of this measure on the introduction of alternative business structures. We will no doubt be returning to that aspect later.

I am always impressed by how the Government rely on Lord Justice Jackson’s report, except when it comes to his very strong assertion that legal aid should have remained intact. It is a very selective approach—we are moving from apples to cherries in terms of our botanical analogies. Having said that, we have no objection to a ban on referral fees in general, although I am bound to say that I was a little surprised that my noble friend Lady Hayter reported to me that in her experience in the consumer world, in which she is heavily engaged, consumers apparently very much like the referral fee system and going through a referring body to solicitors. It was rather a surprise and, perhaps, a disappointment to me. I declare an interest as a solicitor, although now an unpaid consultant in my old firm.

Be that as it may, there were certainly abuses, particularly in claims management companies but also by the very insurance companies that have constantly pressed the Government, now successfully, on their need to reduce the likelihood of litigation by making it more difficult and more expensive for litigants to obtain justice. The limits, particularly on claims of less than £25,000 for personal injuries, will be subject to a very strict regime in terms of costs that may well make it uneconomic for solicitors to pursue them—but that, I guess, is a different matter.

The ceaseless advertising and constant cold calling from which many of us still suffer have been a nuisance. I do not know how many times I have been told that I have a claim under PPI—mind you, if I had, it does not look as though Lloyds Bank would be paying up. Insurance companies in particular and claims management companies abused their position, so we have no objection in principle to the ban.

Having said that, there are areas in which the extension was not justified, which I mentioned in debate on the LASPO Bill, as it then was—in particular, the ban on referral fees to non-profit organisations and trade unions, because they are regarded in the same light as those commercial organisations. I thought then and I think now that that equivalence does not exist, but we are where we are.

I note from the Explanatory Notes that the FCA has issued guidance notes to firms affected by the regulations. I am bound to say that I could not trace those when I looked online, but they may exist. It would have been helpful had I had them but I assume that they have been issued, as the Explanatory Notes state that they have. The noble Lord might want to check that before Monday.

It is interesting that the Legal Services Board has also issued guidance on referral fees. My noble friend Lady Hayter has copied to me a letter dated 21 August 2012 that seems to have been addressed to all approved regulators, so I suppose that that includes the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the FSA and possibly other bodies as well—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, or whatever. I am not sure, and the Minister may not be able to tell me today, whether the FCA guidance reflects the guidance previously offered by the Legal Services Board. I note from the Explanatory Notes that there was no consultation on this statutory instrument, which puzzles me because if the Legal Services Board pronounced some months ago, unless the FCA simply adopted its guidance, one would have thought that it would have at least consulted the Legal Services Board and possibly other bodies. I am curious about that apparent turn of events.

The Legal Services Board stated in its letter—this may reflect the substance of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson last Monday—that on the rules against referral fees in personal injury matters,

“it will be important to ensure that such rules do not go beyond the obligations in LASPO. That legislation bans referral fees, but does not prohibit, for example, new alternative business structures that effectively do away with the need for a referral”.

That is the Question that the Minister will be asked on Monday. It looks as though the Legal Services Board was saying at that point—admittedly, that was before the regulations were issued—that the ABS would effectively, as it states,

“do away with the need for referral”,

and therefore, presumably, for referral fees. It states:

“A liberal approach that supports the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act 2007, while properly delivering the legislative intent of LASPO, will therefore be crucial in making sure that both pieces of legislation are implemented effectively”.

It is not clear what its view was or now would be on the regulations, but it appears to be taking a somewhat different position from that which I suspect that the FCA and the noble Lord would anticipate.

The board went on to state that its guidance on referral fees applied across all segments of the legal market, whereas at the moment we have a ban in respect only of personal injury. That is because the ban on personal injury suits the insurance industry, and we know how influential the insurance industry is with at least one of the coalition government parties. The board states:

“In particular, regulators will need to justify any ban on the payment or receipt of referral fees that remains in place with clear supporting evidence”—

and that, in respect of personal injury, regulators will rely on the provisions of the Act—

“and to take proper account of the rest of the guidance”,

including transparency and the like. So we question, with regard to other areas of law beyond those that are the subject of these regulations, when, if at all, the referral fee ban would be extended to other areas of law. Perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten us about that—again, if not today, then subsequently.

Lest it be thought that this is a straightforward matter, there has been an interesting duel about the effect of this ban in the pages of the Law Gazette between two authors, whose names I do not have, and two QCs. The later of the two articles is from the two QCs who find that the Solicitors Regulation Authority—which is of course the primary regulatory body for the profession and will have to oversee the conduct in the situation as opposed to the operation of the ban—has been clear about how the position will work. Meanwhile, in the previous article, considerable doubt was cast on the effect of the proposed ban. I am fairly persuaded by the position that the two QCs adopt; they seem to argue their case effectively. However, this illustrates that, even here, there may be some grey areas that will provoke not further litigation, hopefully, but at least correspondence and some difficulty—particularly on the part of those involved in understanding exactly what it is that they are required to do or, more particularly, what they are required not to do on referral fees. I suspect that that matter will be included in part of the questioning that will occur on Monday.

Having said that, the Opposition do not object to the regulations. They will be reviewed over the next few years and we will see how they go. I reiterate, however, that it is most unfortunate that they extend to non-profit-making bodies, but that argument was fought and lost during the passage of the Act.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his thoughtful comments on these draft regulations. I will attempt to deal with his questions as best I might.

I have an introductory comment. The noble Lord referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, saying that the referral fee system was supported by some people. The thing that no one is objecting to is referrals. People are objecting to the fact that people are now being paid probably more than £800 on average to do it. That is a heck of a lot of cash. The problem is that it pushes up insurance payments to everyone and gives an incentive to the referrers to refer anything because they are on a winning ticket: if the case is taken up they get their fee, and if it is not then they do not lose anything. That means that there is a perverse incentive in the system for people to take cases that may or may not have huge validity, particularly when the amount being claimed is relatively small. If I am right in thinking that people like the prospect of being referred on but do not like the idea of paying fees, I would have thought that that would apply to NGOs, unions and others as well. However, as the noble Lord said, we are not discussing that principle today; the die is cast on that one.

The noble Lord asked about alternative business structures and whether they would be able to get around the ban. As the Committee knows, the Government strongly support alternative business structures to increase competition and innovation. Alternative business structures do not allow organisations to avoid the ban but allow them flexibility to operate in the personal injury market in a way that is compliant with the law.

16:30

The noble Lord asked about consultation. A general consultation was undertaken by the MoJ at the time on the Jackson recommendations as a whole, which included referral fees. The scope for consultation here seems to be very limited. It is a straightforward ban. Once it has been decided to have a ban, unlike many bits of legislation where there is a whole raft of issues surrounding implementation, this is very straightforward: just do not do it. I am not sure what more detailed consultation could have been done.

The noble Lord suggested that this might be being done for the benefit of the insurance industry. This is being done for the benefit of consumers because they then will not be paying huge fees for referrals, which we hope the professional bodies would do as part of their duty of care to their clients. I assure him that it is not being done somehow to benefit the insurance industry.

The noble Lord asked when the Government would extend the ban to other categories of law beyond personal injury. At the moment we are very much concerned with this area of referral fees, because they are the main source of claims inflation. That is why we are taking immediate action here. However, as he said, the LASPO Act 2012 includes the power to extend the prohibition to other types of claim and other legal services, should the need arise, but I am very pleased to say that that is a matter for the MoJ, not the Treasury. There is no immediate intention to move on any of that but, if I misled the noble Lord or indeed the Committee, I will write to him.

On guidance, about which the noble Lord asked, the FCA has published guidance in the form of something called a “one-minute guide”. I had never heard of one-minute guides, so I got it and will let the noble Lord have a copy. It is something that you can read in a minute; it is what it says on the tin. Because this is a very straightforward matter—just do not do it any more—it is actually possible to cover the substance in one minute, including the attitude that the FCA is going to adopt in supervising and enforcing the ban. When I sit down, I will give the noble Lord my copy of this guide, because I suspect that I will not need it again.

I hope that I have answered most of the noble Lord’s questions. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Child Support and Claims and Payments (Miscellaneous Amendments and Change to the Minimum Amount of Liability) Regulations 2013

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:33

Moved By

[Lord Freud]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Child Support and Claims and Payments (Miscellaneous Amendments and Change to the Minimum Amount of Liability) Regulations 2013

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, this instrument was laid in draft before the House on 20 May 2013, and I confirm to the House that I consider it as being compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The minimum amount of liability, more commonly known as the flat rate, is applied to non-resident parents whose gross weekly income is more than the flat rate itself and less than £100 per week. It also applies to all non-resident parents who are in receipt of certain prescribed benefits. The flat rate was set at £5 in 2003 and has not been uprated since. The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 made provision for increasing the flat rate of child support for cases dealt with under the rules of any scheme established under the terms of the Act. The change has yet to be brought into force.

The increase provided for in the 2008 Act was from £5 to £7. However, because the 2012 scheme launched as a relatively small-scale pathfinder when it began on 10 December 2012, technical changes were applied to the 2012 scheme calculation regulations to ensure that the flat rate remained at £5. The flat rate for the 2012 scheme will remain at £5 for the duration of the pathfinder and will increase only once the 2003 scheme closes to new applicants. This is to ensure that all new cases will be subject to the same flat rate, regardless of whether they are directed to the 2012 scheme pathfinder or the 2003 scheme.

It is intended that the increase to the flat rate made by the 2008 Act will be brought into force later in the year, when the 2012 child maintenance scheme is opened to all applicants. This instrument makes certain consequential amendments as a result of that increase. The policy intention behind the increase is primarily that the value of the flat rate should be restored to its 2003 real value. This will reinforce the principle that parents have an obligation to support their children where they have the means to do so.

At £7, the increased flat rate will represent broadly the same value as the £5 flat rate when it began. For example, when the flat rate was introduced in 2003, £5 represented 9% of the benefit of a single person over 25 years of age on jobseeker’s allowance. The annual uprating of benefits has meant that the same £5 represents just 7% of the benefit of a single person over 25 years of age on jobseeker’s allowance. A flat rate of £7 represents 10% of the benefit of a single person over 25 years of age on jobseeker’s allowance, restoring the value of the 2003 flat rate.

The proposed flat-rate increase will also amend the percentages applied to the reduced rate of child support maintenance payable if the non-resident parent has an income of less than £200 but more than £100. This will mean that the maintenance liability of parents on the reduced rate will increase in order that the reduced rate continues to smooth increases in liabilities between the flat rate and the basic rate, which is used for those parents earning £200 or more. The Government are also committed to a wider review of the child maintenance calculation formula, with a particular focus on work incentives, once we have delivered the current raft of reforms.

The regulations before us also make miscellaneous amendments in relation to variations, which are those rules that allow for a deviation from the usual child maintenance calculation rules in certain limited circumstances. A variation could increase or decrease a child maintenance liability. For example, if a parent receives unearned income from property, savings and investments or casual earnings, this could increase their liability. On the other hand, if they incur special expenses, such as the cost of travelling to see a child, or boarding school fees, this could reduce their liability. I should make it clear that the changes contained in these regulations affect only those variations that increase liability.

The 2012 scheme is designed to work with historic income information obtained annually from HM Revenue and Customs. The changes proposed will allow that, where the information cannot be obtained electronically from HMRC, we will be able to determine unearned income by reference to information supplied by the parent in relation to the most recent tax year. This change will make for a more efficient means of obtaining reliable unearned income information and therefore allow for a more accurate calculation of maintenance liability.

In addition, the amendments will clarify that where a variation would decrease a non-resident parent’s income for child maintenance purposes to the point that their liability would fall to below the flat rate, even if the variation is agreed, the amount of maintenance that the parent will be liable for will none the less remain at the flat rate. This is in order to strike a balance between reducing liability to take account of special expenses and ensuring that children continue to benefit from some financial support. It puts children first. This will also ensure consistency between a non-resident parent who has their maintenance reduced to the level of the flat rate through a variation and a non-resident parent on the flat rate. A non-resident parent in the latter situation cannot apply for a special expenses variation.

As has always been the practice throughout the development of the 2012 scheme regulations, we have undertaken extensive stakeholder engagement. The proposed increase to the flat rate was subject to a formal consultation in 2011, and stakeholders made it clear that they believe that an increase in the flat rate to £7 is warranted. We have met stakeholder groups since that consultation, and on careful reflection we are persuaded by their arguments and have decided that the flat rate should increase to £7. We will closely monitor the regulations, along with other child maintenance policy changes, to ensure that all the activities in the new 2012 scheme are delivering the intended outcomes.

I hope that that short opening speech reassures the Committee that the changes we have proposed are sensible ones that have been developed with the aim of delivering an efficient statutory child maintenance system. These changes will ensure an appropriate increase in the amount of maintenance flowing to children. They will also make for a more efficient and accurate variations regime. I commend the instrument to the Committee.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of these regulations. We could hardly oppose provisions enabling the increase in the flat-rate maintenance amount from £5 to £7, as they flow from the 2008 Act, which was the legislation of the previous Government. The Government were right to listen to stakeholders and to draw back from their original intent of increasing that to £10. As the Minister has indicated, the £7 figure will keep the amount at about 10% of the basic over-25s JSA rate, and the increase should therefore mean more money for children.

I understand from both the documentation and the Minister’s introduction that the regulations are not intended to come into force until the introduction of the 2012 scheme, so the utilisation of gross income in the calculation is used “for all purposes”. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that; otherwise I will have to read the record to see when exactly this is going to come into force. Is it intended to refer to the time when the 2012 scheme is open to all new applicants or the time when the 2012 scheme will have replaced the 1993 and 2003 schemes? If the latter, could he clarify now when the Government expect that to take place?

We have also heard that the regulations cover other “consequential” matters. As the Minister indicated, one of these is the revised rate calculation that applies where the non-resident parent has income of between £100 and £200. The rates in the regulations are lower than those provided for in the 2012 regulations, and perhaps the Minister could explain why. I imagine that it relates to the effect of raising the flat rate but it would be helpful if he could confirm that, as well as setting out the impact on the levels of child maintenance liability for non-resident parents earning between £100 and £200. I would be grateful if he could give some indication of the range of changes—what is the smallest and largest amount by which the future liability will differ from the past? That would give us an indication of whether they are indeed large or small in their impact. I would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm what would happen to someone earning precisely £200. Is there any danger of a cliff-edge when someone moves from below £200, where the reduced rate applies, to £200 where the standard rate will apply?

16:45

In his introduction, the Minister referred to the provisions that relate to what happens when the department cannot get information electronically from HMRC relating to historic income. Do the Government expect that use of that provision will be widespread, or is it intended to happen only in the odd case where for some reason, it does not work? That might enable him to bring us up to date, if necessary, with what is happening with RTI and related developments. We might also reflect on the regulations in the context of the letter and briefing note from the Minister dated 20 May 2013, to which he referred, which set out the Government’s updated position on the reforms to the child maintenance system. We look forward to seeing the detailed response to the consultation in due course, whenever autumn comes—although I assume that the Minister will take a seasonal rather than climatic determination of that, otherwise I expect it any day now.

It appears that the pace at which the 2012 arrangements are to be fully introduced has slowed, perhaps mirroring what has happened to the Government’s benefit reforms generally, but history reminds us of the perils of going too quickly. The Minister may want to say a bit more in his response about the experience of the pathfinder—albeit that it applies to only a small number of cases. Can he tell us precisely how many? Are the systems performing as planned? The manner in which it is proposed to deal with cases under the 1993 and 2003 schemes remains a matter of contention, with real concern that the closure of cases as planned could mean people dropping out of the system altogether, and with children being the losers, but I am sure that we will have the opportunity to return to that.

We acknowledge the announcement that no charging will be introduced until the 2012 system is open to all applicants and is seen to be working well. The announcement that the collection fee for parents with care is to be reduced from 7% to 4% is a step in the right direction, but not far enough However, most of that is for another day. If the regulations do what the Minister has described and what the Explanatory Memorandum describes, we do not have any objection to them.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, before I aim to answer most of those questions, it is worth briefly reflecting on where we are with the rollout of the 2012 scheme. As the noble Baroness said, we began a pathfinder in December which was open to new applicants with four or more qualifying children. That has allowed us to micromanage each case so that we are confident that our system and processes will work as we intend. As the noble Baroness will know, we are adopting that structure with all of our reforms so that we are really able to see what happens as we take each person through. By definition, in the early weeks, numbers are intentionally small. We are monitoring and observing the results of that pathfinder so that when we open it much more widely it will work efficiently. I know that the noble Baroness will be as keen as I am for all those systems to work smoothly when we do them in volume.

The timing is that we will open to new applicants with two or more qualifying children—in our jargon, Commencement 2—later in the summer. We will move to all new applicants—in our jargon, Commencement 3 —by the end of 2013. It is at that point that we will increase the flat rate of maintenance. As part of our wider reforms, we are making good progress in implementing the help and support for separated families initiative.

In November 2012, we launched the Sorting out separation web app, which directs people to information and support on the range of issues that they will face after separation. We have also launched the Help and Support for Separated Families mark, which helps parents identify the organisations that they can trust to help them work together; and an innovation fund, which will test and evaluate interventions designed to help separated parents work together and reduce conflict. The first contracts in this fund have recently been awarded to seven voluntary and third-sector organisations, and will give around 280,000 separated families creative and targeted help to collaborate in their children’s interests.

Last month we tabled a Written Ministerial Statement outlining important changes to child maintenance reform. As well as the announcement of our intention to use the £7 rather than the £10 flat rate for the non-resident parent, we announced a reduction in the proposed parent-with-care collection fee from 7% to just 4%. Both changes were the product of an extended period of consultation and reflection, and we have been at pains to ensure that our changes are seen to be fair to both parents. On the outstanding question of how the £100 and £200 figures work together, the reason for the different rates is that they are on top of a different basic amount. The calculation is done not as a pure calculation but on flat rate-plus. There are some variations, but broadly it comes out at much the same level. Let us take the example of a non-resident parent with one qualifying child and no other relevant children and put them in the middle of the range at £150. The current rate would be £14.50, which is the £5 flat rate plus 19% of the £50. That comes out at 9.7% of their gross income. Moving to a flat rate of £7, the same person would pay £16.50, or 11% of their gross income. That is how the sum works. It is impossible to absorb these sums verbally, so I would be very happy to lay them out in a letter to the noble Baroness. That would make them clearer—but broadly, that is one effect.

The noble Baroness asked a very subtle question about the difference between £199.99 and £200.01. There is no cliff edge there. There are quite a lot of factors, and some little bumps here and there. Again, the easiest thing would be for me to write with a few examples so that the noble Baroness can study them on paper. However, I can say that the structure is relatively smooth and that certainly there is no cliff edge. On how widespread we are expecting this to be, where there is a glitch in the system and, for whatever reason, we cannot get a particular piece of information, we are ensuring that there is another way through. We are not anticipating large volumes on this, but one has to have it as a baseline defence. Clearly, this is a different system to RTI. This system was created rather before universal credit was a gleam in anyone’s eye. We do not have this monthly process which UC depends on. It is a different annualised process. It will be up to a future Government at some stage to look at whether it makes sense to use similar systems. However, there is no relationship whatever between the systems under UC and this.

I have dealt with all the specific issues and look forward to getting some interesting tables in a letter to the noble Baroness. I hope that today’s discussion reassures noble Lords that the changes that we have proposed are sensible and have the aim of delivering an efficient statutory child maintenance system. They will ensure an appropriate increase in the amount of maintenance flowing and will make a more efficient and accurate variations regime. I therefore present to you a set of regulations which, if approved by noble Lords, will come into force when the 2012 scheme opens to all applicants later this year. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:57

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013

Relevant documents: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)]

My Lords, the draft regulations before the Committee today are aimed at helping the delivery of necessary, large or complex water or sewerage infrastructure projects. They are designed to help to contain and minimise the risks associated with their delivery to customers of water or sewerage companies, known as undertakers, and also to UK taxpayers. Containing and minimising these risks should correspondingly provide better value for money associated with delivering such projects. It should also help to ensure that undertakers’ customers continue to receive the required or desired level of existing water or sewerage services.

These regulations would enable the Secretary of State or Ofwat to specify by notice an infrastructure project where either is satisfied that two conditions have been met. The first is that the infrastructure project is of a size or complexity that threatens an undertaker’s ability to provide services to its customers. The second condition is that specifying the project would be likely to result in better value for money than if the project was not so specified, taking into account charges to customers and any government financial assistance.

Once specified, an undertaker would then be required to put the specified infrastructure out to tender and a separate Ofwat-regulated infrastructure provider would be designated to finance and deliver the project. These large, complex infrastructure projects raise issues of determining the cost of their financing coupled with a construction risk that is far greater than that normally associated with an undertaker’s typical capital investment.

Enabling an undertaker to tender competitively an infrastructure provider for a large or complex project provides an objective means of testing whether the financing costs of such a project are appropriate or reasonable. Without that tendering process, competitively determining the cost of capital for those types of project would not be possible. The ability to create ring-fenced Ofwat-regulated infrastructure providers between undertakers and large or complex projects would also help to ring-fence their associated higher risks, and should result in more effective risk management for these projects.

17:00

Enabling the creation of infrastructure providers would prevent the threat of a large or complex infrastructure project affecting the ability of an undertaker to provide its day-to-day services for its customers, avoiding any resultant extra costs that would ultimately be borne to some extent by those customers.

There have been two public consultations on the regulations. An initial 12-week public consultation was carried out between February and May 2011, seeking views on proposals for new regulations. Thirteen replies were received and a summary published on Defra’s website in September 2011. The second consultation ran for four weeks between 5 November and 4 December 2012. Its purpose was to inform stakeholders representing interests likely to be affected by the proposals; it included draft regulations and a corresponding impact assessment.

The latter consultation was issued by e-mail to 73 contact addresses previously contacted for the 2011 consultation and included the Mayor of London, London MPs with a known interest, EFRA committee MPs, water and sewerage companies, Ofwat and the Consumer Council for Water. Seven responses were received and a summary published on Defra’s website in March 2013.

We have noted the range of views and comments received on the proposed legislation and relating to the proposed Thames tideway tunnel project in London. In particular, we note concerns that provision to enable separate infrastructure providers might allow undertakers to avoid obligations to provide necessary infrastructure themselves within their own financial structures, and so enable the continuation of high levels of dividend payments to shareholders.

It is important to note that the regulations would enable only the Secretary of State or Ofwat to require an undertaker in England to tender competitively an infrastructure provider. This would be only for large or complex projects that they consider would threaten an undertaker’s ability to meet its statutory service provision obligations, and where this would provide better value for money for both customers and taxpayers. This would never be a decision for undertakers, so would not provide an incentive for them to avoid their obligations.

The current water industry regulatory framework is designed so that Ofwat can regulate undertakers so that they do not make excessive payments to shareholders. Customers’ bills are kept as low as possible while recognising that the companies must attract appropriate investment to meet future needs.

Following due consideration of the public consultation, we have decided to proceed with these regulations for the reasons that I have outlined. The ability to enable undertakers to tender competitively an infrastructure provider to finance and deliver a large or complex project will be a useful tool, even if rarely exercised. Enabling the ring-fencing of important infrastructure projects will help to attract necessary private capital at a transparent and competitive price, helping to protect the interests of both undertaker customers and UK taxpayers.

I know that many noble Lords have firmly held views on the merits or otherwise of the Thames tideway tunnel and I look forward to our debate this afternoon, during which I expect that many of these views will be put forward. However, I ask the Committee to bear in mind that the regulations before it today could apply not only to the Thames tideway tunnel but to any large or complex sewer or water infrastructure projects in future. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the Minister will be relieved to know that on this occasion, unlike a previous one, I will not seek to give contradictory views to represent the views of some of my colleagues on this side of the Committee. This debate comes at an inconvenient time for Thames Water but, therefore, at an opportune time for Parliament. I will make some general comments and then delve a little into some of the specifics of the Thames tideway tunnel project. In making my comments, I am grateful as ever to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. Its third report of this Session brings these regulations to the special attention of the Committee on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to us. I am particularly grateful that the Committee is willing to delegate me to take forward all those public policy issues. It is right that we should reflect on them.

As the committee points out, the Explanatory Memorandum implies that these regulations are generic and apply to all water and sewerage companies and large infrastructure projects that meet the criteria. That was clearly set out by the Minister. However, the only project to which the regulations are expected to apply over the next 10 years is the Thames tideway tunnel. The impact assessment therefore exclusively estimates the impact of the project in relation to these regulations. We have debated the tunnel before, but there are issues I would like to raise as events have moved on.

First, I will make some generic comments. The arguments put for establishing a separate body to manage the finance, delivery and extraordinary risks of major water infrastructure projects are reasonable. The example of the Thames tunnel is helpful. It will cost more than £4 billion and, while Thames Water will carry out associated investment at its own risk, the cost of the main tunnel is a considerable financial risk to put on a company with a turnover of £1.8 billion. Assuming that Thames Water is well regulated and responsible, there is logic in establishing a separate infrastructure provider to construct the tunnel and have Thames Water effectively lease it back.

These regulations then extend the reach of Ofwat to these providers, which is important to ensure that the public interest is protected. The alternatives discussed by the Minister and in the accompanying papers are to leave things as they are or to require that the project be put out to tender by the water company. Defra discounts the former because Ofwat would struggle to regulate the financial arrangements when they are bound in with the rest of the company’s activities. To some extent, I struggle to see how it can effectively regulate the general finances of a company and then the separate finances of a big project, but cannot manage to do it when they are done together. However, I am happy to believe those involved when they tell me that they cannot. I am also happy with the desirability of a separate provider over the complexity of negotiating a new licence, which is the implication of requiring the company to tender a major project. Therefore, I am happy with the regulations as they stand in the generality.

Let me then turn to the specifics of the Thames tideway tunnel and the figures in the impact assessment. I remind the Committee that I rent a flat here in London very close to one of the sites for the construction of the tunnel, so in that respect have an interest. Thames Water has also been to see me to brief—or some would say lobby—me about the project. I accept the basis of the company’s argument. The capital’s Victorian sewerage system has served the capital well, but urgently needs more capacity to meet the needs of modern-day London. The Thames tideway tunnel will ensure that the capital has a sewerage system fit for purpose for at least another century.

The tidal part of the river remains an environmental and public health hazard. It cannot be acceptable to allow the tidal River Thames to be an open sewer. Sewage discharges into the tidal River Thames breach the urban waste water treatment directive and British taxpayers would face the prospect of substantial fines if the tunnel is not built. Other world-leading cities, including Paris, Stockholm, Helsinki and Washington DC, as well as the Rhine/Ruhr conurbation in Germany, are forging ahead with similar schemes. I agree with Thames Water’s briefing that London is in danger of being left behind and facing substantial fines if we do not act.

I am happy to support the project. The benefits to employment in London should be maximised and the impact on residents minimised, and I am pleased on progress in moving more material off the roads and on to the river during the construction phase. However, I also note the recent remarks by the new chair of Ofwat, Jonson Cox. Interestingly, Mr Cox is a water industry insider. He said last week that some unlisted companies have a moral case to answer over allegations, that they,

“use shareholder loans to avoid UK taxation”,

through “complex offshore holding structures”. He said:

“A good number use high-coupon shareholder loans to improve their equity returns … It appears that this reduces tax liability for the benefit of shareholders”.

He went on:

“Tax policy is not for an economic regulator and these structures may be legal and common in private equity. But some aspects are morally questionable in a vital public service”.

Thames Water has published its annual results this week. It appears that the company pays no corporation tax on its £1.8 billion turnover while continuing to pay executives many times more than the Prime Minister. In my view, this is unacceptable—it stinks. Why should the public be reducing the risk to shareholders of Thames Water through the Water Industry Financial Assistance Act 2012, if it then uses every last trick in the book to maximise shareholder return at the expense of the UK taxpayer? Does the Minister agree that these loopholes must be addressed as a matter of urgency? The logic of allowing profit is to reward the risks, particularly of investment, but that is undermined by excessive profit, excessive executive pay and tax avoidance when Parliament and the Government are acting to reduce the risk to Thames Water customers and shareholders.

When we turn to the impact assessment, why should the taxpayer be funding an extra £5 million of regulatory cost of Ofwat in setting up these arrangements? Could we not find a way of billing Thames Water for this expense, given that Thames Water pocketed a £5 million credit from the Treasury in a year when it made £550 million in profits? Given that the chief executive, Martin Baggs, was awarded a pay rise of 5.9%, taking his basic salary to £450,000 plus a bonus of £274,000 as part of a scheme to,

“reward significant improvement in the group’s financial and corporate performance”,

as well as picking up a further £366,000 in shares next month under the company's long-term incentive plan, maybe the £5 million could be found from senior executive salaries alone. Does the Minister agree?

On the narrow question of the regulations, I am content. On the question of Thames Water fulfilling its moral responsibilities and thereby breaching the trust on which the financing of the Thames tideway tunnel is based, I am not.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on a number of issues relating to the draft regulation and indeed to the Thames tideway tunnel. I thank the noble Lord for his views and his insightful interventions. I thank him for agreeing that the general approach we are taking is reasonable. That is perhaps the most important thing to come out of today, and it is extremely helpful. I will come back to his specific points in a moment.

As I indicated in my introduction, it is important that these regulations should be considered separately from the specific Thames tideway tunnel project in London. In summary, the regulations enable the creation of infrastructure providers regulated by the Water Services Regulation Authority, Ofwat, to finance and deliver large or complex water or sewerage infrastructure projects. They provide for the procuring, licensing and regulating of an infrastructure provider that is separate from a water or sewerage company. They set out how the Secretary of State or Ofwat can specify to which projects the regulations would apply and how they designate the company that is to become an infrastructure provider. The regulations are intended to apply to all such large or complex water or sewerage projects that may be proposed in the future, where their application would be considered to result in better value for money for both customers and taxpayers.

I turn specifically to the Thames tideway tunnel, and I think the noble Lord has already made similar points. Climate change, population growth and higher customer expectations of environmental standards and supply resilience are anticipated to require larger and more complex infrastructure than the existing regulatory regime was designed to provide for. For example, changing rainfall patterns are expected to result in wetter winters and drier summers—who would believe it after last summer?—and to aggravate water scarcity conditions in the south and the east. This may lead to an increased requirement for potentially complex arrangements for transporting water.

Moreover, heavy rainfall events are likely to become more frequent—that we can all believe. In London, these events will further strain an already overtaxed sewerage system, leading to more overflows of untreated wastewater, containing raw sewage, into the Thames. Even after ongoing upgrades to sewage treatment works and the Lee tunnel are completed by the end of 2015, just over 18 million tonnes of wastewater will enter the Thames every year from London’s combined sewer overflows when storm-water capacity is exceeded. These overflows currently occur on average about once a week and have a significant environmental impact on the river. They increase the likelihood of fish kills, create a higher health hazard for the users of the river and damage the aesthetic appeal of the Thames.

17:15

The proposed Thames tideway tunnel is an example of a large and complex high-risk infrastructure expected to be constructed within the next 10 years. It is also one of the top 40 priority infrastructure investments within the national infrastructure plan 2011. Its construction would intercept storm sewage overflows and ensure that the River Thames meets water quality objectives established by the 2006 Thames tideway strategic study, preventing deterioration and ensuring that the Thames remains at moderate status.

The works would also ensure that the UK met its legal obligations under the urban wastewater treatment directive. On 18 October last year, the Court of Justice of the European Union found the UK to be in breach of the directive in London since 31 December 2000 by failing to have adequate collection and treatment facilities in place, despite our clear commitment to major improvements to London’s sewage collection treatment systems. We are currently in contact with the Commission regarding the measures considered necessary to comply with the terms of the court judgment. The court accepted that the Thames tideway tunnel represents a solution to the problem of the collection system in London. The implication, therefore, is that the tunnel represents a means to come into compliance with the judgment. The urgency of the project is increased by the need to comply with this judgment.

The project is large, complex and high-risk. It requires engineering and construction skills that have been rarely deployed by UK water and sewerage undertakers, certainly in recent years. We consider projects such as these to be better suited for delivery under a separate and parallel regulatory regime, rather than under the existing single regulatory regime for water and sewerage undertakers.

I turn to the noble Lord’s questions. He suggested that Ofwat should be able to manage the finances of a Thames Water and a Thames tideway tunnel combined. I think the point here is that the risk profiles of a standard water company business on the one hand and of a tunnel construction project such as this on the other are significantly different. Pricing against both is, therefore, different. We feel that the tunnel is better priced as to risk in the market as it stands.

The noble Lord raised the recent comments of the Ofwat chairman. Like the noble Lord, we agree with Mr Cox that there must be full transparency in the finances of all water and sewerage companies so that Ofwat can do its job and customers can obtain any benefits resulting from cost savings. The specified infrastructure project regulations would enhance such transparency. They enable water or sewerage companies to tender competitively—as I said earlier, Ofwat-regulated infrastructure providers that finance and deliver large or complex infrastructure projects. This IP tendering process provides an objective means of testing whether the financing costs of such projects are appropriate and reasonable. Without this tendering process, provided by the SIP regulations, competitively determining the cost of capital for a project would not be possible.

The noble Lord asked, effectively, why are the Government not making sure that Thames Water pays all the tax that it should? Thames Water Utilities Limited does pay its tax. All UK companies are allowed to claim capital allowances when they spend on capital investment programmes. That, I feel sure, was the same under the previous Government. Tax relief is allowable against the capital expenditure incurred, which reduces the tax payable, with the aim of encouraging investment by companies. Water and sewerage companies have significant capital programmes in comparison with their revenues. They therefore benefit from tax allowances proportionately more than other companies.

HM Revenue and Customs remains vigilant in ensuring that companies operating within the United Kingdom pay the tax that they are legally obliged to pay.

The noble Lord asked about executive remuneration. Thames Water is a private company and is responsible for setting its own remuneration policy which is approved by its shareholders in the normal way. Ofwat’s regulatory remit is to ensure that customers get a fair deal with good service at a fair price. Ofwat has ensured that water companies, including Thames Water, have kept price rises in line with inflation. Fair and stable returns for the water companies have enabled £108 billion of investment since privatisation to significantly improve service to customers while ensuring that bills are kept down as much as possible.

If water companies fail to provide the levels of service expected by their customers and required by their licences, Ofwat can and does take action, clawing back more than £550 million following under-performance since 2005. Thames Water has met its annual leak reduction target for the seventh year running, is delivering £1 billion of investment and continues to maintain its high drinking water quality.

In conclusion, these regulations would enable the risks and costs associated with these projects to be more transparently captured; better contain the risks and costs of financing these projects, helping to prevent those costs transferring to an undertaker’s other ongoing business and less risky infrastructure projects; help to minimise total final project costs by requiring undertakers to tender competitively an infrastructure provider to finance and deliver these projects; provide an objective means of testing whether the financing costs of a project are appropriate or reasonable; and, finally, enable any government financial assistance for such projects to be targeted at a sole project rather than at a specific undertaker with its range of services.

With those comments, I hope your Lordships will agree to have considered these regulations.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.22 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 12 June 2013.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

British Board of Film Classification

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord Storey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to re-examine the status of those films, videos and DVDs currently exempt from classification by the British Board of Film Classification.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, under the Video Recordings Act 1984, videos on recordable media, such as DVDs, are classified by the British Board of Film Classification. However, to date many products about sports, music, religion and education have been exempt from this requirement. Following a public consultation, the Government announced last month that they will bring forward legislation to tighten up the exemptions and to ensure that, in future, any products in these genres will be classified if they contain material deemed to be unsuitable for younger children.

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that he is not aware of Cannibal Corpse’s “Live Cannibalism” DVD being legally supplied to British children or, indeed, the double-disc set “His Name was Jason: Thirty Years of Friday the 13th”, so the change in the law for such content to be brought within the regulatory scope of the BBFC cannot come too soon.

I note that the Government’s announcement also mentioned another potential loophole in the current regime, that being online music videos. Does my noble friend believe that the music industry should consider following the example of the home entertainment industry by adopting BBFC classifications for online music videos?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I think we are agreed that the number one priority in all we are seeking to do is to protect children. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have been rightly robust about this, as have many noble Lords. The Government are taking action to protect children from inappropriate content, and there are strong intentions in the online area as well because it is clearly the case that children are viewing content online. We are therefore going to do more in the area of online video labelling, and we are working with many organisations and parents to deal with music or anything that could be potentially harmful to younger children.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on confirming that the Government have decided to act decisively to ensure that currently exempt material which is potentially harmful to children is brought within the regulatory ambit of the BBFC. I mention this because as long ago as 2009 I moved amendments in this House seeking to change the law in this area. How swiftly does the Minister think that this change to the current regime can be implemented? I know that it has the support of the BBFC and, most importantly, of the parents of vulnerable children.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I know of the deep interest of the noble Baroness in content available online, which we need to deal with. So far as this matter is concerned, we are working carefully to ensure that the definitions dealing with violent sexual behaviour and swearing are worded so as to ensure that they identify all products that are unsuitable for younger children. The final version of the definitions will be written into the draft legislation that is to be issued for consultation soon. We want to get it right and we would very much welcome any comments. We will then need to notify the EU about the new regulations, following which there will be the secondary legislative process.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the greatest crime of the 21st century is the destruction of childhood innocence? The second greatest crime is preventing young people growing up normally and naturally. Will he be a little bit generous in his interpretation of the word “children” to make sure that we do not expose young men in puberty and girls of equivalent age to things which, frankly, they should never ever be able to see?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I have sympathy with my noble friend. Childhood at whatever age is a very precious time of our lives and children should be able to enjoy it. It is important that the Government should work with parents because their first priority and responsibility is looking after their children. It is obvious that online content is troubling many parents, so that is why we are working to set up internet parental controls and are working with wi-fi providers on a number of issues. In that way, we can ensure that children do not see inappropriate content.

[Lord Swinfen]

My Lords, new products are being developed at an ever increasing rate. Will the Government ensure that the regulations are drafted in such a way that they can be easily and quickly updated to deal with new products coming on to the market and so safeguard our children?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, it is very much a feature of technology moving so fast that we also need to ensure that the checks and controls are appropriately calibrated so that whatever happens with technological advances children do not see inappropriate content, which is what we want to ensure.

[Lord Laming]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, so far as children and young people are concerned, this material represents for them the values of our society and therefore our society has a special responsibility to make sure that what is conveyed actually accords to our values and beliefs, especially about childhood?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Lord again raises an important point. That is why, across the piece, the Government, industry and charity, through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, are working so much together and why the Secretary of State is having a summit meeting on 18 June with the major internet service providers, mobile operators, search engines and social media companies to explore all that can be done to ensure that children remain safe.

[The Earl of Glasgow]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the scheme practised quite a lot in Italy by which DVDs and controversial material of that sort are classified by the users themselves and the users’ classification then becomes legal?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I have been quite busy learning about what happens in the United Kingdom, so I was not aware of what might be happening in Italy. However, I think—and I am sure it is what my noble friend was alluding to—we need to make sure that whether it is by age verification or whatever that children remain secure.

Ofcom: Public Service Broadcasting

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:14

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to reach conclusions on changes to Ofcom’s statutory duties and functions with respect to public service broadcasting.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the Government published a consultation on 23 April proposing reforms to Ofcom’s statutory duties and functions, including measures relevant to public service broadcasting. Following this consultation, which closes on 25 June, the Government intend to bring forward a public bodies order before the Summer Recess. That order will be debated in both Houses in the autumn and we expect it to be in force at the end of this year.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, quality and diversity in our public service broadcasting are hugely important for our society. Rapid changes in technology and convergence between the internet and television could affect both considerably over time. The Government acknowledged this in their response to the recent Communications Committee report on convergence, yet now they propose to get rid of Ofcom’s obligations to review public service broadcasters on a regular five-year basis to save just £180,000. Is that not perverse?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The intention is to provide more flexibility in the timing of when reviews of public service broadcasting are conducted. It is certainly not the intention to remove the obligation to conduct such reviews in future, but rather to ensure that when they happen they are relevant, timely and of the correct scope. Of course, I must not prejudge the consultation. There are some more weeks of it to go and comments would be most welcome.

[Lord Puttnam]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, whereas the quality of regulation in this country over the past few years has been at times questionable, Ofcom is, in my experience, regarded internationally as the gold standard for regulation, particularly in the very complex media industry? Can he assure us that nothing will be done to diminish the quality of Ofcom or in any way reduce its powers?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord and am particularly conscious of his long-term interest in this, having been so much involved in the setting up of Ofcom. I assure him that Ofcom will be required to ensure that the quota requirements are met by the public service broadcasting sector, whether in news, current affairs, original productions, independent productions, outside-London productions or regional news. It must also publish data on compliance with the above quotas in an annual PSB report. The Government are working closely with Ofcom, which we want to continue to be a very successful organisation.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government, through my noble friend, on the fact that they launched this particular consultation on Shakespeare’s birthday.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

We should all celebrate Shakespeare’s birthday. In the arts and culture debate tomorrow, I might mention something about our most famous poet. I want to emphasise that Ofcom has now been in existence for 10 years and it is appropriate, given the huge technological advances in this sector, that we should look at how we could do things better.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Will the Minister take on special responsibility for drawing to the attention of Ofcom and all broadcasting organisations the importance of balance in their output in the run-up to the referendum on Scottish independence?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I hope the noble Lord knows my own preferences on the matter of the referendum. Of course, impartiality must be absolutely key to anything we do, whether it is a referendum or general elections. It is part of the essence of public service broadcasting.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

My Lords, as we are talking about Ofcom’s duties, what plans do the Government have to act on the recommendations made by Ofcom about plurality in the media in a report published last year at the request of the Secretary of State?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Certain Members of your Lordships’ House attended the QSD on 22 May when we discussed plurality. The Government are seeking views on this matter, which is complex. I think Lord Justice Leveson agreed with that. We are building on Ofcom’s advice and the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson. The process will begin in September. I know that your Lordships’ Communications Committee is also working on these matters.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, following my question on a possible communications Bill in the Queen’s Speech debate, I was surprised to receive a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which I am sure he cleared with the noble Lord’s department. In that letter, the noble Earl states that, for the most part, our regulatory framework is working well and that there simply is not a great clamour for wholesale reform. Given the growing demands for greater child protection, which we have talked about this afternoon, and for internet controls, decent broadband and media ownership controls, does this not represent a lack of courage on the part of the Government? They really should be legislating on a broader scale to firm up outside regulation and increase controls in these areas.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I would say to the noble Baroness that the work we are doing on Ofcom is designed to ensure that we do not do things that are unnecessary and inefficient. We should be enabling Ofcom to undertake its really important responsibilities. I refer to refinements because, having looked at the recommendations in the consultation, I think they give a more refreshing and up-to-date twist on what we wanted Ofcom to do when the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was so involved in its creation.

[Lord Grocott]

In the light of this Question and the wider debate about the Leveson inquiry, is it not worth reminding ourselves of the fact that in this country broadcasters work within a democratically established regulatory framework? This is in comparison with the press, which talks at great length about freedom of the press. Of course we need to respect this and it is very important, but the broadcasters’ regulatory framework thoroughly enables them to conduct investigative reporting and news and current affairs reporting to the highest standards. It is perfectly possible to have the highest quality of media output within a proper regulatory framework.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I would say to the noble Lord that I think we should have a free and a responsible press.

Russia: Non-Governmental Organisations

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked by

[Lord Judd]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Russia about their policy toward non-governmental organisations.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Government are concerned by pressures on NGOs across Russia, including the NGO “foreign agents” law. These concerns are outlined in the FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy report for this year. In recent months the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Europe, and my noble friend the Minister of State for Justice have raised this subject with their Russian counterparts. Two days before the Prime Minister’s 10 May visit to Sochi, senior officials raised concerns about the treatment of civil society at the annual UK-Russia human rights dialogue, held in Moscow.

[Lord Judd]

Do the Minister and the Government agree that a vibrant civil society, participating in public debates and analysing policy on the basis of the experience of engaging in society are vital to a healthy democracy? How can the recent draconian action by the Russians, with more than 208 organisations now raided by government officials, possibly strengthen democracy and stability in Russia? How can this be reconciled with membership of the Council of Europe? What are the Government, together with European Union partners, doing, in the Ministers’ meeting at the Council of Europe, in bilateral meetings and on every possible occasion, to bring these truths home to the Russians?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, Russia is at present moving away from the principles of open society. That is deeply concerning to all of us. We continue to express our deep concerns about that, and our concern that this does not allow for the long-term stability of Russia itself, every time we meet our Russian counterparts.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, while I agree strongly with some of the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, at present the Council of Europe is very much engaged in close discussions with the Russian authorities and some questions are being raised about whether the draconian law will be carried out effectively or reconsidered. May I therefore suggest that the better approach at present is probably through the Council of Europe, of which Russia is a member, dedicated as it is to all the values and ideals of democracy, rather than an individual national protest by the United Kingdom when the President of Russia is just about to arrive here?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the United Kingdom is, I think, the only EU member state that has a bilateral human rights dialogue with the Russians. We have had it for some years and we think it is valuable. The EU itself has collectively expressed its concerns at the current Russian situation. Our counterparts in the German and French Governments, whose German party political foundation offices and Alliance Française have been raided and inspected in Russia, have also expressed their concerns.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the current swathe of repression of non-governmental organisations is just one of a number of measures taken by the Russian Government as they move along the path of a quasi-tsarist autocracy? Have we specifically raised this matter in the Council of Europe with like-minded countries, as Russia is a member and has certain obligations under the Council of Europe agreement?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we actively discuss with our partners in the European Union and the Council of Europe a whole range of concerns, including those about Russia. I think I am correct in saying that one in every four cases before the European Court of Human Rights at present concerns Russia.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, we share the anxieties that have been expressed. I was interested to hear the Minister mention in his very first response NGOs from outside Russia. What is the current status of the relationship between the Russian Government and the British Council, and is the British Council able to conduct its normal and completely proper work inside that country? If I may follow up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is there perhaps an opportunity for a side meeting at the G8 to underline this issue with the Russian President?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the British Council was under considerable pressure some years ago. Indeed, my wife and I were in St Petersburg and visited Stephen Kinnock, who was then the head of the office there, the day after his office had been inspected by the authorities in a clear attempt to intimidate its activities. At present, however, the Alliance Française is being pursued, not the British Council. The British Council does its best to operate in rather difficult circumstances.

Museums

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:27

Asked by

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the possible closure of Science Museum Group museums in the north of England, what assessment they have made of the economic, educational and cultural benefits of regional museums.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so declare interests as the chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, of which the Science Museum Group is a member, and as a former chairman of MOSI, the Museum of Science & Industry in Manchester.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, our country has a diverse network of high-quality museums and galleries, both national and regional, which educate and delight local people and tourists alike. DCMS has overall responsibility for those in England. These museums have a strong identity within their local communities. They are often at the heart of their regions’ creative industries, provide an educational resource and contribute to their regions’ international reputation and economy.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, given that the Government are committed to promoting tourism in the regions, but also to encouraging youngsters to follow careers in science and engineering, is it not incomprehensible that the Science Museum Group is faced with a possible further 10% funding cut, on top of the 25% cut, thus publicly having to state that it might have to close one of its three regional museums? The Manchester Museum of Science & Industry, or MOSI, attracts 700,000 visitors a year of all ages. They come to see the museum of the first industrial city, the first baby computer and the first passenger railway station in Manchester. Would it not be bordering on the criminal if there was any question of contraction or closure?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I must first acknowledge my noble friend’s long-term commitment to the Museum of Science & Industry in Manchester and as a distinguished former chairman of it. Visits to the museum have continued to increase and have increased by 31% since its merger with the Science Museum Group in January last year. I have of course read the reports in the press speculating on the future of regional branches of the Science Museum Group. The spending review process for 2015-16 has not reached its completion. It would therefore be premature, indeed impossible, for a considered decision by the Science Museum Group to be made until after that process is complete.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Science Museum Group and as a former chairman, like the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, of the advisory board of MOSI in Manchester. The Minister is right to draw attention to the huge popularity of MOSI. It is a similar story at the other museums in the Science Museum Group. The total number of visitors now exceeds 5 million a year. However, is he aware—and I hope that he listens very carefully to the points made by his noble friend—that the group has had to accept funding cuts of 25%, as the noble Lord says, over the past four years? A further 10%, if that is contained in the spending review, may make it inevitable, although very undesirable, that one of the museums in the group may have to close. Can he use all his influence to make sure that that spending review does not contain a cut on that scale?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I well understand the concern that has been expressed in the north, in particular in Yorkshire and in Manchester. Clearly, as I said, the spending review process has not been completed. I am absolutely sure that ministerial colleagues to whom I have spoken in the department are absolutely clear about the contribution that museums make to the tourism market. The DCMS museums are the first six of all visitor attractions in the country. There is a full understanding of the beneficial impact that museums make on our national life.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, would it not be a good idea if the Minister were to add to the number of visitors to some of the northern museums so that he could see for himself the quality of the Merseyside Maritime Museum, the Museum of Liverpool, Tate Liverpool, the Imperial War Museum North and the Museum of Science & Industry—to which the noble Lord, Lord Lee, has quite rightly drawn our attention today—and recognise that they make a major contribution to the cultural and educational life of the north of England? They are an indispensable asset for children in our schools. If they were to be removed at a time when we are trying to promote science, it would be an incredibly retrograde and backward step. It would also further entrench the impression of the north-south divide.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

We do not wish for one moment for there to be any sense of divide. As the noble Lord has quite rightly said, this Government and the previous Government have invested a considerable sum of money through the Renaissance programme in regional museums. Since 2011-12, £180 million has been invested by DCMS in the regional museums. As he rightly alluded to, this programme has driven up visitor numbers in regional museums so that last year there were 19.1 million visitors to regional museums. I am very much aware of the—I think that there are seven—Liverpool museums. I have visited some and it would be lovely in the summer if I could visit many more.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, in view of the contribution of the National Media Museum in Bradford to West Yorkshire culture, can the Minister tell us how he and colleagues will take local views into account in making decisions? In particular, what can he do to avoid competition between the three museums allegedly under threat at the moment?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

As I say, there is this speculation. The three museums—the National Railway Museum in York, the National Media Museum in Bradford and MOSI in Manchester—all have a distinct character and history. I will be taking back to colleagues the strong opinions of the right reverend Prelate and others about the importance of the museums in their localities.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Imperial War Museum. Does the Minister agree that the draconian cuts that are being imposed have put a huge problem in the face of all the museums? Given the Imperial War Museum’s scope of museums, there is no doubt that one has to look at what draws the most visitors. There is no doubt that a museum such as the Imperial War Museum North—which is an amazing facility opposite the BBC in Salford, and is a fantastic focus—has to be at threat. I would ask whether we are looking at the dreadful business of possibly charging people, because I cannot see how museums can go forward with cuts of this scale.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the Government are absolutely clear in the grant-in-aid arrangements that the policy of free admission should continue. Having looked at the increase in visitor numbers, and at the number of children who are visiting museums, I think that free admission is an important feature of our national and regional museum life. I am very conscious of what the noble Lord said about the Imperial War Museum. With the commemoration of the First World War and the investment that is going into the Imperial War Museum, and certainly from the meetings that I have had with officials there, I know that a lot of very exciting work is going to unfold at the Imperial War Museum as well as at Duxford. There is important work for the Imperial War Museum to show.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, the clue is in the titles—the National Media Museum, the National Railway Museum, the National Coal Mining Museum for England. I have had a look at the names of two dozen people who are trustees of the Science Museum Group or members of the Science Museum advisory board and—would you believe it?—22 of those 24 people are based either in London or in Cambridge.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

Does the Minister have any faith that this group of people will have balance when it comes to looking at those national museums that are based in the regions?

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I think that I might have an uphill task persuading your Lordships. It is important to say that under the National Heritage Act 1983 the appointment of trustees must have regard to their experience of the development of science and technology, in the case of MOSI, and to their knowledge of management, industrial relations and administration. Interestingly, the chairman of the Science Museum lives in West Yorkshire, and I am led to believe that half the representatives of the board of trustees live outside London. If they are all also living in Cambridge, I will have to look at that.

Children and Families Bill

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:37

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Humber Bridge Bill

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:37

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

Constitution Committee

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:38

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Lester of Herne Hill be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, resigned.

Motion agreed.

Refreshment Committee

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:38

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Tunnicliffe be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Gale, resigned.

Motion agreed.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:39

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 10, Schedule 2, Clause 11, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 12, Schedule 5, Clause 13, Schedule 6, Clauses 14 and 15, Schedule 7, Clauses 16 to 19.

Motion agreed.

Health: Children's Heart Services

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s heart services. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s congenital heart services.

On average, around 3,700 heart procedures are carried out each year on children who have been diagnosed with congenital heart conditions. The mortality rates at Bristol Royal Infirmary, identified as far back as 1989, indicated that we are not as successful as we should be in such operations. The Safe and Sustainable review began in 2008 and set out to make sure that children’s heart services are the best they can be for all children across the country. Whatever the controversy about the location of such services, we all have a responsibility to ensure the best possible outcomes for children and their families, who must always come first in any decision about service provision.

Sir Ian Kennedy, in his Bristol inquiry report in 2001, recommended the concentration of medical and nursing expertise in a smaller number of centres. Subsequent working groups and reports have endorsed that recommendation, including the Royal College of Surgeons in 2007. The public consultation on the Safe and Sustainable review received over 75,000 responses. This was the largest review of its kind, conducted independently of government by the NHS.

In July 2012, the then Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts—the JCPCT—on behalf of local NHS commissioners, decided that children’s heart surgery networks should be formally structured around specialist surgical centres in Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle and Southampton, as well as Great Ormond Street and the Evelina Children’s Hospital in London. They recommended that services should no longer be provided in Leicester, Leeds, Oxford and the Royal Brompton and Harefield in London. Following the JCPCT’s announcement, three local health overview and scrutiny committees formally referred the JCPCT’s decision for me to review and I wrote to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel—the IRP—asking them to undertake a full review of the proposals.

On 30 April 2013 I received the report. I would like to thank the IRP for producing such a comprehensive review of such a challenging topic. It strongly agrees with the case for change, specifically that congenital cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology should only be provided by specialist teams large enough to sustain a comprehensive range of interventions, round-the-clock care, specialist training and research. I agree with their analysis.

However, the report also concludes that the outcome of the Safe and Sustainable review was based on a flawed analysis of the impact of incomplete proposals, and leaves too many questions about sustainability and implementation. This is clearly a serious criticism of the Safe and Sustainable process. I therefore accept their recommendation that the proposals cannot go ahead in their current form and am suspending the review today. NHS England will also seek to withdraw its appeal against the judicial review successfully achieved by Save Our Surgery in Leeds.

None the less, the IRP is clear that the clinical case for change remains, and its report is very helpful in setting out the way forward in terms of broadening the scope of the discussion, and looking in detail at the affordability and sustainability of the proposals. The IRP says—and I agree—that this is not a mandate for the status quo or for going back over all the ground already covered during the last five years. The case for change commands widespread support and understanding and we must continue to seek every opportunity to improve services for children.

The recommendations in the report set out what the IRP considers needs to be done to bring about the desired improvements in services in a way that addresses gaps and weaknesses in the original proposals. Specifically, they include: better co-ordination with the review of adult heart surgery services; expanding the detailed work on the clinical model and associated service standards for the whole pathway of care, beyond surgery; services to be fully modelled and their affordability retested; NHS England to establish a systematic, transparent, authoritative and continuous stream of data and information about the performance of congenital heart services; NHS England and the relevant professional associations to put in place the means to continuously review the pattern of activity and optimise outcomes for the more rare, innovative and complex procedures; NHS England to reflect on the criticisms of the JCPCT’s assessment of quality and learn lessons to avoid similar situations in its future commissioning of specialist services; and NHS England to use the lessons from this review to create with its partners a more resource and time-effective process for achieving genuine involvement and engagement in its commissioning of specialist services.

NHS England now must move forward on the basis of these clear recommendations and the Leeds court judgment. I have therefore today written to NHS England, and the local overview and scrutiny committees that originally referred the JCPCT’s decision to me, to explain that the IRP’s report shows that the proposals of the Safe and Sustainable review clearly cannot go ahead in their current form. It is right to give all parties some time to reflect on the best way forward, now that the IRP report is in the public domain, so I have asked NHS England to report back to me by the end of July on how it intends to proceed. In the mean time, it is important to stress that I believe that care for children with congenital heart conditions is safe in the NHS, and that ensuring it continues to be will be the top priority for all involved in this process.

I know that many families have found the Safe and Sustainable review to be a traumatic experience. People are rightly proud of the hospitals and the staff that have saved, or tried their best to save, the lives of their children. However, there is overwhelming consensus that we cannot stick with the model of care that we have now. To do so would be a betrayal of the families who lost loved ones in Bristol and who want nothing more than for the NHS to learn the lessons from their personal tragedies. So it is right we continue with this process, but it is also essential that it is performed correctly so that any decisions, as difficult as they may ultimately be, carry the confidence of the public. I commend the report and this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

15:47

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement and for reminding the House of the events which led to the Safe and Sustainable review. Terrible failings in the care of very sick children at the Bristol Royal Infirmary in the 1980s and 1990s led Sir Ian Kennedy to call for expertise to be concentrated on fewer surgical sites, a call supported by more immediate, recent events, including the suspension of children’s heart surgery at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford in 2010. Since Bristol, Sir Ian’s important conclusion has had the support of the health professions and all sides of the House.

As we digest what the noble Earl has said, two considerations must remain foremost in our minds. First, this issue continues to transcend party politics; and secondly, the complexity it presents should not derail us from our determination to deliver the safest possible care for children in the country. That said, changes of this magnitude must be able to command consensus and public confidence and that has not happened since the decision on site selection by the joint committee.

When it was published, while the Opposition supported the reduction in sites, we expressed concerns about the distribution of the seven sites, skewed towards the west of England and leaving a large swathe of eastern England, from Newcastle to London, without a centre. For a family living in Hull or Lincoln, the prospect of leaving home to travel hundreds of miles, with the cost of accommodation and time off work, added to their stress and anxiety. Therefore, it is not surprising that there has been such strength of feeling, particularly across Yorkshire, the Humber and east Midlands. While clinical safety must predominate, does the noble Earl agree that the NHS needs to give further consideration to public access and travel times when reconfiguring services? In this case, as the IRP points out, the joint committee considered access the least important factor. The IRP concluded, surely rightly, that the decision used a flawed and incomplete analysis of accessibility. Going forward, can the noble Earl tell me that his department will ensure that that is corrected and that access will be a significant factor in a future decision?

On the review itself, the noble Earl will know that one main concern has been that mortality data were not given enough weight. While decisions on this cannot be based on death rates alone, we agree with John Deanfield, the director of NICOR, who, in his letter to NHS England in April 2013, said:

“Mortality is only one measure of quality, but currently is the most robust available outcome”.

Will the noble Earl confirm that, in the further process of review announced today, these data will feature more prominently?

The main concern we have with the announcement that the Government have made today is the proposal to link the children’s review with the review of adult heart services and the implications that might have for the timetable. The Statement uses the words “better co-ordination”. I understand that about 30 centres are carrying out adult heart surgery. The seven selected centres for children will not be collocated with adult heart surgery. As the noble Earl knows, there are a number of specialist children’s sites. The link between the children’s sites and the adults’ sites is not at all clear. Is there a danger that, by linking the review with adult heart surgery, the Government risk a loss of focus and, indeed, more delay? By broadening it in this way, is there a danger that we will lose the consensus that has already been gained over the future of children’s heart surgery?

The decision will clearly have implications for the timetable of the children’s review. It is noticeable that the Statement does not really contain a clear timetable. Can the noble Earl set out a more precise timetable for when the actual decision is going to be made?

I wonder whether the noble Earl has seen the response from the Royal College of Surgeons today. It expressed disappointment that the reform plans will be suspended, adding to what it describes as a long and exhaustive process. In its final comment, it urges NHS England to act swiftly and decisively, and says:

“Continued foot dragging will only delay the much needed reform that will ensure children will get the best treatment available”.

Can the noble Earl respond to that? He says that the review will be concluded by the autumn, but the question here is when decisions will be made and, even more importantly, when they will be implemented.

The Statement sets out a major role for NHS England going forward. Can I be assured that, in the process that NHS England takes forward, it will operate independently of interests linked to the selected sites? Does he agree that it is vital that we do not lose confidence in the process and damage confidence in all 10 existing services? I noted what he said in reassuring the House about safety. I welcome that, but is his department taking action to ensure that all existing units will not lose expertise in the intervening period? That will be a source of concern the longer the review takes and the longer the decision takes to make.

It is clearly important that public confidence in the process and the final decision is maintained but, balanced against that, unnecessary delay will not bring the best results for the children who most need our help. In that regard, I should like to ask him about the comments made by Sir David Nicholson, the chief executive of the NHS, at the annual meeting of the NHS Confederation last week. In an interesting speech, he said:

“We cannot let the tyranny of the electoral cycle stop us from making the real and fundamental changes that we need to make to the NHS”.

He went on to say:

“So what happened when we got a new government in is we wasted those two years where you can really make change happen. We spent our time talking about reorganisation and changes and all the rest of it and we didn’t talk about the really important changes that are required for the NHS”.

I am quoting that because the election is less than two years away. Can the noble Earl reassure me that the electoral cycle is not going to get in the way of coming to a sensible and speedy decision?

15:55

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his measured comments. I agree with many, if not most, of them. I certainly agree that party politics should play no part in this matter. That is one reason why in 2008 his Government decided that the Safe and Sustainable review should be a process set apart from the Department of Health and led by the NHS. We agree with that and still believe that it should be NHS-led. I also agree with what he said about the complexity of this issue being no excuse for not proceeding as fast as is safe and possible with a process designed to see a satisfactory resolution of this issue. That is certainly our view.

I also welcome what the noble Lord said about public confidence. It is clear that parts of the Safe and Sustainable process sadly did not command public confidence, not least in Leeds, but also in Leicester and other places. The noble Lord will no doubt have noticed, in the IRP’s press releases today, the emphasis on openness and transparency in the process going forward. NHS England has also made clear that whatever the process that it recommends going forward, it should involve the maximum amount of consultation with those concerned, not just the clinicians in the centres involved, who are of course very important, but also patients and their families.

The noble Lord referred to the need for greater consideration to be given to access and travel times. I noted an emphasis on that very point in recommendation 4 of the IRP’s report. They clearly matter to families, as was very much picked up by the IRP in its work engaging with stakeholders. In agreeing to address all the recommendations of the IRP report, which NHS England has done, it could not fail to address that part of the recommendation.

With regard to mortality data, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that when we are dealing with a procedure as complicated and specialist as children’s congenital heart surgery, while transparency of data is certainly an objective, it is important that the data published are not open to misinterpretation. Mortality data are a problem that beset this kind of area because the numbers are small. They must also be presented in a way that is understandable to the public as well as to clinicians. For the most part, clinicians already have this data, but it is important going forward to ensure that when we publish data, there is genuine comparability between the various centres in terms of the outcomes denoted.

The noble Lord rightly said that, by introducing the dimension of adult cardiac surgery, the IRP had added greater complexity to the whole issue. There is no doubt that that is true. All I will say to him is that this was by far the longest and most complicated review that the IRP has undertaken in its 10-year history. It took evidence over 25 full days. That alone should indicate that the opinions that were tapped were very extensive. The IRP did not come up with this recommendation lightly. Although it adds complexity, it behoves NHS England to take that point extremely seriously.

As regards the timetable for the work going forward, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked NHS England to provide him with an interim report by the end of July. NHS England’s press release states:

“We will take the time to listen before coming up with a new proposition, working with patients, clinicians and the providers of services. We intend to announce a new way forward in the autumn, with plans for implementation within 12 months”.

I believe that is an ambitious aim given the added complexity, but it indicates that NHS England is conscious of the need to make progress in this area as rapidly as possible. As soon as I have further information—no doubt at the end of July or shortly after—I will ensure that the House is made aware of it.

I have seen the Royal College of Surgeons’ press release. It is impossible to disagree with it that this is a disappointing state of affairs. Everyone would like to see this issue resolved. Nevertheless, the points the college makes, which were reflected in the noble Lord’s points about the need for expedition in this area, are absolutely right. The noble Lord was also right to say that over the coming months we need to make sure that all the units, which do such a fantastic job in this very complex area of clinical delivery, are supported and feel that their work is appreciated. It is certainly important that we do not see a draining away of expertise. The clinicians in the various centres should now see this as an opportunity to present their case even more fully than they did before. I hope that they will welcome that opportunity.

As regards the tyranny of the electoral cycle, I hope that in my opening remarks I expressed my agreement that that should not play a part in this. In so far as we can divorce decisions of this clinical magnitude from politics, the better it will be. We should achieve that if this process is as consultative and open as possible, as everybody wishes it to be.

16:03

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I take us back to Sir Ian Kennedy’s review 12 years ago in which he made it crystal clear that unless we significantly reduced the number of these centres, children would continue to die unnecessarily. That was the brutal conclusion of the Bristol inquiry. Has anything come out of the IRP review that fundamentally changes the July 2012 decision of the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts that seven centres, with clinical networks built around them, was the right number? As I understand it, the argument is not necessarily that seven was the wrong number of centres, but that the wrong seven were chosen. Are we not now opening up the whole issue of the relationship with adult services, which will take us back to a situation where we start to review from the beginning the appropriateness of the particular centres? Do we not need to get back to where the JCPCT was when there was a good deal of consensus around the idea that seven was the right kind of number? The issue is really about east coast versus west coast, and the danger of this report, thorough though it may be, is that it will now reopen all the issues on which we had actually made a good deal of progress by 2012.

[Earl Howe]

That is indeed the core of the disappointment felt by the clinical community and noble Lords: that we are little further forward in terms of deciding exactly where these services should be delivered. The noble Lord is also right to say that support for a philosophy of improving children’s heart services by concentrating surgical expertise to provide round-the-clock cover and develop networks of care is as strong as ever. There is a rare consensus on the clinical case for improving services on the pathway of care for children. The IRP has said that its report is not a mandate for going back over the ground of the past five years; indeed, it commends a great deal of the work done by the JCPCT. The IRP says that that work should be built upon. The JCPCT should not necessarily feel bruised by this, although I am sure that it will feel thoroughly disappointed. However, its groundwork has been publicly appreciated, and it is now for NHS England to take that work forward as swiftly as it can.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I speak as the patron of Little Hearts Matter, the organisation that represents a large number of families who have children with heart conditions, particularly hypoplastic left heart syndrome, which is extremely serious and needs highly skilled intervention. Who does the Minister think is most disappointed about the failure of the review? I probably meet more families and children than most of your Lordships—children who await open heart surgery or extremely complex technical interventions, and whose anxiety is huge; and parents who thought that they were going to have clear answers on where their children would receive treatment and on the quality of those interventions at the end of the safe and sustainable review. I ask the Minister to take back with him all those disappointments and to look not only at safety, which is key to the families. Many of them would travel to wherever you took them if they were sure that the operation would be successful. As a woman from Yorkshire and the east of England, I understand that gap, but what the families want most is quality of service.

As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out, there is also great disappointment about the link being made with adult services because of where those services are located. Despite the review, there is a lack of understanding of the needs of children. There are certainly transitional difficulties and I ask the Minister whether it is those issues or other issues that have led to children being considered alongside adults. Will he take away with him the disappointment felt by families who are waiting longer for interventions because this has caused delay?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am accountable to this House for government policy, but it is important for the noble Baroness to understand that this has been an NHS-led review. Many of her questions are for NHS England now to address. Of course there will be huge disappointment and concern among the families of those who require surgery in this area. I want to emphasise that until a decision is reached, the centres now delivering children’s heart services will continue to do so and will be fully supported in doing so.

However, we cannot ignore a series of recommendations from the IRP that has roundly criticised the methodology of the JCPCT. It concluded that the JCPCT’s way forward was flawed because the analysis was insufficiently thorough. If our aim is to improve the quality of outcomes for these children, I do not believe that it is in anyone’s interests to try to say to ourselves that we can make do with a half-good set of solutions. I do not suggest that the noble Baroness is saying that; of course she is not. We need to be thorough about this without spending another 10 years over it. I hope that I have given the sense to the House that NHS England is determined to progress this rapidly but thoroughly and, above all, in a consultative way. The families will have a chance to have their say in that process.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords—

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that these should be brief interventions. We have only had two thus far and we are seven minutes in. I suggest we hear the Bishop, then from these Benches and we try to get around.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I am also grateful to the Leeds group Save our Surgery for persisting with criticisms, at least some of which seem to have been justified, as they pursued this. I am particularly grateful for the affirmation that children and their families must always come first. Will the Minister also accept that nothing about us should be done without us? Therefore, will he ensure that families, local communities and, indeed, the case for keeping cardiac and other children’s services in our hospitals are heard, in addition to the clinical professionals?

[Earl Howe]

I can readily agree with the right reverend Prelate. I think it is illustrative of the IRP’s approach that in its press release it states:

“The critical factor to consider, in the Panel’s view, is that engagement of all interested parties is the key to achieving improvements for patients and families without unnecessary delay. There is now a real opportunity to involve patients, the public and other stakeholders in taking work forward as set out in the Panel’s recommendations”.

I endorse that view wholeheartedly, and it is a point that has been directly picked up by NHS England in its press release today.

[Baroness Eaton]

My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that when calculating where centres should be located, account is taken not just of population numbers, but of the make-up of that population? He will know, for example, that children of Asian descent have greater need for these services than other communities, making up 23% of cases at Leeds. Their faster growing population must be taken into account.

[Earl Howe]

I hope that my noble friend will be reassured by the IRP’s recognition that the location and geography of these centres and where they are in the country are material factors in this equation. At the same time, I think it would be wrong to give the impression that one can establish a centre of expertise of this kind in every city; that is clearly not realistic. Merely because there is a certain density of a population in a location does not mean to say that there can be a children’s heart centre very close to the centre of that population. This is a highly specialised service and we must recognise that the centres that will deliver it will be few in number. Nevertheless, I am sure that the message that my noble friend has given will not be lost on NHS England.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, it is critical that however NHS England proceeds, it does it openly and transparently. I welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Will he also agree that meetings of any review body should be advertised, public and make all necessary papers available to the public?

[Earl Howe]

I agree that transparency in the process is vital, and I have no doubt that NHS England, in saying what it has today about its general approach to this, will bear that very point in mind.

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds]

My Lords, does the noble Earl recognise that in Leeds there will be a great sense of justification regarding the criticisms of the process previously followed and a welcoming of the forensic critique by the latest panel of that process? While it is certainly important that collocation of services is not essential to the provision of children’s heart surgery, does the Minister agree that, where there is outstanding and deliberately engineered collocation of high quality, that is an important factor in the future location of children’s heart surgery?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord makes another very good point, and Recommendation 3 of the IRP report focuses on that very issue. It says:

“Before further considering options for change, the detailed work on the clinical model and associated service standards for the whole pathway of care must be completed to demonstrate the benefits for patients and how services will be delivered across each network”.

Therefore, that point has been explicitly recognised.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, the noble Earl has explained with his customary clarity the reasons for this further delay. However, surely he would agree that, in the ultimate, the decision that is eventually reached must be based on quality of service and quality of outcomes. This must surely be the guiding principle throughout. I fully appreciate the concerns expressed by the people surrounding the units that were originally marked for closure, but I have to express a personal avuncular interest in Freeman Hospital in Newcastle, which, according to all international comparisons, is producing results in paediatric and adult heart surgery that stand comparison with the best cardiac centres in the world. I know that this further delay is going to cause concern and further damage morale in that unit. I only hope that in the long term it does not have any effect on the efficiency of the service. Let us hope that this review is concluded as quickly as possible.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work done in Newcastle in this extremely complex area of surgery. The noble Lord knows that hospital better than anyone in this House, and I understand the disappointment felt in Newcastle about this decision. Nevertheless, I would slightly qualify the comment that he made at the beginning. Although I agree that the decision must depend on outcomes and the quality of care, it must also bear in mind the sustainability of the service into the future. While we can recognise good care when we see it now, we must be sure that the service is capable of being sustained on that level into the future.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

Is the Minister able to tell us how many vacancies currently exist among highly specialised staff in children’s heart units and what NHS England is doing to monitor vacancies? During a time of uncertainty, when staff do not know what their future will be, recruitment problems can arise, and where vacancies occur at a very senior, highly specialised level, that in itself can threaten the quality of the service and indeed jeopardise long-term sustainability.

[Earl Howe]

I do not in fact have any statistics on vacancies, although if I can acquire them I shall certainly pass them on to the noble Baroness. However, the central point that she makes is of course right, and the second recommendation made by the IRP relates to the need to have sufficient staff in place to deliver a safe service. It says that patients should receive this service,

“from teams with at least four full-time consultant congenital heart surgeons and appropriate numbers of other specialist staff to sustain a comprehensive range of interventions, round the clock care”,

and, interestingly,

“training and research”.

I think that that sends a signal that will resonate with many noble Lords in the context of debates that we have had in the past about centres of excellence in the NHS.

Care Bill [HL]

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day)

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Delegated Powers Committee.

16:19

Clause 97 : The HRA’s functions

Amendment 58A

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

58A: Clause 97, page 80, line 35, at end insert—
“( ) The HRA shall also have the function of encouraging the translation of research into innovative practice.”

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, in Amendment 58A, in addition to conducting and promoting health and social care research, we are seeking to give the Health Research Authority the ability to encourage this research to be translated into innovative practice.

On Monday, in a debate on amendments to Health Education England, many noble Lords highlighted the need to place research at the centre of what the NHS does. Under the Health and Social Care Act, Labour fully supported placing duties on the Secretary of State, the National Commissioning Board and CCGs to promote research. Indeed, my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord Hunt supported amendments to the Bill reinforcing the importance of research.

In Monday’s debate, my noble friend Lady Wheeler reminded us of the concerns and frustration at the often painfully slow, complex and bureaucratic process of getting innovation in care and treatment adopted in the NHS. I suspect that the noble Earl shares this concern as in the debate in this House last January he reminded us that it took an estimated 17 years for only 14% of new scientific discoveries to enter day-to-day clinical practice. On Monday, too, my noble friend Lord Turnberg referred to the vision for research in the NHS contained in the recent publication of the Association of Medical Research Charities. In this vision, every patient should be offered the opportunity to be involved in research; all staff should be made aware of the importance of research; and the NHS should conduct high quality research and adopt innovation in healthcare rapidly. The purpose of the amendment is to achieve a joined-up approach in reaching these objectives so that when research is commissioned these principles are absolutely borne in mind. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

With regard to Clause 97 standing part of the Bill, I should like to refer the noble Earl to paragraph 8 of the first report this Session of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee expressed concern over the Secretary of State’s powers to amend the main functions of the Health Research Authority. If, as suggested, they were needed to meet the obligations of an EU directive, an appropriate amendment could be made by exercising powers under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. If that is the case, perhaps the noble Earl could explain why the Secretary of State needs these extra powers.

It is a long time since I completed my British Government A-level. I recall how Henry VIII clauses can give powers to delegated legislation to amend or repeal Acts of Parliament. However, I did a little more recent research and found reference to the 1932 Committee on Ministers’ Powers. One quote from its report is particularly relevant. A member said that, whether good or bad, delegated legislation is inevitable. It is,

“a necessary evil, inevitable … But nevertheless a tendency to be watched with misgiving”.

I look forward to the noble Earl’s further explanation as to why the Department of Health believes that these powers are necessary.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I rise briefly to express my strong support for Amendment 58A. I used to teach my medical students and my postgraduates by telling them that today’s discoveries in basic medical science bring about tomorrow’s practical developments in patient care. Surely this is what the amendment is about. If I were to be pedantic, I would prefer a change in the wording to:

“The HRA shall also have the function of,”

promoting

“the translation of research into innovative practice”.

That is preferable to simply “encouraging” it. Again, I am happy to support the amendment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, this amendment takes us to a subject that is dear to my heart—the translation of research—and I agree very much with the tenor of what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, had to say. The Committee will know that our vision is to improve the health and wealth of the nation through research. The Government are committed to cutting the bureaucracy involved in health and social care research. We want to speed up the initiation and delivery of research so that research findings can benefit people more quickly and improve the UK’s competitiveness in the life sciences. At the same time, research involves a degree of risk, and we need to balance a desire for expediency with appropriate safeguards to protect people who participate or who may participate in research.

Clause 97 sets out the Health Research Authority’s four main functions, which are described in more detail in Clauses 98 to 104. It also sets out the authority’s main objective in performing those functions. The Health Research Authority will have functions in four main areas. These will be, first, functions relating to the co-ordination and standardisation of practice relating to the regulation of health and social care research; secondly, functions relating to research ethics committees; thirdly, functions as a member of the UK Ethics Committee Authority; and, lastly, functions relating to approvals for the exceptional processing of confidential patient information. The Health Research Authority’s main objective in carrying out its functions will be to protect participants, potential participants and the general public by encouraging safe and ethical research, and to promote their interests by facilitating the conduct of such research. This objective has been deliberately framed in a way that ensures that the interests of participants and the public are put first.

As I have said, research sometimes involves a degree of risk, so regulation provides participants, potential participants and the public with assurance that there are appropriate safeguards in which they can be confident. The Health Research Authority will meet the first part of its objective through the regulatory functions that this Bill confers on it relating to the regulation of health research and social care research in order to protect the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of research participants. The second part of the Health Research Authority’s overarching objective is to promote the interests of participants, potential participants and the general public in health research and social care research. The Health Research Authority will promote these interests by facilitating high quality and ethical research. This includes co-operating with others to create a unified approval process for research and to promote consistent and proportionate standards for compliance and inspection. To meet its objective of protecting and promoting participants, potential participants and public interest in research, we would expect the HRA to engage patients and the public in its work. For example, Schedule 7 would give it the power to set up committees or sub-committees which may include people from outside the Health Research Authority.

I turn now to the specifics of Amendment 58A, which seeks to make encouraging the translation of research into innovative practice a function of the Health Research Authority. First, I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the Committee that we are fully committed to encouraging the translation of research into practice. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 recognises the need to promote research and the use of research evidence and has created unprecedented powers and duties at all levels to meet that need. When it was passing through your Lordships’ House, we debated the duties that the Act places on the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will remember that the Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the use within the health service of evidence obtained from research when exercising his functions in relation to the health service. The 2012 Act also places equivalent duties on the NHS Commissioning Board, now known as NHS England, and clinical commissioning groups when they are exercising their functions under the 2012 Act.

16:30

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has a key role here. Its guidance helps health and care professionals to deliver the best possible care based on the best available evidence. In addition, it hosts NICE Evidence Services, a web-based portal that provides fast access to authoritative health and social care evidence. It has more than 250,000 resources from many accredited sources including the Cochrane Library and the royal colleges.

It is important to look at the wider picture here. The National Institute for Health Research also plays a vital role in driving faster translation of basic science discoveries into tangible benefits for patients and the economy and developing and supporting the people who conduct and contribute to applied health research. The NIHR provides the support and facilities the NHS needs for first-class research by funding a range of infrastructure facilities. This includes providing £800 million over five years to fund 11 biomedical research centres and 20 biomedical research units that conduct and support translational research to transform scientific breakthroughs into life-saving treatments.

NHS England recently designated 15 new academic health science networks. Their core purpose is to transform the identification, adoption and spread of proven innovations and best practice throughout the NHS. These have the potential to transform health and healthcare by putting innovation at the heart of the NHS. This will improve patient outcomes as well as contribute to economic growth.

As I have said, we need to look at what is going on in the round rather than just focusing on the HRA. As the HRA’s role is primarily about facilitating the initiation of safe and ethical research, it is not our intention to give it a function of encouraging the translation of research into innovative practice.

I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that, while I am in sympathy with the spirit of Amendment 58A, I do not think that this is an appropriate function to put in the Bill for the HRA. We can feel relaxed about not doing that because there are other mechanisms in place to encourage the translation of research into innovative practice.

The noble Lord asked me about the power to amend the list of the Health Research Authority’s main functions in Clause 97(1). This power will ensure that the list of the Health Research Authority’s main functions is kept up to date in the light of any changes to legislation. However, we have not yet responded to your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We will be doing so shortly.

Secondary legislation is regarded by some as a necessary evil. It is an expedient deployed by all Governments. We are sensitive to the caution that surrounds it in this House and the other place. However, it does not give the Secretary of State any additional power to add functions, but only to make consequential changes to the list when functions are conferred on the Health Research Authority in ways other than by primary legislation; for example, by way of regulations. That is because such regulations would not themselves be able to effect a change to the list in this clause. The scope for using this power is fairly limited. I hope that explanation is helpful and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I thank the Minister for that response. I agree with him that we have to see this in the round. We were trying to pick this up as an objective rather than as a specific function so that in its work the HRA could see the benefits of ensuring that research was implemented in a way so as to change practice. In relation to Clause 97 standing part of the Bill, I again hear what the Minister has said. I was rather hoping for a detailed reference to Henry VIII in his response but that was not forthcoming. We will need to watch this matter carefully. I look forward to seeing the Government’s response to the committee’s report. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58A withdrawn.

Clause 97 agreed.

Clause 98 : Co-ordinating and promoting regulatory practice etc.

Amendment 58B

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

58B: Clause 98, page 81, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) the Medical Royal Colleges;”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, Clause 98 concerns a duty of co-operation with the Health Research Authority. That is of course absolutely supported. My Amendments 58B and 58C would insert into the list of organisations,

“Medical Royal Colleges … the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council”.

I have no doubt that the noble Earl will warn me of the dangers of this, but in a sense his own department has provoked it by putting a list into the Bill. Inevitably, we looked at that and wondered why some organisations were missing. I realise that Clause 98(1)(i) allows flexibility by regulations to add to the list and I am sure that that flexibility is welcome, but we should get this right in the first place. I find it difficult to understand why, for instance, the medical royal colleges are not listed. They have a vital role to play in this area.

Similarly, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, in her Amendment 59. I am sure she will speak to that in a moment. If the Chief Medical Officer is named, why is the Chief Nursing Officer not? I know there has been concern over the years about the position of the Chief Nursing Officer. The last Government as well as this one have debated this issue. Given that we wish to see an extension of research into nursing and clinical areas because of the absolute importance of enhancing the quality of nursing, it is disappointing that the Chief Nursing Officer is not listed.

I also support Amendment 61 from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, which takes the responsibility in Clause 98(7) of local authorities and NHS trusts to have regard to guidance from the HRA on good practice in research and extends it to other providers, including the private sector. These are important amendments as a whole. It is important that the Bill is informed and improved.

On my Amendment 61A, I am puzzled that in Clause 98(7) the requirement is only to have regard to HRA guidance. Surely that should be strengthened, as in my amendment, which says that guidance “must” be followed,

“unless there is good reason not to do so”.

I have taken advice on this matter. The noble Earl will know that there has been a problem over the years in getting approval for multicentre trial research. I understand that the research ethics committees have improved their performance in recent years, and that is to be welcomed, but we now apparently have the problem with some NHS trusts and foundation trusts. Of course, as this is the start of another Committee day, I ought to declare my interests as the chair of a foundation trust and as a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections. It is disappointing if individual NHS organisations are holding up multicentre research, for all the reasons that we know about: UK plc and the need for us to ensure that there is greater investment in research in the UK. I want some assurance that if there is undue delay, the HRA will be able to intervene and ensure that NHS organisations get on with giving the necessary approval.

On Amendment 60A, health research capacity in the UK is of course one of our strongest assets. It includes pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and takes place in our medical schools and hospitals. World-class research is undertaken here, frequently with outstanding results, yet we consistently fail to exploit that research when it comes to its translation into practice. How many other countries have exploited research undertaken in this country? I very much welcome the establishment of academic health science networks, which are responsible for encouraging much closer links between research and health service practice.

However, there is much more to be done. I would like the HRA’s objectives to include encouraging innovation and practice. It is important that the HRA is in a position to advise the department on potential policies that might have an impact on the scale of research and development in the UK. One such example is the present intention to move away from the current pharmaceutical price regulation scheme method of reimbursing pharmaceuticals. I know that the Government are committed to the introduction of value-based pricing. I always try to tempt the noble Earl to debate in your Lordships’ House the introduction of value-based pricing, principally because very few people understand what it involves. Even having been the Minister who received the original report on it, I must say that I am still in the dark as to exactly how it will unfold.

My key question is this. I know that the PPRS approach is not perfect and that at regular intervals Governments negotiate it downwards, but it has always given flexibility to the industry to price new-licence medicines as it wishes within a profit cap. The advantage of that flexibility is that many new drugs are launched in the UK rather than in other countries. I would like to hear from the noble Earl that the introduction of value-based pricing will not have an impact on the willingness and ability of pharmaceutical companies to continue launching products in the UK. I believe there is a link between the launch of products and investment in R&D in this country.

I may strain the patience of the House, but while I am talking about pharmaceuticals it is tempting to ask the noble Earl about the implications for the cancer drug fund. He knows that the intention was for that fund to become obsolete with the introduction of value-based pricing. However, cancer charities that I have met believe that value-based pricing will apply primarily to new active substance licences from 2014, and will therefore have limited impact on treatments made available through the fund. Will the noble Earl comment, or perhaps write to me, with an assurance that, before firm proposals are made on this issue, full consideration will be given to the impact of value-based pricing on the cancer drug fund, its continuation or potential substitution? I beg to move.

16:45

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend in Amendments 58B, 58C and 59. This clause is about taking note of the regulation and the regulation of research activities, but not of people who are engaged in research. It is important to involve those who regulate the professions—the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council—as well as the nurses. I agree entirely with the statement that the nurses should be included. In saying this I should also mention the pharmacists, who play an important part in research. I have been approached by those involved in pharmacy regulation to indicate that they also have an interest here.

I wish to speak particularly to Amendment 60, which is in my name, and to Amendments 61 and 62. On Amendment 60, I emphasise the important part played by the local R&D committees of NHS trusts, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. We now have the Health Research Authority, which is doing a really remarkable job in speeding up the process for approval of research by bringing together the different research ethics committees and the special ethical approval for research, using data where patients are no longer able to give consent. It has developed a single portal of entry and a single application, which is having an enormously helpful effect, but there remains one major hurdle in the way of those trying to carry out multicentre clinical trials: the local R&D committees of NHS trusts. Some are good and speedy while others are slow and capricious, and the whole clinical trial is determined by the slowest and most capricious of those who have to give approval.

When the Academy of Medical Sciences reviewed research regulation, it identified the local R&D committees as the most difficult and time-consuming concerned, with delays of almost a year in too many instances, so in Amendment 60 we are trying to give the HRA the responsibility of rationalising and improving the approval processes in R&D committees. If it can get the approval of all trust R&D committees to rely on and accept a single robust assessment, covering all their various concerns, it will not only relieve them of that burden but give them the confidence that the review has been properly performed. It will also speed up the process for researchers. I hope that we can include this message in the Bill at a time when I know that the HRA itself is working hard to achieve it. The amendment is simply intended to offer it the support that it needs for its efforts.

Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who unfortunately still cannot be with us, gets at the problem of ensuring that all providers of services for the NHS, including the private sector, should have the same responsibilities for research and innovation as the rest of the NHS. The HRA should have a role in ensuring that they do. It is important that their staff have opportunities to engage in research; certainly, they should be encouraged to introduce innovation into their practice.

Amendment 62 is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. We welcome the explicit mention of the responsibilities of NHS trusts in the Bill. However, there is further need to ensure that trusts not only have regard to guidance issued by the HRA but actively comply with such guidance. I would welcome further clarification of how the requirement to have regard to such guidance will be ensured and how trusts’ compliance with such guidance might be strengthened.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I was uncertain whether to speak on these amendments in the presence of two past presidents of medical royal colleges, the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Patel. I feel unable to support Amendment 58B because the medical royal colleges are not regulatory bodies. They are essentially educational bodies. They play a role in producing and monitoring the standards of qualifying examinations for those seeking to be specialists, but they are essentially educational and do not have a regulatory role, although, of course, they play an important part in advising on a whole range of health service issues.

However, I believe it is right that Amendment 58C should be inserted, because the bodies mentioned are regulatory authorities. The General Medical Council, for instance, can play a crucial and important role in disciplining doctors who have been found guilty of fraud and misconduct in medical research. This is very relevant to the qualities and responsibilities of the HRA, and for that reason I believe it right for this amendment to be included in the Bill.

[Baroness Emerton]

I rise to speak to Amendment 59 which includes the Chief Nursing Officer in the list of those participating in the authority. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his words on this point. I have raised the issue of the importance of evidence-based practice and the need for us to be able to develop research within the nursing profession where, to date, it has not been at the forefront of progress. Having the Chief Nursing Officer taking part in the work of the research authority, although perhaps not in its detailed content, will assist in raising the profile of the importance of research. It may well be delegated from the CCGs to the health trusts, where we may see professors of research, which will then encourage research throughout. The nursing profession is the largest single workforce within the NHS. It is important that we promote the idea and development of research by having the Chief Nursing Officer in the list.

While on this subject, it is encouraging to see the list in the Bill. When the Health Bill was introduced, health education was not included and the membership of Health Education England was not clearly set out. Although it does not relate to research, I would like to mention the importance of having an executive nurse on the health education board, because there is an executive doctor, but not an executive nurse. Perhaps I can return to this when we come to Report.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendments 58C and 59. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, rightly referred to including nursing in the Bill.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, said, the practice of nursing these days is underpinned by research. Of necessity, nurses are involved in research, and it must be right to include the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Chief Nursing Officer in the Bill.

In debates on the Bill, we have heard a number of times that it is all too easy to exclude nurses. Whatever body they should be represented on, they so often are not there. I can go back, probably the better part of 40 years, maybe more, to when I once had the temerity to ask my matron to raise something at the hospital management committee. She said to me, “I’m sorry, nurse, I can’t, because I only attend by invitation of the group secretary”.

There have probably been about 20 reorganisations—I forget how many—since those days. However, all too often the situation has not changed and nurses remain excluded. The reason for excluding them, very often, is that the legislation does not cover it and therefore it is not necessary for nurses to be included. We now have the opportunity. Let us have nursing in the Bill. If we are going to have lists, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, I want to see nurses in it. I hope that the Committee will support that.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and am very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, said. It seems that, over the years, nursing has been the poor relation when it comes to promoting the medical profession. Both are so important, and they have to work together. If the Francis report tells us anything, it is that we need to ensure that both are of a very high quality.

I asked the Royal College of Nursing today to give me some examples of research that nurses are doing. I will not try the patience of the Committee by going through them, but it gave me three extremely good examples which undoubtedly improve the quality of patients’ experiences and recovery rates. This work is going on, but it really should be of a higher profile. It should be applauded and used. I appreciate very much what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about lists, which are a trap that I remember falling into on occasions when I was a Minister. I suspect that the noble Earl will tell us that we want to have it both ways: sometimes we want things in regulations because that is more flexible and at other times we want them in the Bill. This is something of a dilemma, but if the medical profession is in the Bill, nursing certainly should be as well.

I also strongly support Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. I was very interested to read about the delays that occur through not getting together all the different organisations that are going to be involved in a single trial. According to Kidney Research UK, the time taken in one trail to receive R&D permission varied from around five weeks to 29 weeks. A study of stroke survivors took between one week and 35 weeks to receive permission from the NHS trusts involved. The time taken between submission of site-specific information and NHS approval ranged from five weeks to 50 weeks for a multi-centre trial comparing two types of emergency intervention for ruptured aortic aneurysm. This is totally unacceptable. Those who are promoting the research, and are the leaders in it, must get so frustrated when the bureaucracy will not allow them to go ahead. We need good research. It makes a huge improvement to patients’ lives, especially, of course, when it is translated to the patient in the bed, as it were. Anything that we can do to speed this up and to put pressure on to ensure that the time lags are not as long as this would be very much welcomed.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 59, 60, 61 and 62, to which I have put my name. It was very clever of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to have an amendment about the medical royal colleges lead to a discussion on value-based pricing and the cancer drugs fund. I am tempted to have that debate because it may be much more interesting; it is an issue that we should debate at some stage. In responding to the previous amendment, the noble Earl highlighted the Government’s strong backing for life sciences. When we talk about value-based pricing, we must consider how we could reimburse cell-based therapy, which is not drug therapy, at what stage in the development of cell-based therapy reimbursement should kick in and what value would be put on different stages. That would be a good debate to have.

Moving on from that, I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on the inclusion of the Chief Nursing Officer. I also support her in asking why Health Education England does not have a nurse education director. If the nursing workforce is the largest health workforce in the NHS and does not have a nurse education directive, something is missing and needs to be replaced.

17:00

I absolutely support Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. I remember when I was responsible for the research ethics committee. When I took over I was told that there were 152 research ethics committees in England alone, when France, with the same population, had only 35. I asked why, and quickly found out about the problems referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and why the delays occurred. Now that we are to have a Health Research Authority, I cannot see why it cannot clear, ethically and every other way, a clinical trial as part of a multi-centred clinical trial. The local NHS trust will have only to make sure that its board and its patient liaison committee are aware that such a trial is taking place. Its ethics committee will not have to go through it, which will reduce the time considerably and might encourage more clinical trials—which we currently have lost—to take place in the United Kingdom.

I turn to Amendments 61 and 62, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough. He is now at home and recovering. He has been asked to rest for about a month or so, if his family can manage to keep him down, but he is well and his treatment is going well. His son sent me an e-mail about it; our good wishes are doing the trick. Amendment 61 merely says that those who deliver patient care for NHS patients should be treated in the same way as NHS trusts. That cannot be wrong. Surely there is an omission. Amendment 62, to which the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, referred, replaces “have regard to” in the Bill with “comply with”. What does “have regard to” mean? Surely those bodies must have to comply with directions given by the HRA. I hope the noble Earl will respond to that.

[Baroness Jolly]

I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 59, 61 and 62. We have had this debate about lists—sometimes they are good, and sometimes not. There is no way of knowing when they are good and when they are not. However, I welcome the additions suggested in the amendments, in particular the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on the Chief Nursing Officer. That is absolutely critical. Everybody knows about doctors, but the amendment sends out the key message that nurses play a role in collecting an evidence base to improve care for patients. That is very important. I have seen some very nice research done by nurses, who work in the community, about care. That really makes a difference and, of course, it is then shared among their colleagues.

I will also speak briefly to Amendments 61 and 62, in the name of my noble friend Lord Willis. These are about the guidance that the HRA produces and who should pay heed to it. Here we have a mini-list, but the not-for-profit and private sectors were missing from it. Anybody who does work for the NHS should be included. The wording should be strengthened from “have regard” to “comply with”. It currently makes no sense whatever. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm that.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, I am sorry to rise again, but I have a very brief question. In a clause dealing with promoting regulatory practice, why is the Secretary of State No. 1?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, a great many points have been raised in this debate, so I may take a little time to respond. I hope that the Committee will bear with me. Amendments 58B to 62 seek to give the Health Research Authority a stronger role in streamlining the management of research, particularly in the NHS. I am the first to recognise that delays in obtaining research approvals in the NHS remain a problem for many researchers and that there is an expectation that the Health Research Authority will help to improve this situation through its relationship with the NHS.

I also appreciate that noble Lords, particularly in relation to Amendments 61 and 62, seek reassurance that all providers of NHS services will be required to pay attention to the guidance that the authority is required to produce under Clause 98(6). This issue was highlighted by both the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Wellcome Trust during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The clauses in the Care Bill would give the Health Research Authority a unique, free-standing duty to promote the co-ordination and standardisation of practice in the UK relating to the regulation of health and social care research. At this point I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that the duty of co-ordination and standardisation necessarily involves co-ordinating and standardising the practice of NHS trust research and development committees.

In addition, the Health Research Authority will have a reciprocal duty to co-operate with other regulatory bodies or individuals that have statutory functions in the regulation of health and social care research. Statutory functions are an important point. I take this opportunity to address the three amendments listed here that are concerned with this duty. In doing so, it is important to explain why Clause 98(1) would place a duty of co-operation on the HRA and in particular the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health. The reason is that the Chief Medical Officer holds functions relating to research under the Abortion Regulations 1991. These require notice to be given to the Chief Medical Officer of any abortion and any information relevant to it.

The disclosure of such information is restricted, except in specific circumstances, which include disclosure for the purposes of scientific research. The Chief Medical Officer is responsible for determining whether disclosure can be made. It is because of the Chief Medical Officer’s functions in approving the disclosure of information about abortions for the purposes of scientific research that the authority, the Chief Medical Officer and the bodies and individuals listed must co-operate with one another with a view to standardising and co-ordinating practice relating to the regulation of health and social care research. Similarly, other bodies and individuals listed have functions relating to the regulation of health or social care research. So it links in those statutory functions.

I listened with great care and a great deal of understanding to the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and others on their wish to expand the duty of co-operation to include the Chief Nursing Officer. The Chief Nursing Officer is an NHS England role, while the Department of Health has a director of nursing. Neither of these posts has any statutory functions relating to the regulation of health or social care research. That is the key point. For this reason, Clause 98(1) does not create a duty of co-operation on the HRA either with the Chief Nursing Officer of NHS England or with the Department of Health’s director of nursing and the bodies and individuals listed in Clause 98(1). I hope that this explanation is helpful.

On Amendments 58B and 58C, the medical royal colleges, the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council do not have such statutory functions in this context either. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, made an important and powerful point about the GMC. However, the Health Research Authority would have powers, under paragraph 13 of Schedule 7, to work with the GMC and the other medical regulators to help and advise them in their work. That, I hope, will reassure the noble Lord that that aspect of the HRA’s work has not been forgotten about.

Amendment 60A would require the Health Research Authority to assess the impact of proposed changes to the system for setting pharmaceutical prices on health and social care research. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing this extremely interesting topic to our debates. I believe that this function is best undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence rather than making it part of the authority’s role in promoting the co-ordination and standardisation of regulatory practice. As he will know, we have already announced that NICE will play a central role in the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of new medicines in the context of the framework for value-based pricing, once that is announced.

The noble Lord made a point about value-based pricing, in that it is important for the Government—I agree with him—to take account of the need to attract investment into this country. As set out in our plan for growth and our Strategy for UK Life Sciences, the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that the UK continues to offer an environment that supports and encourages investment and innovation by the life sciences sector, and where the NHS is a world leader in clinical trials. However, there are some legitimate points of debate here about the impact of medicine prices on companies’ decisions on where to locate investments or conduct research. As highlighted in the 2007 NERA study, Key Factors in Attracting Internationally Mobile Investments by the Research-Based Pharmaceutical Industry, this is a global market. Companies locate where they can find the best science base at reasonable cost, taking into account other factors such as taxation, flexible labour markets and economic stability. It is not self-evident that the pricing of medicines drives decisions of this kind. It is an interesting debate to have, but perhaps it is one for another occasion.

The noble Lord also asked about the cancer drugs fund. It is very heartening that more than 30,000 patients in England have now benefited from that fund, which in total amounts to £650 million over three and a half years. We are committed to building on that success. In the context of developing new pricing arrangements for branded medicines, I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that we are exploring ways in which new patients can benefit from innovative cancer drugs at a cost that represents value to the NHS. NHS England is very much included in that discussion, and we well appreciate how important it is for patients.

To meet the duty of co-operation in this whole area, the Health Research Authority will be required to take the lead in actively identifying ways in which to remove duplication, streamlining the regulation of health and social care research and seeking to ensure that regulation is proportionate. At this point, I reassure noble Lords that the authority must facilitate all types of high-quality ethical research, including research that is multidisciplinary in nature and research by multiprofessionals. In keeping under review matters relating to the regulation of health or social care research, the authority may provide advice to the Secretary of State and must do so on request. Such advice could include recommendations to improve the regulatory landscape for research.

The existing Health Research Authority, the Special Health Authority, has already begun an ambitious programme of work to speed up the research journey in the UK, including the creation of a unified approval process and consistent, proportionate standards for compliance and inspection. I hope that will be welcome news to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in particular. In doing so, it is working closely with other bodies, including representation from the NHS, to identify and implement effective solutions to make it faster and easier to initiate research.

17:15

Clause 98(6) requires the HRA to publish guidance setting out principles of good practice in the management and conduct of health and social care research, and any statutory requirements that people conducting such research are subject to. This guidance would replace current guidance issued by my department, the research governance framework.

Amendments 61, 61A and 62 are concerned with the bodies that this guidance will apply to and how it will relate to them. This guidance will be applicable to anyone managing or conducting health or social care research. The HRA will be the authoritative voice that brings together and disseminates what is good practice. Having heard that the main residual barrier to research in the health service is at the level of the trust, as I believe many noble Lords are well aware, we have sought to strengthen the status of the HRA’s guidance by requiring NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts to have regard to it.

My noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, questioned the strength of that provision. The duty to have regard to the guidance shows that the guidance must be given great weight; it is not mere advice that its addressees are free to follow or not as they choose. It means instead that, in this case, NHS trusts, NHS foundation trusts and local authorities that provide or arrange care will be under a duty to consider with great care the guidance published by the HRA and will be expected to follow it unless they have very clear and cogent reasons for not doing so. The legal meaning of “have regard to” has been interpreted in the courts to mean that such guidance must be followed by those to whom it is addressed unless there are clear and cogent reasons for them not doing so. In fact, providers, including private providers of NHS services, can be required to have regard to the guidance by placing conditions within their operating frameworks and contracts, for example. In the final analysis, this matter could also be subject to judicial review.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Turnberg and Lord Patel, spoke about multicentre research and the HRA’s role in that context. The Health Research Authority special health authority already has a programme of work to enable the implementation of a unified approval process, as I have mentioned. This programme includes a feasibility study with a number of pilots to test the effect of rationalising and combining elements of NHS study-wide review with elements of the research ethics committee review into a single HRA assessment. The findings are expected to identify and show how to realise potential to improve both study set-up times and the quality and consistency of review. We expect this work to continue.

The guidance is also extended, as I have mentioned, to local authorities. Given that the HRA’s remit will now also extend to social care research, the statutory duty to have regard to the authority’s guidance means that these bodies must consider the guidance with great care. It will be expected that they will follow such guidance, as I have explained. We are not seeking to establish the HRA as an inspectorate with enforcement powers. Such powers would be required if a statutory duty to follow guidance were to be imposed on private providers, because there would have to be an express enforcement mechanism, such as powers to apply a sanction, if these providers failed to have regard to the guidance.

The existing special health authority is demonstrating, I believe, another way of working. A great deal can be achieved by working and co-operating with others. It is collaborating with its stakeholder community, including the NHS, charities and the private sector. For instance, securing buy-in through early engagement was key to the successful adoption of the integrated research application system by all research approval bodies across the whole of the UK. We want the HRA to continue to put that spirit of co-operation into practice and to get support for the guidance that it will be required to produce.

Giving the HRA powers to take enforcement action would be counterproductive if it made it more difficult for the authority to take a collaborative approach to carrying out its work and fostering informed support among the range of stakeholders. However, a number of mechanisms may be used as a means to secure compliance with the research governance framework. I have already mentioned contracts. Funding for research may be conditional on ensuring compliance with the framework. Compliance with the current guidance has also been achieved through the system of care regulation, so there are various ways in which to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and no doubt my noble friend Lady Jolly, wants to achieve.

The Care Quality Commission’s guidance about compliance lists applicable publications, including the research governance framework. The guidance about compliance states that providers should reflect the key expectations of listed publications for their service as they relate to the essential standards of safety and quality. There is no reason why these mechanisms could not continue to be used to achieve compliance by providers commissioned to deliver services for the NHS or local authorities.

I hope that I have provided reassurances on the issues raised by this group of amendments. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Emerton]

I return to Amendment 59 and thank the Minister for explaining that there is no statutory requirement in this regard relating to the Chief Nursing Officer or the director of nursing. In the light of the comments that have been made about research and nursing this afternoon, will the Minister look at how we can take forward nursing research? If the structure is wrong for NHS England and the director of nursing for public health, where can we fit in a statutory requirement for research to be included? We cannot go on without having a means of recognising the importance of evidence-based practice based on research.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I heard very clearly a strong message from noble Lords on that point. Indeed, I recognised the noble Baroness’s strength of feeling in our earlier debates on Health Education England. Having noted that strength of feeling, I would like to engage with noble Lords between now and Report to see what avenues we can pursue in this area. I cannot make a specific commitment now, but I am very happy to talk further about these issues.

[Lord Turnberg]

I bring the noble Earl back to Amendment 60 on the research and development committees of NHS trusts. He made some very reassuring comments about the work that is going on in the HRA to try to unify this area. One of the difficulties at the moment is that the foundation trusts are a law unto themselves to a large extent and jealously guard their independence. I wonder whether we need to strengthen the HRA’s arm by including something about this area in the Bill.

[Earl Howe]

I understand the issue that the noble Lord has raised. There are a number of ways of exercising leverage on foundation trusts, if I can put it in that rather impolite way. One of them relates to the funding from the National Institute for Health Research. The noble Lord may well be aware that as from 1 April that funding is conditional on the 70-day timeline for the recruitment of the first patient into a trial. If that timeline is not met, the funding does not follow. I can tell the noble Lord that that has concentrated minds rather effectively across the health service, including in foundation trusts, towards achieving a much more efficient and effective decision-making process.

I am aware that I did not answer a question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about rationalising the number of research ethics committees, which may well bear upon this issue in another sense. The HRA and its predecessor have made good progress in reducing the timelines for ethical approval, something that stakeholders have recognised. The current special health authority feasibility study is looking at how to address other delays whereby trust decisions can be made based on their capacity and capability to take part in research. This is ongoing work. I come back to my point about the core function of the HRA, which is, above anything else, to protect the interests of patients and the public. It might not be advisable to load on to it too many other roles that could detract from that core function.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that comprehensive response. I cannot help thinking that in order to protect the patient and the public there must be recognition that high-quality research is one of the best ways to enhance the quality of patient care. I remain concerned that bodies in the NHS still do not understand the importance of getting their act together in research approval. That does not mean that they do not have to go through a thorough process, because there clearly has to be a rigorous process to protect the public. I would like to see stronger language in the Bill that essentially allows the HRA to intervene if undue delays take place. I hope that we can return to that on Report.

I am grateful for the noble Earl’s comments on value-based pricing. All I would say to him is that I have been disappointed that there has been a great lack of public debate on this matter. I know that the department is shortly to publish further work. It is essential that these ideas are tested, and I am concerned that this is going to be simply a matter of negotiation between his department and the industry without there being a wider discussion of the implications. I appeal to the noble Earl for some opportunity on that.

Finally, the Minister has made it clear that the list in the clause represents bodies concerned with regulation, and that is now well understood. I come back to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton: is there not a case for another clause stating that there is a general duty of co-operation? There is an argument that while, of course, you have your statutory regulators which need to co-ordinate their efforts, you also want a lot of organisations and people to be involved, including the Chief Nursing Officer and the Director of Nursing at the department. I put that forward as a suggestion and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58B withdrawn.

Amendments 58C to 63 not moved.

Clause 98 agreed.

Clauses 99 and 100 agreed.

Schedule 8 agreed.

Clauses 101 to 104 agreed.

17:30

Amendment 64

Moved by

[Lord Patel]

64: After Clause 104, insert the following new Clause—
“Human Tissue and Embryo Authority
(1) There shall be a body corporate called the Human Tissue and Embryo Authority.
(2) The Authority shall consist of—
(a) a chairman and deputy chairman, and(b) such number of other members as the Secretary of State appoints.(3) The Authority shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts and shall prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts.
(4) The annual statement of accounts shall comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, as to the information to be contained in the statement, the way in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(5) Not later than five months after the end of an accounting year, the Authority shall send a copy of the statement of accounts for that year to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(6) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on every statement of accounts received by him under subsection (5) and shall lay a copy of the statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.
(8) In this section “accounting year” means the period beginning with the day when the Authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March; and Schedule 1 to this Act (which deals with the membership of the Authority, etc) shall have effect.
(9) The Authority shall prepare—
(a) a report for the period beginning with the 1st August preceding the day when the Authority is established (or if that date is a 1st August, beginning with that date) and ending with the next 31st March, and(b) a report for each succeeding period of 12 months ending with 31st March.(10) The Authority shall send each report to the Secretary of State as soon as practicable after the end of the period for which it is prepared.
(11) A report prepared under subsection (9) for any period shall deal with the activities of the Authority in the period and the activities the Authority proposes to undertake in the succeeding period of twelve months.
(12) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every report received by him under subsection (10).
(13) The following provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 are repealed—
(a) sections 5 to 10, and(b) section 11(1)(a) and (aa).(14) Save for the provision in subsection (13), references in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to “the Authority” shall be taken to be references to the Human Tissue and Embryo Authority.
(15) The Care Quality Commission may grant the following licences—
(a) licences under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 authorising activities in the course of providing treatment services,(b) licences under paragraph 1A of that Schedule authorising activities in the course of providing non-medical fertility services.(16) Sections 12, 13 and 13A of, and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 have effect in the case of all licences granted under subsection (15) as they would do for licences granted under that Act.
(17) Section 13 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 is repealed.
(18) Save for the provision in subsection (17), references in the Human Tissue Act 2004 to “the Authority” shall be taken to be references to the Human Tissue and Embryo Authority.
(19) In Schedule 5 (power to modify or transfer functions) to the Public Bodies Act 2011 omit—
(a) the entry for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and(b) the entry for the Human Tissue Authority.”

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, with some trepidation. It is not because I do not strongly support his amendment, but because I hope that I can do justice to it with the kind of passion that he would have demonstrated when presenting the argument if he had been here. However, I have no doubt that while resting in his bed, he has probably turned on BBC Parliament and is watching to see that I do the task adequately.

I think the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has demonstrated such passion is because he recognises that there is a need to reduce bureaucracy. Too many regulatory bodies mean more bureaucracy. To give an example, we have the second-highest number of competent authorities in the EU. Joint highest are Poland, Romania and Italy. However, on top of that, we have more regulatory authorities—over a dozen—than any other EU country. I see noble Lords look rather surprised, but I believe that to be true.

One issue is reducing unnecessary regulatory bodies. Another issue is reducing bureaucracy. The third issue is reducing duplication. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s key role is to improve clinical services related to patients with fertility problems. The key reason that the authority was set up, following the birth of Louise Brown, was to reduce public anxiety about in vitro fertilisation. No such public anxiety now exists related to in vitro fertilisation.

Further functions were added to that authority in terms of embryo research. There may still be a need for that, but a reducing one. To give an example, we have enough clinical grade embryonic stem cell lines to last us a century and supply the world. I think the derivation of more embryonic stem cell lines is probably unlikely, unless there is some kind of major breakthrough. Research on embryos and embryonic stem cell lines is also now slightly superseded by induced pluripotent cells, dendritic cells and adult cells. However, I agree that there might still be a need for some embryo research and that function needs to remain.

The duplication is likely because the CQC will have a licensing role for those trusts that provide clinical services in infertility. Of course, I accept that the majority of infertility services relating to in vitro fertilisation—and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who is listening to me carefully, will correct me wherever I go wrong—are in the independent sector. Unless that service is provided for an NHS patient, the CQC does not have a role, and there must be a way of overcoming that. If we do not overcome that, the services provided within the NHS will run the risk of duplication of effort by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the CQC.

There is also a fourth argument, and that is the reduction of cost. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, wrote a letter to the Times asking why all these regulatory authorities have a whole army of communication officers. What do they communicate? Why do they need so many? The noble Lord referred to the cost, and there are also other back office costs that are increased unless we reduce the number of regulatory authorities. His proposal is that there should be a reduction and that a body called the Human Tissue and Embryo Authority should be established rather than the HTA and the HFEA. The noble Lord lists where the changes would be required in their functions and in subsection (15) sets out the role of the Care Quality Commission to streamline all these efforts and reduce costs.

It is interesting that initially, in an attempt to reduce the number of quangos, the Government in the Health and Social Care Act decided that the HFEA and the HTA, with other quangos, would be abolished. Now, with the high profile of patient safety, we wonder whether some of the others should have been abolished. If I remember correctly, we debated the HFEA and the HTA during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill and, in fact, we had a Division on it.

However, the Government decided to go to consultation, and I understand that Justin McCracken has been commissioned to review the operating functions of the HFEA and the HTA to see how they might deliver greater efficiencies. I think that this amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, would deliver those efficiencies, and I should be interested to know whether the Minister agrees that this would be a better way forward in dealing with the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I beg to move.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I rise because I gave an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that I would speak on this amendment as I have form, as they say, in this area.

Ten or so years ago, when one person accused me of being rather like Vlad the Impaler and we were slaughtering, as well as merging, a number of quangos, two of the candidates for merger were the Human Tissue Authority and the HFEA. Much of the argument for doing that was very similar to the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has advanced, although I did not know as much then as I know now about the number of bodies that we had compared with other countries regulating in this area. However, I assure the Committee that we had a lot more in 2003-04. Therefore, there is a case for this merger, and it has been made.

By backing away from this merger in the face of the arguments that were put forward, I ceased to be Vlad the Impaler and became Warner the Wimp. To their credit, this Government decided to have another go, but they seemed to get themselves in roughly the same position as Warner the Wimp and withdrew. Really, they withdrew because at the end of the day the savings were—certainly so far as I was concerned—not significant compared with some of the other savings that could be made. However, we have grown to appreciate more the importance of health research and the role of the life sciences in our economy, and I think that there is still a case for going the extra mile, when you can, to streamline the regulatory system in this area.

I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on this amendment, even if they do not want to accept it in its present form. I hope that some of us speaking out on this in the review will give the Government some courage to be a bit braver than they were, and than I was, in the past. Therefore, I support the spirit and the ideas behind this amendment.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, I fear that I have to support the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on this amendment, even though I do not think it goes far enough. In my view, the case for having a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority at all is now quite dubious. It is 20 years or more since this treatment was established. There is no longer public anxiety about it, as there was in 1990, when the Act was introduced. It is now a regular treatment. As long as this treatment is licensed in this way, it will look like a maverick treatment to people—something extra, outside the health service.

One issue is that, sadly, these treatments are affordable only in private practice. Of course, the health service has done a good deal towards trying to supply them, but as the noble Earl knows, there are many examples where people pay very large sums in the private sector for these treatments and they are not and cannot be regulated. If one was really going to be serious about regulating in vitro fertilisation, the first thing that would be needed to prevent couples being exploited would be to find a way to reduce the massive burden of cost, which is out of proportion to the actual expense of the treatment. That is really something that needs to be looked at.

Sadly, the HFEA has not performed particularly well in the areas of research. I would like to recount briefly as an example the last licensed inspection of my own laboratory where we conduct experiments on embryos where there is no possibility of those embryos being transferred to a human patient. They are of course effectively dying in culture. It is extraordinary how stringent the last inspection was with regard to the quality of our laboratory. Why our laboratory should be seen to be more up to a particular standard than others doing cell culture work was beyond my comprehension given the fact that these cells, under no circumstances, could be used for human treatment: they were simply to investigate a phenomenon.

I could not help wondering whether in fact that particular inspection committee was being vituperative, because it had heard me speak against the HFEA at a previous debate in the House of Lords. I have no idea about that. But certainly, given that the previous year we had had a gold standard approval for our methods, I have to say that the inspection process is a patchy one. The problem really is that, currently, the HFEA licenses treatments that are practically research procedures that have not been validated and which are being charged to patients.

There are many examples of anomalies that are worrying. The noble Earl may have seen this week a full-page advertisement for egg sharing at a London private clinic. Incidentally, that clinic has been run by a member of the HFEA. One cannot help but feel that this is a shocking conflict of interest given that egg sharing is somewhat difficult to justify in certain circumstances as poor women may be persuaded to give their eggs under situations that are perhaps not ideal for them. They may in fact end up with someone else getting treatment at their mental expense—not their physical expense because they get a free treatment—and then 20 years later finding a child they do not even know about trying to trace them because of the information shown on our birth certificates. That anomaly has never been worked out.

I am really very surprised, too, that no serious attempt has been made to bar clinics that seek to send patients overseas for treatments that are not allowed in this country. There are many examples where patients are sent for various treatments where they might receive more than two embryos at a treatment, which would be against the regulations in this country, but they can come back and give birth to their triplets on the National Health Service. Clearly, that is an anomaly.

While I have absolutely no axe to grind about good private practice, there is no question that sometimes there are issues where clinics advertise wares that are unjustified. That happened two weeks ago when a clinic announced that it now had a treatment that could improve the success rate threefold. Of course, if I as a medical practitioner said that to the press, I could be held in front of the General Medical Council for advertising. But a clinic can get away with that kind of approach if it is not actually being mentioned by a medical practitioner.

The real reason for wanting to see at least some slimming down—we may need to come back to this at the Report stage to see exactly what clauses would be eliminated; it is difficult to see the whole of this rather large amendment now—is that at some stage in the near future we should revisit the Act of Parliament to see what would be best for purpose. In the mean time, however, there is a great deal of force in agreeing to slim down the number of regulatory authorities. As everyone across the House knows, regenerative medicine is one of the great opportunities for British medicine. At the moment, one may have to apply to up to 10 different regulatory authorities to get full licensing for the sorts of procedures one might want to follow for research, particularly where animal research may have to be done in parallel. That seems to be a very inhibitory process and there is evidence that it is preventing many bright people going into this research. They need to launch their PhD projects in other ways as quickly as possible.

While the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is not perfect, slimming it down like this is a good start and an opportunity. I am also delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who would have moved this amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is on the mend. That is good news about an outstanding parliamentarian. If the amendment were to be pressed, I would wish to vote for it.

17:46

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, it pains me to oppose this amendment because the noble Lords, Lord Willis, Lord Patel and Lord Winston, are people for whom I have the highest possible regard. Each in their own way has made outstanding contributions to issues relating to medicine and science in your Lordships’ House. Almost invariably, we have found ourselves singing the same tune, if perhaps sometimes in slightly different keys. Having said that, however, I am opposed to the amendment because I thought that this battle had been won two years ago. Admittedly, when this Government came into office, they embarked on what they called the “bonfire of the quangos”. A huge number of quangos were abolished, but after careful consideration and an attempt to merge these two bodies, the decision was made that they should continue to function independently.

Let me give my reasons for taking this view. When I came to this House in 1989, my baptism of fire was the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that later became an Act. It was based upon the Warnock report. The function of the Bill was to create a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that would license bodies and scientists working on research into the human embryo up to 14 days after fertilisation with, first, the objective of improving the treatment of infertility and, secondly, of helping in the prevention of inherited diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, and others were among those who were eventually extraordinarily successful in carrying out the procedure known as pre-implantation diagnosis in order to detect embryos which were likely to cause serious human diseases. That was a very important development.

Subsequently, several other amendments were introduced—and I was deeply involved in those debates in your Lordships’ House—so that the licence could allow people to embark on research with these objectives and to address the important and crucial issue of carrying out research into the treatment of human disease. That in turn led to the development of the mechanism for creating stem cells for the treatment of human disease. There has been a series of progressive amendments that have been fully debated in your Lordships’ House. Now we are faced with the very exciting prospect, following an extensive period of consultation, whereby embryos can be created by pronuclear transfer derived from women who are likely to pass on devastating mitochondrial genetic mutations to all of their children of both sexes. The consultation is now complete and we can look with hope towards the prospect of the regulations to allow those embryos to be implanted being introduced into your Lordships’ House. This is a crucial development. I agree entirely with certain things that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has said—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has not functioned as effectively as it might. However, his criticisms were largely concerned not with the potential merger but with the actual performance of the body as an authority.

I was also heavily involved in the debates in your Lordships’ House on the formation of the Human Tissue Authority. This body arose as a result of the so-called Alder Hey scandal where a huge number of human brains and other organs were kept in the hospital without the permission of the families. Of course, it was not recognised in many debates at the time that certain members of the medical profession held a widespread, ill-founded belief that once permission was given by a family for a post mortem examination it was proper to retain organs. That belief was partly based on the fact that to establish a diagnosis after a post mortem examination it is essential that certain organs are fixed in formalin before they can be studied and before the diagnosis can be confirmed. This is crucial. As a result of the so-called Alder Hey scandal the Human Tissue Authority was established. It has the authority to license anatomy departments to handle human organs and pathology departments to study human samples, both full organs and biopsy specimens. It has the authority to license organs being used for transplantation purposes and many similar functions. These departments in universities and hospitals are licensed by the HTA.

The function of these two bodies is entirely different and I do not believe that it is sensible—even in the attempt to create another quango which brings together two quangos—to merge them. The new body would undoubtedly have to create two sub-committees, one to look at human fertilisation and embryology and another to look at the issues of human tissue and the retention of it. I therefore do not support this amendment.

[Lord Patel]

I disagree with my noble, respected and even revered friend Lord Walton of Detchant. He fundamentally fails to understand this amendment. It does not remove the research functions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I have spoken strongly in the past about embryo research, including cell nuclear transfer and mitochondrial research. It is the authority that has held up for so long the progress in mitochondrial research. We should have been doing something about it at least 18 months ago. This amendment does not remove that function, nor does it remove the functions of the Human Tissue Authority, but by amalgamating these functions we can better promote research. The authority and functions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—and now we are entering into a science debate, which is not the purpose of the Bill—stop once it gives a licence to do specific research on an embryo. Once the embryonic stem cells are created it has no authority over how those cells are used. Once the cells are used to create a tissue for research it does not have any authority, but the Human Tissue Authority may do. By amalgamating the two you are co-ordinating this research function and maybe improving it. I hope that my noble and revered friend accepts that explanation.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, having listened to these distinguished doctors taking different points of view on this subject, I fear that I might lower the tone of the debate. However, I think that my money is with the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. There is a world of difference morally between research carried out on tissue taken from a dead body and research taking place on living tissue which has the potential to be a human being in one way or another. People will argue about when life begins and those arguments can be very sensitive and very divisive. That is why there is separate legislation on research and on therapeutic techniques involving eggs fertilised outside the womb. Whether one likes it or not, if you put together the Human Tissue Authority and the HFEA you will create an impression that you are just dealing with dead matter or whatever, just a lump of cells. That is the impression that will certainly be given psychologically, even if in practice one could construct the unified authority in a way that had the two legs.

It may well be that one needs to revisit this area. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, speaks with such authority that I am very reluctant to take a different view. However, he seemed almost to be arguing for greater regulation rather than no regulation. I would be very reluctant to see a free market in implanting more than two embryos into women in this country, for example. The 14-day rule, which may be an irritant to researchers, was fought over and discussed at great length. To those of us who have quite a few reservations in this area, that is at least a line in the sand. I think that this area needs to be considered on its own merits and, notwithstanding the arguments quite rightly put by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Walton.

[Lord Patel]

Stem cells are not dead cells: they are immortal cell lines, such as the HeLa cells on which scientists have been doing research for decades. These cells were taken in 1951 from a woman called Henrietta Lacks—that is why they are called HeLa cells—and they are still alive. Most cancer research is done, and many drugs produced, using HeLa cells. They are immortal, living cells.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, as St Paul once said, I speak as a fool. However, is there not a difference between stem cells that are alive in that sense and a fertilised egg that is alive in a different sense?

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

I intended to say, but did not, that the two different bodies’ areas of authority collide when you deal with stem cells, because they are derived from embryo research but then become cells that are used for tissue research and transplantation and so on. That is where they collide. That does not necessarily mean that it is crucial to merge the two authorities.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, at the risk of lowering the tone even further, perhaps I may just take us back and slightly challenge the noble Lord, Lord Walton, which I do not normally do. I also took the Human Tissue Act through this House. I am well seized of the circumstances that we faced then. At the time, I was bombarded by the research community with their concerns about setting up that body and whether it would be another obstacle to research. They recognised that this country had to do something in legislation in terms of the EU directive on human tissue. We were caught between a rock and a hard place. We had to do something about the EU directive; we had all the concerns about what had happened in Liverpool; but we were also conscious that we needed to ensure that we did not put another set of barriers in the way of medical research.

When we were considering the merger of the Human Tissue Authority and the HFEA we were very strongly of the view—which is very similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has said—that there was not a great deal of difference between the nature, if I may put it that way, of the matter being used for research under the aegis of those two regulatory bodies. In some cases, human tissues were themselves living cells being used for research, and we did not regard that as fundamentally a different type of matter from the one that is regulated for research purposes by the HFEA. I cannot even brag of an O-level in science—“Shame on you, Warner”, says Michael Gove. But in my lay view we had a situation where the advice we got from the scientists was that having two bodies was likely to be a greater impediment. There was a case on savings grounds—back-office services etc; the kind of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned in his letter to the Times—but there was also a science argument for putting the two bodies together.

18:00

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be back on the Front Bench as part of my noble friend’s health team, even if it is for a short time. I join other noble Lords in sending best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for a speedy recovery.

As noble Lords will know, I have been interested in the future of the HFEA and HTA both as a Minister and during the course, in the early days of this Government, of the slash and burn Public Bodies Act, which both these bodies survived. The idea of merging the HFEA and HTA is not new, as my noble friend Lord Warner said, and has been rejected on more than one occasion. I am puzzled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, raising it now, especially in the middle of yet another review. What I waited to hear, particularly from noble Lords with scientific and research backgrounds, was what the public thought. The right reverend Prelate was right when he said that this is also about how people feel about these issues, not just how the great doctors and scientists think things should be done. In fact, that was how we started out with all these issues.

As my noble friend Lord Warner said, this was first raised by my Government. We proposed establishing a new arm’s-length body called RATE—the regulatory authority for tissue and embryos. According to my research, in 2007 the Government wisely decided not to proceed with that following criticism from a Joint Committee set up to scrutinise that draft Bill. The arguments advanced against RATE then were just as persuasive as they are today. Many of us have held that there is little overlap in the work of the two bodies and that the specialist expertise each provides should be maintained to ensure that regulation remains effective and public confidence is maintained. The discussion we have had so far today has not convinced me that this proposal is the best way forward at the moment. The independence of the HTA and HFEA is important for a number of reasons, not least because of the public confidence needed in both the areas they cover.

In 2010, the Government proposed as part of their bonfire of the quangos that the functions of the HFEA and the HTA should be transferred largely to the CQC. Noble Lords will remember the debate about that during the passage of the Public Bodies Act. Following an extensive public consultation, that proposal was also rejected by the Government in January this year. Once more, a clear majority of those who responded thought that the risks involved in such sensitive areas of medicine were just too great. Instead, the Government decided that an independent review of the way the HFEA and HTA carry out their functions should be undertaken by Justin McCracken. I understand that Mr McCracken’s review is complete and Ministers have yet to decide what to do. Perhaps we will have a sneak preview of that today.

Is there new evidence that there is an advantage in merging these two distinct and expert organisations? As I said, they have different roles. According to the brief I was sent, there are fewer than 10 organisations jointly regulated by both organisations. As context, around 130 organisations are regulated by the HFEA and 800 by the HTA across diverse sectors. On these Benches we are nervous that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to merge the boards of both these organisations risks losing specialist expertise held by the HTA and HFEA and the unique roles in law that their respective boards have.

During the committee scrutiny of the Bill in its draft form—as the Care and Support Bill—the committee advised against a full merger of the boards. In its call for evidence, the committee asked for views on precisely this question. As far as I know, respondents unanimously opposed the abolition of either body or the transfer of their functions. The Academy of Medical Sciences replied:

“There is a great deal of support among our community for the HFEA and the HTA; both are perceived as having developed the experience to respond in a balanced, practical way to the changing landscape that reflects the evolving risks and benefits of research. The relatively small savings to be made through disbanding the HFEA and the HTA need to be balanced against the inevitable period of disruption and uncertainty, and any potential risk of loss of expertise, efficiency, effectiveness and coherence that could hinder research and practice and result in the loss of public and professional confidence … We therefore support retaining both the HFEA and the HTA, providing they work closely with the HRA and other regulators to further streamline the regulation, inspection and governance process for patient and public benefit”.

I accept precisely the point made by my noble friend Lord Winston and others that there are unnecessary delays and that there are clearly issues to be addressed in the way that these bodies operate.

The committee concluded that Ministers should not have the power to abolish the HFEA or HTA and recommended that the relevant clause should be deleted. While its conclusions were about abolition, these same points apply to the merger of the boards: expertise would be lost, there would be huge disruption and all for relatively tiny cost savings at the moment. The work of the HTA and HFEA is of enormous scientific and ethical importance. We accept entirely that there is always room for improvement and we should never be complacent. The review led by Justin McCracken will no doubt make recommendations for further efficiencies. We would be jumping ahead of his proposals by agreeing this amendment at this time.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this has been a very instructive debate and one to which I have listened with enormous care and interest. It takes us back to a well-worn area, as noble Lords have been keen to point out. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would abolish the HFEA and HTA and replace them with a new regulatory body, the human tissue and embryo authority. It would also transfer responsibility for the regulation of infertility treatment involving embryos, sperm and eggs to the CQC.

I listened with great care, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, when he moved the amendment. As has been amply demonstrated in the course of this debate, the prospect of the merger of the HFEA and HTA, or of the transfer of their functions elsewhere and the subsequent abolition of the two bodies, is by no means a new one. It has been considered carefully and consulted on on a number of occasions over recent years, including by Members of this House.

In 2007, as we were reminded, a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, chaired by my noble friend Lord Willis, considered a proposal to replace the HFEA and HTA by the regulatory authority for tissue and embryos—RATE. The committee roundly rejected that proposal. It recognised concerns expressed by stakeholders about the risk of losing the specialist expertise that the HFEA and HTA individually hold and the small extent to which the two bodies actually cover common ground. That point was made very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, today.

The Government are as keen as anybody to minimise the number of arm’s-length bodies when we possibly can. A substantial exercise was undertaken across government when the coalition was new to do exactly that and a great number of bodies were abolished. Within that framework, last year the Department of Health undertook a public consultation on a proposal to transfer the functions of the HFEA and HTA to the Care Quality Commission and the Health Research Authority, as part of our review of the arm’s-length bodies. Across the full range of respondents, a majority of three-quarters disagreed with the proposal. The main reason cited was that the HFEA and the HTA have developed considerable expertise in their highly specialised fields. They were said to be trusted and respected by the regulated sectors. Respondents believed that this expertise and trust would be lost were a transfer of functions to take place. That point was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who I am delighted to see on the Front Bench opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, indicated that in his view it was unnecessary to have two separate organisations, but that was not the view of those who responded to the consultation.

Respondents also said that they did not believe that the CQC was well-placed at the time to take on the functions of the two bodies and they feared that those functions would be subsumed by the CQC’s other responsibilities. Another strong message from the consultation was that the small size of the two bodies and the small overall anticipated savings did not warrant the risks involved in abolishing them and transferring their functions. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, made that very point when we debated these issues during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. The Government listened to the responses and decided not to proceed with the transfer and abolition. However, we also recognised the clear message from the consultation that there is scope for the HFEA and the HTA to achieve further efficiencies in the way that they operate. That much, I hope, all noble Lords agree on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked whether there was any new evidence about the value of a merger. It was with that very question in mind that we commissioned an independent review of the two bodies by Justin McCracken, former chief executive of the Health Protection Agency, in January this year. The review included looking at the scope for shared membership and leadership of the HFEA and HTA and for their merger. The report of the review was submitted to Ministers in April and is currently under consideration, so I am afraid that I am not in a position to share any conclusions quite yet. I will give way.

[Baroness Thornton]

Will we see the white smoke before we get to Report?

[Earl Howe]

I sincerely hope and anticipate that we will, but I am afraid I do not have a particular date in my brief. If I am able to supply the noble Baroness with that information, I will be happy to do so. The noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Patel, cited the number of different regulators involved in the organisational arrangements and the regulation of regenerative medicine in the UK and pointed to the complexity of these arrangements. I understand that point of view, but we are now in a world where the regulators in this area work very closely together to provide regulatory clarity to the sector and to ensure that the system actually works. I know, for example, that the MHRA and the HTA work closely together and have carried out joint inspections.

The department, along with the UK regulators, worked together to produce a regulatory map for stem cell research and manufacture, and I think that too has been helpful. I fully understand and appreciate the interest of noble Lords in this matter and their desire to streamline regulation. We all welcome that aim. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that the Government have given this matter consideration in some depth, including through public consultations. The strong message we have consistently received from stakeholders is that the HFEA and the HTA should not be abolished or merged or their functions transferred elsewhere. Our latest consideration of this is the scope for regulatory streamlining that the McCracken review looked at, including the scope for regulators to work closely together. That consideration is currently taking place. As soon as the Government’s position on it is determined I will ensure that noble Lords are informed. I am additionally told by a most reliable source that we do not yet have a confirmed date for that announcement.

I am always loath to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Patel, but I hope he will understand that we did not reach this position without due deliberation and indeed without taking extensive soundings among the stakeholders who are most concerned in this area. I hope he will feel, if not exactly comfortable in withdrawing his amendment, at least satisfied that the matter has been fully debated.

18:15

[Lord Patel]

I thank the Minister for his comments. Of course, I feel satisfied that the matter has been fully explored. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, will take note of all the comments made. I thank all the other noble Lords who took part in the debate. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that I look forward to the day when her party brings forward an amendment again to burn the quangos, including the HTA and the HFEA. I look forward to the Minister then being on my side and arguing the point. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 64 withdrawn.

Clauses 105 and 106 agreed.

Clause 74 : Warning notice.

Amendment 64A

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

64A: Clause 74, page 62, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) “Significant improvement” is to be defined in regulations.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we now come to Part 2 of the Bill and particularly to Clauses 74 to 77, which may be described as a failure regime for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. Clause 74 makes amendments to the powers of CQC to issue warning notices to those bodies. Where it appears to CQC that the quality of healthcare services provided by a trust requires significant improvement, CQC will be able to highlight those areas in a new form of warning notice. This will state the reasons for CQC’s view, and it will require improvements in the quality of services to be delivered within a specified time. At the end of that period, CQC must review whether the requirements specified in the notice have been met.

Where CQC is not satisfied, it must decide what further action needs to be taken. In the case of a foundation trust, CQC’s review must include use of its power to require Monitor to put the trust into special administration. Clause 75 extends Monitor’s powers to be able to issue additional licence conditions on foundation trusts when CQC has issued a warning notice. At present, Monitor can make use of these powers only if there is a failure in the governance of a foundation trust.

In the event of healthcare services provided by the trust requiring significant improvement, Monitor will as a result be able to take timely action to make changes to leadership or governance with the intention of securing improvements to those services. Clause 76 will enable Monitor to make an audit to authorise the appointment of a trust special administrator in cases where it or CQC is satisfied that there is a serious failure by an NHS foundation trust to provide healthcare services of sufficient quality and that it is appropriate to make the order. At present, Monitor is able to authorise the appointment of a trust special administrator only in cases of insolvency. Monitor may make an order when it is so satisfied, but must make the order when required to do so by CQC.

Let me say at once that the Opposition support the intention of giving greater emphasis to safety and quality and enhancing CQC’s powers in this area. Of course, we are very much influenced by the report of Robert Francis on Mid Staffordshire. We also welcome the introduction of a single failure regime, focused on quality as well as financial failure. However, I suspect that I am not the only noble Lord to have been confused by the respective roles of CQC and Monitor when reading this Bill. Indeed, I was surprised that the Department of Health boldly claimed in its factsheet that the new failure regime will give regulators clear roles in tackling failure. I must say that I found it anything but clear. The factsheet says:

“The Care Quality Commission … will focus on exposing problems and requiring action while Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority … will focus on intervening if a poor-performing provider is unable to resolve the situation working with commissioners”.

To confuse matters further, CQC retains enforcement powers for social care, general practice and independent sector providers. That is going to be very confusing. I also pose the question as to whether there are not going to be significant risks associated with these changes. As Robert Francis made clear, regulatory complexity can contribute to system failings. It is important that we get this right, so there are a number of matters which I would like to put to the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

Does the Minister consider that with this level of complexity, there is a risk of slowdown in the action required to address failures? How will Monitor, CQC and the NHS Trust Development Authority work together to ensure that problems are acted upon? Will Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority be able to question CQC’s findings and recommendations? What happens if those three august bodies disagree about whether action is needed? Will Monitor and the NHSTDA be equipped to come to their own views on quality, or do they have to take the view of CQC on trust?

The noble Earl will know that the potential confusion has been examined recently by the Health Select Committee. Indeed, the Secretary of State explained to the Commons Health Committee that the change in the arrangements so that CQC in essence has to refer concerns to Monitor, which then takes enforcement action, is devoid, as he put it, of conflict of interest when an inspector identifies a fault then later feels obliged to say that there is no longer a fault, simply to avoid the enforcement action appearing ineffective. However, that does not apply to the other sectors. It does not apply to social care provision, general practice or the independent sector. I do not understand why there is deemed to be a conflict of interest in relation to NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts but not the other bodies. Nor does it apply to other sector regulators, such as the Health and Safety Executive or the Civil Aviation Authority. There are plenty of examples of regulators that monitor and also take the enforcement action.

I also do not understand why, when it comes to healthcare, the NHS has a different regulatory regime from that of the private sector. Surely, there ought to be consistency in approach. The noble Earl will know that we have had the fair playing field work undertaken by Monitor, as a result of discussions on the previous Bill. It does not seem that there is a fair playing field when it comes to regulatory machinery in relation to, say, the independent sector and to the NHS, even though they are both providing services under NHS contracts. I very much welcome Amendments 65, 66 and 67, tabled by my noble friend Lord Warner, and I would add to them my Amendment 66ZA, which would ensure that the NHS is dealt with equivalently.

On the NHSTDA and the NHS trusts, there is a puzzle regarding what appears from the architecture. I think it is generally accepted that those trusts which have not yet reached foundation trust status are generally considered to be the weaker organisations, given that NHS foundation trusts were introduced quite a number of years ago now. What is puzzling is that the weaker organisations seem to come under a weaker regulatory system. I will be interested to hear my noble friend Lord Warner’s remarks concerning his amendments, but it appears to be a puzzle and an inconsistent approach.

This also takes us back to the recommendations of Robert Francis concerning the merger of regulatory functions, which he suggested in his report that the Government should consider. On the fact that the Government have got themselves into such a tangle on the respective roles of CQC and Monitor, while I can well understand nervousness about having yet another restructuring in relation, for instance, to CQC—given the number of changes that have occurred to the care regulator over the years—I worry that they have come up with such a complex solution that I wonder whether merger might not come to be seen as the easier option.

I would also like to raise some issues about the process under which the failure regime takes place. I start with my Amendment 64A, in relation to the Section 29A warning notice under Clause 74(3). Can the noble Earl give some indication of how the significant improvement required is to be defined and assessed? Can he also say how proportionate CQC will be? Under proposed new Section 29A(2)(a) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which is introduced in Clause 74(3), a warning notice will state,

“that the Commission has formed the view that the quality of health care provided by the trust requires significant improvement”.

Is there not a need to clarify either in the Bill or in secondary legislation how “significant improvement” is to be defined and assessed and, specifically, how and where the warning notice applies given the number of multisite trusts offering a wide range of services?

In Clause 75, reference is made to Monitor’s imposition of licence conditions. What criteria will impact on Monitor’s decision to impose those licence conditions? Should they not be subject to statutory guidance, given the serious impact of their imposition? In view of the service implications for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts of CQC and Monitor interventions, ought there not to be a clear appeals process for providers, given the potential serious consequences for an individual trust or a local health economy of a warning notice or a “failure to comply” administration, both for the provider concerned and the other providers that may be affected by that decision?

My Amendment 66ZB deals with the multisite issue by requiring CQC to define how this is to be assessed. My Amendments 66ZD and 66ZE seek to have published the Monitor criteria under which a licence condition is issued following a warning notice. When such a warning notice is issued, a foundation trust should have the right to appeal under my Amendment 66ZC, which is consequential on Amendment 66ZE. The same principles apply to Clause 76 in relation to the regulator. CQC must surely publish criteria on following a transparent process in making judgments on trust special administration, where there also ought to be an appeals procedure.

It seems that there is a lot of work to be done to make sure that the health service and other providers fully understand the new regulatory apparatus that is to be brought into being. I remain concerned that there could be confusion between the two roles of Monitor and CQC and that the NHS Trust Development Authority’s role is rather mysterious. It is hard to understand why NHS trusts are not in fact subject to a much more robust process than other providers because, as far as I can see, apart from a number of community trusts which are likely to get foundation trust status, the intention is that we simply roll on for years to come with these unviable organisations. Money is clearly top-sliced in order to keep them going, and we know that the real issue is, in many cases, a failure to tackle reconfiguration. It is a worry that almost a limbo situation is being created in which no progress at all is going to be made. There is also a very clear need for due process as to how these licensing provisions are to operate and an appeal process for any organisation that is affected by them.

If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would agree to the principle of that, I think he could look forward to general support within the health service and outside and, of course, public confidence. The overriding principle of making sure that quality and safety are considered at the same level, or even a higher level, than that of financial viability is one that we certainly support from these Benches. I beg to move.

18:30

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 65, 66 and 67 and to Clause 77 standing part. I share very much the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Hunt and I am not going to repeat what he said about the slightly strange situation that we are now in with the CQC having enforcement responsibilities in relation to some bodies that it registers but not in relation to others.

I want to concentrate on the missing part of this group of clauses, which is the Trust Development Authority, and go into a bit more detail on this area than my noble friend Lord Hunt had time to do. The purpose of these amendments is to try to pursue the question of whether there is parity of action required by the Trust Development Authority and Monitor, when the CQC issues a warning notice, irrespective of whether that notice applies to an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust. There is something very curious about writing this quite complicated legislation, which, if I may say as a connoisseur of health and social security legislation, has the air of a rather rushed job. The builder was going to go off site quite quickly if we did not get the trimmings of the house finished—it has that feel to it.

The Bill is very focused on the enforcement action by Monitor, but is pretty much silent on what the TDA does. Like my noble friend Lord Hunt, this strikes me as extremely odd, because, as a general rule, the weaker trusts—I exempt my noble friend Lady Wall and her skilful chairmanship of her trust—are tucked away in the Trust Development Authority. You have to remember that they have all had the best part of 10 years to convince people that they could be given the autonomy of NHS foundation trust status.

I seem to recall that since its inception the TDA has not made a great deal of progress in getting over the hurdle trusts for which it has responsibility. My recollection, and the noble Earl will be able to correct me if I am wrong, is that there is only one trust in the past 18 months, Kingston, which has made it to FT status. There is hardly a queue of candidates in Monitor’s FT pipeline. Indeed, there is a real danger—if I may say so, slightly pessimistically—that the Trust Development Authority will struggle to live up to the middle word in its title.

What seems likely to happen, as we move forward into the next few years, is that as the money gets tighter we start to see increasing failure among some of the TDA trusts and a greater flow under this new legislation of warning notices from CQC. I have therefore become rather intrigued as to what should happen when the warning notices thud on to the desks of NHS trust boards and they fail to respond adequately.

Under this Bill, it is relatively clear, even with the reservations my noble friend Lord Hunt made, what happens with FT boards and Monitor. Far less clear, indeed totally unclear on the basis of the legislation, is what happens with TDA trusts, which after all account for about £30 billion a year of public sector expenditure, so there are quite a lot of patients going through their beds and doors.

In my search for further enlightenment, I have taken the trouble to read the document that the Trust Development Authority published last December with the rather upbeat title, Delivering High Quality Care for People, the accountability framework. This is a model of Department of Health speak—I am something of an expert on this, as is the Minister. It makes clear that trust boards will have to comply with some of the licence conditions set by Monitor, but it is rather uncertain which ones it will have to satisfy. It has set a lot of operational performance standards which look uncannily like the evil Labour targets imposed from time to time. It promises more details on the Trust Development Authority’s oversight model. I have yet to see very much of that further detail, but nowhere in this document is it clear what happens to these trusts that fail to live up to the expectations of that accountability document published about six months ago.

Continuing my search for enlightenment, I have moved on to read the May Department of Health document entitled, The Regulation and Oversight of NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts. It claims to throw light on the Bill’s quality of services clause. The first nine pages are pretty clear. We start to get into a bit of difficulty when we get to page 10, which is headed “Intervention”. That is when I became really puzzled. It says—I am not quoting, but this is pretty much what it says—that the TDA can request recovery plans, increase engagement with the trust, commission an independent and rather exciting thing called a deep dive, review the skills and competencies of the board and executives, and commission an interim report.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I are veterans of debating the regulations setting up the Trust Development Authority. Many of us thought it would be doing that anyway. We did not think this was some kind of new regime. This looks like a bit of a rehash of what it should have been doing in order to get the trusts for which it was responsible to pass the foundation trust tests set by Monitor. When it was set up, it was supposed to have that responsibility for quite a short period of time. It hardly looks like some new, sexy enforcement set of procedures which we would expect it to take when the CQC warning notices come to its attention. It looks as if the enforcement procedure for the trusts in the TDA remit is that they have to be given further chances. It is not explicit but—dare I suggest, as my noble friend Lord Hunt I think implied? —we could be heading back down the road of money being taken away from the successful trusts to buttress people in organisations who are not cutting the mustard in terms of the quality of services or the financial management that is required not only to be an effective foundation trust but to be an effective trust.

It is not at all clear to me how the Government are going to tackle the fact that the weaker brethren are within the responsibility of the Trust Development Authority but there is nothing in the Bill which actually says what the TDA will do. I am sure that the noble Earl will tell me about other bits of legislation, but it seems to me that if we want to convince the public that there is a new show in town for real enforcement when things continue to fail in a trust, whether it is an FT or an NHS trust, it would be sensible to put these provisions in the same Bill, particularly when we all know that the weaker trusts are under the TDA.

Paragraph 27 of the May document I mentioned is pretty elusive. Commissioners can have a go at reconfiguring if there is failure but that may not work. Eventually, the trust is unsustainable and becomes the responsibility of the TDA. Guess what the TDA can do? The TDA has absolute discretion as to whether it advises the Secretary of State. It can advise the Secretary of State to appoint a trust special administrator but is not required to. Under the current guidance, which only came out a month ago, the most the TDA is required to do is to consider doing that. If it chooses not to, it need not. We therefore have a situation in which the TDA seems to be operating under a different regime from Monitor. This is a really serious situation to be considered, and I suggest to the Minister that it will become a public confidence issue. I am not making a party political speech—this is all about getting legislation which is fit for purpose to restore public confidence after the Mid Staffordshire debacle.

Why does this Bill not provide for a much sharper set of actions from the TDA when the CQC issues a warning notice to a trust? The notice is a clear signal that the TDA’s efforts to rehabilitate the trust are simply not working. I suggest this with a bit of nervousness, but should the Government not consider withdrawing these clauses and provide a clear set of rules and requirements that protect patients effectively, whether or not they are in NHS trusts or FTs? I do not think that the Bill, as drafted, does the job of protecting patients. I do think that the TDA needs to be brought into this part of the Bill on a basis of parity and equivalence with the requirements that will be made of foundation trusts through the enforcement panels of Monitor.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Warner, I am not a connoisseur, other than about what happens in my trust. Maybe I can share our experiences in response to the questions on which my noble friend Lord Warner has been seeking clarification. I think it will answer some of them, although not all.

As many noble Lords will know, 18 months ago Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust took the decision that it could not comply with Monitor’s requirements, primarily the financial aspects, and brought in Deloitte to do a complete survey of all our services. We met the benchmark for clinical services but, because of the historic debt, we did not meet the financial benchmarks. We went up to two for Monitor’s rating on finances, but it goes up to four, and so we were two—two and a bit—for one period. Although we sought support through the SHA at the time, from a body that offers trusts opportunities to apply for funding, we were unsuccessful. This is where I may not be able to assist my noble friend Lord Warner, because we decided ourselves, as a trust, that we would not be fit for purpose in that sense. There is a process, and people who have been involved in it much more than I have will know what that process is. We notified Monitor that we would not be able to do that.

18:45

Noble Lords should bear in mind that the whole driver in all this was the government decision that all trusts had to become foundation trusts by 2014. As a government decision, one respects that, but there were some views in our trust that we would have been able to do it had we had a longer period of time. I have been chairman of the trust for six years and take some responsibility. Although I thank my noble friend Lord Warner greatly for his comments about my custodianship —which I hope are all true—there was an ignorance, if you will, within my trust and maybe others. That process of going through to becoming an FT was not as urgent as it then became with the 2014 deadline, but we should have been making a much better aim for that. In my own trust, the financial position was very much based around us not drawing out cost improvements and always looking for growth.

However, obviously, growth came to an end. My noble friend Lord Warner was on a committee to which we made a presentation in a bid to get some financial support. He was extremely helpful in talking to me about why we would probably not get it, and I agreed with him totally. We decided, as a trust, that we could not make it through to become a foundation trust. There is a process, and we are at the stage of working with the Royal Free in the hope of achieving a partnership with it by April next year.

I think that my noble friend Lord Warner was perhaps a bit harsh in terms of what the TDA does. I do not disagree that maybe it should be in the Bill—I am sure that is right—but there is a contradiction in some of his arguments. First, absolutely correctly, my noble friend has said that the TDA was set up for a period, in order to see trusts through to 2014, as the Government required. For failing trusts, as my noble friend has emphasised totally and accurately, it was set up to effect some action that would move them out of operating. Again, I agree totally with my noble friend, in that the whole point of all this, and the whole worry for me as a trust chair, is that the services that patients receive are fundamental. If we, or any trust, are failing, particularly perhaps in service provision, but also in financial terms, that is major worry.

We have the advantage in my trust—if it is deemed to be one—in that we have gone through the reconfiguration ahead of and alongside the partnership. We have had a reconfiguration in place for more than 10 years. It has been put on hold by my Government and by the current Government, but we now understand that implementation will start to happen in November. We have had that perhaps unique experience of being in reconfiguration and going forward for foundation trust status, in a sense drawing those two things together. That is quite a challenge. We are hoping to be in partnership by April 2014 and are bringing about our reconfiguration from November 2013. Noble Lords can imagine the challenges which that brings to my trust, although we are complying, I think, with all the standards except in A&E, which is happening all over world.

My noble friend Lord Hunt and I refer to this all the time, saying, “How’s your trust doing?”. Therefore from our point of view the TDA has been quite clear —perhaps because we made it clear that we were unable to go forward in this. It exists but, according to its remit, only to ensure that by 2014 viable trusts will go forward to FT, and that something else will happen to non-viable, or failing trusts—the more emotive description. Those will either be brought under supervision, or will work in partnership with other trusts to achieve a different outcome. As regards supporting the amendment or otherwise, I am not sure whether the lifespan for TDA is so short that it will have any effect on delivering in the Bill, which has a longer-term view of what we are doing. However, I thought it would be helpful to give some perspective of what happens in the real world.

It is difficult and embarrassing to find yourself in this situation. However, for us the best outcome is that the partnership with the Royal Free works, and that the Royal Free has come to a decision that that partnership will be beneficial for it. Monitor will then get involved with the Royal Free to see whether that combined trust is still viable and whether it still meets all the requirements to ensure that compliance fits. Our patients are receiving good care and being looked after, and we still aim to be the best trust from which they can receive services and get good results. However, ultimately in our partnership with the Royal Free, patients will receive a better service.

I could not agree more with my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Warner that reconfiguration has to happen. We had brave words about it from the previous Government, but we did not do it. We now have brave words from the Secretary of State, who is doing a perfect job, from what I have seen—he is going out and seeing how it really works in a trust: rolling up your sleeves and making beds. My plea to the noble Earl is that the Government stick to the fact that reconfiguration has to happen. Politically, closing hospitals is dynamite. I have said that more times from these Benches and from the Benches opposite than I can remember. However, unless it happens, failing trusts will continue to fail. The financial aspects of failure are awful, but the performance of some of those trusts is not good enough for patients to be on the receiving end of it. I thought it would be helpful to share that. I am not sure whether I support the amendment, but I am sure I will come to a decision on that.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I clarify that I did not seek to attack the TDA. What my noble friend has said has made me more worried. What happens if these trusts do not make it to FT and people get fed up with the TDA and decide to try something different? We would still have these trusts, which would be providing services, still on the receiving end of CQCs, so why does the Bill not provide for some of these eventualities—which again, could happen in the real world?

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I will intervene only briefly, unlike yesterday when I went on at length on a couple of the amendments. My noble friend Lord Warner referred to the absence of a new force in town. I suspect that in some ways he is referring in part to the confusion referred to by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I will deal with paragraphs 60 and 61 of the Francis report, where two recommendations are made. Will the Minister, in his response to this debate, just tell us why the Government are refusing to implement those recommendations? I will not read those paragraphs in their entirety, but just the key points. The report states:

“The Secretary of State should consider transferring the functions of regulating governance of healthcare providers and the fitness of persons to be directors, governors or equivalent persons from Monitor to the Care Quality Commission. A merger of system regulatory functions between Monitor and the Care Quality Commission should be undertaken incrementally and after thorough planning”.

I would have thought that the Bill was the opportunity to do that. If that is the case, will the Minister tell us precisely what the objection is, and why we are not taking up that particular recommendation from the Francis report?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, in addressing this complex and very important topic, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, not least those who have introduced the amendments they have tabled. I welcome the opportunity to debate these clauses as they form a key part of our response to the issues raised by Robert Francis QC. They deal with difficult issues and I recognise the critical importance of getting this right. I particularly welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the principles, which I can assure him have governed the Government’s work in this area.

The intention of the changes we are making is to deliver a strong but flexible process for tackling quality failures to ensure that all NHS trusts adopt a rigorous approach to maintaining high quality care. I hope that noble Lords have had an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the document my department published, in collaboration with CQC, Monitor, the Trust Development Authority and NHS England, copies of which can be found in the Library. In my response to the amendments, it may help if I summarise the key elements of our proposals and why we feel that the approach we have taken is appropriate.

The Francis report made a strong case that the regulation of NHS trusts and foundation trusts needed to change so that greater emphasis is placed on addressing failures of quality. We agree. In future, roles within the regulatory system will be simpler and clearer. The Care Quality Commission will focus on assessing and reporting on quality, and Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority—the TDA—will be responsible for using their enforcement powers to address quality problems. To free up time to care, the overall regulatory burden on providers will be radically reduced. I remember that that concern was raised from the Benches opposite when I made a Statement to your Lordships on the Francis report. However, where there are failings in the quality of care, there will be a stronger response.

The CQC, through its new Chief Inspector of Hospitals, will become the authoritative voice on the quality of care provided. It will take the lead in developing a methodology for assessing the overall performance of organisations in meeting the needs of patients and the public. In doing so, the CQC will consult a range of bodies, including Monitor, the TDA and NHS England, to ensure that national organisations are working to a common definition of quality. The idea here is to arrive at, if I can put it this way, a single version of the truth: a single, national definition of quality that brings together information and intelligence from commissioners, regulators and local Healthwatch, as well as from the other bodies I mentioned. This new approach to assessment and inspection will form the basis of a new system of ratings to provide a fair, balanced and easy to understand assessment of how each provider is performing relative to its peers. It will also provide the basis for identifying where improvements are needed. We will, of course, debate the provisions on ratings later on.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has tabled a number of amendments—Amendments 64A, 66ZB, 66ZD and 66ZF—relating to the consistency of CQC’s judgment. I understand the concern to ensure that there is transparency and consistency over how decisions to intervene are reached, but I am not sure that it can be defined through legislation. In part, it will be for the CQC, Monitor and the TDA to agree and set out in guidance—something, incidentally, they have all committed to doing. However, ultimately they must be matters of judgment rather than the tick-box mentality that allowed the failures uncovered in Mid Staffordshire to go unnoticed for so long.

19:00

What is important is that these judgments have credibility. That is why the CQC is overhauling its approach to undertaking inspections to ensure that those judgments will be based on expert opinion, led by the new Chief Inspector of Hospitals. The CQC has just appointed Professor Sir Mike Richards to become its first Chief Inspector of Hospitals. I am sure the Committee will agree with me that Professor Richards is an outstanding clinician who will command the full confidence and support of medical professionals.

I also agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that the failure regime should be as robust for NHS trusts as it is for foundation trusts. That is absolutely our intention. However, as Monitor’s role is defined in primary legislation and the Trust Development Authority is a special health authority established under secondary legislation, we need to take a slightly different approach to achieve that common objective. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that a similar failure regime already exists in respect of NHS trusts and it covers failures in quality. The Bill ensures a consistent regime for trusts and foundation trusts alike.

The Bill does not mention NHS trusts and the TDA because the latter is a special health authority established under secondary legislation. The NHS Trust Development Authority Directions 2013 delegate the Secretary of State’s extensive powers in relation to NHS trusts to the TDA. They include appointing directors and terminating their appointment, power to give directions to NHS trusts in relation to quality and recommending trust special administration. We have tried to place the regime on an absolutely equal footing with the regime that we are creating in the Bill for foundation trusts.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I have here a document that the noble Earl’s department sent out in May, signed up to by the TDA, Monitor and the CQC. I want to direct his attention to paragraph 27 of that document, which I mentioned in my remarks. As I understand it, this sets out the Government’s policy on the relative difference between TDA and Monitor. It makes it very clear. I shall quote from it, because this is absolutely the nub of the issue:

“Monitor can also place a foundation trust into special administration directly, following consultation with the Secretary of State and the CQC, on the grounds that it has, or is likely to become, financially unsustainable. The changes proposed in the Care Bill will enable it also to do this where it is apparent that a provider is clinically unsustainable”.

The initiative lies with Monitor. It can do this in relation to the trust of my noble friend Lord Hunt or to any other foundation trust when it has had a warning notice from the CQC and thinks change has not taken place. Hold that thought in the head and look at what the document says about NHS trusts that are in the maw of the TDA. It states:

“Managing the process of reconfiguring local services to provide sustainable, high quality healthcare that meets patient expectations and needs is primarily a role for local commissioners, supported by NHS England. In the event that an NHS trust or foundation trust has failed to make improvements and commissioner-led efforts to resolve the issue have not succeeded, special administration may, as a last resort, provide a mechanism for dealing with NHS trusts and foundation trusts which have become either clinically and/or financially unsustainable. Where the TDA considers 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 either clinically and/or financially unsustainable into special administration”.

Monitor can simply take that decision itself when it has the evidence. The TDA has to go through a series of hoops with commissioners before it can advise the Secretary of State. That is what this document seems to say. If it is wrong we need to be clear that it does not say what the Government mean it to say.

[Earl Howe]

I think the noble Lord has misled himself. The way in which we envisage the system working for both trusts and foundation trusts, where we have a provider that looks as though it might be clinically unsustainable, is to encourage commissioners and the provider concerned to come together and have a grown-up conversation about the configuration of services. That is the first resort and it is the normal course of action that we would expect, whether it is an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust. In either case, trust special administration is going to be a last resort.

The noble Lord is right that, while we envisage the process of trust special administration to be broadly the same in both instances, there has to be a difference. The difference arises from the fact that foundation trusts are, in statute, much more autonomous bodies than NHS trusts. NHS trusts are still subject to directions from the Secretary of State. What the TDA does is act as the Secretary of State’s proxy in overseeing their quality, sustainability and governance. That is why there is a process around referral to the Secretary of State before a trust special administration can take place for an NHS trust, whereas that is not the case with a foundation trust. That is because Monitor is the independent regulator for FTs charged with doing that.

The noble Lord does not need to make too much of the differences that he has purported to identify in that document, which I will, of course, re-read in case we have inadvertently misled the Committee. The point I sought to make was that in no way do we envisage a material difference in the process which will ensue from a clinically unsustainable provider, or one whose quality is in question.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked what will happen to NHS trusts that do not meet expectations of the accountability framework published last December. The accountability framework covers clinical and operational metrics, governance, leadership and finance. If the TDA judges that a trust is failing the accountability framework, it has a number of options. It can request recovery plans—Monitor is also in a position to do that with FTs; it will increase the frequency of its engagement with the trust; it can commission an independent investigation; it can review the skills and competence of board members. Again that is something that Monitor can do with FTs. It can commission interim support to provide additional management capacity—again that is something that in theory Monitor could do under its licensing arrangements. Ultimately, the TDA can exercise the Secretary of State’s functions and terminate appointments. Monitor has similar powers. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that there is not such a gap as he has made out in this area.

Incidentally, the noble Lord called into question the speed of progress of the foundation trust pipeline. I can assure him that the pipeline is moving. It may look rather glacial from his perspective, and I can understand why. However, even though the TDA was established only on 1 April, two foundation trusts have been authorised since then—Kingston on 1 May and Western Sussex, which was announced today.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, sounded a warning that this kind of arrangement posed a risk that money could end up being taken away from successful trusts to bolster poorer performers. It is precisely to avoid that that we need to grasp the nettle in some cases as we had to do in south London to ensure that one part of the NHS did not drain the resources that should be shared out more equitably among the rest of the health service. Certainly, this is not the intention of our policy. In fact, the purpose of special administration, if it is deemed necessary, is to ensure both clinical and financial sustainability. When it is clear that a hospital cannot resolve quality failures in its current form, we will no longer have to wait until a trust fails financially before action is taken. That is why I shall talk about special administration in more detail in a second.

In future, issuing a warning notice to a trust or foundation trust will be a sign that there is a serious quality issue at that trust and that significant improvements are required. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it will be important to determine what significant improvements could encompass, as proposed by Amendment 64A. We have been clear that the new warning notices are designed to highlight serious failings, such as a systematic failure to meet fundamental standards. As noble Lords will remember, the fundamental standards are a concept that Robert Francis put forward, whereby treatment or practices in a trust could be said to be absolutely unacceptable by anyone’s measure. The fundamental standards themselves have not yet been defined; that process will be taken forward in the coming months with full consultation with the public, and we need to get that right. That is the issue underlying the provision around significant improvements. Under the 2008 Act, the CQC is already required to publish guidance to detail its approach to issuing warning notices. This will be revised in light of this Bill to include its interpretation of “significant improvement”. That is a flexible and proportionate approach.

When a trust receives a warning notice, just as happens now, it will be published and the CQC will send a copy either to the TDA or to Monitor, depending upon whether they relate to an NHS trust or foundation trust, as proposed by Amendment 65. Clause 74 amends Section 39 of the 2008 Act, which requires that a copy of the notice be sent to Monitor and any other persons whom the CQC considers appropriate. When the notice relates to an NHS trust, this would include the TDA.

I have listened carefully to the noble Lord’s arguments in favour of Amendment 66ZB regarding large providers spread over many sites. This is not a new issue; having a regulatory system that is flexible enough to cope with such organisations has always been critical. At present, the CQC has to ensure that they can take a differentiated approach and can deal appropriately with providers, ranging from large multisite hospital trusts to care homes. This will continue to be the case, so I feel that this amendment, while I sympathise with its intent, is unnecessary.

Clause 75 introduces changes to ensure that when failures are identified, there is a prompt and firm response. We have been clear that when a provider receives a warning notice, the responsibility to resolve problems will remain with the provider in conjunction with the local commissioners, as I referred to earlier. However, serious failures in the quality of care must not be allowed to be endure, so Clause 75 makes changes to ensure that, when quality of care at a foundation trust requires significant improvement, Monitor can take timely action to make changes to leadership or governance to secure improvements in those services. It amends Monitor’s powers under Section 111 of the 2012 Act to enable it to impose additional licence conditions on foundation trusts when the Care Quality Commission has issued a warning notice to that trust. At present, Monitor can make use of these powers only if there is a failure in governance. If the foundation trust breaches those additional licence conditions, Monitor will be able to use its powers to suspend or remove directors or governors. The NHS Trust Development Authority already has powers to intervene in NHS trusts or to remove or suspend boards, as appropriate.

19:15

I see where the noble Lord is coming from with Amendment 66ZD, which proposes that Monitor must set out the criteria that guided its issuing of additional licence conditions, but I wonder whether it is wholly necessary, given that the main criteria will always be, as the legislation sets out, that the CQC has previously issued a warning notice, which will provide further details on the nature of the failure and the necessary improvements required. I do not believe that the amendment would add anything substantive to this, although, of course, I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Lord, if he would like that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wall, in her powerful speech, which brought us to the realities of life in a very vivid way, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, sounded a very appropriate warning about the need to grasp the nettle with regard to reconfigurations. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, expressed his worry that, taken as a whole, the Government’s approach was a recipe for limbo as regards progress towards the necessary reconfigurations. I do not agree with that. We have been very clear, not least since the debates on the Health and Social Care Bill last year, that those issues, when they arise, should not be ducked.

In the first instance, as I have explained, reconfigurations can typically take place through discussion between commissioners and providers, and many have. Stroke services in London are a classic example of a fantastic series of reconfigurations that took place completely in the public eye and have been outstandingly successful. However, in some cases it may be clear that more fundamental issues prevent an NHS trust or foundation trust from making the necessary improvements in its current form. There may be a series of factors that, despite the best efforts of the board of a trust, are inescapable. In such cases, Clause 76 enables Monitor to make an order to authorise the appointment of a trust special administrator on quality grounds, and for the CQC to prompt it to do so if necessary.

The noble Lord makes a number of fine points on Amendment 65ZF, and I agree that the process of special administration should always be evidence-based and transparent. This will be achieved through a number of provisions, as I will set out. First, before the CQC or Monitor could put a trust into special administration on quality grounds, it would need to be satisfied both that there has been a serious failure in the quality of care and that special administration is appropriate. If the CQC or Monitor is satisfied that these requirements are fulfilled, it must consult the Secretary of State and its fellow regulator before then consulting the trust in question, the board, and local commissioners before an order is made. Those are safeguards. They are not designed to hold up the process of a special administration where it seems to be in the best interest, but they are, I think, appropriate safeguards when such a radical step is being considered. Section 65D of the National Health Service Act 2006 already requires Monitor to publish its reasons for making the order in a report laid before Parliament. I hope the noble Lord agrees that, given this, the amendment is not required.

For NHS trusts, the TDA has a duty under secondary legislation to advise the Secretary of State if it thinks that it would be in the interests of the health service for him to put an NHS trust into administration. We therefore propose to amend the TDA directions to oblige the TDA to make such a recommendation where advised to do so by the CQC. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will see that that is perhaps one of the missing links that he was looking for. We would expect the CQC to consider doing so where an NHS trust had failed to comply with a warning notice, as proposed by Amendment 66, in the same way in which it must for a foundation trust. If necessary, the Secretary of State could exercise his powers under Section 4(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to direct that the CQC must have regard to this aspect of government policy.

For foundation trusts, the objective of trust special administration is currently focused on continuity of services and financial stability. Clause 77 is therefore needed to ensure that there is necessary focus on the quality of services. To achieve this, Clause 77 broadens the objective of trust special administration as it applies to foundation trusts to include an additional requirement for services to be of sufficient safety and quality. The objective will apply to any foundation trust in special administration, regardless of whether the order was made to resolve a financial failure or a serious failure to provide services of sufficient quality. The intention is to ensure that the CQC is satisfied that the services that continue are not only financially viable but clinically sustainable.

Clause 77 also requires that the CQC is consulted before the trust special administrator provides a draft report to Monitor recommending the action to be taken by Monitor in relation to the trust. The administrator may not provide a draft report to Monitor unless he or she has first obtained a statement from the CQC that the part of the objective relating to the quality of the services has been met. When considering the final report from the trust special administrator, the Secretary of State must also be satisfied that the CQC has fulfilled these functions. So there is, if you like, a “triple lock” here for the quality of services.

In contrast, in reference to Amendment 67, special administration can be triggered for NHS trusts where it is in the interests of the health service to do so. That is a far broader definition that already focuses on securing quality services. In relation to NHS trusts, we envisage a similar role for the CQC in providing a statement about the quality of services to an administrator that considers the recommendations made in the draft report. This will not require primary legislation. Instead, it will be set out in guidance.

There are a further series of issues that I am sure noble Lords want me to cover. I apologise for the length of my remarks, but this is a very large group of amendments.

I appreciate the concern that there should be clarity throughout the system for providers as to why action is being taken against them and where they stand. However, we need to balance that with the need to act promptly, when necessary, to protect patients. I think we have got that balance right in the clauses as they stand.

Under current legislation—and I am afraid that duty requires me to remind the House that it was enacted by the Opposition when they were last in government—no provider has a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal where the CQC issues a warning notice. I see no reason why the situation should be different in the future for NHS trusts and foundation trusts, as proposed by Amendment 66ZC.

Neither is there currently any right of appeal against the imposition of licence conditions under Section 111 of the 2012 Act, as proposed by Amendment 66ZE, just as there is none when the Secretary of State determines it appropriate to intervene to rectify concerns at an NHS trust. Again, this is consistent with the position established by the Opposition when they were in government. To establish one now would be to create an unhelpful discrepancy between the way in which Monitor’s powers under Section 111 would apply to quality issues and the way in which they already apply to failures of governance.

Amendment 66ZG proposes that there should be a right of appeal where there is disagreement as to whether the order should be made. We have included the power for the CQC to ensure that the chief inspector, as the guardian of quality in the system, can direct Monitor to put a foundation trust into administration if he considers it necessary in order to protect patient safety. To allow a right of appeal in that instance would be to cast doubt on the chief inspector’s judgment at what could be a most crucial juncture, if one were to imagine another situation like that of Mid Staffordshire. While I understand noble Lords’ concerns, I think that the approach that we have taken is the right one when one considers that, in the future, such action will be based on expert judgments and reserved for the most serious failures where the priority should be securing safe and sustainable services for local patients as quickly as possible.

I will address the questions posed to me. The noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hunt, asked why the Government had not simply accepted the recommendation of Robert Francis to merge Monitor with the Care Quality Commission. We were explicit at the outset that this was one recommendation that we were not going to accept, because we firmly believe that there remains a strong case for maintaining the CQC and Monitor as separate organisations that fulfil distinctly different functions. The inspection and assessment of quality of care should not be conflated with the responsibility for turning around failing providers.

We agree with Robert Francis that we need to tackle duplication and misalignment, and we will achieve this through the single failure regime. The single failure regime will provide a clearer understanding of roles between organisations, with the CQC responsible for exposing problems and Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority responsible for overseeing enforcement action. We have received much support for our proposed approach. For example, the Nuffield Trust,

“recommended against transferring Monitor’s responsibilities to the CQC”,

and the Royal College of Nursing supported,

“moves that will allow for the NHS Trust ‘failure regime’ to be enacted on the basis of failures of quality, instigated by the CQC”.

There is a difference of view between us and Robert Francis. We feel that we have met the spirit of his recommendations in other ways.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed to an apparent difference of treatment between NHS trusts and foundation trusts on the one hand and private providers on the other. The CQC’s current powers simply have not been as effective in NHS hospitals as they have been in other sectors. I would go so far as to say that the nuclear option which the CQC currently has of closing down a hospital simply is not credible when one considers that many hospitals are the only show in town in providing services. The CQC has never exercised that power in relation to an NHS trust. It has exercised it in relation to a care home, but I believe noble Lords will readily see that a care home is a rather different animal from an acute hospital, not least because it operates in a market where very often there are alternative sources of provision. That is why we have reshaped these provisions. It is vital that effective and timely action can be taken where quality is found to be lacking in our hospitals, and that the regulators have a range of powers available to them according to the severity of the issue.

19:30

Monitor and the CQC are subject to enhanced duties of co-operation in the 2012 Act. The bodies have also committed to closer working, and these clauses have been developed jointly with them. As I said, the CQC has appointed Mike Richards as the first Chief Inspector of Hospitals, and he will be the authoritative voice of quality. These things have happened since Robert Francis looked at the whole issue. The way in which the CQC and Monitor now work together is a direct product of the events of Mid Staffordshire, even before Robert Francis was appointed to his second inquiry.

Government Amendments 66A, 67A and 68 to 72, in my name, are minor and technical amendments to Clauses 76 and 77, and are necessary to ensure that the requirements which the Bill introduces to consult the CQC in the preparation of the administrator’s draft report under Section 65F of the National Health Service Act 2006 and when preparing guidance for trust special administrators under Section 65N of that Act will apply correctly until such time as all NHS trusts have been abolished and paragraphs 15 and 24 of Schedule 14 to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 take effect.

I hope that noble Lords are content with my assessment of the failure regime in the light of the amendments tabled and that I have been able to provide reassurance that the approach that we have taken is correct. As I said, these clauses are a direct response to the report of the public inquiry led by Robert Francis, which sets out how regulators, commissioners, professional bodies and the Department of Health failed to secure high-quality care. The single failure regime will ensure that when quality is found to be lacking, a prompt and robust approach will be taken.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee other than to say that the noble Earl’s response bears careful reading. I am still confused about the role of the CQC. If it is able to enforce action against non-NHS social care providers, I do not understand why it is unable to enforce action against NHS providers. I hear what the noble Earl says about the better working relationship between Monitor and the CQC and I am sure that is right. I pay tribute to the new leadership of the CQC and to the appointment of Sir Mike Richards. However, I believe that the architecture still allows for confusion. I would like further clarification on when Monitor and the CQC can take a different view on quality issues. Perhaps we will come back to this on Report. I cannot believe that Monitor will simply accept the CQC’s judgment at face value. Surely its board will have to come to its own view on those issues. That is an area I would like to explore further.

The noble Earl was reassuring about the issue of non-foundation trusts raised by my noble friend Lord Warner. None the less, it does not feel quite like that on the ground. It does not feel as though immediate action is being taken with the many trusts that are clearly nowhere near achieving foundation trust status. I may encourage my noble friend to come back to that point. Having said that, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 64A withdrawn.

Amendments 65 to 66ZC not moved.

Clause 74 agreed.

Clause 75 : Imposition of licence conditions on NHS foundation trusts

Amendments 66ZD and 66ZE not moved.

Clause 75 agreed.

Clause 76 : Trust special administration: appointment of administrator

Amendments 66ZF and 66ZG not moved.

Amendment 66A

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

66A: Clause 76, page 63, line 37, leave out “regulator” and insert “Secretary of State”

Amendment 66A agreed.

Amendment 67 not moved.

Amendment 67A

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

67A: Clause 76, page 63, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) In subsection (4) of that section, for “the reference in subsection (1) to the Secretary of State is to be read as a reference” substitute “the references in subsections (1) and (3A) to the Secretary of State are to be read as references”.
( ) In paragraph 24 of Schedule 14 to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (abolition of NHS trusts in England: consequential amendments to section 65N of the National Health Service Act 2006), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) In subsection (3A), for “the Secretary of State” substitute “the regulator”.””

Amendment 67A agreed.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed.

Clause 77 : Trust special administration: objective, consultation and reports

Amendments 68 to 72

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

68: Clause 77, page 64, line 8, leave out “(2A)” and insert “(5)”

69: Clause 77, page 64, line 11, leave out “(2AA) Nor” and insert “(5A) Nor, in the case of an NHS foundation trust,”

70: Clause 77, page 64, line 16, leave out “(2B)” and insert “(6)”

71: Clause 77, page 64, line 18, leave out “(2A) or (2AA)” and insert “(5) or (5A)”

72: Clause 77, page 65, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) In paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 14 to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (abolition of NHS trusts in England: consequential amendments to section 65F of the National Health Service Act 2006)—
(a) in the new subsection (2A) to be inserted by paragraph 15(4), in paragraph (a), for “65DA” substitute “65DA(1)(a)”,(b) after that new subsection, insert—“(2AA) Nor may the administrator provide the draft report to the regulator under subsection (1) without having obtained from the Care Quality Commission a statement that it considers that the recommendation in the draft report would achieve that part of the objective set out in section 65DA(1)(aa).”, and
(c) in the new subsection (2B) to be inserted by paragraph 15(4)—(i) after “Where the Board” insert “or the Care Quality Commission”,(ii) for “to that effect” substitute “to the effect mentioned in subsection (2A) or (2AA)”, and(iii) after “, the Board” insert “or (as the case may be) the Commission”.”

Amendments 68 to 72 agreed.

Clause 77, as amended, agreed.

Clause 78 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.37 pm.

Business and Society

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:37

Asked by

[Lord Sacks]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the relationship between business and society.

[Lord Sacks]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the relationship between business and society. I welcome in particular the opportunity short debates such as this provide to step back from the specifics of policy to take a wider and longer view of the moral dimensions of economic policy. This is a very large subject indeed, and I will hazard just a few words about it in general and then turn to one aspect, confident that other speakers will touch on others.

In the light of the G8 protests and so much else that has been said in recent years, it is often assumed that when a religious leader speaks about business, it is to be critical of capitalism and all its works. That is not the case in the tradition from which I speak. The Hebrew Bible, after all, records perhaps the world’s first economist, Joseph, who invented the theory of trade cycles, seven years of plenty followed by seven lean years, which has thus far proved to be a more accurate guide to the 21st century than most other economic forecasts.

We believe that business and the market economy generally play a moral role in society. Business is the greatest stimulus we know to human creativity and increases the common wealth. It reduces poverty, and poverty is profoundly humiliating. Economic liberty has a deep association with political liberty. Trade, as Montesquieu pointed out in the 18th century, is a deep alternative to war. Throughout history, trading centres, such as the city of London, have been at the forefront of tolerance and respect for difference. However, economics is always subject to an overarching moral law. According to the Talmud, the first question we are asked in heaven is: were we honest in business? It does not say what happens if the answer is no, but in my mind’s eye I see an angelic figure like the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, with wings, saying, “You’re fired”.

However, I wish to express my concern at one specific aspect of our current situation, namely youth unemployment. Today, unemployment is high throughout Europe, and youth unemployment far higher still. In Britain, the current figure is 20.7%. This is by no means the worst. In Greece, the figure is 58%, in Spain, 55%, in Italy, 37%, and in France, 25%. These are all disturbing figures. The real question hovering in the background is: is this a mere temporary feature of a low point in the economic cycle or is it likely to become a permanent feature of economies in the West, as virtually everything to do with business becomes increasingly globalised as we continue to outsource manufacturing and service industries to low-wage economies elsewhere in the world?

It used to be thought that high unemployment was the price we paid for low interest and inflation rates. Is it now to be the price we pay for global free trade? Are we condemning a significant proportion of young people to a future in which they will never find work? If so, the price we pay is likely to be very high indeed. There is the economic danger of an increasingly small working population supporting an ever larger non-working population, something that is already happening because we are living so much longer. There is a political danger. Historically, and in many parts of the world today, youth unemployment is a prime cause of political instability. Above all, however, we should be mindful of the moral, psychological and—dare I say it?—spiritual hazards at stake.

In Judaism, we believe that work is fundamental to human dignity. We believe that everyone should be able to say, “I made a contribution to the common good. I gave; I did not just receive. I earned my daily bread. I did not depend on the generosity of others”. Our ancient sages said, “Do even the most menial work rather than be dependent on others”. Maimonides, our most eminent medieval scholar, held that the highest form of charity was job creation because it enabled the recipient to become independent of charity. These remain compelling ideas.

A Jewish economist, David Ricardo, formulated one of the most morally beautiful of all economic theories, the law of comparative advantage, which states that even if you are better than me at everything, if you are still better at some things than others, and I am also better at some things than others, then if we both concentrate on what we are best at, and trade, we are both better off. That means that every one of us has a contribution to make to the common wealth. We all have something to give.

In a very moving article a few months ago, the columnist Matthew Parris wrote about the experience of life on welfare benefit that he had once undertaken for a television documentary. He discovered that the real issue was not so much material as psychological. Without minimising the deep financial hardship, he wrote that,

“what I'll never forget was the slow, quiet, killing quality of a life without purpose, a life where you depend, but nobody depends on you; a life where all the people around you, too, are without occupation”.

He spoke of the “shame” and “indignity” of worklessness. That is precisely what drives Jewish economic ethics.

There is an inescapable moral dimension to economic policy because it is, in the end, not about abstractions, such as GDP, but about people. There could be no more dispiriting prospect than the thought that a significant proportion of young people in this country will grow up without prospect of employment, without contributing to the nation’s economy and without having the chance to say, “I made this, I contributed, I helped this to happen”.

I therefore ask the Government to explain how they are exploring ways in which business, education, local and regional groups and civic and voluntary organisations can work together to increase the skills of and job opportunities for young people. Employment is a moral issue because dignity comes from what we do to enhance the lives of others.

19:44

[Lord Patten]

My Lords, I shall make three points about where business and society meet from an ethical point of view. First, there is surely no iron curtain between business and society because, after all, the shared values of business people and people in society are the same. They try to help and look after each other, doing good not bad, being supportive and helping people in ways that they can. That is at least the best reading of that shared value. Equally, most businesspeople such as my wife and me go back at the end of our business day into society. We are not some other class. Most people in business look to society as a haven and a home, just as most people in society look to business to supply their needs. There is no iron curtain of any sort there.

Secondly, all of us should be extremely cautious when things go wrong in business, such as giving in to the sound bite delights of, say, bad banks and the rest, because I fear that that will discourage a lot of those who are not bad but good bankers. There are a great many of them, and that is why I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, said about the ethics that drive his religion. They are sometimes very different from those that drive mine but, with due respect to some of the cassock-wearing classes—I entirely exonerate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester—there has sometimes been a bit too much bad bankery around, which distresses a lot of people. One has to be careful, moderate and modest in what one says.

Thirdly and lastly, society has a lot to learn from business and big business. I recently looked at the ethical code of an extremely successful global corporation, which has got away without having any ethical problems in the past two or three decades because of the high levels of ethical training that everyone in that business has to go through. They have to sign up each year to a final question: “Would I be pleased where conscience meets ambition? Would I be pleased to see what I am going to do today in the media tomorrow to be seen by my loved ones?”.

19:47

[Lord Glasman]

My Lords, it is always an honour to participate in a debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, who has led my community, the Jewish community, in an exemplary way. He has renewed our most important tradition, modern orthodoxy, and made it relevant for the modern world. As ever, he has it completely right by bringing our attention to the relationship between business and society. There has been a rupture in that relationship, and it is extremely important to reconceptualise it.

I want to concentrate on the issue that the noble Lord brought up regarding youth unemployment and the way that faith can cast light on it. He has a unique voice, but he is not alone in what he said. Two weeks ago, I was invited to Rome, where I received a medal from the Vatican. One must understand that, as someone who grew up in Jewish north London, receiving medals was not something that I ever expected to happen. They would normally have been for sporting or military activities, neither of which, according to the comparative division of labour, was a speciality of Palmers Green and Southgate Synagogue.

However, the Pope also has a very pro-business and pro-worker agenda. Issues regarding usury and interest rates are extremely important to that. Above all, what faith brings, and what we neglect, is the realisation that there is no solution to youth unemployment without bringing older people into the equation. There needs to be intergenerational solidarity. Traditionally, we have always put a strong emphasis on our elders. It is essential that we retrieve the idea of vocation and bring in older people, who should not be abandoned and whose wisdom and experience are so important in generating the values that will be essential to earning a living in the world and generating employment. We need to find ways to allow older people to relate to younger people, who should hear their stories and learn their skills. I commend the Chief Rabbi for this debate.

19:50

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, perhaps oddly in a debate on business, I am going to focus on the topic of volunteering. I am going to do so because the good news is that more and more people of working age are volunteering, but they are able to do so through the good offices of the businesses and people who employ them and give them time off to do so. Many organisations are going further than this, and are participating in bespoke schemes which enable their staff at all levels to become involved with volunteering. This is perhaps with chosen charities through team activities, fundraising or joining in the work of the charity, or in other cases, giving professional advice such as legal, IT or financial.

The Westminster volunteer centre has a very good track record of working with large organisations and corporations to enable this to happen. I recently met a lady called Nikki King. She is the managing director of Isuzu trucks, and she decided to tackle the lack of aspiration that she sees so often in young people by giving them mentors from the world of business and industry. She started just doing this by herself, but she now works with the Freight Transport Association, DHL, Asda, William Hill and many others to provide mentoring to 14 to 18 year-olds. In my own area, AXA insurance and Willis have both worked with local volunteer organisations.

Academic studies from around the world have shown that creating an employer supported volunteering scheme is a cost-efficient way for business to increase staff job satisfaction, build internal and external networks, contribute to high-quality personnel recruitment, teach new skills to their employees, improve customer relationships and increase shareholder value.

What do we, as parliamentarians, need to do to encourage this trend? First, we need to keep our house in order. I think that it is rather a pity that, as one of the largest employers in Westminster, we do not have a corporate volunteering scheme here. I have raised this with the House, and perhaps other noble Lords will support me in this endeavour.

Secondly, the Civil Service has a very good track record of volunteering and I hope that the Government will remain committed to it. Finally, the Government need to take a look at the funding for volunteer centres. Volunteering does not come free; there is no substitute for the face-to-face expertise and bespoke service provided by good volunteer centres.

19:51

[Lord Mawson]

My Lords, when I began my work as a social entrepreneur in the East End of London 30 years ago, there was a clear perception that the public sector and charities were the good guys who do good to people and that business was for, and I quote, “greedy capitalist pigs”. Of course, many of us at that time had little, if any, real practical experience of working with business people. However, we read the Guardian and completed our university degrees and so we were experts.

As a clergyman, I am in the religion business, and the religion at that time was very clear and of a fundamentalist nature. Religion had moved out of the churches and on to the street, and its belief systems were firmly established in the public and charitable sectors. Over the past three decades, our understanding has changed. We have been led through the Common Purpose programmes of the 1990s into practical working relationships with the business community. We have come to know and respect many business people because they often know how to run things well. Many of us have formed business partnerships to deliver our programmes in local communities.

Today only 6% of the funding at the Bromley by Bow Centre, which I founded, comes through the state. The majority of our success stories are because we work in partnership with business. This week a £1.5 billion development programme has been announced in Silvertown Quays in the Royal Docks. With a good wind behind it, this programme could change the lives of one of the poorest communities in east London. I was invited to join the team and I am proud to be a member of this business consortium which I hope will transform this piece of London over the next decade and create hundreds of jobs. Here, of course, I must declare my two interests.

What does the future look like? I think we need to use the present financial crisis to create a new alignment. The state needs to create the conditions within which the business, social enterprise, and charitable sectors can work together. As a practitioner, I have to grapple every day with the insensitive bureaucracies and silos of government systems, and it is not getting any easier despite years of rhetoric from Ministers of every political persuasion. The real moral challenge to all our parties is not with business per se but with the state and its seeming inability to deliver at ground level.

We must have a more intelligent discussion about the size of these state institutions and how we enable each of them to work more easily with small and medium-sized enterprises. This is the real moral issue: size matters.

19:54

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I want to risk the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, by suggesting that society as a whole would be better off if more businesses and organisations were to pay the living wage. The aim is to pay enough to sustain a basic but adequate standard of living. The current rates, as determined by the Living Wage Foundation, are £8.55 an hour in London and £7.45 an hour elsewhere.

Over the past 30 or so years, there has been a general move towards more liberalised markets. Whether this is a move back to the Hebrew Bible or not we can perhaps discuss at greater length, but no doubt it is. It has produced many benefits, but the problem is that any society based upon freedom tends to produce more winners and losers and exaggerates the differences, and indeed, an underclass very easily emerges.

While low pay is a feature of most advanced economies, the UK has a particularly high, and rising, share of low-paid workers. If we use the living wage as a guide, in 2011 nearly 5 million UK employees were paid less than the living wage. This included 25% of all female employees, and 41% of all part-time employees.

I travel regularly in Scandinavia for family reasons, and the benefits of having a minimum in excess of our living wage in relation to dignity at work as well as the wider and broader features of society, are pretty obvious to me. Surveys in the UK suggest that paying the living wage has led to improved productivity by reducing the staff turnover, and raising morale.

I remember all the predictions of economic damage when the minimum wage was introduced in this country. They were mistaken. Is it not time for businesses across the UK—and for that matter, the Government—to work towards a greater implementation of the living wage? Church bodies are resolved to do this as they are able to, and I am glad to say that real progress is being made. Very recently the Church Commissioners, with their extensive property holdings in London, have agreed to pay the living wage to all employees, including cleaners and everyone else.

In this spirit, I ask the Minister whether all those who work in these buildings, including contract workers, are themselves paid at least the London living wage. If not, why not?

19:56

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord on introducing this debate. I became a Conservative when working for the Child Poverty Action Group, influenced by a distinguished Jewish politician who had a profound influence on Margaret Thatcher, the late Lord Keith Joseph. I had written a wonderful paper about family benefit, or child benefit, and how critical it was. He read my paper when I was aged 23 or 24, and he said, “Virginia, you only have to understand one thing; it is much easier to divide the cake up than it is to bake it in the first place”.

Wealth creation matters. If we want schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure, and if we want to do good and change the world, wealth creation is a critical element. I am pleased that the recent UN millennium development goals particularly emphasise the need for a much greater role for business in any new global framework. Only recently the Economist—of which I am a trustee—wrote an article about the number of people coming out of poverty. They are coming out of poverty because of wealth creation.

Of course there have been examples of the unacceptable face of capitalism, but there has been much more of a profound move to corporate social responsibility, of which one of the greatest champions and pioneers has been the Prince of Wales. His work with the Prince’s Trust, Business in the Community and International Business Leaders Forum has all been about recreating the principles that I suppose surrounded the 19th century businesses of the Cadburys and many others, of serving your community. By serving and strengthening your community you also strengthen your business at the same time.

Business now also informs much of the philanthropic sector and the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was beginning to touch on this. I am fascinated by the work of social impact bonds, Big Society Capital, social incubators and social enterprises. We used to have different rules of engagement for the philanthropic side than for the commercial side. Now there are far more people saying, “No, philanthropic organisations should use their money wisely and well”.

The gap has been universities. Universities are a catalyst between business and society. With great pride, I am chancellor of the University of Hull—which is an area of high unemployment. The university makes a profound difference working with industry and enterprise to create the conditions where external business wants to invest and wants to create employment. A recent example is the Humber port project, leading to the investment of Siemens, and there are many other examples where the local workforce is being trained to be fit for purpose and global businesses are being encouraged to invest in a needy but thrilling part of the country—Kingston upon Hull.

19:59

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I was prompted to speak by a meeting with the impressive Ethical Trading Initiative, an alliance of companies, trade unions and voluntary organisations, which sets out principles on which international trade should be founded and to which companies and their supply chains have signed up.

Businesses alone cannot take the blame for the pressure for cheap-as-chips products. We, as consumers, are helping to drive their business decisions, yet when a disaster occurs, such as the collapse of the garment factory in Dhaka, we are outraged at the loss of life and the conditions of the garment workers. An event such as that makes the ETI principles all the more valid and emphasises the need for them to be underpinned by the UN guiding principles. Therefore, I ask the Minister: when will the Government publish their strategy for implementing the UN principles?

Sound corporate governance is integral to sustainable economic growth and to the delivery of a better society. It helps us to discharge our duty to the disadvantaged, such as the clothing workers in Bangladesh. That is why I hope that the current review of non-financial reporting requirements will produce strengthened social, environmental and human rights commitments.

I also welcome the proposed amendment to the EU accounting directive, which would require companies to account for their impact on society more generally. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will support that amendment?

Finally, closer to home is the CAF/NCVO Back Britain’s Charities campaign, launched in response to a 20% drop in donations when charities face a 67% increase in demand for their services. Businesses are as much a part of their local communities as local government or charities. They have a significant role to play in addressing difficult social issues. Next week, the CAF/all-party parliamentary inquiry on growing giving, chaired by the right honourable David Blunkett MP, starts taking evidence. Can the Minister tell us the Government’s views about encouraging both employers and employees to work together to give more time and money to good causes?

20:02

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I have a sober view of where we now stand as a nation and, in my two minutes, I intend to concentrate on the relationship between business and local communities. I do that from a comparative basis. I am lucky enough still to live in the small town that I was bred in—Sudbury in Suffolk—and the contrast between my first 20 or 25 years and now could not be more stark in terms of business engagement with civic and public life. I do not think that the town is any different from any other in the country.

In my youth, there was strong community cohesion. Most businesses—professional businesses, factories and shops—were locally owned, and there was a happy elision between self-interest and public interest in that, if you did nothing by way of public service, people would notice. They would say, “That miserable so and so, Phillips. He sits in his office coining the money and does”—I must not use the Saxon expression—“very little”.

Today, it is tragically noticeable how few lawyers, doctors, accountants, factory owners, shopkeepers and bank managers—we do not even have those—engage with the community. The disconnect between business and civic life is astonishing and is, I think, at the root of so much that is damaging in our public and national life. It is not because people are bad; it is because of the values by which this society of ours is currently driven. Commercialisation and individualisation have done grave damage to the contribution that business people of all types should and could make, to their great advantage. One irony is that public service has huge come-back and rewards. It brings status, self-satisfaction and so on.

There is no point in pretending that we, here in Parliament, can deal with these matters. We can add a bit of help and a bit of a push but, by and large, this is a deep cultural problem for all of us—individually, collectively and communally. I just want to make that point because, unless we have a reformation and we reconnect, remoralise and re-relate business, I think that our next 20 years could be the worst of the past 200.

20:04

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, when I came to this country from India in the early 1980s, entrepreneurship had the image of Del Boy and second-hand car salesmen. There was a glass ceiling. Today, everything has changed. Entrepreneurship is cool, and I believe that we have a society where anyone can get anywhere, regardless of race, religion or background. Yet business still has such a bad image. We have executive pay. The noble Lord, Lord Sacks, spoke about the noble Lord, Lord Sugar. We have the “Apprentice” image of “You’re fired”. We also have the financial crisis and bankers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, for initiating this debate.

At an Industry and Parliament Trust event last week, I chaired a dinner where the theme was trust in business and government. I was shocked when statistics were quoted: only 17% of the public trust business. Even worse, a poll was taken after the Olympics in which the question was, “Are you proud of Britain?”. Overwhelmingly the public were proud of Britain. However, when asked, “Are you proud of British business?”, 4% said that they were. That is shocking.

The Zoroastrian community, of which I am proud to be a member, is based on three tenets: good thoughts, good words and good deeds. When Jaguar Land Rover was taken over by Tata, the company headed and founded by Parsis, the workforce was happy because of Tata’s reputation for welfare in the workforce. The motto of the World Zoroastrian Chamber of Commerce is “Industry and Integrity”—industry as in hard work, of course. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, explained that “integrity” comes from the Latin word “integrum”, which means “wholeness”. You cannot practise integrity unless you are whole.

Can the Minister explain what more the Government can do to make sure that our people and the country appreciate business and are proud of business? Regardless of everything, British business is still in every sector one can imagine the best of the best in the world. Therefore, why do people not appreciate that it is business that, on the whole, pays the taxes, creates the jobs and pays for all the public services that we all benefit from?

20:06

[Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach]

My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate for two reasons. The first is that the subject is hugely important. As we have just been reminded, business is the source of jobs, of wealth creation, of innovation and of tax revenue. The second reason is my regard for the noble Lord, Lord Sacks. As a religious leader in this country, he has been unrivalled in his support for business—but not just any kind of business. He has consistently championed business which serves society, business which has an ethical core and business which has a purpose larger than just profit.

Profit is essential to any business—without profit, a business will cease to exist—but the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, has repeatedly asked what I think are the fundamental questions. What is the purpose of business? What is a business really for? Why does it exist? His answer, with which I totally agree, is that business is not an end in itself. Business has to be seen within a larger framework which puts the human person—or, as he said today, the young unemployed—at the centre of economic life, emphasising creativity, work, integrity in the product, sustainability of the environment and so on. That is why, as he said, business plays a moral role in our society. I also greatly value the theological underpinning—the Hebrew Bible—of what he said, which is not just the basis of Jewish economic ethics but is also the fundamental basis of Christian ethics.

In asking the Government to assess the relationship between business and society, I believe that the paramount issue, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, is trust. People instinctively know what is good and what is bad, and what is right and what is wrong in business. It is because of this that they are dismayed by the constant stream of bad news from business: mis-selling, price-fixing, money-laundering, tax avoidance and bribery.

I think that government can help by ensuring greater transparency and rebuilding trust, but the greater challenge, which is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, talked about, is the moral leadership which comes from business itself and which has to emphasise honesty, integrity and openness as the way forward. That is why I really applaud what the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, said.

20:09

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be participating in a debate initiated so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, and in which my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, spoke so wisely. I want to concentrate in the next two minutes that I have on the paradoxical relationship between business and society. Business simply cannot survive without three conditions. One is an educated workforce and skilled personnel, which society provides. Another is a well regulated market with a civic morality, which only society can cultivate and nurture through its institutions. It also requires a well regulated state, which only a good society can sustain.

Those three conditions constitute the invisible capital that business requires in order to survive. Business depends not just on the financial capital that businessmen produce, but on the moral, cultural and political capital that society at large provides. Business, therefore, is vitally dependent on society, and yet it has the constant tendency to undermine all those three conditions on which it depends for its survival. It is used to counting the money and therefore does not see the value of the invisible capital that society’s moral and political institutions provide. It takes a short-term view of things, and institutions, moral institutions in particular, are built over generations. It also takes an instrumental approach to life and turns almost everything into business so that in a society such as ours, medicine, law and even the priesthood might become a business.

Given business’s hegemonic and expansionist tendency to turn everything into its own mirror image, it inevitably undermines the capital on which it depends. Therefore, it desperately requires a regulatory framework, which is provided by the state. The state therefore is not the enemy of business let alone of the market: the state provides the sole preconditions that business requires in order to flourish. That was the big mistake made by Mrs Thatcher and the neoliberals. They thought that they could deregulate the economy and remove the state. In the process, they released forces that caused the havoc that we are still experiencing. Unless we properly grasp the relationship between business and society and the way in which business depends vitally on the moral capital that society provides, we are in grave danger of repeating the mistakes that were made only a few years ago.

20:12

[Lord Kalms]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, has covered the ground well, and I thank him for inaugurating this short but valuable debate. Regretfully, the market economy is both hero and villain. Our task and our duty is to deal with its flaws. It will be fatal if we do not find the cure. The market is selfish, greedy and inward looking. Its thinking can be short term and it is corruptible. The bankers’ poisoned products leave an indelible mark on our memory. The search for gold temporarily blinds the market to its consequences. It deliberately confuses charity with its tax efficiency against a wider social responsibility. Its wealth is for internal consumption—and fat do they all grow.

Today, the market looks to globalisation, particularly in Africa and Asia, to create new wealth. It employs young labour, tax avoidance, subsistence wages, unacceptable working conditions and the corruption of local bureaucracies. Investment often becomes exploitation. Its sole raison d’être is the creation of wealth. The white T-shirt sold for a few pounds with a high margin must not be allowed to hide an invisible sheen of blood and tears.

We all recognise that these defects are part of all of us. The weaknesses are of a human nature. Few are totally innocent, and we must exercise self-criticism. To know the problem is how to solve the problem. Wealth creation must become remodelled. It must include the community and the world, and it can no longer be a golden island. It must embed into its character and soul the concept of ethics. It must ensure that wealth has to be transformed into spreading prosperity.

This concept is not in the stars; it is within our own hands. There are many companies and great philanthropists who pursue this model. They see the City as their responsibility. We must insist that all wealth creators have a duty of care to the society that creates their opportunity.

20:14

[Lord Mitchell]

My Lords, even with a two-minute deadline, I cannot let the moment pass without paying a few words of tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sacks. This coming September, and after 22 years, he will retire as Chief Rabbi. He has been an inspirational leader and teacher in his own community, but also an exceptional ambassador for Judaism in the public arena. Through his writings and radio broadcasts, he has become an unparalleled moral voice for the nation.

I have always been personally grateful for his wisdom and support, and I know many other noble Lords are too. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords here this evening in thanking him for his service to our country and wishing him well for the future.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, Hear!

[Lord Mitchell]

If the BBC is listening, we must all hope that the noble Lord’s slot on “Thought for the Day” will continue.

The Jewish Association for Business Ethics was partially set up by the noble Lord, Lord Sacks. On two quite separate occasions, we had two leading lights from the UK advertising industry as keynote speakers. I asked both of them the same question: “In view of the UK’s recent actions to ban tobacco advertising, would your agency run advertisements in countries where cigarette advertising is still permitted?”. Both of them gave me the same answer: “If it’s legal, we will do it”. I was shocked.

The issue of strict legality came up again when I attended the Google Big Tent event last month. Not surprisingly, keynote speaker Ed Miliband criticised Google for avoiding UK tax. Eric Schmidt, Google’s worldwide CEO, gave a reply that was a tad disingenuous: “Google pays the tax it is legally due to pay. If you don’t like it, then change the law”. I was shocked again.

Codes of conduct, voluntary tax payments and exhortation are all very well, but seldom enough. Governments around the world need to work harder to ensure that the laws are in place and that the rules are clear. That way, both the spirit of the law and the letter of the law will come closer together, giving business the certainty that it needs to fulfil its vital role in our society.

20:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, for initiating this important debate. I had the pleasure of meeting him for the first time when I happened to sit beside him during the gracious Speech. I am grateful to Her Majesty the Queen for unwittingly engineering this. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, and wishing him well for the future.

In considering one of the key raisons d’êtres for business, the fundamental question is whether the pursuit of profit can ever be good for society. In the 1980s, the answer would have been, for most, a resounding yes. For others, especially those who were wary of privatisation, the answer might have been a firm no.

Through the boom years, when house prices were rising, unemployment was low, when gadgets were readily purchased by all and frequent and exotic holidays seemed commonplace, many people might have agreed that the pursuit of profit was not a bad idea. During recent times, people have begun to question the pursuit of profit as a greater emphasis is placed on the benefit of business to society.

This Government are clear that business, and the pursuit of profit, can be a force for good in society by strengthening our economy and bringing together local communities. The noble Lord, Lord Sacks, acknowledged that earlier in his speech. At a fundamental level, businesses contribute significantly to society by creating jobs and improving the skills of the workforce. Many noble Lords made that point today. The noble Lord, Lord Sacks, in particular spoke about the importance of the value of work, the benefit of doing business and the satisfaction that many employees and employers gain from simply trading, which in itself is good for society.

I am pleased to report that figures from the Office for National Statistics published earlier today show that 1.3 million new private sector jobs have been created over the past three years. Some 24,000 more people are in work since the previous quarter, which is a fantastic figure. Figures relating to the period between February and April 2013 show that youth unemployment was down by 43,000. The noble Lord, Lord Glasman, concentrated on youth employment in his speech. It is an extremely important issue on which the Government are focusing in their aim of growing the economy. The noble Lord also made the point that, at the opposite end of the spectrum, older workers have a valuable role to play in the workplace. Further, since 2010, over 1 million apprenticeship starts have been created, and provisional data show that there were 245,000 apprenticeship starts during the first six months of the 2012-13 academic year. Of those, 69,600 were in the 16 to 18 year-old bracket. These figures are very encouraging, but there is a long way to go and we will keep working hard on this issue.

Businesses provide much more than just employment. They can improve the quality of life and well-being of employees, protect the environment and invest in a wide range of community activities. My noble friend Lord Griffiths emphasised that the purpose of business is more than just profits and stressed that employment has a moral purpose. In adding to that point, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, defined it as a civil morality. Many businesses actively seek to improve opportunities for young people through apprenticeships and by supporting schools and charities.

The Government are showcasing schemes that encourage businesses across the country to support their local communities through corporate responsibility activity. There are many examples of this. In 1999, Greggs, the high street bakers, established its Breakfast Club programme within primary schools in disadvantaged areas. I am happy to say that this now provides a healthy start to the day for more than 10,000 children. In 2011, Greggs donated £250,000 to support existing clubs and open additional ones in areas of need. Lloyds Banking Group’s community investment similarly focuses on community sponsorship and funding local charities, supporting colleagues with their local community engagement and improving levels of financial inclusion and financial literacy in the United Kingdom. This includes building the financial capabilities of people with learning disabilities, thereby enabling access to financial services. Marks & Spencer’s Marks & Start work experience programme for disadvantaged groups has helped more than 800 people in the United Kingdom to get back into work. One might perhaps say, “It’s not just altruism, it’s Marks & Spencer altruism”.

It is not just big business that can make a difference. The Voice of Local Shops Survey polled more than 1,100 independent retailers across the country and found that 80% of store owners are involved in their community in some way, with 71% collecting for a local or national charity and 25% providing sponsorship for local schools and sports teams. The UK should be rightly proud of the many companies that go beyond their own self-interest and undertake activities that are of benefit to business, the environment and, indeed, society. The Government are taking steps to encourage this. At the end of the month, my honourable friend in the other place, Jo Swinson, will be launching a three-month consultation on corporate responsibility with business and other stakeholders. The Government are also committed to supporting and promoting an economy that is comprised of a diverse range of business and organisational models that includes the private sector, the public sector, co-ops, voluntary groups and charities with the aim of achieving a stronger society. This was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, emphasised in his speech.

Additionally, the coalition agreement in 2010 stated that the Government would take action to support the growth of the social enterprise sector. This sector is more important than ever to achieve an economy where a responsible approach is taken to growth, risk, the business environment and society with the aim of achieving long-term, sustained economic prosperity alongside the responsible use of resources. Its focus on responsible social business practices not only drives its profitability, it improves the well-being of local communities. These businesses are often concentrated in the UK’s most deprived communities, addressing social problems and building economic resilience.

For example, an organisation called Blue Sky is a social enterprise that focuses on reintegrating ex-offenders into society by offering employment and training opportunities. It exemplifies the economic and social good catalysed by social enterprises. To date, it has provided more than 700 jobs to ex-offenders. Some 51% of them leave with formal training qualifications, 48% move into permanent employment and, on average, only 15% have reoffended, which is a quarter of the national average. Blue Sky is also a growing profitable business whose commercial income has increased sixfold since 2007. It is helping to break the cycle of reoffending and is challenging society’s negative perception of offenders. Another example is Cockpit Arts, an award-winning social enterprise based in London, which is the UK’s only creative business incubator for designer-makers. It works with hundreds of businesses to help them conceive, develop and deliver innovative products to take to market. Moreover, in 2012, Cockpit Arts reinvested its profits into its Creative Careers for NEETS programme, providing jobs and work experience placements for local unemployed people with raw creative talent.

My right honourable friend in the other place, Dr Vince Cable, has already established quarterly bilateral meetings with Social Enterprise UK, the leading trade organisation for the sector. These productive and positive meetings help us to identify the acute challenges facing the social enterprise sector and look at what the Government can do to help. We are introducing new tax relief to encourage successful business people to invest in social enterprise, and it is good to have support in this area from my noble friend Lady Bottomley. Social enterprises are also challenging the glass ceiling, with 86% of their leadership teams boasting at least one female director and 27% with directors from the black and minority ethnic communities.

The relationship between arts and business is extremely important to enable a thriving and resilient arts and cultural sector which enriches society. Businesses provide a vital funding source that is essential to maintaining our high-quality arts culture. For example, for many years BP has supported the BP Portrait Award for the National Portrait Gallery, which encourages young artists to develop their portrait technique. Last year, more than 2,000 artists from 75 countries took part in the competition and almost 250,000 visitors attended the event. The Frieze London art fair, sponsored by Deutsche Bank, is one of the world’s most influential contemporary art fairs and brings an international audience to London every October. These sponsorships are vital for a greater number of people to experience and be inspired by the arts, irrespective of their background.

I turn now to a number of points that were raised by noble Lords in the debate. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that I greatly enjoyed the television programme this week in which he featured so strongly. He made the point that instilling the words “industry” and “integrity” into the workforce is important because, in turn, they create a certain wholesomeness that leads to better well-being in society. That is a point which is very well made. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester brought up the subject of the living wage. It is an important issue, and I thank him for raising it. I will write to him with some details on the living wage in relation to this particular building, which I think was the point that he made.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, asked whether the Government would publish the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, on 27 June we are launching a consultation on a UK framework for action on corporate responsibility, and we will take full account of the UN guiding principles. The final document setting out government and business corporate responsibility commitments will be published in December this year. I believe that it was my noble friend Lady Bottomley who raised the issue of ethical supply chains, as did my noble friend Lord Kalms. The Bangladeshi factory crisis and the horsemeat scandal illustrate the importance of promoting ethical and responsible supply chains. The Government are encouraging businesses to value and develop responsible supply chains. My noble friend Lord Kalms also referred to transparency, and indeed he is correct to say that we need to be more transparent in the supply chain. That will lead to better information being made available to consumers, thus allowing them to make a choice as to whether a £2 T-shirt is actually worth all the blood, sweat and tears.

The initiatives discussed today provide just a few examples of the Government’s engagement with business, a relationship that this Government seek to improve and strengthen.

20:29

House resumed. Committee not to begin again before 8.38 pm.

Care Bill [HL]

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

20:38

Clause 79 : Unitary board

Amendment 73

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

73: Clause 79, page 66, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) a Chief Inspector of Hospitals,“( ) a Chief Primary and Community Care Inspector,”

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I have put down this amendment to explore briefly the Government’s thinking on the appointments set out in the amendment. As has already been said, I am sure we are all delighted that Professor Sir Mike Richards has been appointed Chief Inspector of Hospitals. I was doubtful about the practicality of this post but if anybody can make a success of it, I think Mike Richards can. Why did the Government not make this a statutory post? Is it because they see it as a time-limited appointment?

The second part of the amendment explores a slightly wider issue. I know that the post of Chief Inspector of Social Care has been advertised but does the Minister think that the post has been too narrowly drawn and represents a bit of a missed opportunity? I know from remarks he has made at events I have been at that the Health Secretary has considered whether there should be a chief inspector of primary care, which I am sure has strengthened his relationship with GPs. For my part, poking around in some of the murkier corners of primary care and trying to strengthen it would be no bad thing.

However, the wider system problem we face in the NHS is the weakness of the combined set of non-hospital services and their integration with social care. That weakness is now leading to moves in some places for acute hospitals to think of themselves as the base for community-based services. I suspect that is a development we will regret in the longer term, particularly if those services end up bearing a disproportionately high amount of the overhead costs of acute hospitals. Can the Minister say a little more about whether the Government are considering appointing a chief inspector of primary care and whether further consideration could be given to widening the brief of the Chief Inspector of Social Care to embrace community health services and possibly primary care? I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment is very penetrating. Under this clause the Secretary of State will appoint only the chair and other non-executive members while the CQC appoints its own executive members, including the chief executive. I draw the noble Earl’s attention to our debate on day one of Committee when we discussed the governance of Health Education England and the Health Research Authority. I still fail to understand why the Secretary of State has to approve the appointment of the chief executive of those bodies when he does not in relation to the CQC. I take from it that HEE and HRA are less independent than the CQC. It would be interesting to know whether he can confirm that.

I thought my noble friend made a very powerful point about the appointment of a chief inspector. I endorse his remarks about the appointment of Mike Richards. He commands great respect, but I wonder why it is not in the Bill. It seems to me that the relationship between the chief inspectors and the chief executive and the board of the CQC is going to be a delicate one. Once you nominate somebody as chief inspector the implication is that they are independent in their job. My experience when I was at the DWP and responsible for the Health and Safety Executive is that it had some chief inspectors. There was the equivalent of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, although that has now gone, and the Chief Inspector of Construction. It was felt necessary in some of the most important sectors to have a figurehead. My understanding was that when it came to issues to do with the regulatory function they were independent and could not be second-guessed by the board. The relationship between the chief inspectors and the board is very important. I wonder whether the noble Earl’s department is storing up trouble for the future by not making them statutory post-holders so that it is absolutely clear in legislation what their responsibility is. I can see problems arising in future on this.

This issue about putting primary and community healthcare together will also be very important. The breakdown in the NHS over the past few months has been a breakdown in integration between different parts of the service. Putting primary and community care together would be very helpful.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

I support the amendment and in particular the argument for the chief primary and community care inspector. Many of us who operate within the service—even people who use it—know that often the weakness has been in the delivery of primary care. We talked earlier about reconfiguration. The only way that that would be successful is if we had better primary care facilities and care that people could access nearer to home—all aspirations that the Government have. I strongly support having that watchful eye on making sure that primary care works effectively.

20:45

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this mini-debate on Amendment 73. We are sympathetic to the view behind this amendment —or what seems to lie behind it—which seeks to ensure that the new chief inspectors will be given a place on the board of the CQC. I echo here the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for Professor Mike Richards. I know that the professor’s cancer colleagues will miss him in that field.

Noble Lords are absolutely right about the importance of improving quality and in particular of trying to drive up quality within primary care. The Secretary of State announced the appointment of a Chief Inspector of Hospitals as part of the Government’s response to the Francis review into Mid Staffs. As has been referred to, since that time the Government have also announced the positions of a Chief Inspector of Social Care and a Chief Inspector of General Practice. These three chief inspectors will sit within the CQC and lead for it on the inspection and regulation of all registered providers of health and adult social care. They will be high-profile positions—as the appointment of Mike Richards demonstrates—and will speak for the CQC on the quality of care that they find. As such, it is likely, as noble Lords have indicated, that they will have a lot to offer the CQC board in knowledge, experience and leadership.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked about the areas that the Chief Inspector of General Practice might cover and whether the post might be drawn more widely. In some ways, that rather bears out my point: setting this in stone in statute may not be the best way to make everything link up so that the new positions work as effectively as possible. The CQC needs to move this forward so that it can best drive up quality. It will be for the CQC to determine the exact remit of each of the chief inspectors. All providers of registered health and adult care services will fall within one of the chief inspectors’ remits. Perhaps that will reassure the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Hunt. The CQC is working up detailed proposals. No doubt it will pay attention to what noble Lords have said. Broadly, the Chief Inspector of Hospitals will cover acute trusts, including mental health trusts; the Chief Inspector of Social Care will cover providers of regulated adult social care, including care homes and domiciliary care agencies; and the Chief Inspector of General Practice will cover GP and dental practices as well as walk-in centres, private healthcare and independent ambulance providers. Clearly, the CQC will look at how it gets comprehensive coverage.

We have deliberately avoided requiring that these inspectors should have a seat on the board for two reasons. First, the aim of Clause 79 is to give the CQC more autonomy in determining which executive members sit on its board. This is in line with best practice, as no doubt noble Lords will recognise. We would not wish to remove this new autonomy by requiring that any executive, other than the chief executive, must sit on the board. Secondly, we have designed the chief inspector roles to be non-statutory. They are internal to the CQC, and the CQC will have the power to design, shape and adapt the roles in a way that best enables their operational effectiveness. I hope that that helps to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Does that mean that at the end of the day the chief executive of the CQC can overrule the chief inspectors? That must be the implication of what she said.

[Baroness Northover]

Perhaps I could carry on. I will come back to that in a minute.

Setting these roles as non-statutory clearly gives the CQC important flexibility to design them to fit their method of regulation in the fast-developing field of health and social care, without the constraints of prescribing the functions of the chief inspectors in statute. As these roles are not mentioned in the legislation, it would not be appropriate to require in legislation that they should have a seat on the board. Having said that, discussions with the CQC chair and chief executive showed them to share the view that chief inspectors will have much to offer the board. Their preference, subject to appropriate board approval, is that when practicable these executives should be appointed to the board. Given the intended importance of these roles, we fully agree with that. In advance of the new legislation coming into operation, I can confirm that the Secretary of State would consider using his current powers to appoint the three inspectors to the board if that was requested by the present CQC chair and chief executive.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about Health Education England and the HRA. These will be established as unitary boards, which is to say that they consist of both executive and non-executive members. I can clarify that the chief inspectors are accountable to the chief executive and to the CQC’s board. They will speak for the CQC on their findings when they inspect providers. Having clarified these areas and reassured noble Lords about the significance of these roles and the need for flexibility, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Warner]

Clearly the noble Baroness has clarified matters, but whether she has reassured me is another question. I think the Government underestimate the profile of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals in particular. There is no doubt that this will be a very powerful and important post with an enormous profile. The idea that this person can be overruled by the chief executive and the board, as this legislation sets out, poses a problem I certainly want to think more about.

I also think that there is a gap here. Community health services are not clearly in anybody’s remit. I am sure my noble friend Lord Hunt would agree that if we were to identify one black hole where there is not a great deal of data on performance and quality, it would be community health services. It is an area that has not been probed well by independent inspection, and as far as I can see the game plan is to have no inspector looking into that area. Given everybody’s concern about integration, it seems a bit of a missed opportunity for there not to be some linking up there.

I want to consider this much further. It would be helpful if Ministers sent the Committee the job description for the three inspectors they propose. In my experience, it is rather difficult to appoint anyone to anything without a job description. It would be very helpful to our deliberations to have that before Report.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

It seems to me that unless this is sorted out there will be problems in the future, notwithstanding the calibre of the current leadership of the CQC, which I readily acknowledge. If the chief inspector does not have total operational independence when acting as chief inspector, I see a recipe for potential trouble. We will not reach Report until October, so there is plenty of time. My noble friend and I would be very interested to have at least some discussion about how the CQC will avoid the kind of conflicts that clearly we would rather not have, if at all possible.

[Baroness Northover]

I am very happy to take back to the department the request for further descriptions of the jobs in these cases. We should also bear in mind that the aims of these chief inspectors, as part of the CQC, are to maintain safety and effectiveness and drive up quality. They have shared aims; it is not as if they have different ambitions in this regard.

[Lord Warner]

That is extremely helpful, but my noble friend is absolutely right. Bearing in mind our earlier discussion about warning notices and enforcement, in reality what the chief hospital inspector says in many cases is what will determine whether the CQC goes ahead with a warning notice, which might trigger trust special administration. That is a really powerful position in the public arena. I would welcome, with my noble friend, a discussion with Ministers about this, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.

Clause 79 agreed.

Amendment 73A

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

73A*: After Clause 79, insert the following new Clause—
“National Reporting and Learning System
The National Reporting and Learning System shall come under the control of the Care Quality Commission.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we come to a very important clause, which I think the Government might describe as a Francis clause since it clearly seeks to respond to the Robert Francis inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire hospital problems. In fact, judging by the rigour of the Government’s initial response to Mr Francis, one might have thought that there would have been a series of clauses reflecting the 290 recommendations. It would be helpful to know why the Government consider that this is an adequate legislative response. Can the Minister say whether there is likely to be further legislation or whether, in effect, this is the definitive legislative response to the Francis report?

Clause 81 creates a new offence so that providers of health services and adult social care that supply, publish or otherwise make available information that is “false or misleading” could be subject to criminal sanctions. The offence applies to a care provider as a corporate body, not to individual directors or employees. Clause 81 outlines the scope of the offence, including where care providers are potentially subject to it and the type of information to which it relates. I understand that further detail will be specified in the regulations as appropriate.

Let me say at once that this clause is welcome, as far as it goes. However, I have two questions to ask. First, is it possible to be rather more explicit than the Explanatory Notes are as to what information is likely to be covered by the offence? This is important as I have received a briefing from NHS employer organisations, which recognise the seriousness of the potential offence in this clause and would like to see clarity as to the kind of information that is embraced.

It is disappointing that the clause does not contain a provision to enact a duty of candour, as recommended by Robert Francis. That is the subject of my Amendment 76B. He said that a statutory duty should be imposed to observe such a duty of candour on healthcare providers who believe, or suspect, that treatment or care provided to a patient has caused death or serious injury to inform that patient or another duly authorised person as soon as is practicable. At Second Reading, the noble Earl said that the duty of candour would be dealt with through CQC registration via regulations. I am very puzzled that such a key recommendation—it was almost the headline recommendation—of the Francis report is not going to be dealt with in the Bill when the Government clearly have the vehicle to put it there, so I am very sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Warner’s Amendment 77, which I think is consistent with my Amendment 76B. It is always nice to feel that I am consistent with my noble friend.

20:59

It is also noticeable that the Government appear to have rejected Francis’s recommendation to place on individuals a statutory duty of openness, candour and transparency. I am not unaware of the concerns in the NHS and social care that an individual duty such as this might perversely lead to increasing the incentives to staff to hide information about adverse events because of the potential repercussions. It has certainly been put to me that any legislative proposal must avoid dissuading the reporting of any kind, deterring clinicians from undertaking complex medical cases or discouraging innovation.

I well understand that and why the Government may be somewhat reluctant to go down that route, but it is noticeable that Mr Francis has expressed in public his disappointment with the Government’s response. Most recently, he was reported as saying that prosecutions should occur only for the most serious cases for the sorts of behaviour that he saw so many examples of in the Mid Staffordshire inquiry, as he describes it,

“of absolutely appalling care, insulting to human dignity and in some cases life-threatening behaviour leaving people naked, unfed, covered in faeces”.

He went on to say:

“Unless we have a criminal offence, we will not be reflecting adequately the gravity of the terrible things it seems are capable of being done in our hospital wards if they are not properly run”.

He concluded:

“If we don’t reflect somehow the fact that the public rightly think some things are terrible and there should be real accountability for them, then I believe the public confidence in the NHS will evaporate”.

I do not pretend this is an easy question, but I would be grateful if the Minister would inform the House of his thinking, the extent to which Professor Berwick’s review will input into this, and whether the Government have closed the door completely on individual statutory liabilities.

Of course, I was tempted to put down amendments relating to all 290 recommendations of the Francis report, but I have chosen two as symbols because they are so important. I would be interested to know whether the Government are going to move on them. The first relates to the consequence of the abolition of the National Patient Safety Agency. We debated this in the Health and Social Care Bill. I have a particular interest since I was a former chair, although the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has also chaired the NPSA. The key point about the NPSA is not the organisation. It practically ran the national reporting and learning system. This was developed by the former Chief Medical Officer using the example of the airline industry, where airline staff are encouraged to report near misses on the basis that they will not be penalised for doing so, but by reporting one can learn and improve safety. The airline industry is a very good example of how that has occurred.

The Government’s current decision was to transfer responsibility for the national reporting and learning system to NHS England. I think they have sub-contracted the job to Imperial College, which is fine, but I have concerns about NHS England being the repository of the national reporting and learning system, because the role of NHS England is basically to beat up the system to deliver on the targets. I heard with interest Sir David Nicholson’s rather extraordinary speech where he presented an image of NHS England taking forward the great vision of the future and taking everyone with it. However, those of us on the ground see old-style performance management operating well and effectively in NHS England, and there could be issues in the future with staff being reluctant to report incidents because they are sent to the management body that oversees the performance of the NHS. Robert Francis said, first, that the NPSA’s resources need to be well protected. He clearly recognised the importance of the national reporting and learning system and made clear that he thought that the responsibility should be placed under the regulator. I wonder if that is not a sensible suggestion. I do not think it is at all satisfactory that it remains with NHS England.

Amendment 73B, my second, comes back to the current debate about safety and quality in the NHS. One thing that has become clear from Mid Staffordshire is that, in its urgency to get foundation trust status, the board was prepared to squeeze the staffing numbers. That was surely one of the main contributors to the poor quality of care. I do not think we can run away from the fact that there is a direct relationship between the number of clinical staff treating patients and the quality of care. Interestingly, Mr Francis, in one of his earlier recommendations, said:

“The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should be commissioned to formulate standard procedures and practice designed to provide the practical means of compliance, and indicators by which compliance with both fundamental and enhanced standards can be measured”.

He went on to say:

“The standard procedures and practice should include evidence-based tools for establishing what each service is likely to require as a minimum in terms of staff numbers and skill mix. This should include nursing staff on wards, as well as clinical staff”.

Are the Government going to ask NICE to be commissioned to undertake that work? If they are, the Care Quality Commission clearly needs to take that into account when it monitors, visits and inspects NHS organisations and, indeed, other organisations for which it is responsible.

I am not holding a candle for rigid staff to patient ratios on every ward in the country being set at a national level, which is why I am attracted rather more to Robert Francis’s concept of benchmarking. However, I have no doubt that he is right to want to try to safeguard quality by making sure that enough staff are available in clinical areas. We cannot escape from this. Given the financial constraints on the NHS, there has to be some protection when it comes to staff numbers, and the Francis report offers us a rather sensible way through on this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, this is a very interesting group of amendments. I will initially address the amendment relating to staffing requirements. I declare an interest, having been involved with Gwent Police at the beginning of its Operation Jasmine investigation into nursing homes. It became evident there that the staffing levels in nursing homes—which were owned privately by a GP at the time—fell to such a level that the care was non-existent. What was happening was absolutely appalling. I urge the Government to ask NICE to look at this and come up with some guidance. The biggest problem may well be outside of the hospitals, in the nursing home and care sector. It is not only the staffing levels and the skill mix but about how staff are expected to behave, what they are expected to do and their taking on broader responsibilities for the care of patients. I am not sure whether the wording is right for the Bill itself, but it might be helpful for NICE to come up with some guidance that CQC could use for benchmarking.

It is important that we look at the organisational duty of candour and are cautious so that it cannot simply get focused down and pinned on the individual. The Government have done a great deal of work already, as has the General Medical Council, on the duty of candour of doctors towards patients when something has gone wrong. Sadly, however, the medical defence unions have all found that doctors, by and large—two-thirds of doctors have reported this—are working in what they feel is a blame-and-shame culture in which it becomes increasingly difficult to report errors, and 70% of them report that they do not feel supported when they report errors. However, there is an undoubted need for there to be a duty of candour to patients when something has gone wrong.

One of the clinical difficulties that arise is that in very complex situations, however well a team functions, things sometimes do not go the way you expect them to. It is important to be able to differentiate that situation from one in which somebody has done something wrong, which has resulted in harm to a patient. Therefore, I have a slight worry about whether perverse outcomes might occur that could increase that fear of blame and shame. However, it is important to emphasise that since April this year there is a contractual duty on organisations providing care that advises that doctors should tell patients when something has gone wrong. That has been a major culture shift for many, but patients are, in fact, very receptive to being told when something has gone wrong. I have done it myself with the team, and the other, non-medical members of staff were astonished at how welcoming the patient and their relatives were to being told that something had gone wrong and what we were doing about it. There is also already the ability to impose fines, with the recovery of up to £10,000 from the provider and criminal prosecution for significant or recurrent breaches of the duty of care, and, of course, if an individual professional has failed to be candid about an error, they should be referred for impaired fitness to practice and potential suspension or erasure from the professional register, whether it is a doctor or a nurse.

I will give a quick clinical example of where the situation could get complicated. Take a patient who is prescribed a drug such as methotrexate and is to be monitored regularly by the GP. The GP asks the receptionist to put a flag on the system, but the receptionist forgets to do it. The patient carries on taking the methotrexate, becomes neutropenic—has bone marrow failure—is admitted to hospital and is septic. The patient recovers from that, and in hospital is told exactly what has happened. When the patient leaves hospital, understandably very angry, and goes straight round to the GP, the GP has not yet received the discharge letter and finds it difficult to understand what has happened, and there have been delays in the system so that the discharge letter was delayed in getting to the GP.

That is the kind of catalogue within a whole team of lots of people not quite doing it right, and it becomes very difficult to pin the blame on someone, although undoubtedly an error occurred. That is why I support the duty of candour on an organisation, but we have to be careful that we do not end up creating such a culture of fear and blame that other parts of the organisation get scapegoated and blamed, rather than there being corporate ownership for what has gone on.

One of my other concerns about Amendment 76B is in the first part of the amendment, about being,

“honest, open and truthful in all their dealing with patients and the public”.

I would like to be assured, by those who tabled the amendment, that there is no conflict with the requirement for confidentiality in terms of what you are told by a patient. I could see a clinical situation in which information held by a patient might have made their care more difficult. It might have been disclosed to only one healthcare professional, and the patient may have said that it was not to be disclosed to anybody else. Therefore there are complexities behind this, so that enforcing it in law and imposing sanctions and penalties might become difficult.

21:15

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 77 standing in my name. I have taken a slight different approach from that of my noble friend, but I was out of the traps a little before him. I was trying to do something slightly different, but I am equally happy with his rather more elegant amendment on the duty of candour. Whether I have got the wording of the amendment right is another matter, but I was trying to link the organisational responsibility for a duty of candour to the registration process. Therefore, that right at the outset, as a condition of registration, the organisation had to sign up to the idea of a duty of candour.

When one is in the patient’s position, the duty of candour in relation to the employee becomes very important. The patient sees individual people, not necessarily something called an organisation. On the other hand, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, one has to provide cover for individuals who operate in that organisation, both to protect them from unreasonable attacks by the victim of the mistakes, but also from attacks by the employer for blowing the whistle on them. In this amendment, I am striving for an obligation on the employer—the provider of the services—to have a duty of candour as part of their registration conditions. At the same time, the employee should be protected against unfair employment practices or unfair criticism. One is then forced along a path—which is not fully explained in my amendment—where the contract of employment between the individual and the employer gives some protection to the employee who blows the whistle.

That is quite complicated stuff and this is a complicated area, but we have to strive not just for organisational candour, but for some protected way for the employee to level with people when things have gone wrong. I think the secret lies somewhere in the contract of employment. We do not want that routed only through doctors. In a care home, for example, it will not be the doctors talking to the residents, their families or whoever. We need to do more work on this. Given that this was such a high-profile issue in the Francis report I, like my noble friend Lord Hunt, find it surprising that we are not trying to deal with it in the Bill, complicated though it is. We need to put some wet towels around our heads to try to find a way of capturing this in the Bill, so it is both fair to the employer and to the employee. That is what I am trying to do. Whether I have succeeded in my simpler version in Amendment 77 I am not sure, but that is the thinking behind it.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I welcome the debate on the duty of candour. It almost seems as though we are rewinding to 18 months ago, when we had similar debates during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. Although I would not have wished the events at Mid Staffordshire Hospital on anybody, I am really pleased that as a result the Francis report recommended a duty of candour. I therefore welcome the Government’s intention to implement that duty. However, as we have seen over the past 20 minutes, nothing is as straightforward as it first seems, so a lot of hot-towel work needs to be done to get this right.

I shall not detain the Committee long, but there are two sets of choices that the Government have made and I am curious why they made them. The first is whether the duty of candour is on the individual or on the organisation. The second, to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has just referred, is whether it is going to be in the Bill or in secondary legislation.

The duty of candour will cause a large change in people’s behaviour and it should be a game changer in lots of ways. As an aside, I think that complaints will fall. If somebody turns around and says, “I’m sorry”, people are less likely to complain. Certainly, those of us who have been involved in complaints will know that on many occasions patients just want someone to say that they are sorry and to explain why and how it went wrong, because they do not want it to go wrong in the same way for anybody else. So there might be an unintended consequence there.

When the Minister sums up, I would like to know why the decision was made not to put the duty in the Bill. Is that decision irrevocable?

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I support Amendments 76B and 77. There has been so much said that there should be a change in the culture in the NHS after the scandal of Mid Staffordshire Hospital. Amendments 76B and 77, dealing with the duty of candour, might help to do this. For years, relatives of patients who have died or been badly damaged have not always been treated in an honest and open way; many times, the causes have been covered up and there has been much suffering by those who need to know the truth and have an apology. It is also terrible that when people who fear for patients’ safety speak out to warn of unsatisfactory and dangerous situations, they are silenced and gagged. Surely, we should do something about that. It is our duty to speak out now and make patients’ safety a reality.

One elderly Member of your Lordships’ House told me yesterday that she was frightened in case she might have to go to hospital. How many people throughout the country must feel like that? The culture of fear and neglect must be changed. I hope that the Government understand that.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I have considerable reservations about the whole question of the duty of candour, as I was saying to colleagues earlier today. I want to put to a counterargument to the House.

Recommendation 177 of the Francis report says:

“Any public statement made by a healthcare organisation about its performance must be truthful and not misleading by omission”.

Therefore I presume that, under a duty of candour arrangement, there would be a requirement to admit negligence, if there was negligence.

After my last visit to the accident and emergency department at Wexham Park Hospital in Slough, I left the car park and saw a huge sign on a van at the side of the main road, which said, “If you believe you’ve been a subject of medical negligence, please ring the following number”. I worry that with the way in which this whole issue is being addressed, under the conditions of the duty of candour, which in principle I would like to support, those people who put up those signs may well make rather a lot of money out of it. They will find a basis on which to start bringing more and more actions against the National Health Service. I do not know the way round it, because if that is what is happening, and there are so many people out there who are prepared to bring legal action, if they believe that they have the remotest chance of winning such an action, the duty of candour will be used as a means to bring about those actions.

I cannot see how we can stop it. That being the case, I believe that we are going to find that, irrespective of this duty, people will, to put it bluntly, continue not necessarily to tell the truth when responding to complaints that are being made by members of the public over their healthcare. I am sorry to dissent slightly from my own Bench on this matter, but I have a concern here and I think that the Minister, in winding his up, should be far more open in this discussion about the possibility of litigation arising out of the introduction of the duty of candour. As I say, I would like to pursue it and I support it in principle, but I am worried that it may lead to more actions.

What would I do as an alternative? In the contribution that I made on Monday, I concentrated on what I thought were the problems from which complaints arise. These are, essentially, simple complications that arise on the ward through minor negligence or lack of concentration by healthcare assistants or nurses. I think that we have to go back a stage from this whole process of candour, litigation and complaint systems, to what is actually happening on the wards so as more effectively to police the way that treatment is carried out more.

At the end of last year, I and a colleague in the Commons conducted interviews with many people involved in healthcare about the problems on wards in hospitals. I drew the conclusion that we should have on every ward a very clear set of entitlements set out on large boards whereby patients and their relatives may understand their entitlements. Instead of being hesitant about going to complain within a ward about the way that they were being treated, they would be able to point to a document and say, “Look, Sir or Madam, this says that that is my entitlement”. If we can get across the fact that people have entitlements, and that they have a right to higher standards of healthcare on wards, there will be fewer complaints in those circumstances and so less incidents of complaints that, in the responses, must rely more on this duty of candour, if it were to be introduced.

I am concerned. I think that we are looking at this problem from the wrong end. We should go right back to the ward and deal with the problem there. They say that ward problems are about leadership on the ward. I am not altogether convinced of that. You cannot have someone on the ward running around telling everyone what to do all the time. You have to have a process of accountability for those who work on the ward to the patient and to the patient’s relative, being their representative. I will not go into my idea about these signs on wards in great detail tonight, but perhaps I will at another stage in the Bill.

I will however deal in detail with one area under Clause 81. An offence is defined as follows:

“A care provider of specified description commits an offence if … the information is false or misleading in a material respect”.

So that is an offence. The care provider is defined under subsection 3(b) as,

“a body (other than a public body)”—

in my view, that means a private body—

“which provides health services or adult social care in England pursuant to arrangements made with a public body”—

that might well be the commissioning body—

“exercising functions in connection with the provision of such services or care”.

I understand that to mean that you could have a private nursing home with an NHS contract to provide continuing care where the moment that they receive their first patient under continuing care arrangements—an NHS patient in a private nursing home—then that nursing home then falls under the provisions of subsection 3(b). Have I got that wrong? That means that the commission of an offence, if

“the information is false or misleading in a material respect”,

would apply to a nursing home where just one person is in receipt of care paid for by the National Health Service under a contractual arrangement, as against a nursing home next door where there are no NHS patients under a continuing care contract and all the patients are privately funded. There, that offence would not necessarily apply. That is how I understand what is said in that clause. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter.

21:30

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I welcome this very interesting debate which has gone in various directions. We have a number of amendments to consider here.

Amendment 73A would transfer the responsibility for the National Reporting and Learning System from NHS England to the Care Quality Commission. We wish to take the opportunity to underline the importance of the data and information available through the NRLS to the work of the Care Quality Commission. Indeed, a key component of the CQC’s new three-year strategy sets out how it will make better use of intelligence to inform inspections. However, I remind noble Lords that it was only on 1 June that responsibility for the National Reporting and Learning System was transferred to NHS England. This transfer puts patient safety at the heart of the NHS—I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, but I think it is extremely important that it is at the heart of the NHS—and will build on the excellent work of the National Patient Safety Agency. NHS England plans to develop a responsive NRLS that will provide a one-stop shop for NHS clinicians, patients and the public.

Additionally, noble Lords may be aware of the Berwick review of safety—reference was made to it—which seeks to learn lessons from the Francis report. It will report in July on a whole system approach to ensure that there is zero tolerance of harm in the NHS. We will, of course, give full consideration to any recommendations that that review might make on the effectiveness of the NRLS. In view of these important developments and reviews, we believe that reallocating this work now would be unnecessarily disruptive.

Amendment 73B introduces a new clause which would require the CQC to have regard to guidance on staffing numbers and skills mix in carrying out all its functions. I fully understand the sentiment behind this. All noble Lords will agree that high-quality care is dependent on the people giving it. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the problems that arise when that breaks down. Clearly, the right staffing in terms of numbers and skills is vital for good care. It therefore follows that staffing levels and skills mix are key considerations for the CQC in regulating quality of care. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, says, that is not necessarily sufficient. The CQC’s registration requirements place a clear legal duty on providers to have sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff in place for the services provided. It is the responsibility of individual providers to be accountable for staffing levels and the skills mix of staff in their organisations. Where a provider does not meet the staffing registration requirement, the CQC is able to use its enforcement powers to protect patients and service users. However, I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said about this being an issue which is not necessarily best placed in primary legislation. The point is to try to achieve quality, safety and efficacy.

The CQC will shortly review and consult on its registration requirements. We intend to amend the requirements so that they will include fundamental standards. These will set the basics below which standards of care must never fall. We can assure noble Lords that the new chief inspectors that we talked about previously, based within the CQC, will have the power to inspect and assess staffing numbers and the skills mix as part of examining the quality of care and will be able to take any necessary action as they consider appropriate. Noble Lords asked whether NICE might become involved in that. We believe that the current legislative arrangements already require the CQC to assess staffing levels. However, we will work with NICE, the CQC, NHS England and other partners to review the use of evidence-based guidance and tools to inform staffing decisions locally.

Amendments 76B and 77 each introduce a stand-alone duty of candour in primary legislation. We had an extremely interesting debate that demonstrated the complexity of the issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, noted, it is a complicated area. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, illustrated that, as did my noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He noted that there could be unintended consequences such as unwanted litigation. However, my noble friend Lady Jolly said that often all that patients and their families need is clarity and something being admitted to. All these issues show how complicated the area is. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spelt that out.

The Government share the view that providers of health and care must be open in their dealings with patients and service users. Our response to Robert Francis’s report makes a clear commitment to introduce a statutory duty of candour. I therefore wish to reassure noble Lords that we are doing that. In particular, I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on that point. That is what we are doing. The route that we are taking is perhaps endorsed by the nature of this debate. We see this as something that is better taken through by secondary legislation. Let me spell that out. The Government intend to introduce an explicit duty of candour on providers as a CQC registration requirement. This will require providers to ensure that staff and clinicians are open with patients and service users where there are failings in care. I hear the warnings voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. In the end, the aim has to be to improve the quality, safety and efficacy of care. I note what she said about confidentiality.

As with all requirements for registration with the CQC, the Government intend that the duty of candour should be set in secondary not primary legislation. There are very strong reasons for that. Using secondary legislation will enable us to expedite the introduction of this duty and provide a degree of flexibility to get the design of the duty right. I am sure that the department and my noble friend Lord Howe will welcome noble Lords’ engagement, bringing their own wet towels if they wish to, as we take this forward. Secondary legislation will still allow for full parliamentary scrutiny, given that the changes to the regulations that set CQC registration requirements will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses. The duty itself will have the same legal power in secondary legislation as it would in primary legislation. There is also the additional advantage that in such a new and important area we can refine this new duty over time, if noble Lords’ warnings prove to be significant. That is why I commend the Government’s preferred approach of setting the new statutory duty of candour through secondary legislation.

Amendment 77A has the effect of removing the power to specify the type of information and the type of care provider within scope of the new false or misleading information offence. This is a different but obviously related area. This would mean that we have a criminal sanction that applies to all information required by legal obligation, including under contract, which would be disproportionate. It is important that the offence does not inhibit providers from sharing information voluntarily, but we also need to keep the flexibility to respond to new information or different priorities for information over time.

We appreciate that noble Lords will be interested in understanding more about the types of providers to which this offence will apply. The Government are still considering the scope of the offence and I am absolutely certain that my noble friend Lord Howe will be happy to discuss this further with noble Lords.

We start from the issues raised in the Francis inquiry. We are therefore clear that the offence will apply to providers of NHS secondary care. This includes NHS trusts, foundation trusts and independent sector providers of NHS secondary care. We are giving further thought to whether the offence should also apply to other types of providers. We will consider whether, for example, there is a case for extending the offence to providers of adult social care, general practice and mental health services. We will consider this, working together with our stakeholders, and we will of course keep noble Lords informed as to our thinking as this moves forward.

[Lord Warner]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness’s flow, but could I just get her to expand a little bit on the approach on the issue I raised about protecting the employer? I was pleased to hear what she was saying about using the registration process to impose the duty of candour on the employer, but there remains the concern, which I think a number of us have, about how the employee who blows the whistle actually gets protected under the arrangements that she is talking about.

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend says that they have protection under the NHS constitution. I hope that that clarifies it for the noble Lord but, given the time, I am happy, if necessary, to write to cover that further.

There were a number of questions, but I am well aware that time is pressing and that we are almost at the end of this part, so I will just come to one or two of them. In terms of the individual statutory liabilities in Patients First and Foremost, the Government stated that:

“before we introduce criminal sanctions at an individual level…we would want to ensure that this does not unintentionally create a culture of fear”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about that. We are, of course, waiting at the moment for the Berwick review, and no doubt we will be addressing this further in the light of it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about various points in relation to Francis. Francis himself made clear that many of his changes can be taken forward within the existing legislative framework and, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, indicated, they are, at heart, about changing behaviours in organisational cultures. The responsibility is therefore with each and every person serving patients to take action to make the changes needed.

However, we have these reviews coming forward, and we will obviously review what else we need to do. This has been an ongoing, long-standing problem, as noble Lords will be aware. I have listened to many debates in your Lordships’ House where these issues have been addressed, and people are endlessly frustrated in terms of trying to make sure that the quality and safety that you see in certain parts of the NHS is replicated in all parts of the NHS.

I am scurrying on through. If there are issues which I have not addressed, I am sure that—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I asked about the circumstances in which a private home took in a single National Health Service patient on a continuing care basis, paid for by the National Health Service. Does that home then come under the provisions of Clause 81? I am talking about one patient. Could that be an impediment to that home being prepared to take on NHS patients? I shall wait for the response to that.

21:45

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord may wish to bear in mind that his Government extended the inspection to private providers. The scope of the offence is wide enough to capture such providers, and it would first be necessary for such providers to be specified in the regulations made under Clause 81. I hope that that helps to clarify the matter for him but, if it does not, we will be happy to fill in any further details.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

But does the noble Baroness recognise that that might then determine the policy of nursing homes concerning whether they are prepared to take on the responsibility of carrying NHS patients? They will then be chargeable with an offence which otherwise—if they were not to take on those patients—they would not be subject to.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether that then comes to the point that the noble Baroness raised earlier about needing to extend this duty to GPs and social care providers. The reality is that if the duty were extended to social care providers, most of those homes would not be viable unless they accepted either local authority-funded clients or clients from the health service. Is not the answer to extend the duty to make sure that we cover GPs, community health and so on?

[Baroness Northover]

In terms of the division that the noble Lord pointed to, if a provider decides that it does not want to take on NHS patients because it will have to reach higher standards than for private patients—which appeared to be part of what he was saying—once that is publicised and becomes apparent, that will not exactly encourage people to use those providers.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

No. My case is that they could be prosecuted in circumstances where they might otherwise not be prosecuted because they would not fall under the provisions of Clause 81(1)(c).

[Baroness Northover]

It might be better if my noble friend answered. However, I think that it would be best if we wrote to the noble Lord and explained the detail in this regard.

Perhaps I may conclude so that we can move on. I hope that it will reassure noble Lords that the draft regulations will be available for them to consider on Report, giving full details and specifying the type of information supplied or published by providers of NHS secondary care that will fall within the offence that I have just been talking about. Regulations will, again, be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny of both Houses using the affirmative procedure. I hope that that provides reassurance to noble Lords.

The Government place great importance on ensuring that the public, regulators and commissioners have an accurate picture of a provider’s performance and can have confidence in the information supplied or published by providers.

I trust that noble Lords will find some reassurance in regard to the actions that the Government are taking, particularly on the duty of candour, the complexity of that, the importance of putting it into secondary regulations and the involvement that they may wish to have as that is taken forward. Even if I need to clarify the specific points that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have one other point to make. When the reply comes, it might deal with whether that provision applies only to that individual patient who is subject to NHS support, as against the balance of residents in a nursing home.

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend says no. I can see that the van advertising litigation probably does not want to encounter the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, as he comes out of whichever hospital it is.

In the light of what I have said, and anything else that we need to clarify, I encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. There are obviously a lot of issues that we may want to return to, but clearly the main debate is about the duty of candour. It has been a good debate because noble Lords have identified the problems of a statutory duty on individuals. This presents some real challenges, which clearly need to be thought out with great care and attention. I very much accept that there is a real risk of perverse incentives and discouraging staff doing the right thing because of the fear of prosecution.

However, I am puzzled about the duty of candour. I do not understand why the Government have included this offence of supplying false or misleading information in the Bill when the duty of candour, which is clearly much more important, will be relegated to secondary legislation. From the debate and the comments of all noble Lords who spoke, clearly this is not easy. It has to be got right. The best way to get it right is through primary legislation.

The problem with secondary legislation is that, at best, we will have an hour and a half of debate and we are not allowed to amend it. This issue is so complex and important that it warrants more. I strongly recommend that the Government to look at this again and bring back an amendment on Report in the light of Professor Donald Berwick’s recommendation. I think that they will find that the duty of candour is the flagship of the Francis report. Not to have it included in the Bill means that we are missing something. I suspect that patients will miss out in the end.

Having said that, this is a good way to conclude our discussions tonight and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 73A withdrawn.

Amendment 73B not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.52 pm.