House of Commons
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
1. What priorities her Department has in Bangladesh for the next 12 months.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
The Department for International Development has three key priorities in Bangladesh between 2011 and 2015: improving the provision of basic services, supporting private sector development and helping to reduce risks to development, including from natural disasters. Over the coming year, DFID will also focus on improving working conditions in the garment sector and supporting free, fair and credible elections.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Will she add to it by saying what our Government might be able to do to help people in Bangladesh achieve decent basic minimum wages for work and safer working conditions, and to enable poor people to receive the finance they need, either for their families or to start businesses so that they can succeed?
Justine Greening
We have a range of programmes to help improve livelihoods. Most recently, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited Bangladesh, he announced an £18 million UK-funded programme to help people, particularly factory workers, to develop skills. We are taking a range of measures. I should add that we also work with international organisations such as the International Labour Organisation to improve workers’ standards and drive workers’ conditions upwards.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State may know, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh was in London last week. I discussed with her the high level of diabetes in Bangladesh, which has one of the highest levels of any country in the world. What health projects do we have in Bangladesh specifically to help to reduce diabetes?
Justine Greening
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question. DFID has health programmes and general programmes to lift people out of poverty, but also to ensure that they have access to services like health care that can help them get on with their day-to-day lives. I will write to him with a fuller update on whether we engage in any direct diabetes-related programmes, which I hope will be helpful to him.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What is the total size of our aid assistance to Bangladesh and how much of it goes on ameliorating the appalling environmental conditions, given that Bangladesh is situated on the Delta?
Justine Greening
The overall programme is about £200 million a year, which is split across a range of activities. Part of it is for basic services like health and education, as I have said; part of it is for economic development; and part of it is to address humanitarian conditions and disaster prevention, readiness and resilience. The final part of the programme is for governance programmes, as I said in my initial answer—these support the Electoral Commission and free and fair elections in Bangladesh—and supporting people so they can access the services and the welfare protection that they deserve.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
2. What steps she is taking to improve the co-ordination of humanitarian support for Syria and the surrounding region.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
Humanitarian actors are working tirelessly throughout the region, dealing with 1.7 million refugees now outside Syria and 4 million internally displaced people still inside Syria. Improving co-ordination and access is absolutely critical, which is why on 3 July I hosted a meeting with donors and key UN agencies in London to map out some steps on how we continue to up our game. Last week I also visited Lebanon.
Karen Lumley
Does the Secretary of State agree that an enormous burden is being placed on the countries that neighbour Syria, and that the international community must help them so that they can be fully supported?
Justine Greening
Yes, I do. It is projected that Lebanon, a country with a population of 4 million, will have 1 million refugees by the end of the year. If the same proportion of refugees were to arrive in the UK, the figure would be upwards of 15 million. We need to do everything we can to support not only the refugees but the host communities that they are going into.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The UNICEF ambassador Eddie Izzard recently returned from Syria. He said that
“missing from these discussions are the Syrian children, who are not made of steel, and who are facing desperate and harrowing conditions.”
He specifically drew attention to the lack of education for children there. What conversations has DFID had about providing schooling for children in Syria?
Justine Greening
This is something that DFID has particularly focused on. We have given funding directly to UNICEF to support educational facilities—when I was in the Zaatari camp in Jordan, I saw school facilities that had recently been built—and to support counselling. I would like to look more carefully with the United Nations agencies at what we can do to provide trauma counselling for children and their parents, because many of them have gone through awful experiences before ending up in the refugee camps.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
When King Abdullah of Jordan was in London recently, he told us that there was a massive problem with crime, violent assault, rape, prostitution and trafficking involving women who had been displaced by the violence in Syria. What action are we taking to ensure that those women and girls can be protected, because currently they are not?
Justine Greening
We do our best work with the UN agencies, which are co-ordinating much of the relief to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that about 75% of the refugees leaving Syria are women and children, so this is incredibly important. Alongside that work, we clearly need to work in the host communities in places like Jordan to ensure that they are able to cope with this huge influx of people who are placing added pressure on their services, which can often cause tension leading to the kind of trouble that he has mentioned.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The United Nations reports that the refugee crisis in Syria is the worst since that in Rwanda, and that 6,000 people—over half of them children—are fleeing the country every day. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to protect the health and education of those children in what is becoming a catastrophic humanitarian disaster?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the comments of António Guterres, who is heading up the refugee operation. As I said earlier, we are particularly focused on what we can do to support the most vulnerable, and that includes children. We are doubling our support to over £300 million in the coming months, and I can assure him that we will put the appropriate amount of that into helping children cope with what is happening to them and ensuring that they are still preparing for the rest of their lives through education.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
14. Britain is leading the way in providing humanitarian relief, but some of our international partners are perhaps doing less well. Given that many refugee camps are still suffering desperate shortages of basic amenities, will the Secretary of State apply more pressure on her international partners and encourage them to step up to the plate?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We played a leading role in galvanising donors at the Kuwait conference earlier this year, and I regularly raise this issue with donors and with the UN. I will continue to do that at the UN General Assembly in September. It is critical that, when countries come to a donor conference and make pledges, they should honour them. It is also critical that the region itself should take steps to ensure that it, too, is playing its full role.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Valerie Amos, has highlighted the need for cross-border access for international agencies so they can provide appropriate medical and other help to refugees. What progress has been made in the UN Security Council towards obtaining such access without requiring the consent of the Syrian Government?
Justine Greening
The short answer is not nearly enough. Access to Syria is still overly restricted, particularly by the regime, and we are seeing attacks and violence against humanitarian workers and convoys. That is totally unacceptable, and we will continue to raise our concern about it at the highest levels of the UN.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
3. What support her Department provides for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
The UK provides support to the fund, both financially and through membership of its governing board. We are the fund’s third-largest donor. Through DFID country offices, we provide a range of complementary funding and support to national health plans and global fund-supported programmes.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank the Minister for that answer. What steps is the UK now taking to galvanise support for the global fund from other donors?
Lynne Featherstone
We are using our influence with all other donors to ensure that they step up to the mark in the autumn replenishment, as we intend to do.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Department of Health to ensure that the right sort of drugs, particularly antibiotics, are prescribed in these development areas?
Lynne Featherstone
I personally have not had such discussions, but we nevertheless work closely with the Department of Health and drug companies to ensure that the right drugs get to the right people for the right diseases in the right places.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
Ministers have consistently suggested that the UK would be willing to consider doubling its contribution to the global health fund. In view of the fact that the fund has made major changes and is under new leadership, will the Minister advise the Secretary of State to stop dithering and confirm the UK’s increased contribution before the summer recess? That would incentivise other countries to step up to the plate and ensure that not one more day is wasted in the fight to defeat AIDS, TB and malaria. Will the Government please get on with this?
Lynne Featherstone
What we are doing is the absolute opposite of dithering. We have stepped up to the mark: we are providing £1 billion as promised and ahead of schedule. The hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as the global health fund has made serious moves towards reform and has overhauled its strategy and governance. We want to look at it strategically, and we need to look at the “mini-MAR”—multilateral aid review—the International Development Committee response, the National Audit Office report and the HIV provision paper. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to spend money inappropriately. We will lead, we are leading and we intend to carry on leading.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Stop TB UK described the Government’s response on malaria as a model aid agency response, but it is worried that TB is a poor relation of the three diseases. It hits the poorest hardest, but interventions to stop TB are very cost-effective. Will the Minister meet Stop TB UK to discuss its concerns?
Lynne Featherstone
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met Stop TB UK, and I have just returned from South Africa, where I convened a round table on TB, particularly on the theme of TB and HIV in the mines. This is such an important issue that we want to move forward on it. Spending money to stop TB in other countries helps us to stop TB in this country.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
4. What plans she has to support the application of agricultural science, research and innovation in developing economies.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
DFID is scaling up its agricultural research work in developing countries, particularly programmes that address the slow pace of agricultural innovation in sub-Saharan Africa.
George Freeman
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and congratulate her on the recent announcement of the £7 million international trade centre and the £57 million trade support package for Kenya and Uganda. Does she agree with me that trade is the best form of aid and that integrating our aid and trade missions, particularly in the field of agricultural technology, is the best way to drive really sustainable development?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right, which is why I am very pleased that DFID is a central part of the agri-tech strategy that is shortly to be set out by the Government. It is absolute clear that we have an important role in helping poor countries to improve their agricultural systems and, in doing so, to help develop trade both domestically and internationally.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State also commit to working with the scientific community in this country and abroad to explore the myths on both sides of the argument about the use of genetically modified food and agriculture in developing countries so that the UK can take an evidence-based position?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady will know that ultimately it is up to each individual country to work out how it wants to deal with the issue of GM foods. She will have been pleased to see that at the recent G8 event on nutrition, science and accessing scientific experts was a key part of our nutrition push over the coming months and years.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
5. What steps her Department takes to reduce the impact of natural disasters by increasing the resilience of communities.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
Resilience means equipping communities better to withstand disasters and giving them the means to recover afterwards. DFID’s programmes include investments before disasters, such as in flood defences and setting up systems to give people early warning. We also help people bounce back after the event, for example by setting up insurance schemes and by providing income support.
Oliver Colvile
My right hon. Friend will know of the devastating impact that natural disasters have on developing countries and the role that Devonport-based ships play in sorting out disaster relief. What is his Department doing to build the capacity of state institutions in the developing world to deal with the impact of these natural disasters?
Mr Duncan
My hon. Friend is right. Navy ships such as those from his constituency have been crucially important in the past—for example, three years ago in Haiti. He is also right about the importance of a country’s capacity. We help in that regard through, for instance, pre-earthquake planning in Nepal and flood preparedness in Bangladesh.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, DFID has a deservedly high reputation for helping in disasters, but is there not a case for making some programmes last longer than they have been in the past? We want to move not just from disaster to aid, but from disaster to development.
Mr Duncan
That is absolutely true. We need long-term preparation in advance, and a longer-term response following any disaster. Those were the conclusions of a review conducted at the beginning of the current Parliament, whose recommendations we are implementing as best we can.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
Those who are hit hardest by disasters are almost always the most vulnerable members of society. What steps has the Department taken to ensure that inequality is considered in resilience planning?
Mr Duncan
People who live in poverty are indeed the ones who suffer most as a result of natural disasters, which pull them into a cycle of debt, illness and thence even deeper poverty. Investing in measures to help communities to cope with disasters protects lives and livelihoods, and safeguards investment in a country’s development.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
6. What assessment she has made of likely population growth in north and west Africa by 2050; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
The United Nations released revised population projections on 13 June. The population in north Africa is projected to increase from 200 million in 2010 to 319 million in 2050, while in west Africa the projected rise is from 305 million in 2010 to 815 million in 2050.
Richard Ottaway
The region is already experiencing substantial instability and extremism, and the likely outcome is that millions of young men and women will have bleak economic prospects. Given that no country has emerged from poverty without first addressing its levels of population growth, will the Minister give the region priority in her population programmes?
Lynne Featherstone
My hon. Friend has made an important point. West Africa has particularly high rates of population growth, and there is much less take-up of family planning there. DFID’s work involves not only family planning—which is a complex issue—but the delaying of first pregnancies, access to economic assets for girls, getting girls through secondary school and preventing violence, all of which contribute to making the population richer and more successful.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
11. The international remittance trade is worth $500 billion a year. How will DFID support United Kingdom links with countries in north and west Africa where many people depend on remittances?
Lynne Featherstone
Remittances are indeed very important. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the head of Barclays to discuss the issue, with the aim of ensuring that remittances can be sent back to a country when they have the potential to increase that country’s GDP.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
7. What steps her Department is taking to end aid dependency through jobs and economic development.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
I am ramping up my Department’s economic development efforts to ensure that we adopt a more systematic and structured approach in order to unlock more trade and investment. That includes embarking on a new relationship with the CBI, meeting representatives of the extractive industries and engineering companies, and starting to work with United Kingdom retailers to drive up standards.
Andrew Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that poverty can only be reduced in the long run through economic development, and that DFID can play a major role in helping companies to grow and get people into work so that they can raise their own tax revenues to fund their own services?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. United Kingdom companies also have a key role to play, and companies in his own constituency, such as Taylors of Harrogate, demonstrate how that can be done.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
Last week, I visited Lebanon, where I announced that the UK will allocate a further £50 million to help Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Lebanese people in host communities. I also visited Tanzania and Pakistan, and hosted donors and United Nations agencies in London to map out steps on aid co-ordination. Following my visit to Rwanda last month, I would like to inform the House that although the latest assessment of the partnership principles has shown some welcome progress, our overall assessment remains that it is not right to release general budget support, and we will re-programme the payment of £16 million to support specific education and poverty alleviation programmes.
Simon Wright
In 2010, the UK provided much-needed help to the people of Haiti following the outbreak of cholera. However, an NGO has recently raised concerns that five of the seven recommendations of a UN report on the epidemic have been either only partially implemented or not implemented at all. Will the Secretary of State urgently investigate those concerns?
Justine Greening
I had the chance to visit Haiti earlier this year, and I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. The report he is talking about has not yet been formally endorsed by the UN or peer-reviewed, but I can assure him that the UK’s contribution to tackling cholera in Haiti has been substantial since 2010. We have provided support for more than 1.3 million people.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
Members on both sides of the House will be extremely concerned at the latest outbreak of violence in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. The DRC needs better political leadership, and an army and police force worthy of the name. It also requires the Secretary of State to provide effective leadership, so will she confirm to the House that UK budget support will be reinstated to the Government of Rwanda only if they cease all support for the M23 and militia activities in eastern DRC?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to my opening statement in topical questions, so I refer him back to that.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
T3. What indications has my right hon. Friend received from fellow G8 development Ministers that they will also meet their commitments on providing 0.7% of gross national income, given that the money is also needed to maintain the impressive gains made in tackling the scourges of maternal and child mortality?
Justine Greening
I pay tribute to some Scandinavian countries that have also reached the 0.7%—indeed, they have exceeded it. I regularly raise this issue with other EU development Ministers and with other donor countries.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
T2. HIV/AIDS is a devastating illness affecting 34 million people worldwide, 69% of whom are in sub-Saharan Africa. This week, the White House published its HIV/AIDS strategy, so when will the Government commit to publishing one for the UK?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
We are in the middle of reviewing our HIV position paper. I have just returned from a round table meeting in South Africa that examined this issue. It is an important issue and we are on it.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
T6. The Secretary of State will be aware that there is a new Government in Pakistan. Will she update the House on how she plans to co-operate with and support Pakistan to bring stability to the region?
Justine Greening
I was in Pakistan last week, when I had the chance to meet senior members of the Government and at the provincial level. We will be—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State is answering questions on extremely important matters, which have an impact on some of the most vulnerable people on the face of the planet. We ought to do her and the House a service by preserving some calm.
Justine Greening
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We will continue to work with the new Government on stability in border areas. I am sure the House will be delighted to hear that I agreed a tax package with Pakistan’s Government that will see Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs going in to help them broaden their tax base and improve their tax collection.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
T4. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what assurances the Burmese President has given the UK about respect for human rights in Burma, and, specifically, the treatment of Rohingya community, during his recent visit to Britain?
Justine Greening
I had a chance to meet the Burmese President earlier this week, when I did raise those issues, particularly the importance of access for humanitarian support. I hope I managed to get his assurances that the Burmese Government will work with us as we try to improve the lot of those people and will play a leadership role in reducing ethnic tensions.
Mr Speaker
I might tell the hon. Gentleman that I met the President here yesterday and I conveyed some of those messages on behalf of colleagues.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
T7. The UK contributes £30 million a year to the Palestinian Authority’s general budget. Does the Secretary of State agree that the pooled and general nature of that budget means that it is impossible to track how all donor money is actually spent?
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
UK funding to the Palestinian Authority is used specifically to pay civil servants’ salaries, and that is subject to audit. It is absolutely right, and essential for peace, that we continue to support the Palestinian Authority.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T5. In a Westminster Hall debate on 4 July, the Minister of State, who has just left the Front Bench, said that he would take on board my concerns about workers in debt bondage in Pakistan. Will he undertake to get the DFID office in Pakistan to write a plan of action over the summer and then to make a written statement when the House comes back in September?
Justine Greening
I am sure that I can speak on my right hon. Friend’s behalf by assuring the hon. Gentleman that we will follow up his comments in that Westminster Hall debate. We have a close working relationship with the new Pakistan Government and it will involve improving the lot of workers.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 July.
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.
Nic Dakin
People using Scunthorpe general hospital today are asking for reassurance. Given that Sir Bruce Keogh says that now is not the time for hasty reactions or recriminations, will the Prime Minister commit the resource and support—as well as setting the challenge—to ensure that the hospital delivers high-quality care across all its departments?
The Prime Minister
First, let me echo what the hon. Gentleman says about the Keogh report. That good report says that even those hospitals facing these challenges that have been investigated have many instances of excellent care. On resources, the Government are putting the money in—£12.7 billion extra over this Parliament—and we are going to help the hospitals that are challenged to ensure that they provide the very best that they can in our NHS.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will be as delighted as I am that unemployment in Watford has fallen once again—to its lowest level since the end of 2009. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is a good example of how the Government’s policies are working for small businesses, because those businesses were the ones providing the 1,000 jobs and apprenticeships that were shown at the Watford jobs fair two weeks ago?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that today’s unemployment figures are welcome. They show a very large fall in the claimant count—20,000 in the past month—and encouraging signs of employment growth, some of which is due to the extra resources that we put into apprenticeships. We can be proud of the fact that more than 1 million people will have started apprenticeships in this Parliament, and I hope that the fall in unemployment is welcomed across the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
The vast majority of doctors and nurses working in the NHS perform to a very high standard day in, day out, but everyone in the country will be worried that some hospitals are letting people down. Sir Bruce Keogh’s excellent and important report found
“frequent examples of inadequate numbers of nursing staff”.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what he is doing to ensure that there are adequate numbers of nurses in the health service?
The Prime Minister
First, let me agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Keogh report is excellent. When there is a problem of relatively high mortality rates in some hospitals, it is right to hold an investigation to get to the truth, and then to take action to deal with the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what steps we will take. We are putting £12.7 billion into the NHS and, over the course of the past year, we have seen an extra 900 nurses in our NHS, which backs up the 8,500 extra clinical staff in place since this Government came to office.
Edward Miliband
But the reality is that there are 4,000 fewer nurses than when the Prime Minister came to power. Nursing staff was one of the issues raised in Sir Bruce’s report, and that was also reflected in the Francis report with regard to benchmarks for nursing staff numbers. Given that there are 4,000 fewer nurses, will the Prime Minister say whether that is helping or hindering the process of sorting out the problems?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes a link between the 11 hospitals that have been put into special measures and nursing numbers, but he might be interested in the figures. Eight of those 11 identified hospitals have more nurses today than in 2010. For instance, although Scunthorpe hospital is on that list of 11 hospitals, an extra 100 nurses are working there compared with three years ago. In addition, 10 of those 11 hospitals have higher numbers of clinical staff. The Francis report did not support mandatory nursing numbers, but let me say this: all well-run hospitals will have the right number of nurses, doctors and care assistants. One of the purposes of these reports is to ensure that hospitals are better run.
Edward Miliband
The reality is that the Prime Minister’s reforms are diverting money from patient care and that across the health service the number of nurses is falling. Let me turn to one of the biggest health problems the country faces: deaths from cancer. The Government planned legislation on plain cigarette packaging but changed their view after the Prime Minister hired Lynton Crosby, who also happens to work for big tobacco in the shape of Philip Morris. Are we really supposed to believe that is a coincidence?
The Prime Minister
First, it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to have a proper conversation about the health service and that he has not done his homework on nursing numbers. He asks about plain packaging for cigarettes. Let me be absolutely clear about this: the decision not to go ahead for the time being was made by me and the Health Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with that decision, he can attack me for making it. Funny enough, it is the same decision the previous Government made. I have here the letter that the former Labour Secretary of State for Health wrote to another Minister, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), explaining why he was not going ahead. He said this:
“No studies have shown that introducing plain packaging of tobacco products would cut the number of young people smoking… Given the impact that plain packaging would have… we would need strong and convincing evidence”
in order to go ahead. He did not go ahead. Let me summarise: if the Leader of the Opposition’s attack on me is that we are not doing something he decided not to do, I suggest a different line of questioning.
Edward Miliband
Once again the Prime Minister does not know his facts, because in February 2010 my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), in his tobacco strategy, set out quite clearly that he was in favour of plain cigarette packaging, and that quote is from before then. Here is the difference: my right hon. Friend moved to that position in February 2010; but the Prime Minister used to be in favour of plain cigarette packaging and then changed his mind. Can he now answer the question that he has not answered for weeks: has he ever had a conversation with Lynton Crosby about plain cigarette packaging?
The Prime Minister
I have answered the question: he has never lobbied me on anything. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a lobbying scandal, why does he not try the fact that the trade unions buy his policies, buy his candidates and even bought and paid for his leadership? That is a scandal, and he should do something about it.
Edward Miliband
The whole country will have heard the same weasel words that the Prime Minister is sticking to. He cannot deny that he had a conversation with Lynton Crosby about this issue. Even by the standards of this Prime Minister, this is a disgraceful episode. His own hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) described it as
“A day of shame for this government.”
He is the Prime Minister for Benson and Hedge funds, and he knows it. Can he not see that there is a devastating conflict of interest between having a key adviser raking it in from big tobacco and then advising him not to go ahead with plain packaging?
The Prime Minister
All this on a day when this Government are doing something the Labour party never did for 13 years: publishing a lobbying Bill. Let us remember why we need a lobbying Bill. We had former Labour Ministers describing themselves as cabs for hire, Cabinet Ministers giving passports for favours and a Prime Minister questioned by the police over cash for honours. They are in no position to lecture anyone on standards in public life. Is it not remarkable that on a day of a massive fall in the claimant count, a fall in unemployment and a rise in employment the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say, and is not this the reason: last year he said that
“next year, unemployment will get worse, not better, under his policies. Nothing that he can say can deny that”—[Official Report, 18 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 739.]?
Is it not time he withdrew that and admitted he was wrong?
Edward Miliband
The reality the Prime Minister cannot admit is that against the advice of every major public health organisation he has caved in to big tobacco. That is the reality about this Prime Minister and he knows it. It is Andy Coulson all over again. He is a Prime Minister who does not think the rules apply to him. Dinners for donors, Andy Coulson, and now big tobacco in Downing street—he always stands up for the wrong people.
The Prime Minister
The reason the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership is in crisis is that he cannot talk about the big issues. We are getting to the end of a political session when the deficit is down, unemployment is falling, crime is down, welfare is capped, and Abu Qatada is back in Jordan. Every day this country is getting stronger and every day he is getting weaker.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I know that the Prime Minister will want to thank all the fantastic NHS staff who are rolling up their sleeves and doing everything they can to reduce avoidable early deaths. They are asking the Prime Minister for minimum unit pricing in order to help them do their job and stop people falling into addiction in the first place. Minimum pricing is sitting nervously on death row. Will the Prime Minister give it a reprieve, at least until we know the outcome from the Sheffield report and the Scottish courts?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me say that my hon. Friend fights a strong and noble campaign on this issue that she cares a huge amount about, and I respect that. What we are able to do—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
We will be able to introduce something that the last Government never did, which is to say that it should be illegal to sell alcohol below the price of duty plus VAT. That is something, with all the binge-drinking problems we had under Labour, that they never managed to do.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Q2. In February I asked the Prime Minister if he thought it was fair that Mr and Mrs Goodwin, both of whom are registered blind, should pay the bedroom tax. He promised to look into the case. Mr and Mrs Goodwin’s family wrote to the Prime Minister but did not receive a reply. Why does he not keep his word?
The Prime Minister
I will look urgently at this case, because I reply to hon. Members’ correspondence right across the House, and I always will. We have put in place very fair rules on the spare room subsidy, whereby it does not affect pensioners and does not affect people who need to have that spare room. Perhaps when I do write back there is one question I will not be able to answer, which is that we still do not know whether Labour is going to replace this, because they will not give us an answer.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Q3. Will the Prime Minister assure me that while Labour Members are in Blackpool this summer on their Unite beach towels his Government, free both from weak leadership and from Len McCluskey, will not put into law welfare benefits as a human right?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point, because last week there was a rare piece of candour from Labour Members. They now have a welfare reform they are in favour of: they want to make welfare a human right. That is the policy of the Labour party. They opposed the welfare cap, they opposed the reforms to housing benefit, they opposed getting the deficit down, and now they want to make it a human right to give people benefits.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
Mr Campbell
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing a speedy recovery to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who was injured when seeking to resolve problems in his constituency during the recent unacceptable disturbances? Will he also join with many in Northern Ireland who want to see the initiative headed up by Dr Richard Haass from the United States of America, which will require considerable effort and good will to resolve all the outstanding parading issues, which have been plagued by violent opposition for far too long?
The Prime Minister
Everyone across the House will have been very concerned to hear the news about the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) being knocked unconscious at the protests in his constituency. Everyone wishes him well and I gather he is now improving. We look forward to welcoming him back to this House.
On the issue, it is very important that we see responsibility on all sides in Northern Ireland and that we take steps, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) suggests, to make sure that these marches can go ahead in a way that respects the fact that communities must be good neighbours to each other. That is what is required in Northern Ireland and I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will help in any way she can.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Q4. How many foreign national prisoners (a) are in prison and (b) were in prison in May 2010; and what steps are being taken to send them to secure detention in their own countries and to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with high-volume countries.
The Prime Minister
Overall, over 4,500 foreign national offenders were removed from the UK in 2012 and the annual removal rate has remained broadly consistent since then. However, the number of foreign nationals in prison in England and Wales is still far too high, and while it is lower than at the election, we can do more. That is why the Justice Secretary is working to secure compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with those countries with the highest populations of foreign offenders. The Government will make it clear in the immigration Bill this autumn that foreign national offenders will be deported except in exceptional circumstances. I think that everyone in this House can celebrate the removal of one foreign prisoner, Mr Abu Qatada, who has returned to Jordan, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on her hard work.
Mr Hollobone
Now that my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary have deported Abu Qatada—something the previous Government completely failed to do—will he do all he can to send foreign nationals in prison in our country back to prison in their own country, which would save British taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on this issue and the fact that it requires real drive from the centre of this Government. That is why we have held a National Security Council meeting on it and why we are trying to sign compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with countries such as Albania and Nigeria. I make sure that all Ministers raise these issues in all their meetings with other countries where there are foreign national prisoners to be returned to. We should not rule out any steps, including in some cases helping countries such as Jamaica with their own prison regime so that it is easier to return people. This is a major priority for the Government and I want us to do better.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Q5. The Prime Minister claims that he did not know that Lynton Crosby worked for big tobacco, yet Crosby is at the heart of Tory party policy and strategy. Why is the Prime Minister developing a bad habit—perhaps an addictive one—of turning a blind eye to who his advisers actually work for?
The Prime Minister
Let me explain to the hon. Lady: the role of Lynton Crosby is to advise me on how to defeat a divided and useless Labour party, but I have to say that on the basis of today’s evidence I am not sure he is really necessary.
Glyn Davies
Q6. In my Welsh constituency, patients have to wait 36 weeks for elective treatment, while the figure in the English constituency of Shropshire next door is 18 weeks. What lessons does the Prime Minister believe the Government can learn about how the NHS has been managed in Wales over recent years?
The Prime Minister
There is a very clear lesson, which is do not vote Labour, because people can see what is happening in Wales, where Labour is in control of the NHS. It cut the budget by 8% and as a result Wales has not met a single waiting time target since 2009. Meanwhile, in England we are increasing spending on the NHS. The shadow Chancellor keeps pointing at the shadow Health Secretary, but the fact is that the shadow Health Secretary is the man who said it would be irresponsible to increase spending on the NHS. I have a summer tip for the leader of the Labour party: if you want to do better, you need to move the two people next to you and you need to do it fast.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just as I said for Mr Davies, Mr Flynn should be heard with courtesy.
Paul Flynn
Will the Prime Minister study the precise meaning of the word “question” and the precise meaning of the word “answer”, and consider the need for a link between the two following the record number of unanswered questions and pre-prepared party-political jibes last week at Question Time, which was a demeaning spectacle that shamed him and his office? Will he make a start by giving me an answer to this question that is both relevant and courteous?
The Prime Minister
That question was a bit complicated for a Whip’s handout, so the hon. Gentleman probably did think of it himself. This Government are far more transparent than any of our predecessors in the information that we publish and the public spending data that we provide. We are far more transparent than the last Government.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Q7. I am pleased to say that unemployment in Northampton North continues to go down. Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s jobs figures prove that the Government’s economic policy has not led to “the disappearance of a million…jobs”, which was the forecast of the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister
It is extraordinary that on a day when there has been a fall in unemployment, the Leader of the Opposition had nothing to say about it. In fact, I have done a bit of checking and he has not asked a full set of questions about the economy since February, because he knows that our policies are working and Britain’s economy is mending. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the forecast was made that we would not make up for the loss of public sector jobs with jobs in the private sector—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members are shouting. They are shouting because they do not want to hear good news about falling unemployment, but people want to hear about more jobs, more businesses and progress in our economy.
Mr Speaker
There is too much shouting on both sides of the House, not just on one side. That is the reality.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
How many of the Conservative party’s millionaire donors asked the Prime Minister to cut the 50p top rate of tax?
The Prime Minister
That was definitely a Whip’s handout—there is no doubt about that one. Let me explain to the hon. Lady an important distinction—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
The top rate of tax will be higher in every year of this Government than it was in any year under the previous Government. Let me explain how it works in the hon. Lady’s party: the trade unions give Labour money and that buys the policies, it buys the candidates, it buys the MPs and it even buys the leader. I am not surprised if they are worried about the product that they have ended up with.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Q8. Enfield has had the early advantage of a welfare cap for the past three months. With jobseeker’s allowance claims in Enfield falling at twice the rate of claims in the rest of the country and with youth unemployment in Enfield at the lowest level since early 2009, will the Prime Minister ensure that where Enfield leads, the nation follows?
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the people in Enfield who have found work. Not only is the welfare cap right because it would be wrong for people who are out of work to be able to earn more than the typical family that is in work, but it is working because the figures show how many people, seeing that a welfare cap is coming down the road, are getting out there, looking for work and finding jobs. That is good news for them and good news for our economy.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Q9. Would Mr Adrian Beecroft have been asked to provide a report for the Government on employment regulation if he had not been a major donor to the Conservative party?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman speaks as a member of Unite and someone who receives £6,000 for his constituency party. Adrian Beecroft produced an excellent report on encouraging enterprise, jobs and wealth creation. Let me explain the big difference one more time. The trade unions that give money to the Labour party can pick the candidates and vote for them, pick the leader and vote for him, and pick the policies and vote for them. I was elected by a one member, one vote system; the leader of the Labour party was elected by a trade union stitch-up.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Any Government should of course be able to introduce a reasonable cap on very high claims for taxpayer-funded benefits. However, if we are all in it together, why are the Government resisting the introduction of a cap on the taxpayer-funded benefits amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds and, in some individual cases, more than £1 million that go to the largest and wealthiest landowners in the country through the farm support system?
The Prime Minister
This Government have done a huge amount on tax reform to ensure that people pay the taxes they owe. Of course, we always look at the common agricultural policy to make sure that it is fair.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Q10. In order to save the Prime Minister a little time, I have been a member of the Unite union since I joined at the age of 16 as an engineering apprentice. I am happy to debate who spent their youth more productively. On 26 June, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) on Tory dinners for donors, the Prime Minister said that he would be happy to publish the Gold report. Is the reason he has not done so because he is ashamed of the fact that his party has had more donors than a late-night kebab shop?
The Prime Minister
It is that time in Prime Minister’s questions when we ought to remember the donation of Mr Mills, the man who gave £1.6 million to the Labour party and got advice about how to dodge his taxes. When we get an answer to when the Labour party is going to pay that money back, I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
While still hoping that the Prime Minister will agree with the CBI and me and withdraw support for HS2, he will remember last November giving me an undertaking that people disrupted by this project would be fairly and generously compensated. Is he aware that on phase 1, HS2 Ltd has not yet rerun the basic consultation on compensation, and on current plans will not do so for two or three months? Will he please intervene and speed up this process before those constituents, and others whose lives are affected, are totally ruined by this flawed project?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. We will be setting out further consultation later this year, as we have previously announced. We are committed to a very generous and fair compensation scheme. Matters relating to compensation are very important, which is why we have to consider them carefully and make sure that we get the decisions right. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will be happy to meet her and discuss her constituents’ concerns.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Q11. The Prime has been helping Jersey-registered companies with their exports. Perhaps he could tell the House whether the reason he took Petrofac’s Ayman Asfari with him to Kazakhstan was because he had donated £300,000 to the Tory party.
The Prime Minister
First, let us remember which Government made sure that Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and all the others paid taxes properly—it was this one. I will tell the hon. Lady directly why I took Ayman Asfari to Kazakhstan: Petrofac is a company that employs tens of thousands of people in this country. It is investing billions in the North sea and is a major British energy company. I am proud of the fact that we fly the flag for British energy companies, so when I have finished taking them to Kazakhstan, I will be taking them to India, to China and to Malaysia. We are not embarrassed about business, industry, enterprise and jobs on this side of the House—we want more of them.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
During my right hon. Friend’s friendly discussions with Chancellor Merkel, did they examine the evidence that the existence of the European single currency is a major cause of the despair now sweeping across southern Europe, threatening the democracy of Portugal, Spain and Greece?
The Prime Minister
When I meet Chancellor Merkel we often discuss the single currency. It is important, whatever one’s views about the single currency—I never want Britain to join—that we respect countries that are in the single currency and want to make it work. At the same time, I believe that there is an opportunity for Britain to argue that the European Union needs to change. We need to make this organisation one that both members of the single currency and members who are not in the single currency can be comfortable in. I think Chancellor Merkel understands that. I also think that Prime Minister Letta from Italy, whom I will be meeting straight after questions, understands that point too. That is why I think getting a better settlement for Britain is achievable, and one we can consider in a referendum by the end of 2017.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
Q12. The Prime Minister failed to say last week when he would give back the stolen cash that Asil Nadir gave the Conservative party. When will he give it back?
The Prime Minister
I have to say, the Whips have been very active with the hand-outs this week. What we need to know is when we will get back the taxpayer money from Mr Mills’s donation. Never mind a donation that happened 20 years ago; this happened about 20 weeks ago.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
One of the first acts of the Government was to agree a request to fund security measures in Jewish voluntary-aided, maintained and free schools. Parents in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) were paying for these additional security measures from their own pockets, because the last Government refused to help. As this funding arrangement ends in 2015, will the Prime Minister support my campaign for the Education Secretary to continue the scheme?
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. I am a strong supporter of free schools and of the Community Security Trust, which I think has provided a lot of security for schools in his and neighbouring constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will be very happy to look at this issue to see how we can continue to give them support.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Q13. Given the scandal of price fixing in the oil and gas industry currently being investigated by the EU, does the Prime Minister agree that it is important to be absolutely transparent about the oil and gas companies Lynton Crosby’s lobbying firm has represented?
The Prime Minister
Really, have they got nothing to say about unemployment, improving education or capping welfare? It pains me to point this out to the hon. Lady, but she has received £32,000 from affiliated trade unions. Let me explain the difference: the Conservative party gives Lynton Crosby money to help us get rid of Labour—that is how it works—whereas the unions give Labour money. She said on her website:
“I am a member of Unison and Unite…and regularly raise trade union issues in parliament.”
They pay the money in, they get the results out—that is the scandal in British politics.
Simon Hughes
Q14. Many water companies in England have paid huge dividends to their shareholders, have avoided paying tax and are not properly accountable, and in this region are proposing an annual increase of £80 a year on water rates. Will the Prime Minister ensure that no public subsidy is given to Thames Water or any other water company that puts its profits and shareholders ahead of the interests of ordinary ratepayers and taxpayers in his constituency and mine?
The Prime Minister
First, let me be clear: I have always said that companies should pay the tax they owe. I do not want to comment on an individual company’s business, but that is the case. Any support from the Government must be targeted to benefit customers’ bills and to provide value for taxpayers. There is merit in the Thames tunnel proposal, and we need to look at that carefully, because it would benefit London, including the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and everyone else living in London, but I can assure him that we will use every tool at our disposal to get the best deal for London, bill payers and taxpayers.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Q15. Did the Prime Minister ask Lynton Crosby who his big business clients were before he employed him?
The Prime Minister
We can run through this one again; let me have another go at explaining. Right, it works like this: the Conservative party gives Lynton Crosby money and he helps us to attack the Labour party, right? The trade unions give money to the Labour party—the other way around—and for that they buy your candidates, they buy your MPs, they buy your policies and they even give you this completely hopeless leader.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
My constituent, Kelly Bridgett, was diagnosed with cervical cancer at the age of 25 when she had her first smear, and sadly she had to have a hysterectomy. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Kelly on her “Drop your pants to save your life” campaign to raise awareness of cervical cancer, and will he talk to the Health Secretary about Kelly’s wish to bring the age at which young women can have a smear down from 25 to 20?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to his constituent for their bravery in raising this campaign and speaking so frankly about it. The screening programmes we have had in the NHS under successive Governments have been one of its greatest successes in terms of early diagnosis of cancer and saving lives. We should always be asking what the latest evidence is for the screening programmes, and when they should start. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will want to talk to my hon. Friend about this campaign.
Proposed Closure of Post Office on Lupus Street (London, SW1)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I take great pleasure in presenting this petition on behalf of Mrs Wendy Binder, Mrs Sally Tooth and some 700 local residents of the Churchill and neighbouring wards in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of residents of Churchill and neighbouring wards in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency,
Declares that they object to the plans by the Post Office management to close its office at Lupus Street, Pimlico, London SW1 by March 2015 as it would be to the serious inconvenience of local residents and to the detriment of the community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to intercede on their behalf to require that the Post Office maintain this important facility in its current form and location and desist from its plans to close it.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001198]
A Controlled Crossing on Ashby Road (Daventry)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Last Friday, I had the pleasure of going to Falconer’s Hill infant school in my constituency, where I met the excellent head, Coleen Wilkins, and a number of the students who had collected this petition. Gemma Powell, aged seven, Freya Green, aged six, and Lola Gunn, aged six, told me about the need for a pelican crossing outside their school.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe a controlled crossing should be installed outside the Falcolner’s Hill/Parker E-ACT Academy/Dolphin Day Nursery on the Ashby Road.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to install such a controlled crossing.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001215]
Pupil Premium
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
We are today announcing the launch of our consultation on primary assessment and accountability, alongside a significant increase in the pupil premium for primary schools. This is about delivering a step change in aspirations and attainment in primary education, and these proposals are among the most important that our Department has announced since the formation of the coalition Government. We want as many children as possible to be ready for secondary school by the time they leave primary school, and the reforms we are announcing today are designed to ensure that pupils are well prepared for the next stage of their education, and that schools do not allow pupils to fall behind. We are confident that primary schools and pupils can and will rise to that challenge.
We want to see a step change in attainment at the end of primary school. In the past, the achievement bar was set too low and too few pupils cleared that bar. Our ambition is for all pupils—excepting some of those with particular learning needs—to be ready for secondary school at age 11. That means we need a higher measure of what success looks like. We are already raising the threshold for the percentage of pupils to be ready for secondary school from 60% to 65%, but we know that many schools and teachers have already raised their game way beyond that level. For that reason, in the future we will expect a high proportion of pupils—85%—to reach the new, higher secondary readiness threshold for a school. Since we know that both children and schools can achieve that, it is right that we set it as a minimum standard.
Our new national curriculum is designed to give schools genuine opportunities to take ownership of the curriculum. The new programmes of study, published on 8 July, set out what pupils should be taught by the end of primary education. Teachers will be able to develop a school curriculum that delivers the core content in a way that is challenging and relevant for their pupils. Statutory assessment in core subjects at the end of key stages is designed primarily to enable robust external accountability. We will continue to prescribe statutory assessment arrangements in English, maths and science. National curriculum tests in English and maths will continue, and will show whether pupils have met a demanding secondary readiness standard, which will remain the same from year to year. We propose to report pupils’ test results as a scaled score to ensure that test outcomes are comparable over time. At the moment, pupils are ranked by levels. In future we will report each pupil’s performance relative to their peers nationally, as well as their levels of progress. This is key information for parents: it will help them easily to see how their child has performed compared with the national cohort of pupils.
It is vital that we set high aspirations for all schools and pupils. Our new expectations will prepare children for success. At the moment pupils are being asked to reach a bar that too often sets them up for failure rather than success. Indeed we know that over half of pupils who currently reach just the 4C benchmark standard fail to secure five good GCSEs including English and maths. So that all children, whatever their circumstances, can arrive in secondary school ready to succeed, we are giving significantly more money to primary school pupils eligible for the pupil premium. That will support the step change in ambition we are announcing today.
We introduced the pupil premium in 2011 to help schools close the attainment gap for disadvantaged pupils. In 2014-15, total funding through the pupil premium will increase by £625 million to the total of £2.5 billion pledged by the coalition in 2010. We will use the extra funding in the year ahead to increase significantly the level of the pupil premium for primary schools to £1,300 per pupil, compared with £900 in the current year. This 44% rise in the pupil premium next year is the largest cash rise so far. That should enable more targeted interventions to support disadvantaged pupils to be secondary ready and achieve our ambitious expectations for what pupils should know and be able to do by the end of their primary education. Early intervention is crucial: the more disadvantaged pupils who leave primary school with strong literacy and numeracy, the greater their chances of achieving good GCSEs. We will fix the level of the secondary pupil premium in the autumn, but it will rise further, by at least the level of inflation next year.
We also want to treat schools fairly by acknowledging the performance of schools whose pupils achieve well despite a low starting point, even if that does not reach the very ambitious attainment targets we are setting. We will therefore look at how we can introduce a robust measure of progress that we can take into consideration when holding schools to account. A school that does not achieve the attainment threshold will not be judged to be below the floor standard if its pupils are making good progress. The progress measure will also help identify coasting schools, whose pupils do not achieve their full potential and should be doing much better even if their school is meeting the attainment targets. Ofsted will focus its inspections more closely on schools below and just above floor standards, and inspect schools with good performance on these measures less frequently.
We will continue to report on the progress pupils make during primary education. In order to measure pupils’ progress, we need to measure how each pupil’s end of key stage 2 test results compare with the results of pupils with similar prior attainment. This is an opportunity to reconsider the structure of statutory assessment early in primary schools. In particular, we are consulting on when we should have a baseline test or assessment to measure pupils’ progress. Currently the baseline against which we measure progress is at the end of key stage 1. We could continue to keep the baseline at this stage. Alternatively, we could introduce a similar teacher-led baseline check early in reception, which would help teachers understand the stage the child has reached and allow the crucial progress made in reception, year 1 and year 2 to be reflected in the accountability system. Many schools do that. Our consultation will seek views on which is the better option.
Finally, we recognise that teachers are professionals, and we want to give schools more freedom over the way they measure assessment. We have already announced that we will remove the current system of national curriculum levels and level descriptors, which imposes a single system and prescribes a detailed sequence for what pupils should be taught. That will leave schools free to decide how to track pupils’ progress. Ofsted will expect to see evidence of pupils’ progress, but inspections will be informed by the pupil tracking data that schools choose to keep.
Taken together, this combination of measures will ensure that pupils are ready for success in secondary education, and a better start in secondary school will ensure a better start in life. This country is now moving from an education system that served the needs of a minority to a system of high expectation and high standards for every single pupil. Today’s announcements are a key step in that continued journey. I commend this statement to the House.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister of State for advance notice of his statement.
When Labour came to power in 1997 we inherited a sorry state in the education system. From day one we gave priority to primary education. In 1997 only 59% of 11-year-olds reached the expected level of attainment in maths and 65% in English. By 2010 these figures had risen to 79% and 80% respectively. That was huge progress, but I agree that we need to build on this success. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work of heads, teachers and support staff in primary schools across the country.
It is right that we have high expectation for all children in all schools, raising aspiration and unleashing potential. We will engage constructively with this consultation. We know from outstanding primary schools such as Cuckoo Hall primary in Enfield and Westfield community primary school in Wigan that all children can realise their true ability when they receive an excellent education. On leaving primary school, children need to be prepared with the knowledge, the skills and the resilience to take on the secondary curriculum. Despite massive progress, there are still too many children who are ill-equipped when they begin their secondary education.
Ensuring that all children reach at least the expected levels in maths and English is crucial. High standards of numeracy and literacy are vital; so, too, is a broad and rich curriculum that promotes creativity, enrichment, citizenship and resilience. I worry that the Government’s approach to the curriculum is too narrow and risks selling children short. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government’s changes to the accountability system will promote breadth and depth of learning, as well as literacy and numeracy? He has set out a new floor target of 85%, but that target is for an assessment that the Government have yet to define. Surely that is putting the cart before the horse. Would it not make for better policy to define the learning outcomes first? My worry is that this is another classic case of policy making on the hoof.
Similarly, the plan for ranking 11-year-olds has all the hallmarks of such an approach. To rank 11-year-olds runs the risk of removing year-on-year consistency, because children will be benchmarked against their peers in their current year, rather than against a common standard. Does the Minister agree that this risks damaging standards by not ensuring consistency over time?
The Government have sent out confused signals about attainment and progress. On the one hand they are scrapping level descriptors, which heads and teachers tell me are crucial for monitoring progress between assessments, yet on the other hand, the Minister is rightly emphasising progress measures today. That is very confusing. I ask the Government to think again about the abolition of level descriptors.
On the baseline measure for five-year-olds, there is sense in developing policy about how best to establish prior attainment to provide both teachers and parents with a clear indicator at the start of primary school. The devil will be in the detail, so it is vital that there is full consultation on that.
Finally, on the pupil premium, additional funding to support the progress of disadvantaged children is welcome. I have seen many schools that have made excellent use of the pupil premium. In his statement, though, the Minister said, “Early intervention is crucial”, and I agree with him. However, how does that sit with the fact that the biggest cuts in spending in his Department have been in early intervention funding? Can the Minister assure the House that additional funding really does mean additional funding?
I worry that the Minister may—to coin a phrase—be robbing Paul to pay Paul. The Chancellor announced in the spending review that the Government are moving to a national funding formula. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that this move could hit schools with large deprived intakes. Can he reassure the House that this really is new money and not simply giving money to schools with a lot of disadvantaged kids today, which is welcome, but taking it away in a couple of years when the national funding formula comes in?
Mr Laws
It certainly is new money—I will comment on that in greater detail in a moment.
I welcome the sensible and constructive approach that the hon. Gentleman has taken. I particularly welcome the fact that he has said that he is prepared to engage with us in dealing with some serious and important issues, such as the baseline for measuring progress. It encourages me that we can have a sensible consultation process that genuinely listens and designs a system that will be better and will last for the long term.
Let me respond briefly to five points that the hon. Gentleman made in his response. First, on the Government’s inheritance, I accept that progress was made under the previous Government, particularly in some parts of the country such as London. However, our inheritance of aspirations at the end of primary level was, frankly, hopelessly low. Even today, we allow schools potentially to pass their floor targets when one third of their pupils or more fail to achieve a basic level of English and maths. Worse still, our very measure of achievement—the 4C measure—leads to more than half the youngsters who achieve just that level failing to get five good GCSEs. In other words, we have been sending out a message about what success looks like at the end of primary school which is totally wrong. Indeed, some of the best schools in the country—including St Joseph’s primary school in Camden, which the Deputy Prime Minister and I visited this morning—have already moved well beyond 4C and in many cases are aiming at much higher levels, such as 4A, 5C and so forth. The Government need to catch up with those schools, which are leading the debate in education.
The second point was about the broadness and richness of the experience in schools. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, although the concentration on English and maths is important, we do not want that to lead to a dramatic narrowing of the curriculum. The other subjects that people take, both academic and vocational—arts, music and sport—are incredibly important. However, no one can succeed in secondary education if they cannot read and add up. No one can enjoy the opportunities in all the other subjects if they are not equipped with those basic skills. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to the changes we have already announced in the secondary measures of accountability. We will be incentivising schools to take not just five but eight GCSEs, and we will allow that to include vocational as well as academic subjects.
The third point that the hon. Gentleman made was about whether 85% was the right level and whether we were right to set such an ambitious target now, in advance of the precise measures being introduced in 2016. I think we are right to set out those principles now. The schools that he and I are familiar with, from inner London and elsewhere, are already setting levels of aspiration of 85%, 90% or 95%, at an even higher level than 4B, which I talked about in a speech a couple of months ago, so I think that we are right to raise expectations now. For too long we have had expectations set by very low levels, which are more about the levels set for school intervention than about reasonable aspirations for all schools.
On the ranking of 11-year-olds, let me make it absolutely clear that we are not talking about publishing information about individual students at a national level. That would of course be totally wrong. What we are talking about is something that I think virtually every parent in the country will welcome, which is more information—and more meaningful information—about how their children are doing. At the moment, apart from a few people in the Department for Education and around the House, level descriptors frankly mean nothing to the average parent. Having a mark, a measure of progress and a clear sense of where their pupil is versus the rest of the cohort is only sensible. Parents could do that at the moment through the levels process, if they could actually understand that process, which is so complicated. What we are doing will help parents, but we will listen to the messages that come back in the consultation.
Finally, let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s point about money and early intervention. What we are announcing is about doing a lot more through early intervention. The additional money for the pupil premium that the Government have delivered, even in these times of austerity, is something of which the coalition can feel incredibly proud. The levels we are setting today will mean that the additional money going to pupils from the pupil premium from their time in primary school will be £8,000 or £9,000 per pupil. That is a massive amount to help schools across the country, particularly in disadvantaged areas, to bring children up to a reasonable standard.
As for early years, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who leads on early years and child care, and the Deputy Prime Minister have announced a two-year offer, which extends early-years support to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, going way beyond anything the previous Government were able to deliver. This Government have a huge amount to be proud of, in offering schools this money to support such ambitious aspirations.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Select Committee on Education had some outstanding head teachers before it this morning, talking about the possible setting up of a college of teaching. One point they all made was about their desire for greater continuity in policy making. I therefore congratulate the Minister on making the offer to the Opposition, and the Opposition on their response in turn, to ensure a common policy that gives stability to education. With the increase in funding for the pupil premium, will he say what role he sees for subject specialists at primary level to help to raise attainment not just in English and maths, but across the broad swathe of subjects to which he has referred?
Mr Laws
I welcome the comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee. He is absolutely right that we need to aim for greater continuity in education policy. After all, we are talking about young people who, even individually, will take a considerable number of years to go through the education system. We want to ensure as much cross-party consensus as possible on some of the changes, so that they last.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right that the additional money will give primary schools the opportunity to bring in greater subject specialism, which will help to boost the quality of teaching not just in English and maths, but in all the other subjects, which are so crucial and which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) mentioned earlier.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the focus on primary education in the statement, which is a good thing. It is time we had that focus. I also welcome the extra spending on primary education, but I am worried about the proposal for national examinations at the age of three as well as at 11. May I urge the Minister to drop the exams for three-year-olds? As someone who represents a town where most of the pupils already do the 11-plus, let me tell him that the consequences for children—as well as for parents—of knowing that they are at the bottom of the list need to be examined. It breaks my heart every year when I have children in my constituency surgery—hauled in by their parents—who do not have the bicycle for passing the 11-plus and are going to a school that they never applied to as a result.
Mr Laws
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the early comments she made. I should point out that what we are talking about is on entry to school, not at a ridiculous age. [Interruption.] Frankly, many schools—to which I would be happy to take the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is shouting from a sedentary position—are already doing that type of assessment. They are doing it to inform their education and also to measure progress. We have descriptors at the moment that classify some young people as the lowest performers. That information is available at the moment; it is just very difficult for anyone to understand. Why should we impede parents in understanding more what their pupils are doing in schools?
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who leads for the Labour party on these issues, for being pragmatic. Although I quite understand the concerns about assessing youngsters at an early age, the logic of measuring progress, which is not in dispute in this House or among head teachers, teachers or parents, means that it is rational to measure progress right across the educational experience. It is not rational simply to pick an arbitrary date at the end of key stage 1 and to measure progress only from there. That is why we think it is sensible to have this debate.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today, and particularly on the abolition of the meaningless and distorting levels in key stage assessment. Does he agree that the substantial rise in the pupil premium will mean that every school should now be able to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, will be fluent readers and fluent in arithmetic—including long division, long multiplication and fractions—by the time they leave primary school? Does he also agree that there will no longer be any excuse for an attainment gap between those from poorer and wealthier backgrounds?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is reassuring to be able to visit schools with very large numbers of disadvantaged youngsters, such as the one I mentioned earlier, and to see that the attainment gaps have now been extinguished. This shows schools across the country that it is possible to close that gap, and that that is not just the perspective of some DFE Minister but the experience of schools across the land that are achieving that. The huge amounts of money that we are now putting into the pupil premium and other disadvantage funding for schools with disadvantaged youngsters will remove what were legitimate excuses 10 or 20 years ago about the absence of the resources necessary to achieve these big changes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who did so much in his time in the Department to champion higher standards and to pave the way for much of what is in today’s statement.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Early intervention is certainly the key to the future for the hundreds of children in my constituency who have a much tougher start in life than most people. How will the Minister ensure that the pupil premium is targeted specifically on individuals rather than being swallowed up by the wider school budgets, and how will he hold head teachers to account for looking after those individuals?
Mr Laws
That is an absolutely crucial point. The Department is not going to go back to the fashion under some previous Secretaries of State of micro-managing individual schools and telling them what interventions they need to deliver. Schools have a better understanding of the interventions that will work for the school and the individuals than we will ever do, sitting in a Department in London. However, we are going to hold schools to account for ensuring that whatever interventions they use are successful. We have worked closely with Ofsted to ensure that this is a key part of the accountability process for schools, and that there is a much greater focus by Ofsted on narrowing the gap. The chief inspector has made it clear that schools will no longer be ranked outstanding if they are failing in this key area, and there will be a requirement on schools that are not delivering a good standard to commission support from key leaders in education, such as national leaders of education, to bring advice into the school when it is failing to narrow the gaps. We have also recently appointed the widely respected John Dunford, who has great experience in education, to serve as a champion of the pupil premium and to spread the message about best practice to schools across the country.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
Picking up on best practice, the primary school in the poorest ward in my constituency, Newington, has seen a 40% increase in standards in English and maths. The head teacher puts that down solely to the pupil premium so, locally, people will be very pleased with this suite of measures. One measure that seems to be being misinterpreted is the assessment of three-year-olds. Responsible teachers will make an assessment of the young people coming into their school so that they can put the right measures in place. It is not an exam, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members.
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many schools are already using baseline assessment on entry to school; that is the rational thing to do. It is also the most rational way of measuring progress, rather than doing it over an arbitrary period. I also agree with her that the additional money for the pupil premium and the additional accountability and focus will be crucial to narrowing the gap. The huge amounts of money going into schools with large numbers of pupil-premium pupils will result in some dramatic and impressive progress over the next few years in improving the lot of young people from those backgrounds.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
What the Minister is saying reveals nothing other than his lack of understanding of small children and of child development. What is appropriate at 16, at 14 and at 11 is not appropriate at five. For five-year-olds, learning should be enjoyable, pleasurable and fun. Does he not understand that if he formalises these assessments, he will produce anxious teachers, anxious parents and anxious children?
Mr Laws
I am afraid that the mood of consensus has come to an end. The hon. Lady is completely wrong. These assessments are already being completed in schools up and down the land, and most pupils do not even know that they are going through some great baseline assessment process. They just think that they are doing the sort of things that children do in schools. What is the logic of measuring progress, giving it huge status and talking about its importance, which we all do, if we then say that we will measure progress only from halfway through primary education? That does not make sense.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I greatly welcome the statement, not least because of the powerful point that Sir Michael Wilshaw made in his “Unseen Children” report recently. That report provides full justification for the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced. Will he reassure the House that the thrust of the measures will also tackle schools in rural and coastal areas, given the clear underachievement that has been identified in them?
Mr Laws
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The reports by Ofsted and others highlight the real risk of focusing only on schools with large numbers of disadvantaged youngsters. Of course those schools are important, and they will get the largest amount out of the pupil premium, but the schools with only a modest number of such youngsters will no longer be able to hide behind high overall attainment figures. Our focus on progress will ensure that the schools that are getting high levels of attainment but not delivering enough for all their pupils will be obliged to do so. The accountability measures will also ensure that we pick up any large gaps in performance between disadvantaged pupils and the rest, whether they are in our inner cities, the leafiest parts of the country or our coastal communities.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the additional resources for the pupil premium. The Minister said that this was additional funding. Perhaps he could tell us exactly where it is coming from. Also, he avoided answering the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on the national funding formula and the possibility that the campaign by Conservative Back Benchers to narrow the gap between well-funded and less-well-funded schools would inevitably undermine the pupil premium.
Mr Laws
The money is coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the money coming into the DFE does, and it is additional money. This is a fantastic settlement for schools in a time of incredible austerity in the public finances. Whichever party was in government at this time would have to grapple with difficult decisions. The fact that we have built this programme on a protected schools budget is fantastic news for schools. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when I go round the country to schools, especially those with large numbers of disadvantaged youngsters, they are really conscious of the additional money and they positively welcome it. On the national funding formula, I can assure him that we are determined to introduce a fairer mechanism of funding across the country, and we will ensure that we do it in a way that does not undermine the strong focus on funding disadvantaged areas that we have adopted while we have been in government.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister on his announcement on the pupil premium. This is another promise from the front cover of the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election that we have delivered in government. However, not every school I visit has been able to tell me how its pupil premium money is being spent. Does he agree that, if the pupil premium is to deliver on the ambition that we share for it, the parents of all disadvantaged pupils should be told how that money is being spent to help their children?
Mr Laws
I agree with my hon. Friend on both those points. Schools already have a duty at the very least to put on their websites the ways in which they are spending that money and to be as clear as possible with parents and pupils, rather than simply putting broad statements on their websites. The schools that have so far not realised what the money is for—if there are such schools—or that are not spending it effectively will soon find that they have no choice other than to focus on what the money is designed for, because this is now a key part of the Ofsted inspection framework. In my experience, the one thing that teachers and head teachers pay very close attention to is the chief inspector of schools.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Primary school teachers in Newcastle do tremendous work, maximising the educational opportunities of children often in very challenging circumstances. They will welcome this additional money, but to justify that welcome, will the Minister confirm whether this is additional money to what has already been announced in the comprehensive spending review?
Mr Laws
It is the allocation of the last tranche of pupil premium money, which is additional money. What that says is that having announced almost £1.9 billion of pupil premium money so far, we have taken the very deliberate decision for the final tranche of extra money that we have allocated in the last year to go predominantly to primary schools to support this intervention. It is additional money.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Children arriving in reception classes without basic speech and language skills face additional challenges, as do their teachers, in working towards secondary transfer. Will the Minister encourage schools to promote public library membership for very young children, as is happening in the London borough of Havering, which has introduced automatic enrolment for reception children and support packages for parents so that children are introduced to books and can take them home to enjoy all the benefits that flow from them?
Mr Laws
The hon. Lady makes a crucial point. I think schools should encourage pupils to access libraries. In my experience, many schools are already doing very good work these days in school to make sure that young people are encouraged to read and enjoy books, but the hon. Lady is quite right to point out that we have a very effective public library service, which should also be used by schools.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify whether the pupil premium is an addition to the general budget of the school or should it be spent only on those pupils who attract the premium?
Mr Laws
The money is there to be spent on those disadvantaged youngsters who would otherwise be highly likely to have poor performance. Schools must understand that that is the purpose of the money and why they are getting it. They are free to decide how to spend it, but they must spend it to narrow these gaps and focus on pupils who are the priority for the premium.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I welcome this statement and I will focus on the pupil premium. One of the regrettable reasons why Peterborough local education authority languishes at the bottom of the league table for educational attainment for disadvantaged children relates to the issue of English as an additional language. I shall meet the Minister in September to discuss these issues. Will he look again at incorporating in the methodology for awarding the pupil premium the important issue of English as an additional language, which is significant for the allocation of resources and will drive up educational attainment in Peterborough and across the country?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend makes a very important point—that youngsters with English as an additional language often face challenges, particularly when they go into school. As he will know, however, they often make extremely rapid progress, performing above the level of young people who have English as their first language. We will take the opportunity provided by the review of the national funding formula to make sure that we get proper support for young people with English as an additional language so that schools have the right amount of money for the right amount of time to help these children to perform well.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
What advice would the Minister give to head teachers about parents, albeit a small percentage of them, who simply do not encourage their children to perform academically? What can be done about that?
Mr Laws
What is very encouraging—the head teacher of the primary school that the Deputy Prime Minister and I visited this morning spoke to us about it—is that many schools nowadays are not simply sitting back and waiting for parents to engage and shrugging their shoulders when they do not. Many of the best schools in the most deprived communities are going out to engage with reluctant parents and they often have considerable success in persuading those parents that education is important for their young children’s future. This can be a way of engaging parents who might not have had good educational experiences themselves, potentially enriching their own lives by contact with the school. I would encourage head teachers and teachers with parents of the type that my hon. Friend describes to visit some of the schools that are doing this work very well, as I think they could learn a tremendous amount from them.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It was a great pleasure to welcome the Schools Minister on his visit to Seven Fields primary school. The school’s transformation was due to a combination of inspirational leadership, greater freedoms and the pupil premium. How should we share this best practice so that all schools can benefit from today’s announcement?
Mr Laws
It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and he was quite right when he wrote to me to highlight the fantastic achievements of this school, which sits in a disadvantaged community and could easily be languishing and struggling, but actually sets incredibly high aspirations, showing that it is possible for schools to deliver. The Government have recently started to publish tables of similar schools, where we look at schools with a similar composition of pupils and look at their performance against other similar schools. That process should encourage schools across the country that are not performing well to look at other schools with a similar intake that are doing a lot better, perhaps visiting them, talking to teachers and finding out what works. This type of school-to-school improvement should be enhanced by the additional measure of information that we are publishing.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I am sure that every Member will welcome the £400 increase in the pupil premium that will benefit primary schools in every single one of our constituencies. With this extra money, however, comes the need for added accountability, as has been mentioned. The Minister says that some schools have closed the gap entirely. When it comes to outcomes for the future, does he view it as the ultimate ambition for every school to have no gap whatever between the achievement of pupils entitled to free school meals and those who are not?
Mr Laws
Yes, because the best-performing schools across the country have shown that there is nothing inevitable about those gaps. Many schools have closed the gaps very considerably. The important thing is to make sure that the accountability system is an intelligent one, as it would be possible to close the gap but at a very low level of attainment, while some of the schools that we wrote to this year had high levels of overall attainment but large gaps, so they should have been doing better for their youngsters. Our attention was drawn to schools where there was no gap, but where the attainment of disadvantaged youngsters was not good enough. The accountability will be for the gap, but also for the progress made by disadvantaged youngsters and the level of attainment of disadvantaged youngsters in a school compared with the national average. There will be no hiding place for schools that might otherwise have a small gap but at a very modest level of attainment.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I warmly welcome the increase in the pupil premium and thank the Minister for visiting Grangetown primary school in my constituency to see the difference that it is making. I ask for the reception assessment system to recognise that children can be almost one year apart in a given cohort. Will the data be used to help address the attainment gap at the younger end of the cohort that tends to persist through school?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I very much enjoyed my visit to Grangetown primary school in his constituency. The pupils left us with a rather large picture, 6 feet tall, which is currently hanging in my office. That school, as I recall, will be a massive beneficiary of the pupil premium investment, as something like 80% of its youngsters are entitled to the pupil premium. In a very challenging environment, the school has noticed that the additional money makes a massive difference to this school’s ability to deliver for its youngsters. My hon. Friend is right to say that, particularly in the context of an early baseline test, we need carefully to consider the impact of measuring youngsters’ achievement at a very young age and the impact of their age on their likely attainment. That important point should be properly considered.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome the enhancement of the pupil premium—a policy that has greatly benefited disadvantaged pupils in Crawley. I seek assurances on the assessment of pupils; will those with dyslexia receive the proper support?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Pupils, parents and teachers across the Kettering constituency will warmly welcome the 44% increase in the pupil premium for primary school pupils. Will the Minister recount some of the best examples he has encountered of how the pupil premium is used? How can best practice be best disseminated across our schools?
Mr Laws
Some of the best practice relates to one-to-one tuition, and a whole series of interventions, about which we are publishing information, have come from research institutions, including the Education Endowment Foundation. What we want to ensure is that the evidence of what works does not come simply from politicians, but from educational experts. It should be available for schools to look at and should not be politicised in any way, as sometimes happened in the past. We are appointing a pupil premium champion in Dr John Dunford, who will go out to schools, draw attention to what works and ensure that best practice is spread right across the country.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Primary schools in my constituency—which contains some of the most deprived wards in the country—will warmly welcome the focus on improvement versus absolute attainment and the increase in the pupil premium, which does an enormous amount of good in Worcester. However, will my right hon. Friend note an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) and signed by eight Liberal Democrat Members, which urges him to consider broadening the pupil premium rather than simply increasing it, and draws attention to the good that that could do in many parts of the country where the money may not be reaching all those for whom it is intended?
Mr Laws
I would be the first person to be pleased if we were able to fund a widening of access to the pupil premium. As my hon. Friend will know, we have already funded one considerable widening of entitlement by including pupils who had been receiving free school meals at any point during the previous six years. That has increased take-up of the premium to nearly a quarter of the cohort, which is a very considerable coverage. There are some other youngsters whom it would be useful to benefit, but that would depend on funding. In the meantime, I think that many of the schools to which my hon. Friend refers will be pleased to hear about the national funding formula for which he has campaigned so strongly, because it has the potential to give underfunded areas additional resources.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I try to visit a school in my constituency every Friday morning. This Friday I shall visit Helme school, and I know that the increase in the pupil premium to £1,300 per pupil will be very welcome there. However, will the Minister keep in mind special educational needs funding for smaller schools which find that an increasing number of their pupils have statements?
Mr Laws
I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend regularly visits schools in his constituency. We can learn a great deal from that, and I hope that he receives an even warmer welcome than usual when he turns up this week to celebrate the additional pupil premium moneys. He is right to point out that the needs of some young people are such that they require additional funding beyond the pupil premium, and we will ensure that those special needs are properly met.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
There is a well-known problem of learning loss over the summer, particularly among pupils who are between primary and secondary school. In the light of work done by the Education Endowment Foundation in that connection, does the Minister intend some of the extra resources to be spent on addressing the problem? Will he also say a brief word about the level of the service pupil premium, which is very important to a number of schools in East Hampshire?
Mr Laws
The importance of learning over the summer must not be underestimated. We are aware that in some parts of the country, particularly among the more disadvantaged communities, young people can slip back during the summer months, and we will continue to fund the summer schools that help to bridge the gap. We are also seeking to provide additional flexibility which would allow some schools that want to change their hours and holiday periods to do so. Some may wish to introduce shorter summer holidays to prevent pupils from falling back.
We will certainly maintain and protect the service pupil premium, which has been valued in many parts of the country.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend believe that schools that have experienced a real surge in performance and transformation in attainment, such as Ash Grove school in Macclesfield, have an important role to play in helping other schools to bring about a similar transformation in their own attainment and aspiration levels by means of vehicles such as teaching alliances?
Mr Laws
I entirely agree. As I said earlier, we shall be publishing tables that will enable weak schools to learn from what is happening in stronger ones with similar intakes. I suggest that some outstanding institutions, such as the one to which my hon. Friend has referred, should also look at those tables, and should consider offering services and advice to schools in their areas that are not performing despite having very similar intakes. School-to-school improvement of that kind is often extremely effective.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has rightly concentrated on the benefit of the pupil premium to disadvantaged children, but I was not sure from his earlier answer whether the dozens of service children who attend primary schools in my constituency, which is home to 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh, would receive the additional pupil premium or whether their pupil premium would remain at the same level.
Mr Laws
Pupils who are entitled to the pupil premium in and of its own right because, for example, a parent has been out of work for a period during the preceding six years will receive the full uplift. We are protecting entitlement to the service premium, but those who receive it will not be affected by the uplift.
Alcohol Strategy Consultation
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government’s response to the alcohol strategy consultation. Today we are publishing an analysis of responses to the consultation, along with a “next steps” document. Copies of both are available in the House Library.
Drunken behaviour and alcohol-fuelled disorder can make towns and cities effective no-go areas for law-abiding people, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. In nearly 50% of the incidents of violence that took place in 2011-12, the victim believed that the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol. Excessive alcohol consumption costs the taxpayer huge amounts of money: alcohol-related crime and health harms are estimated to cost society about £21 billion every year. The Government therefore have a role in seeking to curb excessive drinking. We have already increased duty on alcopops, and have introduced a wide-ranging set of reforms to tackle binge drinking.
We want fair and effective policies. We are not in the business of making laws that do not work. For that reason we have consulted widely, and have taken time to consider carefully the representations that we have received and all the relevant arguments. Our response identifies three kinds of action that are necessary. The first is targeted national action: the Government must deal with cheap alcohol, and the alcohol industry must strengthen its voluntary commitments to reduce alcohol-related harms.
There has been much speculation about the Government’s plans in relation to minimum unit pricing. That policy will remain under consideration, but it will not be proceeded with at this time. We do not yet have enough concrete evidence that its introduction would be effective in reducing harms associated with problem drinking—this is a crucial point—without penalising people who drink responsibly. We will tackle the most egregious examples of cheap alcohol by banning sales of alcohol below the level of alcohol duty plus value-added tax. That will come into effect in England and Wales no later than the spring of 2014, and will stop the worst instances of deep discounting that result in alcohol being sold cheaply and harmfully. It will no longer be legal to sell a can of ordinary-strength lager for less than about 40p.
We have decided not to ban multi-buy promotions. There is still a lack of convincing evidence that it would have a significant effect in reducing consumption. It would not be reasonable for us to introduce a ban, especially at a time when responsible families are trying hard to balance their household budgets. We will, however, make current mandatory licensing conditions more effective. We will enable tougher action to be taken to deal with irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs, and will promote responsible drinking by raising customer awareness of the availability of small servings.
Our decision not to proceed with the introduction of minimum unit pricing at this stage gives the alcohol industry an opportunity to demonstrate what more it can do to reduce the harms associated with problem drinking. Our challenge to the industry is to increase its efforts, building on what has already been achieved through the public health responsibility deal. That includes improving education to promote safer drinking, reducing the availability of the high-strength products that cause the most harm for problem drinkers, and responsible marketing and product placement.
Secondly, we intend to facilitate local action. Targeted action by pubs and clubs themselves has proved hugely effective in curbing irresponsible drinking. Best Bar None, National Pubwatch, Purple Flag and community alcohol partnerships are all good examples of what can be achieved when industry works in partnership with local areas. We will build on this by identifying a number of high-harm local alcohol action areas and work with them to strengthen local partnerships, improve enforcement and increase good practice of what works locally, including how areas can make the most of available health data as part of local decision making.
The third area is promoting growth, by freeing up responsible business and community groups from unnecessary red tape, while maintaining the integrity of the licensing system. We will make it quicker and easier for community groups and those wanting to sell small amounts of alcohol as part of a wider service to do so via the community and ancillary seller’s notice. We will increase the annual limit for the number of temporary event notices that can apply to a particular premises from 12 to 15, and free up businesses that provide late-night refreshment by removing the requirement to have a licence where there is no need for one. We will abolish the requirement to renew personal licences every 10 years. We also plan to consult on whether to abolish personal licences altogether.
Taken together, the Government’s response to the alcohol strategy consultation represents a proportionate approach to tackling the worst excesses of alcohol consumption without penalising law-abiding people or responsible businesses. That is the right balance, and I commend this statement to the House.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement? He told us that the Government’s policy on alcohol is on track, and I wondered whether that was why I was sent his statement with the track changes still in place. After several months of speculation, we finally have confirmation to Parliament that the Government have performed a U-turn on their flagship policy, abandoning their intention to bring in minimum unit pricing and a ban on multi-buy deals. However, the Minister appears to have added in his track change—the “at this time”—which did not appear in the original Home Office statement.
As we know, this was the Prime Minister’s personal policy, and it was a policy that the Home Secretary was so keen to introduce that she made minimum unit pricing the first major policy announcement in the House on a Friday for more than a decade. Now she sends her Liberal Democrat deputy to announce the U-turn. The Government may pretend this is not a U-turn, but the evidence is overwhelming. The consultation was never about whether or not to introduce minimum alcohol pricing; it was about what level that should be at, and the Government chose 45p to consult on.
Here is what the Home Secretary said to this House last year:
“We will... introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol…We will consult over the coming months on the level of the minimum unit price and will seek to introduce legislation as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 1071-1072.]
The Prime minister said:
“I know this won’t be universally popular. But the responsibility of being in government isn’t always about doing the popular thing. It’s about doing the right thing."
Perhaps the Minister could explain why, if it was the right thing to do then, it is not the right thing to do now. Will he explain what representations Public Health England has made to him about this policy U-turn?
Labour has been calling for a complete package of measures to tackle alcohol problems, including dealing with licensing, education in schools and giving public health a bigger role. Labour has said all along that several issues with minimum alcohol pricing had to be addressed before implementation. We argued that it could result in a windfall to supermarkets, and we were concerned that it may not be compatible with EU law and also that it was not the magic bullet the Government were claiming. But we also clearly offered to work with the Government to overcome those obstacles. They chose to ignore all those concerns and pressed ahead with their flagship policy on minimum unit pricing. So, of course, Lynton Crosby has now ordered a U-turn, to get the barnacles off the boat, and minimum pricing, along with most of the rest of the alcohol strategy and other important public health measures, has been scrapped. MPs have been left to read about it in the press over the weekend, while Cabinet members compete to improve their standing in the Tory party by briefing the press of their opposition.
Instead, we now hear that the Government want to introduce a ban on the sale of alcohol “below cost”. That policy was first announced in a written ministerial statement in January 2011, so we have taken two and a half years to return to exactly where we started. The Minister claims that that proposal will ban cheap supermarket sales, but research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that such a ban would raise the price of less than 1% of the alcohol sold in the off-trade, with most of that sold in discount stores, not supermarkets.
The Government put minimum unit pricing at the heart of their approach and have now abandoned it, and many other policies are just not working. The late-night levy has not worked. Will the Minister confirm that no local authority has actually introduced a late-night levy and that the estimates on how much additional revenue it would raise for cash-strapped police forces will not materialise? Nothing has been done on education in our schools or on advertising. The alcohol strategy was meant to be about changing the culture of excessive consumption, but the level of binge drinking among 15 to 16-year-olds in the UK compares poorly with that in many other European countries. Mentor, the drug and alcohol charity, says that 60% of schools fail to teach drug and alcohol education more than once a year. And why is there no mention here of the role for health and wellbeing boards, set up by this Government, and why is public health not a licensing condition? We are also still waiting for the Government to make up their mind on full cost recovery for licence applications for local authorities, which are struggling with reducing budgets and having to take enforcement action.
Given the measures in the statement on personal licences and temporary events, it seems to envisage that economic growth in this country will now be powered by the late-night drinking economy—is this the Bullingdon plan for growth? After attacking the Licensing Act 2003, it is curious that Ministers now want more late-night drinking. Do I detect traces of lobbying on the Minister’s breath? After a two-year Whitehall farce over the Government’s alcohol strategy we have ended up exactly where we started. On minimum alcohol pricing, the Prime Minister, like the Grand Old Duke of York, has marched us up the hill and back down again. This is a Government who could not organise an alcohol policy in a brewery.
Mr Browne
If the people sitting on the Opposition Front Bench suddenly find the conscience to get into apology mode, they might reflect on the fact that they introduced the liberalisation of the alcohol sales sector because they thought it would increase economic growth.
Let me deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Lady. She said that I was trying to conceal something in the text, so let me read out what I said in my statement only a few minutes ago. On minimum unit pricing, I said, “This will remain a policy under consideration but will not be taken forward at this time.” I could not have been more explicit, but no doubt her textual analysis was exciting in some ways.
On the consultation process, she gives the impression that there was an overwhelming response in favour of minimum unit pricing. However, we consulted openly and I can tell the House that 34% of respondents agreed that a 45p minimum unit price was a targeted and proportionate level and would significantly reduce harm, but 56%—substantially more—disagreed with that proposition. So we consulted on it and we heard what people had to say. We are, of course, mindful, in a way that some Opposition Members may not be, that introducing a minimum unit price has significant impacts on people with low incomes. It does not affect the Labour elite in north London, but it does affect some of the people who have traditionally voted for them.
What is Labour’s position on the minimum unit price? I understand that Labour voted against a minimum unit price for alcohol in Scotland, but here in England and Wales the party does not seem to know whether it is for it or against it. I have announced what the Government’s position is, but it would help to hear from the Opposition. We are spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ Short money every year on giving them a chance to formulate some sensible policies, but so far they have not been able to come up with any at all.
The hon. Lady talked about the Prime Minister’s position, so let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said. He said that
“we must deal with the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager being available in supermarkets.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 307.]
What I said in my statement is that it “will no longer be legal to sell a can of ordinary-strength lager for less than about 40p”, which is higher than the 20p or 25p mentioned by the Prime Minister.
Let me make two final points in response to the hon. Lady. She says that nothing is being done voluntarily, but that simply is not true. The alcohol industry is making a substantial number of changes and taking products off the shelves that it agrees are irresponsible to sell.
I have never met Lynton Crosby and I have no idea of his views on this subject. The only impact that he had on my life was when he tried to stop me from getting elected to Parliament in 2005. I do know, however, that I have set out to the House a strong liberal package that promotes fairer competition, the deregulation of burdens on business and personal freedom.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Two people are admitted to hospital every minute as a result of alcohol, half of all crime is alcohol related and alcohol misuse costs England £22 billion a year. Canada has already implemented a form of minimum unit pricing for alcohol, and scientific studies show that minimum pricing has a clear and positive impact on reducing alcohol-related deaths. Does not that show that today’s decision to delay minimum pricing leaves our public health policy dangerously lagging behind and that it will ultimately cost lives?
Mr Browne
I do not accept my hon. Friend’s point for two reasons: first, it is perfectly possible—we are seeing evidence of this—to effect positive change regarding alcohol harm through local action and industry initiatives; and, secondly, people have to exercise some personal choice. I know that that is not the opinion of every hon. Member, but it is a legitimate opinion, because the Government cannot determine every choice that people make in their lives. If that was the approach, why stop at 45p and why not have a minimum price of £1.45? We must get the balance right, and we should not unfairly penalise people who behave responsibly.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The statement is a huge disappointment. On 23 March last year, the Home Secretary made a statement to the House in which she said that the Government will legislate—not “may” legislate—for a minimum price, which was in line with the recommendation made by successive Home Affairs Committees over seven or eight years. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) cited a number of figures, and the £21 billion cost of alcohol-related crime that the Minister highlighted would fund the police service for two years. Will he tell the House how much time he will give the alcohol industry to drink at the last-chance saloon before he comes back with a firm proposal to initiate a minimum price for alcohol?
Mr Browne
Again, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s core premise. In response to the consultation, 34% of people favoured a 45p minimum unit price, but 56% disagreed with that proposal. The most commonly expressed concern was that such a policy would have an unfair impact on responsible or moderate drinkers. It is reasonable to make the point that a person who can afford to drink a bottle of Chablis every evening would not be affected by the right hon. Gentleman’s approach, yet a person without the means to buy Chablis, and who therefore had to drink a cheaper bottle of white wine every evening, would be affected. There are several reasonable considerations that we must bear in mind about the social impact of introducing minimum unit pricing.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister is exactly right. Those who would suffer due to the policy would be not the nanny-state elite drinking an expensive bottle of claret in their posh suburb of Leicester, but the poor. Why should we price the poor out of alcohol and why should we not trust them?
Mr Browne
There is a balance to be struck. We are introducing a floor involving VAT and duty to tackle the most extreme examples, while the industry is taking action by removing products such as White Lightning and Strongbow Black. I also note that Waitrose has removed its strong 8.2% cider brand. However, individuals also have to take responsibility for their choices and decisions, and we think that we are getting the balance right.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Given that almost half of all violent crime is carried out by offenders who are under the influence of alcohol, what action is the Minister taking with his colleagues in the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there is a massive increase in the availability and provision of alcohol treatment for those in prison and on release?
Mr Browne
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The main crime statistics will be released tomorrow, but I should say to hon. Members that there has been a steady fall in violent crime over the three years of this Government, as has been the case for virtually every category of crime, which I welcome. He is right, however, that we need to ensure that prisoners who have been exposed to drugs, alcohol and other harms are rehabilitated, so we aspire to achieve that even more effectively in the prison system.
Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on setting out a sensible package of measures and resisting the call for the easy answer that we have heard from Labour Members. No one would deny that such things as binge drinking represent a real problem in many parts of the country, but is it not clear that that should be dealt with locally? Measures to empower licensing authorities to deal with problems where they arise represent the right way to address this, rather than adopting the simple blanket policy that some advocate.
Mr Browne
Unsurprisingly, I accept my right hon. Friend’s point. Problems due to excessive alcohol consumption, especially at evenings and weekends, are much more pronounced in some parts of the country than others, which is because some towns have shown more imagination and initiative on dealing with social problems. However, those towns with particular problems have powers through which they can raise their game, so I hope that they will use them effectively.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Sunday’s edition of The Observer reported that the Faculty of Public Health had withdrawn from the Government’s responsibility deal. It has followed many other organisations, including Alcohol Concern. The president of the faculty, Professor John Ashton, said that many of his members would
“conclude that the government’s policies are putting the interests of industry ahead of improving people’s health.”
He is right, is he not?
Mr Browne
Let me make a couple of brief points. When such consultations take place, respondents with a particular health perspective usually come from the angle of reducing health harms, but many contributors who want to retain the freedom to buy a wide range of alcohol without the state telling people how to behave will come from a different angle. Secondly—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I say to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) that he is an illustrious figure in the House. He holds an extremely important position by chairing the Committee on Standards and the Committee of Privileges. I know that he feels extremely strongly about these matters, but he must not compete with other Members for the title of chunterer-in-chief.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I welcome the scrapping of the vicinity test so that more people will be able to object to new off licences in their area? There was a case in Kettering of a person who wanted to object to a new off-licence but was unable to do so because he lived just a few hundred yards away from the premises. By getting rid of the test, more people will be able to object.
Mr Browne
My hon. Friend makes an important point about something that has perhaps not received the attention it deserves. There are many changes through Government policy to give local people in such circumstances more power and a greater say in their community. I am also pleased that we are relaxing the law so that it is easier for the community groups in all our constituencies that put on events that people enjoy in village halls and community centres to provide small amounts of alcohol in convivial circumstances. I am sure that many hon. Members will appreciate that, too.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
There is a widespread view in Wales that we should introduce minimum unit pricing immediately, irrespective of what happens in England. Has the Minister discussed the matter with the Welsh Government and will he enlighten the House of his views on that, if he can think of any?
Mr Browne
The consultation was held across England and Wales. We received about 1,500 responses and, as I said, the majority of people disagreed with a 45p minimum unit price, while about 75% of people—three quarters—expressed concern that the policy would affect people other than harmful or hazardous drinkers. Such a concern has been expressed universally.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that 56% of respondents disagreed with a minimum unit price of 45p, but does he know how many thought it should be zero and how many thought it should be higher, for example 50p? What extra concrete evidence do the Government want before a decision can be made on this policy?
Mr Browne
My hon. Friend makes a typically astute point. People were asked whether they agreed with a minimum unit price of 45p. The majority said that they did not and only about a third said that they did, but we do not know whether the majority disagreed because they thought it should be twice as high or half as high; they just disagreed with the figure they were given. I think that it is important to look at the evidence from the legal developments in Scotland, if it is forthcoming in time, and from Canada to see how the policy works in practice. There are some other points that are worth bearing in mind, which I have tried to touch on this afternoon, about getting the balance right between how many harms a minimum unit price would prevent and the restrictions on people’s ability to live their lives freely and make individual choices. That is the balance we have tried to strike in today’s statement.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Thousands of babies are born damaged by alcohol every year, many with permanent genetic damage. Will the Government give further serious consideration to introducing legislation making it compulsory for all drinks containers to have a written health warning aimed at women of child-bearing age, combined with a pregnant mother symbol?
Mr Browne
The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the terrible fetal damage that excessive alcohol consumption can cause during pregnancy, although I think that it would be better directed at Health Ministers, rather than Home Office Ministers. I know that some warnings exist to alert expectant mothers to the risks, but no doubt the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), will take his words seriously and see what more can be done.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Given that the Government’s own figures show a 16% reduction in alcohol consumption since 2004 and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts further drops over the next five years, should not the Government now be focusing on evidence-based solutions, for example proper enforcement and better education, and industry-led solutions such as community alcohol partnerships, which have led to a reduction in under-age drinking in tough areas such as Barnsley, where it is down by 30%, and Durham, where it is down by 37%?
Mr Browne
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Much of the criticism being directed at me is based on the premise that alcohol consumption and violent crime are going up, but actually both are going down. The one note of caution I would mention to him is that that is overall alcohol consumption across the population. The Government do not deny that there are problems with people drinking excessively or inappropriately. The question is how we deal with those problems. We have suggested many practical measures as a result of the consultation, which we believe will be helpful in that regard.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister talks about improving education to promote safer drinking, something that everyone will welcome. Which of the Science and Technology Committee’s recommendations on that has he taken into account? Has he taken into account our evidence-based recommendation that there ought to be at least two alcohol-free days in the safety guidance?
Mr Browne
Again, safe levels of alcohol consumption are more a matter for the Department of Health than the Home Office. With regard to licensing regulations, we have brought in quite a lot of restrictions. For example, it will no longer be possible to find the kinds of offers where a flat-rate fee is paid to enter a bar and one can then get unlimited free drinks, or where women are served free drinks but men are not. Such promotions, which we believe were irresponsible and encouraged irresponsible and excessive drinking, represent exactly the type of approach that we have been able to curtail using the lighter touch and more localised approach that I have recommended to Members this afternoon.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Although I welcome much of the Minister’s statement, does he not accept that the community pub is not the problem, but the solution to problem drinking? Does he not accept that drink bought in supermarkets at cheap prices is the problem, which the statement will do nothing to address? Does he honestly think that this policy will put prices up on the supermarket shelf?
Mr Browne
I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend’s conclusions. I will make three very brief points. First, I think that the measure will make a difference—I am not exaggerating its scale—by introducing VAT plus duty as the bottom threshold. Secondly, many supermarkets are taking voluntary action following the types of representations I have been talking about. Asda, for example, has removed alcohol promotions from the reception areas of its supermarkets, which some people thought were inappropriate. Thirdly, the Government reduced beer duty in the most recent statement from the Chancellor, which I hope will help pubs in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
We know that domestic violence is often fuelled by alcohol. How will the Government’s craven climbdown on unit pricing help to keep women and children safe in their homes?
Mr Browne
I think that that is an offensive question. If not having a minimum unit price for alcohol meant that a Government were tacitly accepting that it was legitimate to be violent in the home, why did the previous Labour Government not introduce one? I just do not accept that. People have to make reasonable and rational decisions, and that is what we have done. We have not climbed down; we have put forward a package of measures that, as I have said, strikes the right balance between protecting people and reducing harm and protecting personal responsibility.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has been given a key role by our Government in assessing the efficacy of and evidence for public health measures. What did it say about unit pricing as part of the consultation?
Mr Browne
I do not have NICE’s specific representation to hand but, as I have said, the majority of respondents did not believe that we should go ahead with the 45p minimum unit price. As for the ban on multi-buy promotions, which we have rejected, the opinion was split about 50:50, but again the common concern—it was raised not just by institutions, but by ordinary people who want to live their lives without being micro-managed by the Government—was that moderate and sensible drinkers should not be unreasonably penalised, and I think they have a point.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
If Carlsberg did statements, we just heard it from the Minister. It is unfortunate that this Government are not following the fine example of the Scottish Government in pursuing minimum unit pricing for alcohol and plain packaging for cigarettes. We will go ahead with that, because we have no Lynton Crosby and no right-wing Tories in Scotland. Will the Minister assure me that he will do all he can to ensure that the Scottish Government can get down to the business of tackling our health problems?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of the evidence from Sheffield that was published this morning and shows that the impact of having a threshold at duty plus VAT would be a decrease in consumption of one 400th of 1%? In other words, it will be meaningless. Meanwhile, doctors up and down the country, who are fed up with being lectured on how to reduce avoidable mortality in the NHS, see the one tool that they are asking for to reduce avoidable mortality through liver disease taken away.
Mr Browne
I do accept that it will have a more limited impact than introducing minimum unit pricing, but it will of course have some impact. Fundamentally, there are two different ways we can see politics; I say this to Opposition Front Benchers. We can either believe that the state has primacy and should impose its decisions on individuals, or say that individuals should be given some discretion about how they live their own lives. I think that individuals should be free to make some personal choices. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the others who are shouting at me throughout this statement clearly disagree. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The wider point that the Minister makes about constant shouting is of course true. I have urged colleagues to calm down, and I hope that they will. We are getting towards the break, and a degree of tolerance would be appropriate. I do not think that the Minister has been notably provocative; he has just been giving his answers.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
According to Balance, a fantastic organisation campaigning on alcohol issues, north-east England has the highest rate of under-18s in specialised alcohol treatment as well as the highest rate of alcohol-related hospital admissions in England. Why does not the Minister agree with every single local authority in the north-east and, it seems, every single health organisation in the country that a minimum unit price for alcohol is overdue and that the Government must not give in to the alcohol lobby in the way they have to the tobacco lobby?
Mr Browne
It is up to local authorities and local areas to take action. If local areas are not taking sufficient action on alcohol licensing or public health in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the country, he should urge them to do so. He refers to under-18s, but it is not legal for them to buy alcohol or tobacco.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I am pleased that the blanket approach has not been adopted because the target is heavy, not moderate, drinkers. Does the Minister agree that there is little advantage in lining the turnover of supermarkets when local initiatives can adapt to local needs? With a coalition of retailers, police commissioners, pubs and, above all, local authorities, we can have more impact locally, where the situation is of course different from area to area.
Mr Browne
My hon. Friend makes an important point and does so very well. I merely add that the position of Opposition Front Benchers who are shouting at me throughout this statement is, in effect, that they think that money should be taken from their poorest constituents and put towards the profits of supermarkets. That is an unusual position for Labour Members to take.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the debate on the Loyal Address, I asked the Prime Minister a question in which I referred to a minimum price for alcohol. In his response he said:
“On minimum pricing for alcohol, it is important that we take action to deal with deeply discounted alcohol”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 24.]
The Prime Minister gave a commitment then, but unfortunately what we have today is selective unit price reduction. As alcoholism rises among young people with great vigour, as it has in the past, what steps will the Minister take, with Health Ministers, to initiate a strategy to address alcoholism among young people?
Mr Browne
We are working across Government to tackle the harms caused by alcohol. I have described many of those actions in my statement and in response to questions. The Prime Minister specifically said that we must deal with the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager being available in supermarkets. In dealing with that today, we are taking the type of action that many Members will approve of.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister is rightly tackling those who sell alcohol below the level of duty plus VAT. Will he update the House on what the Government will do to tackle those who are not paying duty plus VAT and selling alcohol illegally? That puts a lot of money into the pockets of organised crime, as he well knows.
Mr Browne
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This does impact on organised crime. Responsibility for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs lies with the Treasury, rather than the Home Office, and it is clearly keen to take ongoing measures to prevent public harms and to increase the revenue to Government. Duty plus VAT is a perfectly reasonable competition measure that the Government are introducing. It is an uncompetitive practice for supermarkets or others to sell alcohol below the level of tax that they have to pay on that alcohol. Anybody who has a free-market perspective and does not want smaller retailers to be unfairly disadvantaged will see that as another reason to support this measure.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I speak as someone with a relative who continually battles with being an alcoholic. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. Therefore, rather than hiking the price, why not place an appropriate levy on the industry to guarantee suitable help and support for those in need?
Mr Browne
I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s relative; I think he has raised that personal case before in deliberations of this type. The industry is taking actions that I have sought to outline in some detail during our deliberations. The problem that confronts all Governments, or anybody who has to make a political decision, is how much they restrict the liberties of the majority to protect the minority from inflicting harm on themselves. There is a balance to be struck. The majority of people who responded to our consultation did not want the individual choices of the majority of responsible drinkers to be unfairly penalised because some people use alcohol irresponsibly.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2013
Finance Act 2013
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
Points of Order
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the House attaches importance to accuracy and establishing the accuracy of events as quickly as possible. In that context, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) raised at Prime Minister’s questions the case of Mr and Mrs Goodwin, which he had raised previously on 27 February. He asserted that the Prime Minister had not replied to a letter from, or on behalf of, Mr and Mrs Goodwin. May I inform the House that the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of Mr and Mrs Goodwin, who are his constituents, on 4 March, enclosing a letter on their behalf from a sister written on 28 February? I have here a copy of the Prime Minister’s reply to that letter from the hon. Member for Islwyn dated 11 April this year.
Mr Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the House has offered helpful information that is now on the record, and we should leave it there. [Interruption.] There is no matter of order for the Chair. It is not a debate. Information has been volunteered and we will leave it at that.
Mr Speaker
Well, I will give the hon. Gentleman a chance, and he had better not abuse it.
Wayne David
I would just like to make the point that I chose my words carefully in my question, which has been confirmed by Hansard. What I actually said was that the family had written to the Prime Minister and had not received a reply. That is correct—they have not received a reply. What the Leader of the House said about the response to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was accurate. There was a response, but it made no reference to the case whatsoever. I stand by those comments.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are not going to have a long debate on this; we have a lot of business to get through. I call the Leader of the House, briefly.
Mr Lansley
I have the Prime Minister’s letter of 11 April here. It is to the hon. Member for Islwyn, who wrote on behalf of his constituents, and I think we can assume that he passed it on to them. It relates specifically to Mr and Mrs Goodwin and replies to their circumstances.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are not going to have a protracted exchange on this matter. I think that people are perfectly capable of making their own assessment—those in the House and outside it. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) made a point about a letter from individuals who did not receive a direct reply. The Leader of the House has made the point that there was a letter from an hon. Member to which the Prime Minister replied. We really do not have to go into the interstices of this, and it would be a disservice to the House to do so when we have pressing demands on our time, and, before we even reach those other matters, more points of order. [Interruption.] I think that I have given a very fair hearing to both points of view on this matter, and I am grateful to participants.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has in the past hour published the Government’s initial response to the Silk commission on the devolution of taxation to Wales, but you may not be aware that it was leaked to the media at about 7 o’clock this morning and appeared on the BBC website. I know, Mr Speaker, that you take very seriously the role of Ministers to inform the House first, so could you please offer some guidance on the appropriateness of the response and, given that the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), had committed to a full debate about these important matters on the Floor of the House, on whether it is appropriate that the Government should issue a scanty, one-page response on the penultimate day of this term?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, to which I respond as follows. First, if material has been leaked to the media in the way he suggests, that is entirely inappropriate and I deprecate it in the strongest possible terms. Important announcements should be made first to the House and it is a discourtesy to the House of Commons if people have pursued alternative methods.
Secondly, as to the question of a prior commitment to there being a debate on the Floor of the House, that is not a matter for the Chair. I note the moral point that the hon. Gentleman is making in a sense. He may well seek to make it again in business questions tomorrow or, if for some reason he will not be available to do so, it will not be beyond his wit to ensure that the point is aired. It will be a question of airing it for a second time, given that he has done so for the first this afternoon.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order, as you are aware, Mr Speaker, and I am glad that the Leader of the House is present, because it relates to the accuracy of statements given to the House by a Government Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who has responsibility for disabled people. On 4 July, in answer to a question of mine about Wrexham Remploy, she said:
“I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Wrexham site is being sold with a view to making 10 to 20 jobs available for some of the ex-Remploy staff.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 1085.]
I had no knowledge about that transaction, so I wrote to the hon. Lady, who wrote back:
“I can confirm that the disposal of assets at the Wrexham site has the potential to create up to 20 job opportunities for disabled people including ex Remploy employees.”
Those two statements are not the same. In the interests of accuracy, the hon. Lady’s statement on the Floor of the House contradicts the letter that she subsequently wrote to me. I have corresponded with the Minister to give her the opportunity to deal with this matter. I wrote to her yesterday telling her that if she did not respond to me I would raise it on the Floor of the House. She has not had the courtesy to reply. What steps can I take, Mr Speaker, to ensure that the record that my constituents—ex-Remploy workers—heard from the Government Dispatch Box is accurate?
Mr Speaker
I want to make two points. First, no request has been made to me by the Minister to correct the record. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is in pursuit of salvation on this matter, but I think I might fairly make the point that he has found his own. He asks what mechanism is available to him to, in a sense, put the record straight, and the answer is that his ingenuity and indefatigability have enabled him to do precisely that through this point of order. It may well be that it would be more to his taste for the Minister to come to the House, but Ministers are responsible for their own words and decisions on whether to provide a correction. Some people might feel—I leave it to colleagues to judge—that the hon. Gentleman has now substantially achieved his objective of clarification. Perhaps we can leave it there for today.
Bills Presented
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Andrew Lansley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Oliver Letwin, Miss Chloe Smith, Tom Brake, Jo Swinson and Joseph Johnson, presented a Bill to make provision for establishing and maintaining a register of persons carrying on the business of consultant lobbying and to require those persons to be entered in the register; to make provision about expenditure and donations for political purposes; to make provision about the Electoral Commission’s functions with respect to compliance with requirements imposed by or by virtue of enactments; to make provision relating to a trade union’s duty to maintain a register of members under section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 97) with explanatory notes (Bill 97-EN).
Selective Licensing (Housing Standards) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Graham Jones presented a Bill to allow local authorities to apply selective licensing conditions to improve housing standards.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 98).
Electoral Register (Access to Public Services)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a requirement that electoral registration be a condition of access to public services; and for connected purposes.
Registering to vote is about the nearest thing this country has to a social contract. It is recognition that we live in a democracy and abide by the outcome of that democracy. However, about 3.5 million people are not registered to vote. According to the Electoral Commission, these people are likely to be young, on low incomes, private sector tenants, ethnic minorities or people with disabilities. Their disengagement from democracy is a cause of great concern to me and many other Members. This Bill will ensure that they engage.
In future, if someone wants housing benefits, a state pension, a national insurance number or even a driving licence, they will have to be on the electoral register. I do not think that that is too much to ask. After all, if people need to be on the electoral register to get a credit card, why not to get a driving licence?
Linking public services to the register will increase participation and draw an explicit connection between democracy and the benefits we enjoy because we live in a democracy. If someone does not like living in a democracy, that is fine, but they should not expect all the good things that democracy offers in return.
The electoral register is important and deserves to be comprehensive. It is the source of deciding who does jury service, so everyone should be on it. As far as I am concerned, refusal to be on the register shows contempt for juries and contempt for courts. What is more, the electoral register is an important tool in the fight against crime.
The police routinely use the register if they want to get in touch with a suspect or someone who is at risk. It is what banks and credit companies use to prevent fraud. Councils use it to check that people do not commit council tax or benefit fraud. A failure to sign the register is therefore a failure to co-operate with the agencies that fight crime. I do not have a problem with reasonable sanctions being taken against those who do not sign.
Of course, the electoral register should be supported for nobler reasons. Charities use it to help raise funds for countless good causes. When it comes down to it, however, its central purpose—to give people a chance to vote—is more important than anything else. For that reason alone, I think we can all agree that the electoral register should be as comprehensive as possible.
When I went to the USA last year to volunteer on the Obama for America campaign, some politicians engaged in what was called voter suppression, a deliberate attempt to ensure that poor people, ethnic minorities and the young could not vote. Surely none of us wants to live in that kind of country, where elections are won or lost because of who is denied a vote. My Bill is an antidote to voter suppression and it is needed, because the figure of 3.5 million is about to grow.
I am assured that the Government are not committing voter suppression, but according to the Electoral Commission registration rates may soon fall from 90% to 65%. Mums and dads are about to be prevented from registering their children to vote. Individual registration sounds appealing, but when it was introduced in Northern Ireland, the register collapsed by 11%. The Electoral Commission says that this “adversely affected” disadvantaged groups—the people most likely to be disengaged.
Thankfully, the Government’s plan to make registering to vote optional was shelved and the annual canvass was reinstated. However, there are serious flaws in the new system of registration, especially with regard to how difficult it will be for local authorities to sign people up.
The challenge of getting people to register was belatedly recognised last month by the Minister for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), when she offered £4.2 million for anyone who could come up with unspecified measures to reduce the number of people who fall through the gaps. However, as the Electoral Reform Society says,
“when you’re talking about trying to prevent literally millions of people from falling off the register, £4.2m is not a great deal of money. You need a lot more than that to close the gap.”
My council, Merton, is very good at promoting the electoral register. Before its annual canvass, only 65% of households have completed their form; afterwards, 97% have. That, however, is households. Like many of us, I knock on a lot of doors to talk to constituents, and there are homes where I see the same faces every year but miss the same individuals every time. Electoral registration officers will no longer be able to accept the word of the person they do see that the person they do not see still lives there, so those people will fall off the register, and because EROs will no longer be able to accept forms that are completed on the doorstep, but will have to rely on people to fill them in later, even good, proactive councils such as Merton will have to fall back on blind faith. We all know that many of those forms will never be filled in or returned.
The Electoral Commission reckons that a third of eligible voters will simply not register, and the figure will be worse in areas of deprivation. What we will see, if we are not careful, is that the people on the edges of society will slowly disengage—we will institutionalise the underclass. The electoral register will no longer be comprehensive.
The Government say that the new system will tackle fraud. Like everyone else, I am concerned about electoral malpractice, but we have to remember that, even according to the Government’s papers, fraudulent registration is “rare”. The Electoral Commission’s report on the 2013 elections lists a number of alleged malpractices:
“potential campaign or nomination offences, including alleged false nominations, false statements about the character or conduct of candidates, and allegations that some election materials failed to include the correct imprint.”
Fraudulent registration was not mentioned. Indeed, surveys show that 20 times more people are satisfied with how we register to vote than are dissatisfied. What is more, there is little incentive to register fraudulently because when councils look at the electoral register, it might lead to a higher council tax bill.
Instead of reducing the electoral register to tackle a fraud that does not take place, we should enhance it to fight bigger crimes. The problem with our electoral register is not that too many people are on it, but that 3.5 million people are not. There is a lot that we could do about that. The Electoral Reform Society wants steps to be taken to make it easier to register, such as people being able to register on election day. It also wants people to be able to register
“whenever people interact with government—for instance when they collect their pensions or benefits”.
I would go even further. Registering should be stage one in the process of interacting with Government. At a stroke, that would reinstate millions of people who are missing from the register. The vast majority of the missing people are eligible for benefits, tax credits, pensions and so on, and many are already receiving them. Bringing those people on to the register would ensure that even more people are engaged in the democratic process. The Bill is about living in a something-for-something society—public services in return for civic duty; the rewards of living in a democracy in return for signing up to democracy. Registering to vote is about engagement. It is a recognition that a person is not on the margins, but a full participant in society. It is our social contract.
Strengthening the register would tackle fraud and reduce social exclusion, but more than that, it would ensure more people had a chance to vote. Those of us who believe in democracy should all agree that that would be no bad thing. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Siobhain McDonagh, Ian Austin, Hazel Blears, Mr Russell Brown, Rosie Cooper, Nic Dakin, Mike Gapes, Mr Andrew Love, John Mann and Mr John Spellar present the Bill.
Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014, and to be printed (Bill 95).
Opposition Day
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that, as part of a wider regulatory framework for second jobs, from the start of the next Parliament no hon. Members should be permitted to hold paid directorships or consultancies.
It is good to see your cheerful face in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, although it might not last for long.
There is a compressed time scale this afternoon, so I give notice that I will not take many interventions. That is a shame because I was looking forward to them given that, until an hour ago, not a single Government Back Bencher had sought to speak in the debate. Somebody who is very mischievous said to me that that was because they were all off doing second jobs. I totally reject that suggestion. They are not making speeches because they are afraid of the argument.
I hope that the debate does not descend into the usual finger-pointing exercise. I have no interest in denigrating the activities of any hon. Member. The House should be clear that Members who have second jobs at the moment have not broken any rule of the House. I am not suggesting that anybody is less diligent as a Member of Parliament because they have a second job.
I will start the debate, by way of context, with a number: 895. That is the number of young people in my constituency who have no job, and yet here we are talking about MPs continuing to have several jobs after the general election. Some of those young people or their families might be watching our proceedings.
The Commons has always allowed MPs to have other jobs, but all rules—and above all, this rule—ought to be reviewed from time to time. In reviewing the rules, it would be better to make progress with consensus across the parties. However, let me be equally clear that if there is no such consensus, the Labour party will ensure, by the time of the election, that there will be regulations governing our candidates once they are elected.
There is a strong case for change. We have moved a long way since the time of Hugh Dalton, who reputedly visited his constituency once a quarter.
Jon Trickett
Yes, and it is said that when he arrived, it was such a special occasion that the station master put on his top hat and tails and rolled out a red carpet for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Jon Trickett
Yes, I get the red carpet regularly, but only on the way back out.
I will quote two Prime Ministers, neither of whom are from my party. I am not in the habit of quoting Prime Ministers from other parties, but these quotations are quite relevant. More than a century ago, Gladstone said that “an MP who does his duty to his constituents has very little time for anything else”. Of course, MPs were all men in those days. In 2009, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) said that it was
“necessary to demonstrate 100 per cent focus on Parliament, politics”.
We can all agree that being an MP is a profession that requires an enormous commitment of time and energy.
Jon Trickett
I will not give way yet.
Let us be honest: the demands on our time have increased dramatically since the time of Gladstone and, indeed, since 2009, when the current Prime Minister made the comments that I have just quoted. MPs are under more pressure than ever in their constituencies. Most of us spend more time than previous generations of MPs in the areas that we represent and our constituents rightly expect us to be there. I think that all Members on both sides of the House would agree that that is a positive development.
In addition to the work that we do in our constituencies, the role of Back Benchers in the Commons is changing. As reforms to the Select Committees, the modernisation of the House and the improved and increasingly intense scrutiny of legislation roll out, there is added pressure on our working week. There is also the fact that we live in an internet age of mass e-mails and 24/7 media. All that means that our work is increasing exponentially. In the mind of the public—
Jon Trickett
Hon. Members should listen to the argument. I am not making a case against any individual. Just listen to the argument and I will give way shortly. Let me make the case. In the mind of the public it is clear that there is an overwhelming mood, which amounts to an expectation, that we should be working full-time for our constituents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not going to take interventions at the moment. [Hon. Members: “Shame.”] No, it is up to the hon. Gentleman. I will decide whether it is a shame or not. He said that he will give way shortly. What we also do not need is a Whip on the Opposition Front Bench trying to antagonise Government Members.
Jon Trickett
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way in a moment or two.
Apart from the pressure on our time, there is another issue: the deteriorating reputation of politics in the mind of the public. We all know, for whatever reason, that the public perception of our role as law-makers and public representatives has sunk in recent times to an all-time low, and we need to address that. No single reform on its own can restore the trust that we need to rebuild, but better regulation of second jobs would clearly help. Here is one reason why. [Interruption.] I will explain why if the Leader of the House can be patient for just one second. He has to hear the argument before he can rebut it. Here is a reason why that can help. The issue relates to the problem of perception—I use that word carefully—of potential conflict of interest. Our primary loyalty as right hon. and hon. Members is to promote the common good for our country and our constituents, rather than our personal, private interests.
I am not suggesting for one moment that any right hon. or hon. Member is allowing the pursuit of private interest to interfere with their duty to the wider public interest, but I am suggesting that there is a widespread perception that that is the case. In politics, as we know, perception is just as important as reality.
Jon Trickett
I will give way to the hon. Lady, but in doing so let me ask her this question. After the next election, Labour MPs will have no remunerated directorships or consultancies. Will she say the same for her party?
Harriett Baldwin
As the hon. Gentleman can see, I do not have any remunerated outside interests currently, but I did have one that carried forward after the election. He seems to making the case for separating the Executive completely from Parliament. Is he saying that none of those on the Opposition Front Bench would be prepared to be Ministers after the next election?
Jon Trickett
Let me say first that I note that the hon. Lady did not refer to the primary point, which is whether Government Members support reform. As regards the question of whether Ministers are somehow operating a private interest, that is a preposterous argument. Ministers work for the Crown on behalf of the public, because we live in a democratic society. For anybody to suggest that Ministers or a Prime Minister are somehow working for their private interests is a preposterous argument. I hope that when she reflects, she understands that that is the case.
If we stop to reflect for an instant, it is easy to understand how the perception I was describing might develop. The House will know that anyone who becomes a director of a company board, or consultant to a company, has a fiduciary duty—a legally defined concept—to that company. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have already had the Opposition Whips intervening. I do not need the Government Whips leading the march of opposition.
Jon Trickett
Fiduciary duty requires the person who sits on a board, or who is a consultant to a company, to act in the best financial interests of that company. MPs swear an oath of loyalty to the country and to their constituents. Let me illustrate the problem as I see it. Were an MP to find themselves on the board of, or be a consultant to, a tobacco company—to take an example at random—they would be bound by a fiduciary duty to pursue the financial interests of that tobacco company. Let us imagine proposed legislation to improve public health, which would be damaging to the interests of the tobacco industry, being introduced in the House of Commons. The perception of a conflict of interest would arise in the public’s mind. An explanation would have to be sought on the way an MP chose to vote, particularly if the remuneration received—as is the case for some hon. Members—is two or three times greater than the remuneration they receive as an MP. The public’s perception would lead to only one conclusion.
It is in order to tackle this problem that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has taken decisive action. From 2015, all Labour MPs will be banned from having directorships or consultancies for third-party commercial interests. I hope that other party leaders will see the sense of what we are proposing and move in the same direction.
Jon Trickett
I will on that point. I invite the hon. Gentleman to set out what he would say to the hundreds of young people under the age of 24 in his constituency of Dover who have no job, when he defends the right of MPs to have several jobs.
Charlie Elphicke
I would say to them that I do not have outside paid jobs. I am a Member of Parliament. My only job is as a Member of Parliament. Why did the hon. Gentleman, in 2009, vote against a ban on outside interests? Why is he doing a U-turn?
Jon Trickett
The House will have noticed that the hon. Gentleman has not said that he will vote with the Opposition to regulate second jobs. He acknowledges that there are hundreds of young people without a single job, and he has failed to address the central moral question. I would like all-party agreement on the Opposition’s proposal, but it looks like Government Members will not respond to it.
There are those who will make the valid argument that Members of Parliament need to remain connected to the world beyond Westminster. The problem is to my mind best resolved by having a set of MPs who represent far more diverse backgrounds than we have at the moment. For example, about 60 MPs went to 13 fee-paying schools.
Helen Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with second jobs and the connection with the outside world is that we seldom see Members taking low-paid jobs? They usually take very highly paid jobs. If they spent their time in their constituencies talking to their constituents, instead of working for firms in the City, they would know more about the real world.
Jon Trickett
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we believe that we need to connect, then the choice of jobs that some MPs take is intriguing. I will come on to that point in a moment or two, because I have some thoughts on it. Having a more diverse set of MPs would be a better way of connecting the Commons to the world than simply saying that we should all take second, third, fourth or even fifth jobs.
I have spoken to Labour MPs who were involved in business activities before being elected and who remain closely interested in the corporate world in which they worked, but who, shortly after being elected, voluntarily ceased to take remuneration because they believed that being an MP was a full-time commitment. I have also spoken to many Labour candidates for the next election—a new generation of Labour MPs, I hope—and I have not yet met one who believes that being an MP should be anything other than a full-time commitment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, when hon. Members say that having a second job somehow connects them to the outside world, what they generally mean—I am not talking about everyone—is a top, well-paid job. Not a single MP has recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests a second job as a manual worker, a hospital porter, a cleaner or a call centre worker.
Today’s motion deals with remunerated directorships and consultancies. Beyond those activities, the motion talks about regulating other sources of income. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North has announced that we are considering a cap on other forms of outside income, such as earnings from journalism or media appearances, that would apply to all parties. An hon. Member might belong to a profession—normally we talk about lawyers, doctors or perhaps dentists—and need to retain their professional qualifications, but I remind the House that a gas fitter also needs to do so many hours a year to retain his CORGI certificate and an electrician needs to keep in touch with the regulations of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Nothing we are proposing would prevent such a thing.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s exception. I ought to be a gas fitter; I would be better off financially than I am in my current profession. He seems fixated on the paid part. Many Members have jobs on boards and organisations that are unpaid but which occupy the same amount of time and effort as those that are paid. Is his problem with the paid part?
Jon Trickett
I think the hon. Gentleman has been persuaded by my argument and might decide to join us in the Division Lobby. I hope others do, too, because, on this question of fiduciary duty, if an MP is remunerated, sometimes very substantially, it will create the perception that they might be tempted to calculate the impact of a particular proposal on that income before deciding how to vote. I do not suggest that any MP has ever done such a thing, but in the public mind, that is a widespread view. If we cannot agree this afternoon, Government Members should at least reflect on that.
MPs’ other activities, including remunerated activities, can be taken into account in any new rules we might agree. For the vast majority of MPs, our proposals should be very simple and make no real changes to how they go about their work. Without robust regulation, however, the perception will continue that politics works for a tiny closed circle of people at the top of our society, but not for the millions of hard-working people who play by the rules yet find it increasingly hard to get by, and that brings me to the kernel of my argument. Millions of people play by the rules, but feel that they are getting a really rough deal, while also believing that there is a different set of rules for others, particularly those at the top. We politicians must take account of that public mood. It is time we stepped up to the mark. Precisely because it is we who set the rules, the rules have to apply to us above all.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jon Trickett
No, I have almost finished and others want to speak.
Every single one of us feels great pride whenever we enter or leave the Chamber, and we all believe that if politics works properly, we can make our world a better place.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that there is something requiring a remedy, but he keeps telling the House that the problem has not occurred. Does he know of any circumstances in which the problem he purports to be trying to solve has actually arisen?
Jon Trickett
As I have said many times, the problem is the public perception that when an MP is earning several hundred thousands of pounds a year from a third-party commercial operation, they will take that into account when making a decision. I do not allege that any MP has so behaved, but the public believe—[Interruption.] Government Members can protest, but they will know, assuming they knock on doors at election time—perhaps they do not—what people say about us.
Working as an MP is the highest honour a democracy can bestow on us, so there should be no doubt in the public’s mind that we are placing every ounce of our intelligence, energy and loyalty at the service of the common good, not being diverted into defending our own private personal interests. For that reason, I hope the House can have a sensible debate, not a finger-pointing one, and even at this late stage support the motion.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
On behalf of the Government, I ask the House to reject the motion.
I am interested in the contrast, which could not be more obvious, between this Opposition debate and the Bill we have just published. On the one hand, the Bill, the aim of which is to tackle a real issue, focuses on a specific potential problem concerning the transparency of third-party lobbying and third-party influences on the political system. By contrast, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has presented a flawed motion to which the House should object regardless of whether Members agree with the principle he has tried to enunciate. It also turns out, however, to be nothing other than an effort to fling mud. He says he is not trying to impugn anybody’s motives, that nobody has done anything wrong, that everything is absolutely fine and that the House has behaved wonderfully, but then he says that the House should be constrained. It makes no sense.
It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House the reason for the motion. It is chaff. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, what matters is the perception that the Labour party is in the pay of the trade unions, which control its policies, candidacies and leadership, which it bought; so to divert attention from that, which goes to the heart of this issue, the Labour party throws up this chaff.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Where they are aware of it, my constituents are concerned not about the perception, but about the reality: that the current Leader of the Opposition was not put there by a one man, one vote process and that Labour MPs were outvoted by the trade unions.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. Not only Labour MPs, but the Labour party membership, were outvoted by the trade unions, and nothing that the Leader of the Opposition is saying will change that. As far as I am aware, one third of the electoral college for the leadership of the Labour party will continue to be trade-union controlled, so if they can get a sufficiently large majority, they can control the leadership of the Labour party.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth made no sense. I tried to listen to it and hear the argument, but if he wants to intervene and explain, even at this stage, I would be glad of that.
The motion is about regulating the ways that Members of the House work. As Leader of the House—that is one reason why I am responding to this debate—it is my view that proposals adopted by the House to regulate how Members behave should be the product of consultation across the House, and considered on the basis of proper scrutiny by relevant bodies, either in the House or externally. In this case, the Labour party has put forward a proposal without any such basis or advice to the House; procedurally it has gone about it the wrong way.
What is the real objective behind the motion? We should proceed in this House on the basis of trying to solve real problems. If the hon. Gentleman wants simply to talk about the issue, and the Labour party wants to get rid of the perception that those who are paid in this House are controlled by their paymasters, I have a simple proposition for the hon. Gentleman, which involves not taking money from the trade unions. That is not just a perception; the reality is that Labour’s interests are controlled by the trade unions. What is the hon. Gentleman trying to solve?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to reach a conclusion and bring the debate together, but I do not think he wants to be dependent on the policies and funding of the Labour party. This debate is about remuneration and second jobs in this House. I am sure the Leader of the House is desperate to get to that point.
Mr Lansley
I am trying to get to the argument, as I understood it, of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, and his point about the public perception that where Members of the House are in receipt of money from outside organisations, they are in the control of those organisations. I do not think that is true and I want to know what the motion is trying to achieve. It does not ensure that Members spend any given amount of time working with their constituents. A paid directorship or consultancy for one or two hours a week would be ruled out by this motion, but if a Member was engaged in travelling the world, for example, to undertake speaking engagements on behalf of some other organisation, which took them away for weeks—[Interruption.] Apparently in the view of Opposition Members that is absolutely fine and would not interfere with their ability to look after their constituents at all.
The motion does not stop Members having second jobs; it simply tries to stop them having certain kinds of second jobs, which is rather bizarre. It imposes no limit on the amount of money Members can earn outside politics; it simply wants to stop them earning money in particular ways.
Charlie Elphicke
My right hon. Friend has set out how what he considers to be the conflict issue has not been made into a real issue by the Opposition; it is just a hypothetical issue. There is also the issue of time. What is his view of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)? He said:
“I devote around 60-70 hours to my duties as an MP, both national and constituency-related…After allowing for sleep, and family/social activities, there are another 30-40 hours available for my other work.”
Mr Lansley
My view is that as a result of the reforms, Members are accountable through the transparent registration of interests, which includes the amount of time they spend on those interests. They are accountable to their constituents through the register in a transparent way, and their constituents will judge them. The implication of what the hon. Member for Hemsworth was saying is that none of that has caused any problem and all is fine.
David Miliband was a director of Sunderland football club and engaged in other consultancies, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) may also be engaged in activities. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is a consultant to a company, which apparently is absolutely fine, as is the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who is in his place. I refer to those right hon. Members because apparently it is fine for them to do those things and it does not impinge on their constituents or responsibilities, yet the hon. Member for Hemsworth wants to stop them doing that. How absurd is that?
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that he notified each of those Members that he planned to refer to them in the debate?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I have done that.
In our parliamentary democracy it is well established and accepted that many MPs have responsibilities beyond those of individual Back Benchers representing their constituents. There is nothing unusual about that. We do it as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and even in the distinguished role of Deputy Speaker of the House. Such responsibilities do not in any sense constrain Members of the House in being effective advocates and representatives on behalf of their constituents. I have not heard a serious suggestion that MPs should be barred from taking on responsibilities that go wider than their role as a constituency MP. The motion does not preclude Members from maintaining second jobs or paid outside interests; it merely sets out to impose a ban on a very specific type of employment.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the powerful point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) that our main task is to restore the standing of politicians in the country? Most people in the country regard our wage as very handsome, and they expect people to do a full-time job if they are getting a full-time wage. It cannot be done the other way round if people are part-timing.
Mr Lansley
My view, and I think that of the hon. Member for Hemsworth and Members across the House, is that it is perfectly possible in addition to one’s responsibilities to one’s constituents, and to the House, to undertake additional activities. We do that as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and in our constituencies in all sorts of ways. We do it in charitable work and, as has been said, when engaged in authorship and advisory positions, looking after charities and in all-party groups. If one looks at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, one sees that people the length and breadth of this House are engaged in a wide variety of additional activities. It was held to be in the interests of the House that that wide range of activities should not be unduly constrained, but that Members should be completely transparent about their activities and interests, whether they are or are not remunerated, and how much time they take.
This issue was previously considered by an independent expert body—the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Opposition Front Benchers may like to recall that that Committee argued that those who wished to be full-time Members should be free to do so, but that it considered it
“desirable for the House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests. If that were not so, Parliament would be less well-informed and effective than it is now, and might well be more dependent on lobbyists.”
The Opposition’s proposal could lead to the very thing that on this very day we are trying better to control.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The motion mentions two types of corporate structures, but the hon. Member for Hemsworth was talking about payment as a principle. That ignores partnerships or self-employment. The motion is flawed. I know the hon. Gentleman was introducing it as best he could, but does that not show the lack of understanding of corporate structures and business overall among Labour Members?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I fear Labour also misunderstands the nature of the relationship of a director to a company, and, where a director is a Member of Parliament, the relationship between those two responsibilities. Someone may act as a director and have a responsibility to the company as a whole in certain areas—I freely admit that for one year in the more than 16 years I have been in this House, I was a director of a company while also a Member of Parliament. I entered into an explicit contract that I would not undertake any activities for that company that drew on my interests and responsibilities as an MP—[Interruption.] No, we did not publish the contract, but I entered into a contract that made it clear that where there was any conflict of interest, the company would expect me to declare it and remove myself from any activity with the company concerned. I was very clear about that, so the question of a conflict of interest between my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament and to the company would not arise.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has described beautifully how the contract he drew up with the company protected the interest of the company, but not how it protected the interests of this House or of his constituents. Even the right hon. Gentleman must know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is the point.
Mr Lansley
On the contrary, I was explaining to the House how it is perfectly straightforward not to prejudice one’s responsibilities as a Member of Parliament. Members in this House are very clear about that and that is why such matters are published in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The fact that the hon. Lady has stood up and said that he who pays the piper calls the tune will be an entertaining thought for us to take forward and I look forward to my hon. Friends making that very clear.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth knows that I have written to the Leader of the Opposition about the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, published today, to say that if he and his colleagues wish to follow through on the principle initiated by the Leader of the Opposition that members of trade unions should be able to exercise a deliberate choice about their participation in a political fund, the Bill is available. I invite the hon. Gentleman to come forward and say whether or not he will do that. If he does not, we will know that it was all rhetoric with no follow-through.
The conclusion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life was that Members of Parliament should remain free to have paid employment unrelated to their role as MPs. That was widely accepted, and I have seen no evidence or argument that questions the validity of the conclusion and the hon. Gentleman mentioned no individual case that prejudiced that conclusion. We have clear rules on lobbying and the registration of interests that were put before the House by the previous Labour Government and agreed in April 2009. As we heard, the hon. Member for Hemsworth, who was on the Government Benches at that time, supported that and was against the exclusion of other earnings. The then Government did not go further down that path and they were right not to do so.
We have mechanisms for investigating any alleged breach of the rules and proper procedures for taking action where necessary. The Chairman of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) is in his place and if he wished, he could take action—although I suspect he would not need to do so, as no case arises. I do not think we have any lack of rules that would enable us to act when any conflict of interest took place. We do not need new and arbitrary rules.
Mr Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition shows through today’s motion that he does not really understand how business works? He said a year or two ago, if I remember correctly, that he would like more entrepreneurs on the Labour Benches. When we look across the House, we have to ask how many people on those Benches started a business and got it going. There is a small number, but not many. It is quite clear from the motion that they do not understand. I have been a publisher since the age of 25 and I am a director of the company I set up then; I do not think that that harms my ability to represent my constituents in this House.
Mr Lansley
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I was rather disappointed because the implication of the motion seems to be that if someone is in business, they ought specifically to be excluded from being able to pursue those interests in this House. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was perfectly happy for people in all sorts of profession to continue—doctors, farmers, lawyers and, presumably, architects. There are all sorts of partnerships and a sole trader or partner would be able to continue to work in their interests, but a director of a company would apparently not be able to do so. I presume that he would exclude paid directors of companies that are limited by guarantee, which are often not-for-profit organisations. I fail to see why so many such organisations, which do good work, should be precluded from having any Member of Parliament participating in them.
The motion refers to the
“wider regulatory framework for second jobs”.
I failed to hear in the hon. Gentleman’s opening speech what he meant by that, so perhaps we will hear some more about it from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) when he concludes the debate.
There are practical issues that mean that the proposal is flawed. It refers to a director but not to an employee of a company, and it does not refer to partners—trustees have been mentioned. A range of circumstances have been ignored and left out, and the effort is to preclude directorships specifically. It refers to “consultancies”, although that is undefined, and apparently being an adviser would be okay. Or would every adviser be treated as a consultant? If we put the word “adviser” into the motion, instead of referring to consultants, it would no doubt extend widely among those on the Labour Benches, but apparently that is okay—[Interruption.] I will not go through every entry in the register, as I have already done that, but there are many circumstances in which Members are advisers to organisations. Apparently, I do not understand whether they are consultants or not.
As I have said, many professions, including many that are very time consuming—there are Members in the Chamber who consume quite a bit of time in writing books and articles and taking part in broadcast activities, but that seems to be perfectly okay—are ignored.
I cannot see from the motion who would police the new rules. Who would define who was a director for this purpose? Who would undertake the difficult task of deciding what was a consultancy? I cannot imagine the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would welcome the task of monitoring the provisions—we might hear whether she would. Do we need a new quango? Would Members rather the function be given to IPSA—[Interruption.] I think that was an ironic cheer from Opposition Members. IPSA considered the matter in its latest report and stated, perhaps with a moment’s regret, that it was not within its remit. It then made an ex cathedra statement about it anyway—
Mr Lansley
Well, IPSA is a bit cathedral-like, is it not? A bit papal, really.
IPSA considered the issue and, although it decided it was not within its remit, said that
“the proportion of MPs with significant outside earnings is small.”
At least IPSA agrees with the hon. Member for Hemsworth that there is not a problem, but, like most people, it imagines that when there is no problem it is not necessary to find a solution.
The solution—the key to which is in the Bill published today—is transparency. Members are free to divide their time between their different and varied responsibilities. They represent constituents, scrutinise legislation, hold the Government to account and pursue the interests of their party—all those things take up a lot of Members’ time—but they must judge how to balance and allocate their time. Individual Members will be accountable through the register for where their interests lie and to their constituents for how they undertake their responsibilities.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
Should this not be an issue for the electorates and constituencies concerned? It seems to me to set a dangerous precedent to try to impose some sort of central authority.
Mr Lansley
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Transparency is key. If there is any adverse perception to which the hon. Member for Hemsworth is referring, we should make it clear that the register is absolutely transparent and that people can look to see that Members do not undertake activities that conflict with their responsibilities to their constituents and in this House.
We can dismiss the issue of earnings, because clearly Opposition Members are very happy for people to earn a great deal of money if necessary, as long as they do not earn it in specific ways. We can dismiss the question of time, since no argument is being presented that Members are incapable of undertaking other activities and that they would not have sufficient time to look after their constituents. Clearly, they do and, if anything, all the evidence suggests that Members are devoting more time to their responsibilities in this House and using the advances in communications technology and elsewhere to provide improving services. Opportunities are increasing, added to by IPSA’s proposals for Members to have an annual report, to set out for our constituents how we do that.
It seems to me that no issue arises on the motion. The issue before us is how to achieve the greatest transparency and our Bill, published today, is the only relevant action taking place. It meets the objective of being more transparent about third-party influences—whether that is about lobbying or non-party campaigning at election times or about the scrutiny and accountability of trade unions.
There is an issue, of course, about “who pays the piper calls the tune”, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said. That is an issue in relation to the Labour party and the influence of the trade unions, and the Labour party really has to respond to that. I suggest to Labour Members that they cut the chaff and stop trying to divert from where the real issues lie, and instead respond to the offer we have made for there to be a change to the legislation that begins to tackle the real issue that the public care about, which is that he who pays for the Labour party calls its tune.
The motion is flawed in practice and pointless in its content. Whether or not one has sympathy with some of the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Hemsworth, I urge Members to recognise that the motion should not be supported by the House and to reject it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There must be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions in order to ensure everyone can participate in the debate and we have time for the wind-ups.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I, appropriately, at the start of this contribution refer to my interests as listed in the register? I should also at the outset make it clear that I have had second jobs throughout the time that I have served as a Member of Parliament. Before I was elected as MP for Greenwich in 1992, I ran a small business offering housing consultancy services—so the Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who believes Opposition Members do not have business experience is not correct—and that reflected my own career in housing over the previous 20 years. I sold that business when I was elected to the House, but remained as a consultant to the organisation that bought the business until I became a Minister in 1997. From 1997 to 2005 I served as a Minister in the Department that is now known as the Department for Communities and Local Government—it would take up too much of my five minutes to list its various names when I was a Minister there. That was the hardest-working second job I had by a long way during my time here.
After I left Government I accepted invitations to undertake work—some paid, some without remuneration— from organisations operating in fields in which I had previous professional experience or relevant skills. All were referred to, and approved by, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which considers applications from former Ministers proposing to take on outside interests. It is worth quoting the opening paragraph of the guidance issued by the Committee at the time:
“It is in the public interest that former Ministers with experience in government should be able to move into business or into other areas of public life.”
It went on to talk about the necessary safeguards to ensure propriety, but that statement of the public interest was very clear and the Leader of the House referred to it in his comments about the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
I have never allowed my outside interests, which are all properly declared, to interfere with, or inhibit, my parliamentary and constituency work. They certainly demanded a lot less time than my responsibilities as a Front-Bench spokesman for my party in Opposition and as a Minister between 1997 and 2005.
As I am standing down at the next election, my party’s proposals, as referred to in the motion and described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), will not affect me personally, so I hope I can offer a reasonably impartial analysis of their likely impact. It is certainly right that we should be debating this issue as there is genuine public concern that MPs should act in the public interest, and should not abuse their position by undertaking inappropriate activity on behalf of lobbyists or organisations seeking improperly to secure an advantage. I stress the word “improperly” because it is also right that organisations, whether commercial or not, which want to influence Parliament should be able to speak freely with MPs and have relationships with supporters in this House. I myself, in the voluntary sector before I was elected in 1992, had frequent contacts with MPs and Ministers in order to pursue issues relating to the voluntary organisation I was involved with, which was promoting policies and practices to achieve better housing outcomes and more effective relief for the homeless.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman says, and I congratulate him on his involvement in so many other activities which are a great help to his work in this Chamber. What advice would he give to somebody who owns a business that they cannot sell, however? I am a farmer, and the only way for me to remove myself from the business completely would be either to sell the farm completely or move out of it all together. What advice would he give people like me?
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman has raised a specific issue and I will refer later to one or two circumstances that seem to me to be not well covered by the terms set out in the motion. I hope he will bear with me until I get there.
When I was in the voluntary sector, one of the observations often made by my colleagues working in the housing world was that MPs, as generalists, had only a limited knowledge and understanding of the often complex and technical rules that applied to their clients—members of the public—and the frequent refrain I heard was “If only they could spend time working with us, then they would better understand the issue.” I therefore want to emphasise at the outset the importance of not acting in ways that might inhibit or restrict proper links and relationships between MPs and the wider world.
The motion states that, as part of a regulatory framework for MPs’ second jobs, following the next general election no MP should be permitted to hold “paid directorships or consultancies.” It is not clear to me what the logic of that is. What is the difference between a paid directorship or consultancy and a contract to write a book or an article, or a payment for practising as a lawyer or a doctor, or a fee for providing a piece of expert advice? Is it the payment that is the problem? If so, the motion is far too narrow as it would leave open all kinds of opportunities for MPs to receive payment for remunerated activities other than those described as directorships or consultancies. If the problem is not the payment but is instead the relationship implied by the directorship or consultancy, why should a paid directorship of an organisation with a remit that clearly involves public interest objectives, such as the construction of social and affordable housing, be banned whereas a remunerated relationship other than a directorship or consultancy with a profit-making organisation pursuing entirely private interests would appear to be acceptable?
One of the arguments advanced by those who wish to curtail MPs’ outside interests is that the MP’s job is a full-time one and their constituents deserve their full-time attention. I wholly agree.
Charlie Elphicke
The right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in housing is well known. Does he find that he can bring that expertise to bear in the House?
Mr Raynsford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention, and I was going to come to that point, although my time is very limited.
I wholly agree that MPs should be working assiduously for their constituents and putting in the necessary time to fulfil all their constituency and parliamentary responsibilities. In my experience the vast majority of MPs do that; they work hard and conscientiously, putting in far longer hours than would be expected in most other jobs.
Over my 20-plus years in this place, I have consistently worked very long hours, dealing with a huge volume of constituency correspondence, holding six advice surgeries every month, and sustaining a busy programme of visits and activities in the constituency. We all, I believe, try to do our best to represent our constituencies and constituents and are probably doing more such work today than at any time in Parliament’s history. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth referred to Hugh Dalton in his introductory remarks. I am told that when Lord Palmerston was invited to become a Member by the landowner who controlled the constituency he was “elected” for, it was on the condition that he never, repeat never, appeared in the constituency.
Things have moved on a lot since then, but if it were truly suspected that MPs were not adequately pulling their weight, we ought to have measures to restrict the demands of their parliamentary second jobs such as Front-Bench and ministerial responsibilities or chairmanships of Select Committees. That would be absolutely absurd, and I genuinely do not think that it is an issue.
My final point is about the representativeness of this House. People have expressed real fears that we are increasingly becoming a professionalised House of Commons with fewer opportunities for people in mid-career to come into this House bringing expertise from outside. I fear this measure would accelerate that process.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). Indeed, I would happily donate my time to allow him to continue for a further five minutes, because he outlined many reasons why both this motion and the thinking behind it are flawed.
The shadow Front-Bench team is, I think, trying to address the concern among the wider public about politicians, their position and trust. As one of the 240-odd Members who entered the House in 2010, I recognise that the seat that I managed to secure was a victim of that affair. I recognise the need to ensure that the public trust politicians, but I wanted to share with the House my own experience.
In the selection for the constituency of Bracknell there was an open meeting—a caucus. There were seven of us, most of whom had had jobs before and one of whom is now a Member here. During that selection process I pointed out to the meeting that I would continue working in a second job as a doctor. This was a meeting that everybody who was on the electoral register in Bracknell could attend. Approximately 50% of the people there were non-Conservative members. Despite that, I was selected in a very competitive field. My hon. Friend who is now the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) was second. I like to remind him of that on a regular basis. As an aside, I am rather pleased that he is here. He has written some fantastic books and I want him to continue writing books while in the Chamber.
I went on to the election and I was interviewed during the election campaign. The only time I was mentioned on the BBC website was because I called for an increase in MPs’ wages. That is significant. I thought it rather perverse that I was taking a £50,000 pay cut to come here to be an MP from being a GP. We should all reflect on that before making political points on either side of the House. I also said that I would continue working as a GP. I met more people on the doorsteps of Bracknell and the surrounding area who congratulated me on that fact than people who said, “No, you shouldn’t be doing that. I want a full-time Member of Parliament.”
David Morris
Does my hon. Friend agree that carrying on practising as a GP enhances his work in the House and keeps him in regular touch with his constituents?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend help me? Is it the case that as a doctor, he has to practise a bit in order to keep his licence going?
Dr Lee
Yes, it is true. With reference to the comments from the shadow Minister, I point out for the record that I applied to the Speaker’s office this morning at 10 o’clock to speak in the debate. On medicine and maintaining professional skills, yes, one has to practise but it is not actually prescribed, so there is a difficulty in determining how many hours I would have to practise as a GP. Indeed, I am currently going through revalidation.
After I was elected, I appeared in that esteemed organ, Private Eye, under the “New Boys” column, which listed my income and suggested that this was wrong. I was challenged at a public meeting—I hold regular public meetings in my constituency—by somebody waving the article at me and telling me that I was a part-time Member of Parliament. I pointed out to him that like most Members in the House, I do upwards of 50, 60 and sometimes 70 hours a week. It is rather different from any other job I have done in my life because I do not feel that I stop working. I am constantly thinking about this role and the challenges that we all face.
I asked the man a series of questions. I asked whether he was a parent, to which he replied yes. I asked, “Do you think that is a full-time job?” and he said yes. I asked him a second question. I said, “In the unlikely event that I am asked to be a Minister, should I say yes or no?” He said, “You should say yes.” I said, “Do you think it is a full-time job being, say, the Defence Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister? Do you think those are full-time jobs?”—not that that is on the horizon. He said, “Of course they are full-time jobs.” I said, “So what you are saying is that being a Minister is a full-time job, being a father is a full-time job, and you are having a go at me for doing about four hours a week as a GP, when I am doing about 60 hours a week as an MP. I think your argument is flawed.”
With reference to whether I should be paid for that or whether I should volunteer, I get the impression that I should be giving my time for free. I think that is a perverse argument. There are Members who want to do voluntary work in addition to their jobs and I congratulate them on that, but the idea that I should not be paid to be a doctor is, I believe, not widely held in my constituency or across the country. Most people would say that I should be paid to undertake that work.
Moving on to the question about what I bring to the Chamber as a doctor, I shall give one example, which is very relevant today. The Care Quality Commission issued a report today on the Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, a trust that rather bizarrely secured foundation trust status in 2007. The trust is financially unviable and has significant clinical problems, according to the report. I highlighted this at the Department of Health shortly after arrival. My continuing work at the time was in Slough. I was working as a GP and I knew there was a problem. I contacted Monitor, I contacted the CQC, I spoke on the telephone to that fantastic individual, Cynthia Bower, and pointed out to her that there was a problem. I am slightly surprised that it has taken three years for the CQC to conclude that there is a problem, but the fact that I was still working in the area gave me evidence and first-hand experience of what was going on, and my constituents recognise that.
The other example that I can give the House is of the hospital that I would like to see built in the Thames valley. That is based on the experience of working throughout the constituency. In the register of interests, I have various entries because I do not work in just one practice. I work all over the place—whoever will take me—and from that experience I have a regional perspective on the health economy in the Thames valley, a perspective that is almost unique, particularly if one adds to it the fact that I am also a Member of Parliament in the Thames valley. The two together make me a better Member of Parliament for the Bracknell constituency. So although I recognise what the shadow Front-Bench team is trying to do, this is the wrong way to go about it. I ask the Front-Bench team to reflect on that.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
May I start by saying to the Leader of the House that it seems to me that, in his opening remarks, he was being deliberately obtuse when he said that he did not understand the motion? For clarity, let me read it to him. It seems very clear indeed. It states that
“this House believes that, as part of a wider regulatory framework for second jobs, from the start of the next Parliament no hon. Members should be permitted to hold paid directorships or consultancies.”
It could not be clearer. I do not understand the claim from the Leader of the House that the motion is flawed.
Mr Graham Stuart
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the definition of “consultancy” so that we can all refer to it?
Chris Williamson
Here we go again. I was going to go on to say that the Leader of the House accused my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) of putting up chaff, and here we have yet more chaff from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). There is a clear legal definition of a consultant and if he needs to check that out, I suggest he look up the dictionary definition. I am not going to waste the limited amount of time I have explaining it to him. He knows very well what a consultant is.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth pointed out, perception is key in this agenda. We know that Parliament and MPs are held in very low esteem by many of the electorate and it is our duty to try to repair the trust of the electorate. I say that because I have spoken to many constituents—people have also written to me—who have said, for example, that the top-down reorganisation of the national health service was done only because many senior Conservative MPs stood to benefit financially from the 49% privatisation. Surely none of us, on either side of the Chamber, can allow that sort of perception to persist among the wider electorate. People need to have trust in their Members of Parliament. The motion would go a long way towards re-establishing that trust with the electorate at large.
The Leader of the House implied that agreeing the motion would impose some terrible, onerous obligation on Members, as though this idea had somehow dropped from space, from Mars or somewhere. However, if we look around the world, it becomes clear that the restrictions imposed on fellow parliamentarians in other countries are much more stringent than the restrictions in the UK. Our friends in America have imposed strong, stringent restrictions on the elected representatives who serve in that country. This motion contains a reasonable and measured proposition that would put us on a par with many of our international colleagues.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I do not understand why, under the terms of the motion, the hon. Gentleman would be happy with me doing what I did a few years ago, when I spent five months doing a fraud trial as a barrister, but would apparently not be happy with me attending 12 board meetings a year, all properly declared. How can attending just 12 board meetings a year prevent me from doing my job in this place? I do not understand the terms of the motion.
Chris Williamson
I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little obtuse, because there is a way round that. The earnings from that work could perhaps be capped. That might be the way forward. As a Member of Parliament, I know that my time is taken up almost entirely with being an elected representative. How he finds time to go and represent clients in court is beyond me, but that is a matter for him. One way round that problem would be to put a cap on earnings.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. I seem to recall an hon. Member from the Government Benches who went on “I’m a Celebrity” and got into a lot of trouble because she absented herself from this House. How does that compare with five months on a fraud case?
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. Indeed, one wonders what Conservative Members have to say about that, because that hon. Member had the Whip withdrawn from her for having the temerity to spend her time during the recess on “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!” It seems to me that Conservative Members are applying double standards.
Our democracy is indeed in crisis. We have to do something about that. Politics is a noble thing. It is the way in which we introduce things such as the national health service, the welfare state, equal pay and the minimum wage. It is absolutely key that people have confidence in what we are doing.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that poking fun at the motion sends out the wrong message to the public—that we are not taking this issue seriously?
Chris Williamson
It sends completely the wrong signal.
The obtuse way in which the Leader of the House approached the debate is extremely regrettable, particularly when our democracy is in crisis, as I have said. We have an obligation to restore the standing of politics in our country, because—as I was saying before my hon. Friend intervened on me—politics can and does make a difference to people’s lives. I have talked about things such as the national health service, the minimum wage and many other wonderful, progressive leaps forward that were made as a direct consequence of the political process. If we undermine our politics and do nothing to restore faith in it, people will hold us in contempt and it will be so much more difficult to make the progressive changes that are desperately needed in our country to get young people back to work, tackle the crisis of low pay and deal with the problems of ill health and the ageing population. There are so many things that we need to address, and we need a strong political class to be able to deliver those changes. We can get that by restoring faith in our political process and, as a start, agreeing to this motion.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I would like to apologise to the House for the fact that I was doing a second job earlier. I had to pop off and sit on a statutory instrument Committee. I shall have another second job in a bit, which involves sitting on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The quorum is two Members of Parliament and I believe that I am needed, so I shall pop over there for two minutes later on. All sorts of conflicts exist in the demands on Members’ time, but, to pick up on the demand made by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), I do not believe that having a “political class” is the solution.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The motion is badly drafted, in that it would trap one of the businesses that I have created, but not the other. I shall talk a bit about my history. I first fought a general election in 1983, when I was the youngest Liberal candidate in the country. Later that year, I founded a business called John Hemming and Company. I fought the general election in 1987, and I was elected to Birmingham city council in 1990. I became the group leader and deputy leader of the council in 2004. During all that time, I have also chaired my business, which is now called JHC.
Speaking of conflicting demands on Members’ time, I went to chair my board meeting yesterday. It took two hours. I came into the House of Commons early, at about 7.30 in the morning, and at about 10 o’clock I got on the tube and went to my office. I chaired the meeting and was back here by noon. I have to ask: what is the big danger in my popping off to London Bridge for two hours, once a month? What mischief is created by that?
Paul Flynn
If there were a crisis in one of the hon. Gentleman’s businesses involving large sums of money, and he had to make a choice between dealing with that and an important constituency matter here, which way would he go? That illustrates the problem of dual loyalties and dual wages.
John Hemming
I am lucky, in that I am able to arrange things so that that does not happen. I am in control of the timing in the business. Obviously, my priority is with Parliament. My duty is to Parliament, as is quite clear under our constitution and, like most hon. Members, I work seven days a week performing that duty. Admittedly I only did half a day on Sunday, and I might finish by 4 o’clock on a Saturday, but I do work the standard 60, 70 or 80 hours a week, depending on what is going on.
It has been suggested that it would be reasonable to pay people like me who have large external earnings a lower rate of pay here. I do not mind that, as long as no one says that I am not a full-time MP. This is what I resent about the motion. Its argument is that I am not doing this job correctly for my constituents because I happen also to chair a business that I have run for many years.
Chris Williamson
Would the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an issue of perception involved? The perception is that hon. Members’ directorships or consultancies could influence the way in which they vote on certain issues. As I mentioned in my speech, people feel that certain Members voted for the national health service reorganisation so that they could gain financially from it.
John Hemming
I accept that this is about conflicts of interest, and there is a problem when external bodies control what Members of Parliament do. I am a member of a trade union, so I am not anti-trade union, but if the unions are controlling what the Labour party is doing, that is not a good environment.
Similarly, there is a problem with having a second job as a Minister. That really creates a conflict of interest, because Ministers can lose their ministerial salary if they do not vote along party lines in Parliament. We accept that as part of our constitution, but it clearly involves a conflict of interest, in that Ministers have to support the Government. I am lucky as a Back Bencher; people say that I can afford to be independent. I will not lose any income if I happen to rebel against the party.
Oliver Colvile
Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, at the beginning of the 20th century, people had to resign their seat if they wanted to become a Cabinet Minister? That must have been pretty devastating at the time.
John Hemming
The last such resignation was in the 1960s, when the practice went against the then Government and was brought to an end. The second job of being a Minister is clearly demanding, and it undermines that Member’s constituency activity.
The wording of the motion is absolutely dreadful in that it would pick up one of my businesses but not the other. Why is that? What is the sense in picking up one structure of ownership and not another? The Opposition are also suggesting that we should not take the earned money, but they have no problem with those Members who are shareholders taking unearned income. Traditionally, Labour Members thought that earned income was more acceptable than unearned income, but they now seem to be arguing that we should have our unearned income. That is easy enough for me to structure, as I am in control of my corporate structures, but it is difficult for other people in other circumstances. The whole thing is frankly absurd. It drives us on again to what I think the hon. Member for Derby North was arguing for—the development of a political class. He did say that. He said that the Labour party wants a political class—a concept according to which we work only in politics and do not have any experience outside it.
Helen Goodman
No, no, no, no—the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. It is perfectly possible to do as I did and have three different jobs before entering this House. That gave me more than 20 years of working experience in different institutions, which I can bring to bear on the politics—without having another paid job alongside being a Member of Parliament.
John Hemming
The point I am making is a very simple one: I do not think we should have a political class. An Opposition Member has called for a political class—he said those words, and I see nods around the Chamber—but I think that is very dangerous. It is dangerous to have a situation where external bodies beyond the Government, who do control votes in Parliament, control people in Parliament. Apart from being extremely badly drafted, the motion drives things further towards a political class. Thus people who have not had real jobs go through the special adviser process and all that sort of thing, ending up not being in the real world. That moves against the concept of people being able to be Members of Parliament for a short period of time, and what do we gain from it? Nothing.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
This is turning into a navel-gazing debate, but it should not be, because it is not about us but about what the people who elect us think about us. It is about real engagement and representation in the world, so I want to provide some examples of what is happening in the real world of work.
A young lady in my part of the world told me today that she has got two jobs—or she has almost got two jobs. After 30 years as a machinist, she was made redundant, so every day she sits at home at 7.20 in the morning waiting to see whether she will get a phone call inviting her to get in her car and go to work at 8 o’clock. If she does not get that phone call, she rings the local newsagents to ask whether they have any work for her in the shop. She does not get any pay for either of those things. That is how she is living.
Her partner is on a zero-hours contract at a big factory in a town called Peterlee. He was told three weeks ago, “We want you to come to work on Sunday morning at 7 o’clock.” He and 11 colleagues went to work that Sunday morning, but when they got there, they were told, “Sorry. We don’t need you. You can go home.” No money.
I welcome the fact that unemployment rates have gone down today, but in my part of the world they have gone up again. We in the north-east now have people who have been in long-term unemployment longer than for any time since 1996. An average of £1,350 a year has been lost in the north-east since 2010. In fact, living standards are back to where they were in 2000.
Back in the unreal world, we have George Entwistle getting £450,000 for 54 days work—something like £8,500 a day. About 2,500 bankers, we were told this week, are paid more than £1 million a year; and all the millionaires in this country have had a £100,000 tax handout from the rest of us. That is estimated to apply to at least 8,000 people. Here is a number for this place: if that tax had not been handed out, 70,000 people could have been employed on the national minimum wage.
And then there is us, stuck in the middle. We get £67,000 a year—three times the average salary, which is much more than the average salary in my part of the world. More than a quarter of Conservative MPs do not think £67,000 is enough, so have outside earnings; only 6% of Labour MPs do not think it is enough and have outside earnings. No doubt it is the same for some Members across the parties. There are multi-millions of pounds between the lot of us, because we are unhappy with £67,000 a year.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman, but does he share my concern that the motion does not cover a Scottish MP, for instance, who has spoken in three debates, voted in only 30% of votes, yet earns £100,000 or £200,000 from outside interests? Why is that not covered?
Mr Anderson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not think the motion is wide enough. The motion says, “You’re a full-time MP and you’re nothing else.” Whether or not someone votes 30% of the time or 100% of the time, they should not be paid any more than the basic salary of an MP. That is what the people of this country want us to be: full-time Members of Parliament. They are sitting out there asking, “Why on earth do these people need to do more than they are doing already? Why should they be so different from us?” For at least the past five years, they have been asking, “Are these people on the same planet as us? Do they go to the same shops? Do they live in the same world?” They think that the answer to those questions is no, and unless we can convince them that we understand how they feel, they will not be interested in democracy. That is a long-term worry for the House. If we continue to be so unlike those people, they will become less and less likely to get off their backsides and vote for any of us, let alone those we are discussing today.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The miners at Daw Mill lost their jobs recently. I wonder what they think about Members of Parliament having two jobs.
Mr Anderson
On Saturday I spoke to miners from Maltby colliery, which has closed in the last three months because of geological problems, and they were disgusted by the fact that Members of Parliament were making multi-millions of pounds. We are told that a Member once earned three quarters of a million pounds, and those miners are 35-year-old guys who face having no more work for the rest of their lives. They have dedicated themselves to an industry and worked hard for that industry, and now they find themselves ruined. What is happening to them is absolutely disastrous.
How can our constituents be confident that we are committed to them—to their issues, their problems and their concerns—when we are focusing on outside work? Is being an MP not an honour and privilege, and is an MP not worthy of respect? If not, why not? Should that not be the case? How can we expect people to believe that we care for them, that we understand them, that we feel for them, if at the same time we are checking our diaries to see whether we are late for our next board meeting or court appearance?
Robert Flello
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. Another issue is conflict. How would it be if we said to the police, for example, “You can take any other job you want?”
Mr Anderson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We tell members of the police force and people in local government, “You cannot do certain things in life because of the nature of your job.” But we say that we in the House of Commons should have carte blanche. Should I be able to go back down the pit on Saturday mornings—not that I can do that, because the pits have been shut—or do a job as a car worker? My constituents expect me to represent their interests. This job means total commitment in return for the utmost respect.
During the last few weeks, in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and during our consideration of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we have committed ourselves to doing away with double-jobbing. Members of Parliament used to go to Holyrood, Stormont and Brussels as well as coming to the House of Commons. It is right that we put a stop to that, and we should stop all the other kinds of double- jobbing as well, because the people of this country will not understand it if we are anything other than full-time MPs, dedicated to working in the House of Commons and in our constituencies on their behalf.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson),who, I know, speaks from the heart on this and many other subjects. I agree with his analysis of the pressures faced by many working people who have one, two or even more jobs to do during the working week, but I must point out to him that the motion does not do what he wants. It is very narrowly defined. It deals with particular types of financial relationship, but it does not deal with partnerships or with contracts of employment. In his powerful speech, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) demolished the basis for the motion.
Sir Edward Leigh
Apart from the obvious point that the motion is defective—it does not mention earnings from, for instance, rented property—it constitutes an attempt to create a political class. The only way in which such people can express themselves, earn more money, or gain more power or prestige is to become Ministers, and that plays into the hands of Front Benchers. It gives them more and more power, and puts us more and more in their pockets.
Mr Buckland
If we breed a political class that enters this place with a diminished and diminishing knowledge of the outside world, the walls of the Westminster bubble will become thicker and thicker and we will genuinely create two nations, one of which will be entirely ignorant of the other.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I spent 23 years working for a citizens advice bureau—outside Parliament—before I came to this place, and I continue to have regular meetings with citizens advice bureaux, in addition to my constituency surgeries. I believe that keeps me in touch with the real world sufficiently, without having another job operating a fraud trial.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that, and I sincerely pay tribute to the work she does. She understands that by keeping in touch she is making sure that her considerable knowledge does not go out of date, which is a very important point. A lot of Opposition Members and Government Members bring knowledge and work experience to this place, but there is a danger that once we enter the House we start to lose touch with our job experiences. That is why I decided after the election not to carry on practising at the Bar, but to sit part-time as a Crown court recorder, where I do 15 days in the year. That is the minimum required, and the appointment was made just before I was elected to this House.
Paul Flynn
Does the hon. Gentleman surrender his salary during the time he is away from this place, as would happen in any other job? Another hon. Member said that he was away on a court case, but should he not have his wages here reduced, as would happen in any other occupation where someone is not available to do the full-time job for which they get a full-time wage?
Mr Buckland
I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. I do not do that, but I do keep fully in touch with what is going on, as with my work as a Member of Parliament. The fact that I, on 15 days of the year, choose to serve the public interest—that is what sitting as a part-time judge involves—keeps me in touch with the work that I used to do as a lawyer. It makes me keep up to date with sentencing law and the law of criminal justice, and it enhances the contributions I can make in this House. What is wrong with that?
Andrew Griffiths
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend is making a case in his usual reasonable and considered way. Does he agree that the experience and knowledge he gains in carrying out his role is hugely valuable, and is a great benefit and boon to the constituents he helps daily?
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I am not the first person to do this—many former Labour Members, including a number of distinguished ones I can think of, did exactly the same and brought great experience to this House. They probably brought greater learning than I do. If we lose touch with that experience, this place will become the poorer. In the race to the hair shirts, we will throw out a lot of the beneficial influences that can be brought into this place.
Mr Buckland
I had better not give way any further because I am running out of time. I accept that it is for individual Members to make judgments about the balances they have to strike—believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I view it as a great honour and privilege to serve the people of my constituency, and I think about that every working moment. However, I do feel that I strike a fair balance in the work I do. I am available for my constituents and I work as hard as any other MP to fight for their interests. Bringing into this place the work that I have done in the past and the experience that I have gained, and keeping in touch with it in the way I do during the recess is beneficial.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman, too, is being sincere in what he is saying, but does he not think it slightly incongruous that this House is the last place where what he describes is possible? Even in the other place people are not allowed to be part of the Chamber and part of the judiciary.
Mr Buckland
I do not think that is actually right, because the office of recorder was not included in the exemptions in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which, of course, was passed by the previous Labour Government. I make no apology for that, because I believe that individual—
Mr Buckland
I hear the words “separation of powers”, but we do not have an American system, and nor should we have. If we follow that to its logical conclusion, we turn ourselves into something not at all in keeping with the understood and learned traditions of the British constitution. It can be a good thing that several colleagues in this place have the sort of experience that I have, although I would be the last person to say that we want an identikit House full of lawyers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made a powerful speech about his medical practice, so people’s experience in many walks of life enhances our debates.
If the spasm of emotion that underlies what we hear from Labour Members is taken to its logical conclusion, the House will be diminished. Their proposal would not enhance the quality of the legislation that we pass. It would only make the public look at us once again as a rather odd set of individuals of diminishing relevance who contribute less and less to the public life of this country, so we should oppose the motion.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
This is hardly a spasm on my part. I greatly respect the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), but may I tell him that it was 16 years ago that I wrote in a book that all MPs’ additional earnings should be put into a charitable fund or used elsewhere? I repeated that in another splendid book that I published a short while ago. All the considerable royalties from that book go to charity—why not, because I already get a full-time wage for what I do?
I am sorry that I picked on the hon. Gentleman during his speech, but for five weeks last year I could not act as an MP. I did not receive any salary during that time—quite rightly so. We forget that we live in a little bubble with a system that we are used to, but people watching the debate and tweeting are baffled that anyone can say, “I have a job paying £65,000, but other jobs get my priority and attention at certain times.” If Members have to perform outside work, it would be easy—and absolutely right—to deduct the money earned from their parliamentary salary.
John Hemming
Should unearned income also be deducted from a Member’s salary?
Paul Flynn
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is part of a different argument.
The public will not see this subject in subtle tones or have regard to the lawyers’ arguments we are hearing. In 2009, after the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal, our reputation was at rock bottom, but now it is even worse—it is subterranean. We saw the reaction to the suggestion that MPs’ salaries should be increased: all the old resentment was churned up.
The Daily Telegraph did democracy a reasonable turn by submitting a freedom of information request that demanded to know the most popular book that wicked MPs were borrowing from the Commons Library. I am sure that its journalists were desperate for another negative story about MPs and that they prayed in their offices that that book would be “Fifty Shades of Gray”, “How to Keep a Moat”, or “Duck House Owning for Beginners”. However, the book in greatest demand at the Library was the improving tract that I wrote, which recommends that MPs live off their salary.
We must look at this from the perspective of outsiders, not by considering subtle points about what is unearned income and what is a salary. If Members want to get outside experience, there are splendid institutions in the House through which we can go off to join the Army, Navy or Air Force, or secure a fellowship with a commercial firm over many months. Those experiences are marvellous, but the important point is that they are not paid. The great resentment among the public arises because we receive a full-time wage and so we should be doing full-time work.
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Gentleman talks about resentment, but the public are angry about MPs’ expenses and salaries because they pay for them. Is he really suggesting that the public are furious that a Member of Parliament attends 12 board meetings a year? Does that really make them angry when they are not paying for it?
Paul Flynn
The answer is a resounding yes. I am sure that members of the public will write to the hon. Gentleman, because he explained earlier that he left Parliament, playing truant, to go to court and defend someone in a case, and no doubt he was paid a huge sum to do so, but for that period he was paid to be an MP, even though he could not possibly have performed his duties to the full extent that he should have done. Do the public resent that? Yes they do.
Oliver Colvile
Earlier this year I had to appear in the jury at the Old Bailey and so had to be away from this place for a week—[Interruption.] Some Members might think that I was there on trial, but I was actually doing my civic duty, and Members of Parliament are now required to do that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Colvile, I am not sure that quite fits with paid directorships and consultancies, so I think we will let your good duty in court go—[Interruption.] Sir Edward, I do not think we need any help from you either.
Paul Flynn
Again, there is a great gulf between what is happening in this Chamber and what is happening outside. I believe that it is entirely reasonable for Members who wish to go off and do other work to do so under certain circumstances, but let us get away from the idea that MPs, who get a handsome salary as far as most of our constituents are concerned, should greedily look for other earnings. Of course it is an advantage also to work as a journalist, a writer or whatever else, but when it comes to the crunch and there is a crisis, when Members know that they should be here writing to Ministers, demanding answers, making a case or meeting people, if someone comes along and says they’ll pay them 10 grand to write an article in the next 24 hours, what choice will they make? If there is no money involved, there is no real choice, as we know where our loyalties lie. We must escape from that. I appeal to Members: do they not know how low the public’s regard for us is?
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Would it not be clear, if we on the Government side of the House recognised that the people who would vote Labour believe that the amount of money going to them should be capped and the money should not go beyond £65,000, while we on this side of the House generally—not in my case, actually—do not feel that it is necessary to limit us and we can keep the money?
Paul Flynn
I have very little time to answer the hon. Gentleman, so I will return to my original case. Forget the intricacies of the matter and see it in simple terms, which is how the public will see it. Think of what the howling headlines will be if MPs insist on a full-time wage and then get additional wages on top of it. No one can do two jobs adequately.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I wanted to ask him what he thinks constitute an MP’s hours of salary. He made his case eloquently, but he did not say whether he, when writing his books—I have read some and really enjoyed them—was actually working as an MP. However, that is for another day.
This is another example of how the Opposition suddenly noticed in June 2010 that we have to make lots of changes in this country. Their argument today follows 13 years in which they could have done what they are trying to do today. In fact, in 2009 they backed plans to have greater openness but not a ban on second jobs. As someone who does not have a second job, I suggest that more flexibility is a good thing. I believe strongly in being flexible in our approach but also transparent about it. I think that we have enough transparency. We have the excellent Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, with which we are all acquainted, and the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in which every Member must list their interests.
Oliver Colvile
I have shares in the company I set up. I do no work for it, but I put that in my entry in the register. Should that also be prohibited?
David Morris
That makes the point that the whole motion is very badly written. My hon. Friend should be remunerated if he works. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who was here earlier, is a farmer, and he made a good point. If he earned money from his farm but had to give it away, how would his farm stay open and profitable? He is a Member of Parliament but he has to be a farmer as well.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
On this very basic point, does the hon. Gentleman think that his constituents would find it acceptable for him to have two, three or perhaps even more forms of employment as well as being a Member of this House?
David Morris
The hon. Gentleman will have to do a lot better than that, because I have only one job, and that is Member of Parliament for Morecambe and Lunesdale. We were not all hatched out of an egg as a politician. Some people here have businesses such as farming that go back for generations. We have to take all this into consideration, and the motion does not do so.
Many of these outside earnings are from industries and companies that have a link to hon. Members’ constituencies. For example, the former right hon. Member for South Shields earned £175,000 for being vice-chairman of Sunderland football club. He is a man I greatly respect, I might add, before I get any accusations thrown at me in that regard. That was clearly not part of his work in this House, but it assisted his constituency. It could therefore be argued that he should not be expected to do all that work for free because it is in line with and complements his parliamentary work.
Whatever one’s view, would it not be better to allow the voters to decide? We have achieved transparency. We should not be creating rule after rule just to grab headlines. What we are debating, as ever, strikes at the hypocrisy of the Opposition. They are worried about corporate lobbyists but not trade unions. They want to complain about outside earnings even though lots of their Members are being paid by the unions. They are worried about party funding, yet Co-op remains the only company in this country to own a political party. [Interruption.] This is phoney outrage.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The bit that the hon. Gentleman completely leaves out of the equation when he says, “Let’s leave it to the voters,” is that the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of parliamentary seats are safe seats where, frankly, anybody could be put up as long as they were from the right political party. [Interruption.] I say that very fairly; it is also an issue about Rhondda. That means that it is much more incumbent on the whole House to take a view on it.
David Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that eloquently put intervention.
Every time this House has a knee-jerk reaction to a few headlines we always get it wrong. We are better when we allow the public to make the judgments in this respect. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that those judgments should come through the ballot box, not through focus groups and rules.
Mr Anderson
The hon. Gentleman said that Members are paid by trade unions. Will he withdraw that or put the list of those Members in the Library, because Members are not paid by trade unions?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. You cannot suggest that we have another debate. The matter has been put on the record, and that is the record as it stands.
David Morris
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is arguable, though, is it not, how many Labour Members are being subsidised by the unions? Come on, hands up—let’s see you. How many are being supported by the unions? [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Sit down, Mr Morris. Let us get into the habit of using the Chamber in the way it should be used. In fairness, I think that the matter has been put on the record and straightened out. I am sure that you want to participate in the debate on directorships and remuneration of those who receive them.
David Morris
I totally agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been sidetracked from what I wanted to say. If people do not want an MP who has a job outside Parliament, they should not vote for him.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I entered this House in 2010 and did so because I wanted to change things for the people I represent. In that sense, I do not think I am different from the vast majority of Members, whichever side of the Chamber they sit on. We might have different priorities and we may have different policies, but our aims are the same.
Like many other Members who entered this House in 2010, I left a well-paid job—it was much better paid than that of an MP—but I understood exactly what I was taking on. I knew what the job paid and the kind of hours I would need to work. I have not regretted that decision. I did not enter this House with the expectation of using it as a stepping stone to lucrative company director posts or as a route into other, better paid jobs or consultancies.
I understand that some Members have more than one job and some have several. My take on that is that I honestly do not know how they do it. Being the Member of Parliament for North West Durham is more than a full-time job. It takes up all my time here and in the constituency, and I believe that that is how it should be. The people of my constituency, whether they voted for me or not, deserve nothing less, and I simply do not understand why some MPs think that their job here is part time or that their constituents deserve less than a full-time MP.
I accept that some Members have special talents, skills or qualifications that would be wasted if they were not able to use them outside this House. I have spent a career working in education and consider myself to have specialist knowledge of the education world, particularly with regard to special needs or additional educational needs. I am regularly asked to write articles and to speak at venues to young people and their teachers and schools, and I am happy to share my skills and knowledge with any group or organisation that is prepared to work in the best interests of those people. The difference is that I am never paid for it. I never accept payment, because I consider that work to be part and parcel of the job that I am paid to do as a Member of Parliament.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I think most of us would accept that an awful lot of the things that MPs do with charities as part of our job take us well beyond normal office hours, but could the hon. Lady explain the motion, which refers only to “paid directorships or consultancies”? What is her view of GPs and people in the health service who continue their second job while they are here and authors who spend a lot of their time writing books and pamphlets and getting paid for it?
Pat Glass
If the hon. Gentleman had been present in the debate for more than three minutes, he would have understood it better.
The current system allows MPs to take additional jobs and to get paid for them so long as they declare them in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do not understand this. It seems to be completely within the rules and I am willing to accept that in the vast majority of cases MPs can operate without any conflict of interest in practice. However, we have to understand the perception outside this place. This is a Westminster bubble.
Pat Glass
No, I will not.
Government Members have argued about the intricacies of the motion and the legal aspects, but this is about how it plays outside this place. The perception among the public is that MPs are getting kick-backs for services rendered, and that damages the reputation of politics—it damages the reputation of us all. I support a ban on remunerated directorships and paid consultancies and a cap on other forms of earned income. We have a cap on benefits, so why cannot we have a cap on MPs’ income?
Government Members have argued about this and confused the issue, but it is simple: it is an issue of access and of privileged access. It is about people outside this place paying for special access and privilege in a way that the vast majority of the people who vote for us and who pay their taxes and MPs’ salaries never can.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Before I was elected, I ran a solicitors practice as a sole practitioner. I gave up my business, which I had worked hard to build up, to become a Member of Parliament. I made a commitment at that time that I would work full time as a Member of Parliament. I think that was the right thing to do.
I do not believe that my giving up that business and stopping practising as a solicitor has prevented me from being a member of the local community, maintaining my relationship with the legal profession in my community or keeping in touch with the people I represent. Government Members are promulgating the extraordinary idea that to remain in touch with the outside world, we have to receive a salary. We do hundreds of things in our job as Members of Parliament which ensure that we have a connection with our constituents.
Ian Lucas
I will make a little progress and if I have time, I will give way.
It has always amazed me that some Members of Parliament continue to do other jobs. Why would someone become a Member of Parliament if they wanted to be a company director or a consultant? They could be a company director or a consultant without being a Member of Parliament. Becoming an MP is not a route to becoming a company director or a consultant—or is it? I always ask myself why it is that companies want MPs as consultants or directors. Is it for their unique insights on the world? Even the cleverest of MPs—and there are some very self-regarding MPs on the Government Benches today—should not flatter themselves. It is clear why such posts are offered to Members of Parliament. It is not because of their unique intelligence, but because they are Members of Parliament. It is because of the influence that Members of Parliament have and the access that that buys.
John Hemming
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I appointed myself to that job and that when I did so, I was not a Member of Parliament, although I had stood for Parliament? It was therefore not a factor in the consideration.
Ian Lucas
As interesting as the hon. Gentleman thinks he is, I was not talking about him.
No one should have privileged access to an MP. Even more importantly, no one should be able to secure access to an MP by paying them. For that reason, I welcome the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that MPs should be prevented from holding paid directorships and consultancies. Such arrangements give those who pay for it unique access to MPs.
It was interesting that the Leader of the House referred to a job offer that he received after he became a Member of Parliament. I would be interested to know why that company decided he was the person they wanted to give a job to. Does he know? Can he tell us? I would be delighted to take an intervention. Let me tell him the reason: it is because he is an MP and the company wanted access to him.
Sir Edward Leigh
I wonder whether we can get a bit of consensus across the Back Benches. Is not the real problem those second jobs that take MPs away from their constituencies, such as being a Minister? Can we agree that Ministers should not be paid any more than Back Benchers?
Ian Lucas
For far too short a time, I was a Minister. I got there in the end. I believe that being a Minister benefited my constituents. They understood that being a Minister was an important part of my job as a Member of Parliament. Ministers are also Members of Parliament, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that they in any way diminish themselves as MPs by being Ministers.
The key to the motion is access to MPs. I have not spoken about the hundreds of thousands of pounds that some Government Members earn. [Interruption.] I will not name them, because unlike the Leader of the House I have not given them notice. However, MPs should have a look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: a number of Members earn hundreds of thousands of pounds. This issue is about buying access. MPs should look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether they are really so clever that companies, which are engaged in business MPs have no experience in, really want them to join their boards for their personal knowledge and insight. The reality is that companies want privileged access to MPs and are prepared to pay for it.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I know the hon. Gentleman reasonably well. Does he accept that some people take extra jobs based on their experience? For example, I help a small business in Liverpool, which I have known for nearly 20 years. It came to me and said, “Could you help us do what you did for us 15 years ago?” That was the basis on which I took that work. I also found it interesting to travel to Liverpool.
Ian Lucas
The hon. Gentleman says he helps that business. I help businesses in my constituency, but I do not get paid for it—that is the key point. I have an equal obligation to all my constituents. I do not allow access to my time to be bought by an individual or a company. We need to support the motion.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) set out when opening the debate, Labour will make a commitment in its manifesto at the next general election to regulate second jobs. That is why we have led the debate today.
Our motion on the Order Paper states:
“as part of a wider regulatory framework for second jobs, from the start of the next Parliament, no hon. Members should be permitted to hold paid directorships or consultancies.”
There have been some interesting critiques of the draftsmanship of the motion, yet no amendment was tabled. Government Members have said that the motion is either too narrow or too wide. They could have tabled an amendment. We repeat the call we made today that if Government Members are serious about addressing this issue and about improving the motion, we could begin talks this afternoon. Of course, they are not interested in improving the motion—that is a complete red herring.
Decades ago, when this place resembled more a gentlemen’s club than a people’s Parliament, being an MP was seen as a second job. However, it is impossible to deny that things have moved on and that, rightly, the public’s expectations have changed. Of course it is good for Members to keep connected to the world beyond Westminster and to have outside interests, a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) and the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). It is important that we remain connected with the outside world, but I have to say this, particularly to Government Members: being in touch does not depend on a Member’s ability to earn unlimited and large amounts of money from the private sector. That is a very interesting definition of being in touch. It is perfectly possible to have “outside interests”, in the true sense of the words, without having unlimited outside financial interests.
A legitimate question was asked about MPs not being able to retain their skills—in medicine, law or engineering, for example—and whether that would leave the House worse off. We have been clear that MPs would still be able to do a certain amount of work. They would be able to keep up their expertise by, for example, working as a GP like the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), or as lawyers or engineers. They could still do that, but a limit would be placed on how much they could earn. As hon. Members have pointed out, such limits have been applied successfully in many countries. Clearly, the current rules are not fit for purpose in the 21st century. This is about changing politics to make it more open, transparent and trusted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said last week:
“The vast majority of all MPs have performed their duties properly within the rules. And raising this issue casts no doubt upon that. But we should question the rules. The question of MPs second outside jobs has been discussed but not properly addressed for a generation. The British people expect their MPs to be representing them and the country not anyone else.”
This has been an important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) hit the nail on the head when he talked about public perception and our absolute duty to repair public trust in the politic process, and rightly referred to the much stronger restrictions on MPs’ outside earnings elsewhere in the world. We can look at those systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) gave the House a reality check, pointing out that MPs were paid three times the average wage. He talked about the miners he met at the weekend at Maltby pit and spoke with passion and principle about people out there for whom life was very tough and who might be watching this debate, wondering, “What planet are some of those people on?”
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) reinforced that point by talking about the bubble we sometimes live in here. He said that the public would be rightly baffled by some of today’s contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) made an interesting proposal: since the Government are keen on capping benefits, why not a cap on outside earnings for MPs? That is worth considering. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) also made a powerful case for reform.
I listened to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches defending the status quo. The Leader of the House was his usual complacent self, taking a “nothing to see here, move along” approach in his opening remarks. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) talked about simply popping off to London Bridge for a few hours to do a bit of work and bemoaned the creation of a political class, which was exactly the same argument raised in 1911 when it was decided to pay MPs in the first place.
The prospect of the current arrangements continuing into the future, allowing right hon. and hon. Members to earn hundreds of thousands of pounds from outside interests—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who probably has one eye on the reshuffle and that Cabinet post that never seems to come, will understand that the former Prime Minister does not receive a single penny in outside earnings. I am happy to help him on that important fact. Outside interests contribute not to the richness of debate in the House, but to the richness of individual Members; and they add value not to our deliberations, but to Members’ bank accounts. That is why things must change.
I have looked at the scale of the problem. Apparently, 18 Governments Members have 53 extra jobs between them. I sympathise with the Whips; I do not know how they manage to get these people in for a Division. Five Members have 19 jobs between them, while an estimated 85 Conservative Members—almost one in three—have second jobs and directorships.
To conclude, there will be a clear choice at the next general election between the Labour party, which wants big reforms, our politics opened up, and big money taken out of politics—including new rules and new limits on second jobs—and those in the Government, who say they want more of the same, the status quo, no change and business as usual. We can either look forward, as the Labour party will do, to a new Parliament and a new settlement where public, not private, interest comes first, or look to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, for whom second jobs have because second nature and where the public invariably come second too.
In 20 years’ time we will no doubt look back and wonder why it took so long to introduce the changes we desperately need for new limits on MPs’ second jobs. History will record which party was on the side of change and of the public.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
This debate has generated much heat and no light. It is difficult to respond to a debate on a motion that contains so little substance, and that has no rationale behind it and nothing to be said for it. As we have heard, the Opposition have no idea what sort of new regulatory framework they want or why we need one.
Let me address some of the specific points raised by hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said that he does not want to restrict proper links between MPs and the outside world. He questioned the rationale behind the Labour motion, and highlighted contradictions in it. I agree with him entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) highlighted the value of his ongoing involvement in the NHS and the direct benefit that his constituents derive from that. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said that the motion was clear, although when asked for a definition of the regulatory framework, he was not able to provide one and neither was any other Labour Member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) highlighted the nonsense of opposing directorships and consultancies, but not opposing partnerships, from which—looking at his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—he derives a certain not insubstantial income. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) seemed to suggest that hon. Members having second jobs was depriving young people in his constituency of jobs, which I think was a fallacious argument. I commend him, however, for spotting the flaw in Labour’s motion, because it does not do what he wants. He wanted all second jobs to be addressed, but that is not what the motion does.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) sits as a part-time judge, and I noticed in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that the days he did so were days on which the House was in recess. Having spent time with him on Bill Committees, I know he brings his experience to bear and makes a substantial contribution to the debates as a result.
I was going to apologise to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for having reduced his income after I was forced to suspend him from the House some months ago, but I then realised that he was plugging his own book in the debate and I felt less sorry for him. Presumably, the production of that book took him away from spending time on his constituents’ business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) rightly drew attention to the deeply flawed nature of the Opposition motion, and asked whether the Opposition oppose second jobs, earning extra money or having a conflict of interest, because it is not clear. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) also ducked the question of why the motion applies only to directorships and consultancies, and went on to call for a cap on earnings, which is not in the motion.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said that no one should secure access to an MP by paying them, and I thought he was about to refer to Unite. I am sorry to learn that his unique experience did not secure him a lengthy stay in a ministerial post, and I hazard to suggest that he is safe from the approaches of companies wishing him to sit on their boards.
Finally, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) said in summing up that he is committed to regulating second jobs. Again, he did not provide any clarity on which second jobs. Why are some acceptable but others not? He also asked why the Government had not tabled an amendment, but it is not our business to table amendments to a deeply flawed motion. It is up to him and the Opposition to ensure that the motion they present is fit for purpose. Clearly it was not, and his class-war speech was very much inspired by his union puppet masters.
In conclusion, the House will have noticed the contrast in approaches. It could not be clearer. Instead of leading a serious debate on a concrete proposal, the Opposition have gone for grandstanding and spreading slurry indiscriminately, referring to the perception of a problem while denying that there is a problem. They are calling for regulation of second jobs, but from today’s evidence I would say that we need better regulation of the day job to stop Opposition spokesmen requiring the House to waste its time considering feeble and confused motions such as this one. The Government, on the other hand, are committed to promoting transparency, both in Members’ relations with the public and in the political system as a whole. We want to shine a light on this place and let the people make their choice. I urge the House to reject the motion.
Question put.
Managing Risk in the NHS
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 277 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 212 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I advise the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Andy Burnham
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will respond to what he has just heard.
Andrew Percy
If a few more of the shadow Secretary of State’s colleagues had turned up to this debate, they would be able to respond to those points for him.
If I may take him back to his comments about the challenges in A and E, which have been severe this Christmas and winter, does he accept that one of the things that he and his party got wrong in government was to cut beds and close wards before putting in place proper intermediate care services? People in my constituency could not get into their local hospitals this year because of the beds that were cut when his party was in government.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman is doing what the Conservatives have been doing for quite a few weeks now, which is rewriting history. Does he recall the general chaos in A and E before 1997? Does he remember people waiting for hours on trolleys before they were seen or people spending a day in A and E departments? When we left government, 98% of trusts across the country were meeting the four-hour target. Sadly, we cannot say the same about the NHS on his Government’s watch.
What I have just given to the House was a warning of all warnings not to proceed with a reckless reorganisation at a time when the NHS was facing the biggest financial challenge in its history. Senior civil servants gave those warnings; the Government ploughed on regardless. That was a monumental mistake, combining the biggest ever financial challenge with the biggest ever reorganisation. Eyes were taken off the ball at the worst possible moment.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend know when the Secretary of State last visited an accident and emergency unit? May I suggest, through my right hon. Friend, that he comes with me to my accident and emergency unit and sees the chaos he has created?
Andy Burnham
Promises were made before the reorganisation to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in St Helens, Knowsley and Halton about the future of the hospital, because there was concern that certain commitments would not be honoured by the new organisations. And it came to pass: they were not honoured. My hon. Friend asked whether the Secretary of State had been to an A and E. We know that he did not turn up at one until April, yet he had already stood up and criticised hospitals for “coasting”. How on earth could he make such comments when he had not bothered to get his feet on the ground to see what was happening in the NHS? Unbelievable.
The Government took a huge gamble when they proceeded with the reorganisation at a time of financial stress and in the teeth of opposition from the public and the professions. If the Secretary of State truly believes, as he said yesterday, that transparency is a disinfectant—he is nodding—and if he wants to show leadership from the front from today onwards, should he not now commit to publishing the risk register that accompanied the Government’s reorganisation of the NHS? [Interruption.] He claims again that this was all about the last Government, but let me explain the difference to him. This Government withheld the risk register in defiance of the Information Rights Tribunal and the Appeal Court. Is he proud of that? What message does he think that that sends to the boards of those NHS organisations that he is now asking to act with maximum transparency? I am afraid that it sends absolutely the wrong message. He will not foster the right culture in risk management in the NHS if there is one rule for the Department and another for everybody else.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
What is the right hon. Gentleman’s view of the previous culture of secret board-to-board meetings, at which the boards of a local trust and a strategic health authority met in private to try to deal with issues? In retrospect, does he agree that that was probably not the best way to deal with serious issues, because the very people who were responsible would perhaps not get the blame?
Andy Burnham
Let me give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer. One of the things that shocked me most when I received the Francis report, which I commissioned under the previous Government, was the revelation that on receiving foundation trust status, the board of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust had begun to hold its meetings in private, rather than in public. It had taken the freedoms, yet decided to become more secretive. That was fundamentally unacceptable, and I made that point loud and clear to the NHS when I received that report. I do not think that there is any difference between us on this. I believe in openness and transparency too. Ours was the Government who brought in the Freedom of Information Act and independent regulation for the NHS. On that matter, we can make common cause.
Andy Burnham
I want to make some progress, but I will give way again later.
People have a right to know whether any of the recent pressure that we have seen in the NHS was predicted and made known to Ministers before they proceeded with their reorganisation, which has led to thousands of good, experienced, committed people leaving the NHS. It left in charge less experienced people, who had never seen an A and E winter crisis and who did not know what to do. It led to millions in large redundancy payments being handed to people who were then re-employed by a new NHS organisation. Overall, £3 billion was siphoned out of the NHS front line to pay for this upheaval. Managers got six-figure pay-offs, and 4,000 nurses got P45s. It is no wonder that morale among staff is at rock bottom.
Andy Burnham
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that his intervention will not be about Wales. [Interruption.]
Alun Cairns
Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that my intervention will be about Wales, because it is about my constituents who are suffering. Will the right hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the transparency that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is seeking to enforce by exposing the different data that apply to Wales and England? Does he share my dismay that only 83% of patients who are admitted to A and E are admitted, treated and discharged in hospitals in Wales, compared with the 91% who are admitted, treated and discharged in hospitals in England? Why do my constituents have to wait 89 days, compared with the 51-day waiting time in England—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Cairns, do not take advantage of the situation; it is not fair to other Members who also want to intervene. We want this debate to be heard in the best possible way.
Andy Burnham
This is debate is about the NHS in England, and if the hon. Gentleman has concerns about the NHS in Wales, why does he not have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and get a better deal for the Welsh Assembly so that a bit more money could be put back into the Welsh national health service?
As I was saying, the Government have put staff morale at rock bottom, and where are the promised benefits of this reorganisation? Clinical commissioning groups are not, as we were promised, the powerhouse of the new NHS; they are embryonic at best and anonymous at worst. Members of all parties, I am sure, write letters to CCGs that get passed to NHS England, which then either does not provide a proper answer or passes them on again. [Interruption.] I hear the public health Minister saying it is dreadful that Members do not get proper answers. When my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) wrote to her about cancer services in his constituency, she also brushed it off to NHS England. Is this proper accountability? No.
Andy Burnham
I hope the Minister is going to deliver some accountability now.
Anna Soubry
Will the right hon. Gentleman please agree and accept that I have not only answered his letters, but met him on at least one occasion? It is right under the new system for such letters to go to NHS England, but that does not stop me making representations. We have introduced a much better system than we used to have under his Administration.
Andy Burnham
We have just heard it; this is what the NHS has been reduced to. The Minister has to make representations to NHS England about cancer services of all things. My goodness, if Ministers are not responsible for cancer services, what are they responsible for? Who is making the decisions and who is responsible for what? Even now, confusion reigns.
What precisely is the role of the Secretary of State in this new world? He has cast himself in a new role as a detached commentator on the sidelines, magnifying all of the NHS’s failings and accepting none of the responsibility to fix them. I assume that that is all for NHS England, too. With the NHS already laid low by cuts and reorganisation, the Secretary of State has opened up a new front on staff: nurses repeatedly blamed for not caring enough; hospitals blamed for coasting, as I have said; GPs blamed for causing the A and E crisis. Everything is someone else’s fault.
Then we get to this weekend. The Keogh report rightly exposed poor care standards, which should never be tolerated; we support action to tackle to them. The report, however, exposed something else, too—a Government who are now actively spinning against the NHS for which they are responsible, generating misleading or, in Sir Bruce’s words, “reckless” headlines about 14 already troubled hospitals. What chance do they have of improving when the man supposedly in charge is actively doing them down?
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentions the Keogh report and we are talking about the present day. Keogh says in the report that he found
“frequent examples of inadequate numbers of nursing staff in some ward areas…The reported data did not provide a true picture of the numbers of staff actually working on the wards.”
There we have it: it is this Government who are not making sure that our hospitals are properly staffed.
Andy Burnham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will come to that precise point, as one would think that that was a responsibility of a Secretary of State. Who knows, though, what their responsibilities are now. Presumably that is a matter for NHS England as well. We shall return to the point in a few moments.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Andy Burnham
No, I want to make some more progress.
As I said a moment ago, what chance do these hospitals have when they get these misleading headlines running them down when they are trying and struggling to make progress, alarming staff, alarming patients, demoralising staff and casually trading figures—[Interruption.] No. I will not give way. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If the right hon. Member wants to give way, he will give way. We do not need people standing up, shouting and bawling. I want to hear what the shadow Secretary of State has to say, just as I want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say. Let us have a little more courtesy from everyone.
Andy Burnham
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Alarming patients, demoralising staff and casually trading figures about deaths in the pursuit of political advantage is no way to run the NHS, and those are not the actions of a responsible Government. Today people are asking what kind of Government this is, if they are willing to cause further damage to fragile hospitals for their own self-serving political ends. Yesterday the Secretary of State told the BBC that he had no idea who had put the 13,000 figure in the public domain. Does he seriously expect us to believe that?
Andy Burnham
He seriously expects us to believe it? Why are we being told that those responsible were representatives of Conservative Central Office? [Interruption.] Yes, that is what is being said. The Secretary of State should go back and check his facts. If he does not have control of his advisers, it will not be the first time, will it? We have heard this before, have we not? “I do not know what the advisers are doing.”
The “my adviser is out of control” defence may have worked for the Secretary of State once, but it will not work for him twice. He must take responsibility for his own advisers, and for the advisers at Conservative headquarters. We were told explicitly that that is where the briefings came from, and the Secretary of State owes the House a full answer. He owes it to the House to put that on the record. [Interruption.] I will not put the name in the public domain, but I have a name. I will send it to the Secretary of State immediately after the debate, and he must come straight back to me, having asked that person whether or not he briefed the press. If the Secretary of State agrees to that, let us leave it there. I have a name, and I will put it to him straight after the debate. He must take responsibility.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
If there was no organised briefing over the weekend, there must have been a coming together of some extraordinary fiction. The Keogh report itself states:
“It is important to understand that mortality in… NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade: overall mortality has fallen by…30%”.
Keogh says that that is an improvement, even given
“the increasing complexity of patients being treated”.
Those who read the headlines, and the spin from the Conservative party, would not think that our investment over 13 years had made any difference to mortality rates.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. The conclusion to which he has referred may well have been missed by many people up and down the country yesterday, but it is worth repeating and putting centre stage in today’s debate, because the Government certainly will not make any reference to it.
NHS hospitals in England, including the 14 covered by the review, have reduced mortality by 30% in recent years. That is an incredible achievement, which we should surely be celebrating. Of course the NHS is not perfect. It does fail people, and when it does, we are truly sorry for the effect on their families. The fact is, however, that the NHS and its hospitals have improved over the past decade, and that needs to be repeated and repeated to counter the scare stories that are emanating from the Conservatives and the fears that they are stoking among people about going into hospital.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the work of Professor Sheena Asthana, who has studied hospitals with higher mortality rates and found a correspondence between hospitals serving clinical commissioning groups—formerly primary care trusts—in areas with older populations which are receiving lower funding allocations than those with younger populations. She believes that funding allocations could be one of the causes of higher mortality across the system.
Andy Burnham
I would not close my mind to that suggestion, but I think it important also to take account of what Keogh said about other similarities between those hospitals—and, probably, between them and Mid Staffordshire. What they have in common is geographic isolation. Hospitals serving smaller market towns are not supported by the same clinical networks as others, and may find it more difficult to attract qualified staff. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are a number of important issues that need to be considered.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend knows well, and knows personally, that in the past two months there has been a marked change in the coalition Government’s approach on the national health service. It started with the absurd argument that the problems in accident and emergency departments were the result of the 2004 GP contract. Is it not more likely that what is happening is that Mr Lynton Crosby is telling Government Members to squeeze the lead that Labour has had over the Conservative party for many decades on the NHS, and attacking NHS workers, scaring patients and attacking the Opposition is what they are trying to do? They ought to be ashamed of themselves for being involved in it.
Andy Burnham
It used to be, “We love the NHS”—the Prime Minister said, “I love the NHS”—but now it is about running down the NHS. I say to the Secretary of State, in all sincerity, that he will not improve patient care by continually blaming doctors and nurses. As I have said before, the NHS is fragile right now because of his reorganisation, and it cannot keep taking these knocks on a daily basis. The blame game is destructive and polarising, and it has to end. He is in real danger of losing any remaining good will in the NHS work force, and none of us and, more importantly, none of our constituents can afford to see those crucial staff become fed up, lose heart and walk away. Government Members can throw whatever they like at me, because that is politics, but I will not allow the NHS and its staff to become collateral damage in this orchestrated political campaign.
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Gentleman is making some important points about accountability, responsibility and the grip the Secretary of State should have on his Department. In that vein, can the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House how many of the 400 warnings about United Lincolnshire, 300 warnings about Blackpool and more than 200 warnings about Basildon went across his desk?
Andy Burnham
This is all part of the spin in which Government Members have been engaging in recent days. [Interruption.] Okay, so let me answer and then the same test will apply to the Secretary of State as the hon. Lady is applying to me. She is referring to letters sent by members of the public to the Department of Health. I am sure that this has not changed with the change of Government; contrary to what she has just said, those letters do not come across Ministers’ desks. They are not formal warnings to Ministers, and it is very important to be precise with language here. This Secretary of State will have received many, many hundreds of letters about hospitals up and down the country that he will not have seen, and it is not right for the hon. Lady to come along, again, with slurs and half truths to try to muddy the waters.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
With respect, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) is good enough and convincing enough. We have heard too much about concern for hospitals and for hospital staff from the right hon. Gentleman, but not enough about concern for patients and for patient care.
Andy Burnham
If the hon. Gentleman was listening, I said just a few seconds ago that the Secretary of State will not improve care for patients if he continually blames nurses and doctors. It is not one or the other, although Government Members seem to think they can attack the health unions for somehow being the enemy of patients. Ordinary people do not see it that way. They know that the staff are there for them day in, day out. We support the staff to help the patients. If staff are rewarded properly and have good working conditions, they will provide better care to patients. These are not opposites; the two go together, and the Conservative party would do well to remember that.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Some of us were here during the time of the previous Conservative Government, and I can remember that one of the hospitals in Coventry badly needed repair. After 1997, we got a new hospital. More importantly, one thing that Government Members always boast about is that they have increased the number of trainee doctors. It takes seven years to train a doctor. This Government are in their third year, so the credit goes to us.
Andy Burnham
As so often with the spin that we hear from Government Members, it is our achievements they are trying to claim credit for. I left behind the plans for the training of those doctors, but we do not hear much credit coming in this direction, do we? Government Members are happy to take the credit and then they try to cast off all the blame for everything else. My point is that criticism must be fair and made with care. We all have a duty to point out the failings of the NHS, in our own constituencies and nationally, and that is what I did when I did the Secretary of State’s job. However, we have to do that responsibly and fairly, especially for hospitals and those who manage them.
Hospitals are not the architects of all the problems we read about. For example, they are all struggling with the fallout of severe cuts to social care budgets, the appalling cost of which I recently revealed: a 66% increase over two years in the number of over-90s coming into A and E via blue-light ambulances. In human terms, more than 100,000 very frail and frightened people have been speeding through the streets of our communities in the back of ambulances. Hospitals have to absorb that extra pressure and also struggle with longer delays in getting people back home. We are in real danger of asking too much of our hospitals by allowing them to be the last resort for people who would be better supported elsewhere. Without a greater understanding of that situation in the current debate, and if the trend towards the vilification of NHS managers continues, who will take on the job of running our acute trusts? Good people will walk away and no one will want to do the job. Again, the NHS simply cannot afford that.
This crude blame game is an election strategy with two components: run down the NHS; and pin all the failings on the previous Government. The NHS cannot take 20 months of that until May 2015. It has been destabilised and demoralised already; if the Government are not careful, they will push it over the edge.
The Secretary of State needs to change course and find a way of bringing people back together, so the purpose of the debate is to put forward two constructive proposals to manage risk in the NHS—one for now, the other for the long term. First, I turn to the immediate proposal. It is clear that the best way to draw a line under recent events and unify people would be for the House to embrace today the analysis and main recommendations of the Francis report. The motion highlights the three most significant recommendations: benchmarks on safe staffing; a duty of candour on individual NHS staff; and the regulation of health care assistants. If all parties endorsed those proposals, it would send staff a message of support and recognition of the pressure that they are under, while the patients who have suffered poor care would receive the positive message that the parties are working together to prevent that from happening to others.
Given the tragic events that lie behind them, public inquiries should, when possible, produce consensus. It is extraordinary that, having commissioned a three-year public inquiry, the Government have slowly been distancing themselves from the Francis report’s analysis and conclusions ever since its publication. It is hard not to conclude that the report did not deliver what the Government wanted and that they have spent the past five months rewriting it. They have come up with their own recommendations on chief inspectors for hospitals, general practice and social care, yet dragged their feet on the actual recommendations. They have substituted the verdict of Francis on Ministers in the previous Government with that of the kangaroo court of Lynton Crosby. We do not oppose chief inspectors, but if the Government believe that ever-tougher central regulation will bring about the culture change locally that everyone agrees is necessary, they are mistaken. We need change that will have an immediate effect on the ground, and that will support staff and improve care for patients.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has probably been in the Chamber on most of the occasions when I have raised the question of safe staffing with the Secretary of State. It was cited in the Francis and Keogh reviews, and the Care Quality Commission tells us that one in 10 hospitals has unsafe staffing levels. The Secretary of State dances around the issue again and again, but he will not take action. Yesterday, I asked him to introduce transparency to the process so that hospitals do not have wards with ratios of two staff to 29 patients, but he refused to answer my question. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if hospitals were transparent about their ratios, that would be the way forward, because we would know where we were?
Andy Burnham
The Keogh report exposes alarming ratios at my hon. Friend’s hospital and others. We have been warning the Government for months—years, in fact—about cuts to nursing numbers. It is neither right nor fair to criticise nurses for being uncaring when too many of them are unsupported and are working in conditions in which they have to make compromises that they would rather avoid.
Staffing emerged as the main concern arising from the Keogh report, but the problems go way beyond 14 trusts. The CQC says that one in 10 trusts in England does not have adequate staffing levels. Can we agree today that the staffing in all hospitals must urgently be brought back up to adequate levels, as defined by the commission, with clear benchmarks set for the future? [Interruption.] I am pleased if the Secretary of State is agreeing, because that represents progress, so I look forward to finding out how his plan will be delivered.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that yesterday I drew attention to the fact that all but one of the 14 hospitals Keogh reviewed had staffing and skill mix issues that needed to be dealt with, but it would be quite wrong to suggest that that has happened only in recent years. Graham Pink drew attention to the problem in the early ’90s, and it also happened during Labour’s years in government. I think that it would be good for this debate if the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledged that it has been going on for more than three years.
Andy Burnham
I will acknowledge that. A moment ago, I mentioned the Francis report, which I commissioned, which revealed the dangerous cuts to front-line staffing that the hospital pursued as the primary cause. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Rather than always pursuing central regulation as the solution, if local communities had identifiable benchmarks that they could use to check up on their local hospitals, surely that would be progress we could all get behind.
On the duty of candour, the Government are legislating for a duty on organisations, but not on individuals. I think that we all agree that changing the culture of NHS organisations is essential if we are to move forward. The Francis recommendation is a necessary part of bringing about that culture change. Rather than being a threat to staff, as some have argued, it would protect them when they make known any concerns. Will the Government look at that again and legislate for the full Francis recommendation in the Care Bill? That is incredibly important in the light of yesterday’s report by Sir Bruce Keogh. He revealed—this will shock anyone who has not spotted it yet—that some trusts were telling members of staff what they could and could not say to his review. Surely we can all agree that is fundamentally unacceptable.
Andy Burnham
I am glad that the Secretary of State nods. Does that not make the case, however, for a duty of candour on individuals, which would have allowed staff to say to management, “No, I’m going to speak to the Keogh review and I won’t face action afterwards because it is my duty to do so”?
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
It is generally accepted that there were some serious management breakdowns. The Secretary of State at the time was the chief executive of the organisation. In my business, I would want to know what was happening. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he should have known what was happening?
Andy Burnham
I always took action when anything was brought to me. When mortality data on Basildon hospital were published, I immediately ordered an in-depth review of all hospitals in England, which led to warnings on five of the trusts on the Keogh list. Those warnings were inherited by the hon. Gentleman’s Government, but Ministers allowed those trusts to carry on cutting staff, and the same was true for the hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), even though it was subject to a warning about patient care. I think that Government Members have to look at themselves before making claims.
On the duty of candour, the final recommendation that we need to see progress on relates to the regulation of health care assistants, which is long overdue. If the Secretary of State took these three sensible measures, he would provide support to staff and reassurance to the public, but they are not in themselves the answer to the structural challenge the NHS faces. That brings me to my final point on the longer-term solution. I have thought long and hard about what happened at Stafford hospital and why we hear recurrent echoes of the same elsewhere in the NHS, with older people lost on acute hospital wards, disorientated and dehydrated. I believe that the problem goes far deeper than any regulatory solution. Governments of all colours have underinvested in social care over many years, and in the end we get what we pay for: a malnourished, minimum wage system that dishes out care in 15-minute slots, which is barely time to make a cup of tea, let alone exchange a meaningful word.
Looking after someone else’s parents should be the highest calling that any young person can answer. However, if we are honest with ourselves, the effect of decisions taken here in this House over many years means that the signal we are currently sending is that it is the lowest calling that a young person can answer. Some 307,000 care staff in England—20% of the work force—are on zero-hours contracts. That is an appalling figure. This situation cannot carry on. Good care cannot be provided on a zero-hours, here-today-gone-tomorrow basis.
The collapse of decent social care in England means that too many elderly people are drifting unnecessarily towards hospital. Our hospitals are becoming increasingly full of very frail, very elderly people, and that is not sustainable in either human or financial terms. That is why I have proposed—
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the situation of care assistants—their low pay and so on—but in Stafford some of the highest-paid people in the organisation showed the least compassion. It is not all about money, although money may come into it. Compassion does not have any regard to income.
Andy Burnham
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I respect the way in which he continues to pursue the issues arising from what happened in his constituency. Yes, it is not all about money, but it is about the message we send to the people working in our care system. If somebody does not have certainty about the money that they will bring into the family home from one week to the next because they do not know how many hours they will be working, how can we expect them to pass on a sense of security to those they care for? We will not get the care that we all want for everybody’s parents if we carry on with a system that is working as it is. I lay the blame with no one Government; as I said, all Governments have brought this situation about.
That is why I have proposed the full integration of health and social care with one service looking after the whole person and all their needs, physical, mental and social. I hear the Government increasingly borrowing our ideas and our language, and I have no objection to that. However, here is my challenge to the Minister of State, who has been roused by that statement: he cannot speak the language of integration while legislating for fragmentation and competition. We are hearing reports from across the country of sensible collaboration between secondary, primary and social care being blocked by the competition provisions of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Torbay, the beacon of integrated care, fears that any qualified provider may break up its celebrated model. That has led the Minister to suggest in the Health Service Journal that his integrated care pilot area might be offered exemptions from the Act’s competition provisions. Surely that is the clearest admission from the Government that the Act they passed is a barrier to the change that the NHS needs. Collaboration or competition? Integration or fragmentation? In the end, they have to make a choice; they cannot have it both ways. If the Minister is serious about this, the last offer I make is that we will work with him to fast-track repeal of the competition provisions of the Health and Social Care Act.
Today I have made some positive suggestions about a way forward for the NHS. It is now up to the Government to decide what they want to do. In the past few days, we have seen a glimpse of a Government prepared to run down the NHS, still the country’s best-loved institution, for their own political ends. If, from here on in, they intend to continue with that approach, they will be pursuing a very dangerous path. It will cement an impression in the country that some people have already formed—that the Secretary of State is running down the NHS to erode public confidence in it and to soften it up for privatisation. People suspect that that is the real agenda. Only today, we learned of six NHS trusts preparing for a major expansion in private work under privatisation freedoms given to them by this Government.
Nye Bevan said that there will be an NHS for
“as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.”
I can tell all Government Members that they have not knocked the fight out of me, and I suspect there are millions out there ready to rally to the same cause. People rely on an NHS that puts patients before profit, and Labour will always defend that. This week the Government have revealed their hand and it is nasty. They should pull back or get ready for the fight of their lives.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the Government’s swift action in response to the Francis Report; notes the rapid establishment of reviews on key components of the Report’s findings, including the Cavendish review on healthcare assistants, the Clwyd-Hart review on complaints and the Berwick review on patient safety; further notes the drive to improve standards through the appointment of a Chief Inspector of Hospitals, the introduction of Ofsted-style ratings and the recruitment of specialist hospital inspectors; regrets the Opposition’s continued refusal to support these practical measures to expose and improve poor care; welcomes the watershed decision to expose and investigate 14 hospitals with high death rates through the recent Keogh review; further notes the Government’s decisive action to drive improvements in these hospitals by placing 11 hospitals in special measures; and applauds the Government’s wide-ranging efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability in the NHS.”
I am honoured to see you, Mr Speaker, in your place for my speech. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) talked about yesterday, and I for one hope that he has had a chance to reflect on Labour’s shockingly inappropriate behaviour. Let me give him one fact to think about: on a day when a review described appalling failings at 14 hospitals, my speech mentioned patients 19 times—his mentioned them just twice. Does that not say it all about Labour’s attitude to the NHS?
Andy Burnham
I listened carefully to what the Health Secretary just said about our speeches. Does he think it appropriate for a Secretary of State introducing a report on mortality rates in the NHS to begin, within seconds of getting to his feet, by making political attacks on the previous Government? On reflection, was that the right thing to do?
Mr Hunt
It is funny how the Labour party decided to make the NHS its main campaigning issue for the past three years, yet the moment people start to scrutinise its own record on the NHS it says the NHS is being used as a political football. What does that say about Labour’s approach to the NHS?
I want to consider the specifics of the motion before looking at the wider issue of risk. The motion mentions the Francis inquiry. One of this Government’s first acts on coming to power was to set up the full public inquiry into Mid Staffs that families had been denied by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government for too long. We are implementing it, and fast. That is why a new chief inspector of hospitals started work yesterday, just five months after the report was published. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that a chief inspector of hospitals is not in the report, but how are we going to make sure that the report’s recommendations are implemented throughout all 266 NHS trusts? That will be done because we will have independent inspection of hospitals, which has not been done before because the situation was so undermined by the previous Government. That is how we are going to make sure that Francis actually happens.
We intend to implement the spirit of everything that Robert Francis proposed, even if the details may vary in places from his 290 recommendations. Francis himself endorsed that approach when that he said that the Government have indicated their
“determination to make positive changes to the culture of the NHS, in part by adopting some of my recommendations and in part through other initiatives.”
Francis talked about five themes, so let us look at the progress being made on them. First, on information and transparency, yesterday showed that this Government are determined to root out, once and for all, an NHS culture of solving problems behind closed doors. This is about not just the decision to hold a public inquiry into Mid Staffs, which the right hon. Member for Leigh and his colleagues rejected doing 81 times, but the Keogh review, which reported yesterday that 14 hospital trusts have excess mortality rates. This is the first time the NHS has ever conducted such a review. We have also published individual surgeon outcomes—the first country in the world to do so across an entire health system. The independent rating of hospitals will start this autumn, so for the first time people will know how good their local hospital is, just as they do for their local school.
Francis also mentioned standards. The new chief inspector of hospitals—a position that Labour still refuses to support—began work yesterday. In Professor Sir Mike Richards, we have a new whistleblower-in-chief whose sole job is to drive up standards and root out poor care. He will be supported by a team of expert inspectors, in stark contrast to the generalist inspection model set out by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government in 2009. That is plain common sense. We have put it right. The work of the inspectors will be informed by the independent review of hospital safety that is being conducted by Professor Don Berwick, who will advise on how to embed a culture of patient safety throughout the NHS. He will report back later this summer.
Derek Twigg
Yesterday, when I asked the Secretary of State whether mortality had fallen before 2010, his answer was:
“According to Professor Jarman…it has been falling slightly.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 944.]
The Keogh report states that it had fallen by 30% over 10 years. Figures from the House of Commons Library, which were sourced from the NHS, show that there has been a significant fall in deaths within 30 days of non-elective hospital procedures. Will he correct the record?
Mr Hunt
I am afraid that that intervention sums up where the spin is happening. The 14 hospitals were investigated by Professor Keogh because they had excess mortality rates. The Labour party thinks that that started in 2010, but it goes right back to 2005 in those hospitals and earlier than that in many of them. That is the ugly truth that Labour refuses to confront: 14 hospitals had high mortality rates for years and years, and Labour did nothing to sort it out.
The Francis report—
Mr Hunt
I will give way in a moment.
The right hon. Member for Leigh talked about leadership. I want our NHS to attract the brightest and best leaders that this country has to offer. I have asked the NHS leadership academy to develop a new leadership programme to support clinicians to become clinical chief executives and to fast-track professionals from outside the NHS into leadership roles. We urgently need more talented managers in our NHS, and that will make a big difference.
Andrew Percy
I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the comments of the right hon. Member for Leigh, which I found shockingly complacent. I will give the example of Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which is one of those that is in special measures. Our mortality rates started to go up in 2007 and started to fall in 2011, but our nursing numbers have been increasing over that whole period. I find it shockingly complacent for somebody to suggest that there is not an issue or to downplay those figures. In my area, that has potentially cost hundreds of lives.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point.
I say to the shadow Secretary of State that it is a question not just of whether he responded to the warnings that he received, but of whether he received the warnings that he should have received in the first place because the inspection system might not have been up to scratch.
Andy Burnham
I mentioned a moment ago that when I saw the mortality data in late 2009, action was taken at Basildon and a review was ordered of all hospitals in England, so I did respond.
The Secretary of State needs to correct for the record something that he said a moment ago. He implied that the mortality ratio had not come down at the 14 hospitals. If I have got him wrong, he needs to be clear about it. Yesterday, a group of Back-Bench MPs was informed by Sir Bruce that mortality ratios at the 14 hospitals had fallen since 2005 by between 30% and 50%, but that they were still above the average for England. Overall, the mortality rate is down at all hospitals, but the 14 hospitals have rates that are above the average. Will he correct that point because it is incredibly important?
Mr Hunt
Let me help the right hon. Gentleman out. Those 14 hospitals were investigated by Professor Keogh because they had excess mortality rates that go right the way back to 2005. Labour cannot be in denial. Professor Brian Jarman said that under Labour, there was “total denial” in the Department of Health over the issue of excess mortality—
Mr Speaker
Order. We must try to preserve some sense of order and decorum in this debate. The Secretary of State can be expected to answer only one intervention at once. It is unseemly and arguably discourteous of other Members to jump up and try to interrupt the Secretary of State when he is dealing with the previous intervention. Let us deal with that first. Members must show some sensitivity to that.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust is one of the 14 trusts that were reviewed by Sir Bruce Keogh. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what changes this Government have made to provide central accounting in the NHS for compensation payments that were inherited from the Labour party, under which there were no financial consequences for unacceptably poor performance and weak leadership, such as that experienced in my constituency?
Mr Hunt
This is the appalling fact: we have inherited from the previous Government a system of compensation payments with no significant financial penalty on trusts that have to pay out litigation claims. The focus on patient safety, the biggest discipline of all that any trust should have is to reduce patient safety incidents, should be the thought of having to pay compensation. That disincentive was removed. Absolutely, we will look at that.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Hunt
I am going to make some progress and I will give way more later.
Francis also talked about compassionate care. We are going to follow the advice of Camilla Cavendish’s study on training for health care assistants, so we can be sure that no one is giving basic care to our NHS patients without proper training on how to treat people with dignity and respect. We have also proposed that, subject to pilots that are starting in September, every student who wants to receive NHS funding for their nursing degree will first work for up to a year as a health care assistant, so that before they open the textbooks they learn real care and compassion at the coal face.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Hunt
I am going to make some progress and then I will give way.
In addition, in September the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Professor Tricia Hart will present their recommendations on how we can turn NHS complaints handling into an engine for improving compassionate care.
The right hon. Member for Leigh mentioned nursing numbers. Getting the right number of staff on wards does matter, and where that is not happening for hospitals in special measures it will be sorted out. However, to suggest that that is the only issue, or indeed the main issue, is completely to misunderstand what has gone wrong. Eight of the 11 failing hospitals had increases in nurse numbers since 2010, but they still needed to go into special measures. Training, values, clinical safety and, above all, leadership are often as important.
Labour has been calling for mandatory minimum staffing numbers. Let us look at what the experts say about that idea. Robert Francis said:
“To lay down in a regulation, ‘Thou shalt have N number of nurses per patient’ is not the answer. The answer is, ‘How many patients do I need today in this ward to treat these patients?’”
He also said:
“The government was criticised for not implementing one, which it is said I recommended, which I didn’t.”
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because he knows that Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust was included in the statement yesterday. The trust welcomes his leadership and the opportunity to improve its performance, so that it can give the best possible care to patients in Buckinghamshire. Does my right hon. Friend agree that training goes to the heart of quality, particularly of agency staff? Would he like to say something about the competence, quality and checks that are made on agency staff, which will help to improve the health service across the country?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. There are many locums who work extremely hard and are very committed. However, it is true that one feature of a number of the failing hospitals in yesterday’s report was that they had a high proportion of locum staff. It is harder to build up a sense of teamwork if there is a huge turnover in the people working in NHS organisations, and I know that many will reflect on that.
Mr Hunt
I will make some progress and then give way, because I want to come on to one of the main things that the right hon. Member for Leigh said, which was to criticise an NHS reorganisation that has put 8,000 more people on the frontline of the NHS.
The right hon. Gentleman said that that reorganisation cost £3 billion, when he knows full well that the National Audit Office shows that it will be half that amount. It will save £5.5 billion in this Parliament alone. For the avoidance doubt, it is that £5.5 billion saving that means we are now employing 1,000 more health visitors, 1,400 more midwives and 5,600 more doctors than at the previous election.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the risk register. Let us look at what he said about publishing the risk register when he was Health Minister in 2007. These are his own words:
“Putting the risk register in the public domain would be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents. This would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views about significant risks and their management, and inhibit the provision of advice to Ministers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1192W.]
I agree with him.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that pressures on A and E are building, so why does he oppose changing the GP contract to make primary care more accessible? Why does he criticise the extra £2 billion being put into joint commissioning by health and social care systems to reduce the number of delayed discharges? Why does he tell the NHS Confederation he supports the reconfiguration of services and then refuse to support every difficult reconfiguration, such as at Trafford or Lewisham?
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that in the league table of the busiest A and Es in London, St Thomas’s, Queen Elizabeth and King’s occupy the second, fourth and sixth places? Does he really think there is no risk in moving tens of thousands of patients from Lewisham A and E to those three utterly overburdened and full-to-capacity hospitals?
Mr Hunt
I take the risks the right hon. Lady talks about very seriously, and we need to be very careful in managing any change, but there are also big risks in not making change. South London Health Care Trust is one of the worst-performing in the country, and it was used by her constituents. I have a duty to sort out these problems in the NHS, which have been left unsorted for many years.
The right hon. Member for Leigh said we should look at our record since 2010. Let us look at that record: the numbers of people waiting longer than 18 weeks, 26 weeks and 52 weeks to start treatment are lower than at any time under the last Government; as I said, we have 5,600 more doctors; and we have a £650 million cancer drugs fund, giving more than 30,000 people access to cancer drugs—his Government refused to set up such a fund; the number of mixed-sex wards is down by 98%; and hospital infection rates have halved. These are real achievements for a service under great pressure, and we should recognise the hard work and dedication of the NHS staff who have delivered them.
Mr Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend will have heard me earlier referring to the work of Professor Sheena Asthana and will know of my concerns about the allocations underpinning some of the risks in the NHS. Will he agree to meet Professor Sheena Asthana and me, perhaps over the summer recess, to discuss the matter further?
Mr Hunt
I would be delighted to do so. I have studied her work and am an admirer of it, so I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss further the issues he wants to raise.
I want to turn to the substance of the motion, which is about risk for the NHS. Two big risks face the NHS. They face not only the NHS, but all major health care systems. The first is financial sustainability and the second is an ageing population. The litmus test for the success of the NHS in the next 65 years will be whether it confronts those huge challenges while looking after people with dignity, compassion and respect. I believe that there are three pillars on which we must build to make that possible. The first is a radical transformation of out-of-hospital care. We know that a consultant is responsible for us when we are inside hospital, but who is responsible for a vulnerable older person when they leave hospital? Too often, their care falls between the cracks, with no one being accountable. The NHS could lead the world in this, but we have made it impossible for GPs to look after people proactively because of how the GP contract works. We need to change that, so that in an integrated, joined-up system of care, there is always an accountable clinician or named GP and the patient knows who it is. In the consultation on the changes to the NHS mandate for next year, therefore, I have asked NHS England to ensure a named clinician responsible for every vulnerable older person.
The second of the three pillars we need to reduce risk in the NHS is technology. The technology revolution has transformed many other sectors, but has barely touched the NHS. A and E departments cannot access GP notes and so give medicine without knowing people’s medication history. Ambulances pick up the frail elderly without knowing whether they are diabetic or have dementia. This has to change. Technology can also cut costs. Retail banks have reduced their costs by a third, and we need those precious savings for the NHS, which is why I have said I want the NHS to go paperless by 2018 at the latest, with online prescriptions and booking of GP appointments by 2015. Technology is also a vital key to delivering integrated care, which is why data sharing will be a key condition of accessing the £3.8 billion joint health and social care fund announced by the Chancellor in the spending review.
The final pillar to help the NHS cope with new risks is science. It might surprise hon. Members that I mention that today, but the UK has a long track record as a world leader in medical science. We were the first to unlock the secrets of DNA in 1953; we did the first combined heart, liver and lung transplant; we invented in vitro fertilisation, alongside many other advances, and we must play to those strengths. Science can transform our understanding of disease, and help us deliver truly personalised care. Our aim is by 2015 to put the UK at the forefront of the genome revolution worldwide, and I have set up Genomics England, led by Sir John Chisholm, to deliver that vision.
In conclusion, the NHS faces many risks, but it also delivers many successes day in, day out. No organisation anywhere in the world has more staff dedicated to the noblest ambition anyone can have—to be there for us and our loved ones at our most vulnerable.
Mr Hunt
I am concluding now. We owe it to those people to tackle head-on the risks the NHS faces alongside health care systems in every other country. We do so with confidence and optimism that by confronting failure, nurturing excellence, and supporting the brilliant work of people on the front line, we will be able to deliver an NHS that remains the envy of the world.
Mr Speaker
Order. In the light of the number of right hon. and hon. Members seeking to contribute to the debate, I am forced to impose a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I do not wish to get involved in great party turmoil on this matter, but it seems to me that a characteristic of any health care system is whether it is entirely devoted to managing risk. When people are ill or injured, their lives and health are at risk, and it is also possible that any treatment they may be offered will itself be risky.
The principal problem faced by doctors, nurses and midwives is that of uncertainty, and they want to give the right diagnosis. It is statistically true, for example, that the average GP will be confronted by 1.5 patients who are suffering from meningitis in a 35-year career, yet we expect them to make the right diagnosis. It is difficult. If the GP has made the right diagnosis—I am not necessarily talking just about meningitis—we expect them to come up with the right treatment, which involves another judgment and a great deal of uncertainty. Even if the diagnosis and choice of treatment are right, it may be that the treatment will, for one reason or another, go wrong.
Nevertheless, within the national health service, most people, most of the time and in most places, get very good treatment. Over the past 15 or 16 years, there has been a big reduction in mortality in hospitals, a big improvement in people’s recovery from treatment for a serious illness, and we have been catching up with some countries that had a better record than us. Despite all the criticism, general satisfaction with the national health service remains high. If people are asked what they think of the national health service, about 60% say it is pretty good. If they are asked how the NHS treated them or a member of their family, the percentage of those who are satisfied is usually in the high 80s or low 90s. Any political party or political leader would love that sort of satisfaction rating.
People working in the NHS have very demanding jobs and they need help in doing those jobs. The first thing we must do is try not to make their lives more difficult than they are already. We should ensure, for instance, that they are not in a decrepit hospital without enough beds and that the equipment they have is reliable.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the achievements of the previous Labour Government was the capital investment we put into hospitals? In 1997, for example, the hospital in my constituency was housed in the old workhouse, and we now have a brand-new hospital thanks to Labour. That has made a difference not just to patient care but to the working environment of the people we are asking to care for those patients.
Frank Dobson
That is certainly the case and applies to many parts of the country, including areas represented by Government Members.
I do not think any hospital has had more money spent on it than University College hospital in my constituency, the rebuilding of which, I freely admit, was authorised when I was Secretary of State. I understand that it is the hospital in this country from which one is least likely to come out dead. It is a good place that has modern and reliable equipment and is not, generally speaking, short of staff. It is quite clear that staff shortages in parts of the country have endangered the standard of care provided.
People’s pay and conditions are also important. The Cavendish report, produced only last week by a journalist for The Daily Telegraph, Ms Cavendish, stated that she regarded the pay and conditions of large numbers of people providing services outside hospitals to people who need them as disgraceful, shocking and a condemnation of our society. She is quite right.
One thing concerns me most, however. I remember when I first became Secretary of State for Health being telephoned by a very good friend who was then a professor in the medical school at Nottingham and said—I shall have to bowdlerise this—“For Lord’s sake, leave us alone. Do not reorganise; do not distract people from their usual jobs.” That is what too many Governments have done, including this one, but I do not want to go ranting on about it.
One thing I want to talk about is not mentioned very often. It became fashionable to say that the money must follow the patient and that we did not want to hand over big lumps of money to hospitals and other parts of the health service as that did not provide the right incentives. The only trouble is that as a result NHS transaction costs went up from 4p in the pound to what is estimated now to be between 12p to 15p in the pound. That is a lot of money—about £8 billion, £9 billion or £10 billion extra, just because of the new method of funding. If we want to release funds to help people who are being treated in the health service and who want to be treated there, to provide the buildings, equipment and staff, and to encourage the staff, we must think about the money being squandered on transaction costs. Unless we do something about that, it will only get worse under the new system.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
The Opposition often say that we need to learn lessons—in many ways, I agree with them—and so I intend to go through some of the lessons we can learn. I note that on the 65th anniversary of the NHS, Labour made cupcakes saying, “We love the NHS”, which prompts an interesting question: do we love the NHS—the institution—or do we love, care for and want to protect the patients it serves and respect the professionals who work in it?
I was also very perturbed yesterday by the venom in the denial of some—not all—Opposition Members. As I said then, it reminded me that Julie Bailey faced the same venom and aggressive denial in response to her mission to try to expose some of the truths at Mid Staffs. I am equally perturbed and disturbed that a lot of that venom is coming from two Labour party members locally, Diana Smith, who used to work for David Kidney, and Steve Walker. I would very much like to know whether the Labour party will formally condemn those actions.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned rewriting history, and I am also slightly concerned that there was a little rewriting of history or confusion in that state of denial. I remind him that it was not him who commissioned Francis 2. He commissioned Francis 1, which was an inquiry of far more limited scope where evidence was given behind closed doors. He had every opportunity to commission Francis 2, and if he had done so the lessons he is now saying we must implement more quickly—and I appreciate speed is always of the essence—could have been implemented some time ago.
Andy Burnham
I would like just mildly to correct what the hon. Lady said. When I commissioned Francis 1, I said to Robert Francis that if he did not think he was receiving enough co-operation from witnesses in the first-stage inquiry and he came back to me wanting me to give him powers to compel, I would be glad to give him those powers. The second point the hon. Lady needs to bear in mind is that when he delivered his first report I told this House, in February 2010, that I would be commissioning a second stage report looking at the wider regulatory issues.
Charlotte Leslie
That is very encouraging to hear post-event, but unfortunately it still leaves some questions as to why the Cure the NHS group was not able to go along and formally deliver the case studies of Bella Bailey at the Department of Health but instead had to go and see the former Secretary of State outside his constituency office—and for those who want to deny yet more evidence, that is on YouTube.
We have to ask why this review was not commissioned at the time if there were, through 81 requests, serious concerns raised. What did people have to hide? In 2009 the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said fairly clearly that Mid Staffs was a one-off, but unfortunately we know from the Labour “lines to take”—which are in the inquiry so are in the public domain—that Labour knew there were 12 hospitals with equal or even worse mortality rates. That was denied, but, tellingly, that brief says Labour should try to avoid naming them. That stands in stark contrast to the approach taken in the Keogh report, which has been transparent in naming those trusts where there are problems. Unlike Labour, I do not think being honest about the situation prevents improvement; actually, I think it helps improvement.
Charlie Elphicke
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making such a powerful speech. Does she agree that we have got to put patients first? If we put institutions first, and if we worry about staff and staff morale and how they might feel about things, we will inevitably slide in the direction of having a culture of sweeping things under the carpet and—dare I say it—covering things up. Unless we put patients first, we will not ensure there is a proper, sensible culture in our health service.
Charlotte Leslie
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I would draw a distinction, however, as I think many members of staff in the NHS want, and wanted, nothing more than to put patients first. I was slightly surprised that only two Opposition Members mentioned patients and patient safety in their contributions yesterday. That was very upsetting.
Frank Dobson
In reference to the point the hon. Lady made to the previous intervention, does she agree with Professor Keogh—a most excellent man—that there is a strong correlation between the extent to which staff feel engaged and mortality rates, thus indicating that caring about staff is absolutely crucial if we are going to care about patients?
Charlotte Leslie
I absolutely agree, although there is a distinction to draw between managerial staff, who I think have been leant on heavily to make their hospital look good, and the ground-level staff, many of whom have been battling over the last decade to be able to put clinical priorities ahead of management and political priorities.
Charlotte Leslie
I am going to make progress, if I may.
I am surprised when many on the Opposition Front Bench talk about the welfare of staff, because one of the things Labour did that was so disastrous was take the medical royal colleges out of inspections. That happened after one hospital in particular was found to be lacking. Alan Milburn at the time—in the early 2000s—removed the medical royal colleges from the inspection regime, and did so perhaps, we have to ask, because they might come up with some very unpleasant truths. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is looking to reverse that decision in respect of those who know and will give Governments of all colours a good kicking if things go wrong.
There has also been, unfortunately, a culture of cover-up—I would love to be proved wrong on this; there is still time, there is information that I am still seeking, and anyone can come to me with it—about the three reports that were commissioned on the 60th anniversary of the NHS. The right hon. Member for Leigh shakes his head but I would very much like to meet him to see whether he can show me the minutes of the meetings which he must have attended, at which these reports were discussed. [Interruption.] I will make progress while he talks at me from the Opposition Benches.
It is ironic that on the 65th anniversary we have cupcakes. On the 60th anniversary there were three reports which warned, I remind Members, of a culture of fear and compliance—that sounds familiar; hitting the target and missing the point, which also sounds familiar; and inadequate regulation and inspection. Goodness me, doesn’t that sound familiar? The reports were exhumed only after freedom of information requests. I have put freedom of information requests to the Department of Health which, oddly, have been obstructed. I seek the help of the Secretary of State and of the shadow Secretary of State, if he would like to set the record straight, in seeking information. Who was present at those meetings where those reports, which cost the taxpayer £500,000, were discussed? They were by international experts, including Don Berwick, whom we are now putting at the centre of our NHS on the zero-harm strategy.
Charlotte Leslie
I am terribly sorry. I will make progress.
I would also like to set the record straight on who knew what about hospital trusts. The right hon. Member for Leigh says that he took astute action. He knows, because I have the e-mails, as he does, that he was written to by Professor Sir Brian Jarman about 25 trusts about which he had concerns. He said he was concerned that the CQC was not doing its job. Seven of those were investigated by Sir Bruce Keogh. Fifteen of those trusts were in marginal seats and one, as he will know, was in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Leigh.
Andy Burnham
That list, when Brian Jarman gave it to me, was immediately referred to the CQC. Within weeks, six of the trusts, I think, on that list were registered with conditions before the general election.
Charlotte Leslie
The fact that the very same trusts appear in the Keogh report and have not resolved their problems proves that we have suffered a legacy issue. Those reports are still relevant.
The then Secretary of State referred those trusts to the CQC, which we now know he was leaning heavily on. We know that people were saying that the aim of the CQC’s operation was that no bad news should come out. The lessons that we need to learn about how to avert risk and to care for patients is to return to the specialist, honest medical analysis and inspection of hospitals that will give all Governments some uncomfortable truths. This party wants to hear uncomfortable truths. We do not want to smother them.
Labour has presided over a culture of bullying, threatening and aggressive denial, which we sometimes see in the Chamber. We will not be bullied now. The truth is out. Finally, patients and professionals struggling to care for those patients will not be stifled under a saccharine sickly-sweet cupcake icing which says, “We love the NHS”. We have seen in so many tragic cases that that love has been lethal.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
No one would disagree that if there are problems with standards or care in any hospital or any part of the health service every effort should be made to bear down on those problems and deal with them, whether that is by supporting the leaders or clinicians who are responsible for it, or removing them, if necessary. We must bear down on problems and continue to improve standards. Everybody wants to see that. When we are trying to build on the improvements of the Labour Government, it does not help to undertake at the same time a reckless reorganisation of the NHS, which has taken a massive amount of time and effort, cost at least £3 billion and opened the door to privatisation. That has caused chaos in the health service.
I talk to staff and managers regularly. There is massive pressure on them. They feel completely uncared for. They feel that no one is bothered. They are told to do things for which they do not have staffing. They have to maintain standards, which is very difficult because of shortages of staff and because of the pressures on them.
Mr Andrew Smith
Among the many other dangers of privatisation, is not one particularly relevant to the debate today the fact that transparency will be lost because of private commercial organisations’ unwillingness to share information and be transparent?
Derek Twigg
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. That is one of the things that we explored during the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill and of course we got no answers. The then Minister, now Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), said that as time goes on the NHS will be more open to the competition laws of both the EU and the UK. That is the real story here, and we will not have that transparency. That is a major part of the problem we are having to deal with.
No matter what statistics we are talking about, losing a friend or loved one is a massive human tragedy that affects everybody. We want to do all we can to reduce the number of early and preventable deaths—that is absolutely right—and put patients’ interests and those of families first. Given what we have heard in the last day or so, one would think that we somehow left an NHS in crisis—an NHS that was not delivering—yet when we left office it had the highest satisfaction rate in history. We had the lowest waiting lists in history and massive reductions in early deaths from cancer, coronary problems and so on. We also saw massive increases in doctors and nurses. We hear this Government talking about increasing the number of doctors, but when did those doctors start their training? They started under Labour.
To give an example, so that we can be a bit fairer about the situation, the Commonwealth Fund produced an international health policy survey in 2010 that looked at 11 countries—and guess what? The UK health service came out best. Just as an example, when those on above average incomes and those on below average incomes were asked whether they were confident that they would receive the most effective treatment if sick, the best results—95% and 92%—were in the UK. That was an international survey. Another question was whether people were confident that they would receive the most effective treatment if sick—and guess what again? The UK came out on top, at 92%. That is the real picture of the NHS that we left behind in 2010—although it was not without its problems and challenges, because pressures were always building up.
I also noticed that pages 4 to 5 of the Keogh report say—this is an important comment that has not been looked at much in the press—the following:
“Between 2000 and 2008, the NHS was rightly focused on rebuilding capacity and improving access after decades of neglect. The key issue was not whether people were dying in our hospitals avoidably, but that they were dying whilst waiting for treatment.”
That is where Labour made one of the biggest differences. I remember regularly having people write to me back in the late 1990s and the early 2000s about having to wait over two years for an operation. People were literally dying because of that. Addressing that was one of the biggest gains that Labour made.
The Secretary of State has now left the Chamber, but earlier I raised with him the issue of mortality. He refused to correct the record. He said that there had been a “slight” improvement by 2010, yet Professor Keogh talks about a 30% improvement in mortality in all hospitals, including those that have been under investigation. That is not to say that those hospitals should not be doing better, but he was talking about all hospitals.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Professor Keogh’s report also shows that although mortality has dropped by 30% in all hospitals, it has dropped by between 30% and 50% in the 14 hospitals subject to the Keogh review. Although those hospitals are still outliers, the drop has been greater at those 14 hospitals.
Derek Twigg
My hon. Friend makes a strong and important point. I referred earlier to figures from the Library, but those figures are from the NHS. Just to repeat, the rate of deaths per 100,000 within 30 days of a non-elective hospital procedure in England was 4,850 in 2001-02 and 3,684 in 2010-11. That is a significant drop, so I hope the Secretary of State will correct the record, change his view that there was a “slight” improvement and confirm that it was a significant improvement, because that is what the evidence from his own Department says. Why is that important? It is important for a number of reasons. It is important to see improvements, but we should also bear in mind that the fall from 2001 took place against a massive increase—4 million additional admissions—in the number of people admitted to hospital. It is also important because people want to see continual improvements and be assured that their relatives and friends are receiving the best possible treatment.
In the short time I have available, I want to talk about a couple of local issues. Staffing plays a fundamental part in regard to risk. Many hospitals are having real difficulty with staffing at the moment, and many more will do so. I will say more about that in the context of my own hospital in a second. We need to address the problem, and the mix of staff is also a factor.
The Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust serves my constituency. We have been told by the chief executive and the chair of the board of governors that our hospital will run out of money in about 18 months’ time. It has already had to make savings in staff numbers of about 200, and implement a £7 million cut. The hospital will be unsustainable in that situation. What are the Government going to do about that? It is a foundation trust, and as far as I am aware, there are no significant performance issues. I get complaints about the different hospitals, but it is no worse than any of the others. It will run out of money, however.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) has mentioned the St Helens and Knowsley NHS Trust. The Whiston hospital was rebuilt under Labour’s plan to rebuild hospitals. We replaced Victorian hospitals—and workhouses, as in the case of the Whiston—with more than 100 new hospitals. The deal on the Whiston hospital under Labour involved a private finance initiative, with the difference being paid for by the two primary care trusts. This Government have got rid of the PCTs, but they have still not put in place a way of funding the hospital on a long-term basis. The uncertainty continues, despite debates on the matter in this place and meetings with Ministers, and we still do not know what is going to happen. It is an excellent hospital with brand-new facilities, but it is facing a real challenge. We need the Government to make decisions about hospital funding, to ensure that it and others can continue; otherwise, many more hospitals will get into difficulty.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
This debate is notionally about managing risk in the NHS, but it is actually about reputational risk for Secretaries of State. I genuinely feel sorry for all Secretaries of State, because it is very unlikely that nothing will go wrong on their watch. It is unlikely that the entire NHS will perform optimally, that there will be no significant variation in performance and that the NHS will deliver an absolutely perfect service.
Secretaries of State have to get a whole raft of things right. They have to get the funding, the appointments, the regulation and the legislative framework right, and when something goes wrong, they have to get the troubleshooting right as well. They also have to keep a whole raft of health professionals happy, including pharmacists, dentists, GPs, nurses, midwives and health visitors, as well as patients from the age of nought to 90. Surveying that task, I think we have to agree that it is mission impossible.
The two things that will afford a Secretary of State the most protection are, first, good regulation and inspection, and secondly, the professional commitment, engagement and dedication of health professionals including doctors, nurses, ambulance staff and, dare I say, managers—or, as they are they are sometimes referred to in this place, bureaucrats. I think we all acknowledge the need for good management in the NHS.
We have been appallingly badly served by the regulators. Let us take the Care Quality Commission—where do I begin? And what about Monitor? Yesterday, we had the statement on the Keogh report. Before that, we have had statements on Mid Staffs and Morecambe Bay. Although not many people have acknowledged it yet, the majority of the hospitals involved are foundation trusts, and were inspected by Monitor. The majority were given a positive, green risk rating in 2010. What does that tell us about foundation trust status and its benefits? What does it tell us about Monitor, and the CQC, as regulators? Bizarrely, we seem to have given those bodies, which do not seem to be wholly competent, an increased role in the health service over the past couple of years.
The only other protection from serious embarrassment that is available to a Secretary of State is the fact that the NHS survives most things. There is a huge amount of professional commitment from NHS staff. Ironically, however, that can be undone by unwise, poor, tick-box, target-chasing and clinically unjustified regulation. That applies across the NHS and, I would suggest, across public services as a whole. Regulation and inspection, if ill-advised, can undermine professional standards, with disastrous effects for individuals and institutions. Certainly, those who know anything about Ofsted will know that Ofsted can do that, and I am sure that the CQC has done it. The Government have also done it through distorting priorities or simply by inspecting the wrong thing. The truth is that we need to work more with the grain of professional judgment, to listen to it more and not assume that it is always a self-serving producer interest. We can encourage the best and challenge the worst, without disparaging professional ethics.
Recently, the Government have got themselves into a sort of enviable no-lose situation with regard to the public services. If policies are supported by professionals, it proves that the Government are right. If on the other hand policies are opposed by professionals, it proves that the Government are challenging the provider interest and are right again—so they can never be proved wrong. My simple point—it is the only one I really want to make—is that if Governments were not always so easily persuaded that they were right, we would get a whole lot less wrong.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
As on six previous occasions, I shall read from testimony showing a lack of care and compassion from the 2,500 people who sent letters and e-mails to me.
The family of an 89-year-old patient wrote:
“During our daily visits, we had to locate a cup from the kitchen on the ward in order to give her some fluid. She never had a drink of any sort within reach. This resulted in severe dehydration, which was apparent by her sunken eyes, dry, scaly skin, fatigue and her unquenchable thirst when we provided her with drinks. The staff informed us that she was not eating but we found she would eat any food we brought in for her. Whilst in bed the staff neglected to move her on a regular basis and this resulted in circulatory problems and ultimately necrosis of both feet. She also developed many infections…the wound on one heel was so advanced that the bone was visible.”
A man whose son suffered further brain damage due to lack of care said:
“He was left lying in his own urine, faeces, etc. He was left without fluids for over 12 hours then he had a huge seizure. The doctor would turn up at 5 o’clock stating ‘What’s the plan for today?’ when the day was clearly over…I witnessed nurses allowing drugs and feed to go to the floor…the floor was in such a state my feet were sticking to it. You can’t blame the cleaners for MRSA!”
A woman writes about her father’s death in hospital:
“I used the term ‘conveyer belt to death’ at the time we lost our beloved dad. On that chaotic Friday afternoon, when all the Consultants and senior staff are dashing off for an early week end finish, a poor young doctor was pushed into our path by one of these Consultants from the palliative team and uttered the immortal words that will stay with me—“Is Tuesday OK?”…I only twigged later that night that that was the date to cancel any care and pull the plug.”
A woman writes of her father’s experience in hospital:
“I’ve tried to find out what he’s eating and how much but no one seems to know and the nursing staff just tell me they have too many plates to clear to remember who was eating what. My Dad is wasting away in front of my eyes and they just keep telling me they’re too busy to help. My Dad is 76 and he has always been fit and well but I’m fearful now that he will never come home from hospital alive.”
Another woman wrote:
“Having continually pushed for the best care available during his time there, it seemed that complaining wouldn’t make any difference, other than making me relive every humiliation, discomfort, stupidity and indifference…My father spent a month in hospital, and he said it was worse than his experiences in the Second World War…We watched one man fading away, naked apart from a soiled nappy, in full view of visiting families.”
The wife of a whistleblower wrote:
“My husband was a senior nurse who recorded what he considered to be gross ill treatment of patients to his senior Consultant…he was subjected to prolonged bullying campaigns and subjected to pseudo disciplinary procedures. He was supported by the RCN who managed to keep him in his job…To cut a long story short, after six years of abuse, stress and fear my husband suffered a major stroke while working at the hospital. He was later subjected to a vicious attack”
by the management
“at his back to work interview. He retired from the NHS on medical grounds. He was 46 years old. He lost the job he loved. The NHS lost a highly skilled super intelligent practical nurse who loved his patients and worked hard for them. His colleague who supported him lasted a bit longer but was also forced into retirement after her health was destroyed by bullying because she also witnessed and reported the abuse of patients”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. Lady is telling us some very compassionate and emotional stories. Does she feel that the voice of families, which she has illustrated very well, needs to be heard more by management and staff, and does she feel that the process should be improved to enable that to happen?
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I was reluctant to intervene when the right hon. Lady was giving all those examples, but this seems to be a natural break. I share her huge concern about end-of-life care in hospitals, and she may share my concern about the Government’s announcement this week that the Liverpool care pathway will end this year. I hope that the Government are clear about what will replace it, and that we do not end up with confusion about responsibilities in hospitals, which could lead to less dignity and care as people reach the end of their lives.
Ann Clwyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. My next piece of testimony comes from a man who wrote this about his mother’s death in hospital:
“'My mother died under unspeakable conditions. The treatment she received, being deliberately dehydrated to death, on the so called ‘Pathway’, and total lack of sedation resulted in a death of anxiety, pain and total lack of dignity, which I personally witnessed.
The callous attitude of the staff beggared belief. My mother suffered incredible levels of neglect and abuse. We initiated a complaint, resulting in several distressing meetings. The whole procedure was to no avail as we only received platitudes of regret resulting in written statements of denial of any lack of patient care”.
Another man wrote:
“I left my wife with the assurance from nursing staff that she would be given a bath. I found her the next day some 15 hours later in her own excreta and vomit. Her face had been wiped clean. Nothing else. I was told the hoist was not working and that the bath was not plumbed in, and, in any event, nursing staff did not have the time to bathe her. Having found the equipment in perfect working order I bathed her.
I was caring for a fragile lady. I couldn’t make a complaint, I was frightened because my complaining would upset her and more uncomfortably, I had no trust in the nursing staff. Complain and how much worse could the callousness be? I took her home saying nothing. I'm still ashamed”.
Another man wrote this about his treatment for a punctured lung:
“My drip was not changed for six days, my chest hair that was shaved was left to fall under my bed and not cleaned up properly. I was never washed and in the end went by myself to the shower past the nurses station pulling my drip trolley—no one helped or worse enquired what I was doing. Water was taken away very early in the morning and not returned for at least two hours although there was obvious chatter coming from the nurses station”.
All the testimonies that I have read out come from Wales.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
The title of the debate, “Managing risk in the NHS”, is very important. Indeed—although this may not be a topic for today—we ought to start thinking about the whole concept of risk and what patients will accept in terms of risk, especially given that everyone now has access to information via the internet. Invariably, the first thing someone puts into Google is the thing they are least likely to be suffering from as a consequence of the symptoms they are experiencing, so it is extremely important that risk is discussed much more with the patient population. As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, it is extremely difficult to be a GP and to try to manage the demands being placed on the health service when people are coming in thinking that their headache is a brain tumour and so on.
It is particularly appropriate that I am speaking in this debate, because today the Care Quality Commission has published a report on Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has not taken the opportunity to speak in this debate as a consequence. The report highlights significant concerns about the trust and the care of patients. None of the concerns was news to me: I approached the then Health Secretary about them in June 2010; I spoke to Monitor, whose chief executive told me, remarkably, that he had no concerns whatsoever and nothing had come across his radar about the trust; and I also spoke to Cynthia Bower in September 2010 about them. I say that because Monitor and the CQC were clearly not fit for purpose and doing their job of finding out what was wrong with hospitals.
I recognise the current Secretary of State’s desire to have a chief inspector of hospitals, and I wholeheartedly support him on that concept. However, I counsel colleagues on both sides of the House that if we start looking properly at the performance of hospitals, we will, judging by the list of experiences that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has just shared with the Chamber, have plenty more stories to deal with about hospitals, and how they fail or are failing.
I wish to concentrate primarily on legacy and the genesis of these problems, which probably blight both parties. A hospital does not suddenly become a problem in the space of a couple of years; that can occur over a number of decades. The problem we have in this country is that a large number of our hospitals are not fit for purpose. There is a legacy of poor location, not only because the land was often bequeathed, but because the buildings are often not fit for purpose. That is the particular problem at Heatherwood, and with its theatres, as was highlighted in the CQC report.
There is also a legacy in respect of the district general hospitals in general. They have had their day and we do not need them any more; we need regional specialist hub hospitals such as the one I have been proposing for the Thames valley for the past three to four years. I say that because if we are trying to provide care, it is incredibly difficult to mitigate risk when the theatre is not fit for purpose or when the hospital cannot be staffed appropriately. Labour Members have made much mention of nursing numbers, but the issue is much bigger than that; it is about the quality of the clinicians. Most clinicians have to specialise and sub-specialise, and the only way in which we will be able to provide the very best care in the 21st century is by having fewer acute hospitals. All the royal colleges share that opinion; I am not cornering that market. The flip side, however, is that we will have more community hospitals and more community care, which can only be a good thing.
If I were allowed to advise Members, I would tell them to be cautious on the issue of end-of-life care, because it will be extremely difficult to provide that in an increasingly ageing society. We are going to have some very difficult decisions to make for people in their 90s and for people over 100. There is no easy solution to this. The Liverpool care pathway was probably an honourable approach to try to take. I am not saying that it was perfect, but there was a desire to do the right thing in its implementation.
The reconfiguration is necessary and, for it to be appropriate, it will need cross-party support. We are not going to get anywhere by trading insults and taking political positions over various hospitals. Quite a few hospitals are not fit for purpose, with some in Conservative seats, some in Labour seats and some in marginal seats. If those of us who are interested in this topic truly want to improve care for all, we really need to remove party politics from the reconfiguration debate and engage in a cross-party discussion about where these hospitals should be. If we did that, if we managed to build some new hospitals—I suspect that we will have to build quite a few, because, as I said, the problem with a number of established hospitals is that their locations are inappropriate, as is certainly the case in my part of the world—and if we could come to a consensus and some agreement on this, we would be bequeathing to future generations a hospitals sector to be proud of. We do not have one to be proud of, however. We heard that mortality rates have been going down, but of course that is the case, because we are getting better at medicine, but with that come challenges regarding the end of life.
Charlotte Leslie
Does my hon. Friend have any information about how Britain’s reducing mortality rate compares with that of comparable European countries?
Dr Lee
I do not have such information to hand, but it would be interesting to compare our mortality rates for various conditions with those of Germany, Holland and France over the past seven to 10 years to determine whether there has also been a decline in those countries. It is difficult to claim that it was just the investment of money that led to reduced mortality rates in this country. I do not rule out the fact that the investment was a factor, but I suspect that the decline was due to advances in medicine and technology, and indeed in the skill base of consultants.
If we reconfigure, consultants will have a larger throughput of patients. It is interesting to note that Tameside covers about 175,000 patients—not enough—that Basildon and Thurrock covers about 300,000 or so, and that Mid Staffs covers about 225,000. Hospitals should cover a minimum of 500,000 people, if not 750,000, if they are truly to deliver the best acute and surgical care. The staff, especially the consultants, will want such a throughput of patients so that they can maintain and enhance their skills, and thereby improve mortality statistics. I therefore conclude by begging the Government and the Opposition to take the party politics out reconfiguration so that we can secure a hospital sector of which we can be proud for the next five decades.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee). I do not think that hon. Members have had a chance properly to mention that the NHS is 65 years old.
We now have two figureheads atop the NHS: the Secretary of State and the chief executive of NHS England. Hon. Members might have missed the change of name from the NHS Commissioning Board to NHS England. Such is the power of the chief executive that he neither had to come to Parliament nor to deal with elected representatives to achieve that. The two of them sit there like Laurel and Hardy, whose catchphrase was, “Here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into.” We know there is a mess, as there is a host of ongoing reviews.
Let me start by referring to the Francis report, which was produced by a leading QC who started his work in 2009 after being picked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), so that was something he got right. Some £10 million later, after sifting the evidence and hearing bereaved people give their testimony, Robert Francis produced a report with 290 recommendations. At the time, it appeared that they had been accepted in full, but all is not as it seems, because apparently there needs to be a review on its implementation.
Yesterday, we received Sir Bruce Keogh’s thoughtful review. It is actually a model report, as it gives clarity on what needs to be done. The Secretary of State mentioned Don Berwick’s report on the Francis review, which is due in the autumn. Camilla Cavendish has reported on health care and social care assistants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Tricia Hart will review how patients make complaints, although no date has been given for when that will report. Sir Bruce Keogh is busy again, as he is producing a further report on a plan for vulnerable older people, which I think is also due in the autumn.
You would be forgiven for thinking that that was the end of it, Mr Speaker, but that is not quite the case. The chief executive of NHS England announced to the Health Service Journal—not to the Secretary of State nor to Parliament—that he would do some work to determine what NHS England’s strategic direction might be. One would have thought that he would already know, and the process seems somewhat late given when the body was set up. He told me that the cost would be £3 million over three years, but how many doctors and nurses would that buy?
What has been the response of the Secretary of State to date? Urgent care boards and chief inspectors—PR and an extra layer of bureaucracy. The Health Committee heard evidence that urgent care boards were the management that was removed by what happened to the strategic health authorities. What are the costs? The Treasury has already clawed back £3 billion from the NHS. According to the National Audit Office, the efficiency gains of £5.8 billion that were made in the first year were a result of reducing the tariff to providers and the public sector pay freeze, but how long can that carry on?
The NAO has published interesting statistics following the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The reported cost of the reforms was £1.1 billion. The Secretary of State told the Health Committee that he had seen—he did not know—a figure of between £1.5 billion and £1.6 billion. Professor Kieran Walshe has put the figure at £3 billion.
The NAO said that of the 170 organisations closed down, 240 have been opened, and 10,094 full-time equivalent staff have been made redundant. It is a shame, when there is an underspend of £3 billion, that the College of Emergency Medicine is crying out for extra emergency doctors and consultants, and at least half a million pounds is spent on locums in A and E, and all before we have even looked at integration.
Many have endorsed what is rapidly becoming known as the Burnham plan, including the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell). The Health Committee has seen the work at Torbay, which was piloted in 2004-05—by the previous Government, incidentally—but we were told that the Health and Social Care Act could affect the way it works.
I want to ask the Secretary of State to do something fairly useful: ask someone at the Department of Health to pull together and publicise best practice from across the country. The Health Committee heard evidence that some of the A and E hospitals had got it right by moving elderly people directly to consultant geriatricians.
Finally, it is very easy for those of us who are exposed to the world of NHS structures to say how we can fix it, but Robert Francis took evidence from those who use the service directly on how they came across the inaction and indifference of a large institution. Sir Bruce Keogh has done the same with his report. They talked directly to those on the front line and those who use the service, not just those in the boardroom. They are the ones who should be listened to—all those who work in the NHS and have to provide a service when their pay is frozen. The people who use our NHS want professional people who are competent at their job caring for them when they are at their most vulnerable. Only if we listen to them will we be able to wish the NHS many happy returns in future.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) in this important debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said, over the past three years the biggest risk to NHS patients and taxpayers has been this Government’s decision to force through the largest back-room reorganisation in the NHS’s history at the same time it faces the biggest financial challenge of its life.
We left government with the lowest ever waiting lists and the highest ever patient satisfaction, but we knew that further changes were essential to improving the safety and quality of patient care and getting better value for taxpayers’ money. And we had a plan to make it happen in every region in England, through Lord Darzi’s report, “High Quality Care for all”, which set out precisely how we would achieve the kind of reconfigurations of hospitals that the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) mentioned and precisely the kind of integrated services focused on prevention in the community mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South. But Ministers scrapped those plans and instead forced through a top-down reorganisation that not only wasted billions of pounds, but meant that local services lost grip and focus precisely when they were needed most.
The Government were repeatedly warned about the risks of their Health and Social Care Bill. While they have refused to publish their own national risk register, up and down the country local NHS organisations did the job for them. Those local NHS risk registers warned that front-line staff would be cut. They were right: over 4,000 nursing posts have been lost under this Government. They warned that specialist cancer networks would be scrapped, and they have, along with Labour’s stroke networks, both of which were vital to improving the quality of patient care. The local risk registers also warned that structural upheaval and fewer front-line staff would destabilise winter planning and mean more patients waiting longer in A and E. That is precisely what has happened.
This Government have presided over the worst A and E crisis in a decade. At its height, 100 trusts failed to meet the four-hour A and E target. Even during spring, more than half of all hospital trusts missed the target. The risk to patients is not just that they have been left waiting for hours in distress and pain on trolleys or in the back of ambulances. As Sir Bruce Keogh’s excellent review states,
“over 90% of deaths in hospital happen when patients are admitted in an emergency rather than for a planned procedure”.
He goes on to say:
“The performance of the majority of the trusts was much worse than expected for their emergency patients.”
He is right. At the end of last year all 14 of those trusts were missing this Government’s lower A and E target, yet under the previous Government all 14 were meeting our higher A and E target.
Instead of getting to grips with the real causes of the A and E crisis so that they can deliver real solutions for patients, the Government have consistently sought to score political points by blaming the 2004 GP contract. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that that is what the evidence says. Well, NHS England, the NHS Alliance and the NHS Confederation beg to disagree, to name just a few. They say that the real causes are primarily that more very elderly, sick patients are ending up in hospital and getting stuck there because of pressures on social care budgets, and that there are not enough services for specific groups of patients such as those with mental health problems and drug and alcohol addiction.
Ministers’ sheer incompetence in introducing the NHS 111 phone line has compounded the pressures in A and E. They were repeatedly warned, by the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, the Ambulance Service Network, NHS Direct and potential private providers, about problems with their rushed roll-out, but they ploughed on regardless. The result was patients left hanging on the phone or waiting hours for call-backs, more ambulances being sent, and more patients ending up in already struggling A and Es. A report on this fiasco by the NHS Alliance, which represents primary care providers and commissioners, says that
“providers were put under unprecedented pressure by the Department of Health to meet their go live dates even if...they weren’t prepared”.
They say that the Government’s contracts focused more on cost than quality, yet they have disgracefully ended up failing on both.
We now face the real risk that the Government will fail to put in place many of the key changes that patients and the public desperately need. It is right that the Government are looking at the training of nurses throughout the NHS. I have no doubt that Sir Mike Richards will be an excellent chief inspector of hospitals. However, regulation happens after the event, whereas we need to focus on preventing problems from happening in the first place. That means having clear lines of accountability and responsibility from the bedside to the boardroom. It means listening to patients and the public. It means having a strong voice for local Healthwatch bodies. Hon. Members will know that up and down the country those have been very slow to get up and running and have very few staff. The task put on to them—to make sure that they are a strong voice for patients and the public—will be extremely difficult to carry out.
The Government are missing out on three key issues that have repeatedly come up in this debate. The Keogh review found time and again that staff shortages in the 14 hospitals with higher mortality rates are a real risk to the safety and quality of patient care, as did the Francis inquiry into the appalling failings at Mid Staffs hospital. That is why Francis makes very clear recommendations about staff numbers. The Secretary of State would not take an intervention from me earlier, so I will tell him what I was going to say now. Recommendations 22 and 23 in the Francis report say:
“The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should”
set out
“standard procedures and practice”
and those should include 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.”
The report also says that
“no unregistered person should…provide…direct physical care to patients”
and that this
“should apply to healthcare support workers”.
We tried for many years to improve their training, but without their being registered so that it could be guaranteed that they had the training required, it was not possible to do so. I called for this back in 2001, before I became an MP. The same arguments were being made then. We have not made progress and we need to do so now.
Finally, Francis says there should be a statutory duty of candour on individual registered staff as well as providers, yet the Government are dragging their feet on all those key recommendations. As Peter Walsh, the chief executive of Action against Medical Accidents, said yesterday,
“ministers are still refusing to accept key recommendations such as minimum staffing levels for wards and regulation of healthcare assistants.”
He also said that he hoped that Sir Bruce Keogh’s report will change the Government’s mind, and Opposition Members agree with him.
Government Members have made unfounded accusations that Labour Members covered up problems in the NHS, but our record proves that we did the precise opposite: independent inspection of the NHS for the first time; national data published on heart and stroke care and hip and knee operations for the first time; patient choice of hospital enshrined for the first time; and, far from ignoring mortality rates, it was the Labour Government who published them on the NHS Choices website for the first time.
Government attempts to smear former Ministers are shameful, but the real tragedy is not the cynical, political agenda being pursued by the Conservative party; it is that over the past three years the Government have put the NHS through risks that could have been avoided and they are failing to put in place the real changes and reforms that patients and the public need. I commend the motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a great pleasure to rise to speak in support of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Both sides of the House believe in our NHS, the staff who work in it and the care they provide for patients. I am also sure that both sides recognise that, in the wake of the Francis inquiry and yesterday’s report from Sir Bruce Keogh, the 65th year of the NHS has been its most challenging and that we need to face up to those challenges.
This debate has had three key themes: the importance of the NHS, the staff who work in it and the care they provide for patients; the importance of making greater productivity gains in the NHS to improve care and make sure that we do more with our resources; and the importance of openness and transparency and the need to learn lessons from things that have gone wrong, so that patient care can be improved.
Back Benchers have made some high-quality contributions. It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) made a very strong case for his local health care services. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has done some tremendous work in looking at how we can improve the NHS complaints procedure. She read out a number of examples of things that have gone badly wrong, from which we need to learn lessons for the future. The work she is doing at the moment is hugely important and valuable, and the Government look forward to receiving her report shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) highlighted some of the challenges with the existing NHS estate and the need to modernise facilities and make some of the older buildings more fit for purpose to meet the needs of patients in the modern world. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) made a very brave speech. She spoke at great length—and rightly so—about the importance of involving the medical royal colleges in deciding how hospital inspection processes should be implemented and about the importance of clinical leadership and involvement in those inspections to help understand what good care looks like. After all, those colleges are centres of excellence in their fields and it is right that we listen to what they have to say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) made a particularly thoughtful speech. He called for good management and spoke of the need for good managers in the NHS. He also made the important point that, in all our debates on patients who have been let down, the regulators have often not played their part. That is why we need to ensure that the regulators continue to come to the table and that the improvements at the CQC continue. The regulators need to remain fit for purpose.
The problem with mandatory staffing ratios is that they would just provide another tick box that would not necessarily bear a relation to what good clinical care looks like. There is a clear difference between mandatory staffing ratios and appropriate staffing levels, as the Francis report indicated. We need staffing levels that reflect the needs of the patients on the ward. Those will vary from ward to ward and will change on a daily basis according to the needs of different patients. It is important that we consider the patients who are in front of the doctors and nurses on the day. It may not be nursing care that is needed, but care from other members of the multi-disciplinary team such as physiotherapists and health care assistants. That is why it is wrong to use mandatory staffing ratios as a measure of good care.
Barbara Keeley
The point that I keep raising with the hon. Gentleman, other Ministers and the Secretary of State is that there must be transparency in the numbers. Ratios of 2:29 have been reported to me, which nobody would be comfortable with. My excellent local hospital puts information about staffing ratios on the boards in each ward. Does he not think that we should move rapidly to provide transparency on this matter? I am asking not for mandated ratios, but transparency so that patients and their families can see what the ratio is.
Dr Poulter
The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the importance of having staffing levels that are appropriate to the needs of the patients. That is why NHS England is considering toolkits that will help hospitals to build the right care in the right place and at the right time for patients and to adapt care so that it is provided by the appropriate professionals, according to patient need.
The debate has rightly focused on transparency and openness. We have not got that right in the NHS since the Bristol heart inquiry, which took place under the previous Government. Both the Government and the Opposition believe that we need to support staff who feel that they need to speak out and that there needs to be greater transparency and openness. I believe that the steps that the Government are taking will make a difference. We are introducing a contractual right for staff to raise concerns and issuing guidance on good practice in supporting staff to raise concerns. We are strengthening the NHS constitution and have set up the whistleblowing hotline to support whistleblowers. We are also amending legislation to secure protection for all staff through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. We are doing good work and it is right that we continue to do all that we can to support staff in raising concerns about patient care, where that is appropriate.
We must focus on improving productivity in the NHS so that we can do more with the resources that we have. As the Secretary of State outlined, that is about improving the technology in the NHS so that we can spend more money on care and free up staff time. If we use technology to better join up health and social care, staff will spend less time on paperwork and more time with patients, which will improve patient care.
It is important to consider the fact that there are higher levels of morbidity and mortality at weekends and in the evenings. There needs to be more consultant cover and out-of-hours cover at those crucial times to ensure that the service is more responsive to patients. The Government are addressing that.
In conclusion, at the beginning of this debate, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) rightly highlighted the long-standing problems in our NHS. Although Labour is now talking about social care, it was the last Labour Government who cut the social care budget between 2005 and 2010. Although Labour is now talking about the risk register, the last Labour Government refused to publish it.
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
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.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I have now to announce the results of a number of deferred Divisions. On the Question relating to the draft Unfair Dismissal Order 2013, the Ayes were 300 and the Noes were 204, so the Question was agreed to.
In the deferred Division on the Question relating to the draft order to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Ayes were 299 and the Noes were 205, so the Question was agreed to.
In the deferred Division on the Question relating to the Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 203, so the Question was agreed to.
In the deferred Division on the Question relating to the senior courts of England and Wales, the Ayes were 300 and the Noes were 202, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House is probably not aware that the Central Lobby reception staff, William and Carlos, are due to be subject to a major change. Central Lobby reception staff, as the first point of contact for Members and the public, give a positive impression of both Houses in their fine formal clothing, mirroring that of our excellent Doorkeepers. They have an extensive knowledge of the Members of both Houses and the ability to provide an important extra layer of security to the Palace of Westminster. All that is set to change this October.
Gone will be the smart formal wear, to be replaced by what in my opinion, by comparison, is a sort of glorified school uniform. The staff will be on rotation, so that valuable knowledge will be lost, and I believe security will be seriously weakened. May I ask, Mr Speaker, that your Committee meeting in September urgently considers this issue, and perhaps considers transferring the function of Central Lobby staff to the Serjeant at Arms Office? In the meantime, may we have a moratorium on these changes until the end of the year?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I make two points in response. First, security matters should not be discussed on the Floor of the House, and the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to do so. Secondly, with reference to the changes that he describes, it is of course open to the hon. Gentleman and others to discuss these matters with the Serjeant at Arms if he so wishes. If there is a feeling among Members that they would wish this matter to come before the House of Commons Commission, I cannot off the top of my head see any reason why that should not be possible. I think I would want to consider the matter further, but my instinctive reaction to the hon. Gentleman is what I have just set out. I hope that that is helpful to him and to others interested in the matter.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not aware of that proposal until I heard about it a moment ago from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). I am bound to say that what he said shocks me. I hear what you have said, Mr Speaker, and I would like to make it known that I, with a few years’ experience in this House, strongly endorse everything the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr Speaker
On the strength of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it looks to me as though he is potentially joining forces with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and could be part of a delegation. It is always a pleasure to hear from both hon. Members—on this occasion and, it would appear, in the autumn. I hope that is helpful.
Trident Alternatives Review
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister responsible for the review to move the motion, I should stress that 16 Members are seeking to catch the Chair’s eye. I therefore propose that there should be a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. Such a limit would of course have to be reviewed in the light of Front-Bench contributions. I feel confident, therefore, that the Minister and shadow Minister will wish considerately to tailor their contributions to facilitate the participation of their colleagues.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Trident Alternatives Review.
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I shall certainly do as you say. I will also tailor the number of interventions I take to meet your invocation.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister published the Trident alternatives review—the most thorough review of nuclear weapon systems and postures that the UK has undertaken for decades, and the most comprehensive analysis ever made public. For the first time in a generation—
Danny Alexander
I will make some progress before giving way.
For the first time in a generation, the Trident alternatives review shows that there are credible and viable alternatives to the United Kingdom’s current approach to nuclear deterrence. A different approach would allow the UK to contribute meaningfully to the new multilateral drive for disarmament initiated by President Obama, while maintaining our national security and our ultimate insurance policy against future threats.
Danny Alexander
I will take some interventions later, but in the light of what Mr Speaker has said, I will make some progress.
A different approach could allow long-term savings—about £4 billion over the life of the system—to be made against current plans. Let me be clear: this does not change current Government policy to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent and prepare for a successor system. It does mean that we can at last have an open and much more informed debate about what our nuclear weapons are for and how they should be deployed—a debate that provides our country with a chance to change course before the main-gate decision for a successor system is taken in 2016.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way. He says this is the most comprehensive examination for many years—that is open to question—but will he explain why it considered only the four-boat and three-boat options for Trident, not the two-boat options that the Liberal Democrats plan to put to their conference as Liberal Democrat policy?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend will have a chance to see the proposed Liberal Democrat policy paper when it is published in a few weeks’ time. The purpose of this debate is to consider the Trident alternatives review.
Caroline Lucas
On the review’s comprehensive nature, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a review that fails even to consider the option of not replacing Trident at all and having no nuclear submarines is ultimately flawed? Decades after the cold war and in the midst of austerity, the key question that has to be asked is whether Britain needs a nuclear submarine system that will cost us £100 billion over the next 30 years.
Danny Alexander
That is of course a legitimate point for political debate, but the purpose of the review was to consider alternative nuclear weapon systems that could act as a deterrent. The review was never designed to consider the option of unilateral disarmament, although the hon. Lady is free to argue for that.
Mr Ainsworth
If this was the most comprehensive examination of our nuclear weapons system in a generation, why did the right hon. Gentleman not take evidence from individuals outside government?
Danny Alexander
It was a review conducted within government, taking advice from senior officials, as with every other government review. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has been involved in such reviews in the past, and I am sure he knows better.
Danny Alexander
I will take one more intervention and then make some progress.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for coming to the Chamber today. He says this is the most comprehensive review we have had. That is open to question, but is he saying that after a two-year study we still do not know what the Liberal Democrat position is on this important subject?
Danny Alexander
I am here to set out the details of the review. Those are the terms of the debate today. I will set out my own views in the course of my speech, if my hon. Friend will allow me time to get on with it.
Danny Alexander
I will, however, give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee first.
Mr Arbuthnot
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary. I am trying to take this document seriously, but I am having some difficulty, not least because of the removal by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister of the excellent Liberal Democrat Minister from the Ministry of Defence, which shows something of his party’s attitude towards defence. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury accept that his policy would destroy the submarine building industry of this country?
Danny Alexander
No, I certainly do not accept that, but I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who made an enormous contribution to this review.
Danny Alexander
I will take one more intervention, then I will make some progress.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much appreciate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury giving way. Further to the point on the submarine building industry, and in relation to the £4 billion saving that he has just mentioned, does he accept that chart 2 on page 42 of the document includes the platform, the missile, the infrastructure, the warhead and the policy change costs, but does not include the cost of bringing forward the next submarine project to plug the gap in the Barrow shipyard’s order book? That omission could cripple submarine building in this country for ever.
Danny Alexander
One of the review’s assumptions is that we would wish to maintain our sovereign submarine building capability. That is the policy of the Government and it sounds as though it is the hon. Gentleman’s policy, too—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will calm down for a second, I will tell them that it does include the cost of maintaining that capability. All the alternatives include the procurement of further submarines after the successor.
As the House knows, the review was commissioned by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, initially with my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon as the Minister in charge. My hon. Friend deserves a huge share of the credit for this work. It has been taken forward under the auspices of the Cabinet Office, with a cross-government team of expert civilian and military officials. I should like to take this opportunity to thank them for their hard work.
During my visits to Aldermaston, Faslane and Coulport as part of the review, I had the privilege of meeting many of the submariners of the Royal Navy, as well as the scientists, engineers and other civilians who support them. They are some of Britain’s hidden heroes, often unsung, who operate at the limits of human understanding. Seeing them in action also gives me confidence that if the next Government were to change their mission, they would deliver it just as effectively, and in the most efficient and credible way. The review will provide the opportunity to do that.
As I said in response to an earlier intervention, it is also important to be clear what the review was not about. First, it was not about short-term savings to help to deal with the current deficit. It is possible under some of the options that savings against current plans would start to accrue from the mid-2020s, but this is not about back-filling budgets in the next Parliament. As I also said earlier, the review has not addressed the question of whether the UK should remain a nuclear weapon power, because complete unilateral disarmament is not the policy of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats—or, indeed, of Labour. The review did not seek to address the question of whether we should possess nuclear weapons. However, the scale and posture of our nuclear weapon capability can change.
Mr Baron
Many of us who believe that a continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent is absolutely essential, and that anything else involves living in cloud cuckoo land, also believe that we should honour those who were in at the very beginning of our nuclear arms age—the British nuclear test veterans. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and many parliamentarians from both sides of the House have come together to campaign for recognition for the veterans. We have written to the Prime Minister and had meetings with Ministers. Will the Government look again at the campaign, because we rank very lowly on the international table of decency on this issue—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention has gone on for too long.
Danny Alexander
I certainly hear the point my hon. Friend is making. The veterans clearly played an important role in the development of the deterrent, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is going to reply to the debate, will be able to add something more on that in his comments.
The review was tasked to answer three questions. First, are there credible alternatives to submarine-based deterrence; secondly, are there credible submarine-based alternatives to the current proposal; and, thirdly, are there alternative nuclear postures that could maintain credibility? The review has been thorough, detailed, extensive and objective. The analysis looks in detail at specific combinations of platform, delivery vehicle and warhead design, but excludes technologies that could not be ready by 2035. Variants of the current successor programme are included.
As for alternative platforms, the review considered large aircraft, combat jets, surface ships and multiple types of submarine, including those with a dual role. As for alternative delivery systems, the final analysis was focused on two types of potential future cruise missile—a subsonic stealthy cruise missile and a supersonic cruise missile, each carrying one warhead. Warhead design issues were considered and were important in the review.
An assessment of our ability to deliver alternative options showed that producing the warhead and its integration into a cruise missile or bomb would be the critical challenge. The reality is that the UK nuclear warhead programme is highly optimised around producing and maintaining warheads for the Trident missile. The review found that moving towards an alternative would add technical, financial and schedule risk to the programme. Delivering a warhead for an alternative system would therefore take at least 24 years—deliverable with some risk by about 2040. The crucial point is that the review judged this warhead time scale to be longer than the Vanguard submarines can safely be operated for. There are, of course, options to bridge the gap, but when we look at the cost of alternative systems, it becomes clear that each cruise missile-based option includes an extra £10 billion on its price tag because of the need to bridge the gap.
The bottom line is this, and I quote from the review:
“The analysis has shown that there are alternatives to Trident that would enable the UK to be capable of inflicting significant damage such that most potential adversaries around the world would be deterred.”
The analysis shows that cruise missile-based options are militarily credible, but, because of the gap, my conclusion is that a replacement nuclear deterrent based on the current Trident system is the most cost-effective for the period we are considering.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I welcome his conclusion on submarines, but will he accept that continuous-at-sea deterrence is rather like pregnancy—nature admits of no middle position?
Danny Alexander
I will come to that, but I do not accept the point; that may be an accurate description of pregnancy, but not of deterrent postures.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I want to come back to the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the threat. Does he agree with President Obama who said in Prague that
“the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up”?
Danny Alexander
I agree with many of the things President Obama has said, including in his recent Berlin speech. I would point the hon. Lady, however, to the Government’s own threat assessment in the strategic security and defence review, which says that state-on-state nuclear attacks are a tier 2 threat. I will come to the threat analysis in a moment.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
This is the nub of matter. That is just one threat assessment, but no serious conflict with which this country has been involved over decades—extending even to the second world war—has been expected. Wars are unexpected, so why does the right hon. Gentleman rest any assurance on a single threat assessment? How does he know that that threat assessment will not have to be changed in a few days’ time, let alone in 10 or 20 years?
Danny Alexander
I will address that point as I move through my speech, although I am glad to have taken my hon. Friend’s intervention. All I would say is that the degree of readiness of our conventional weapons and forces is scaled to the threats of the time, and my precise proposal is that we could adopt a similar approach here.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
In assessing the contribution of President Obama to this debate, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the United States is intending to reduce its fleet of submarines carrying Trident missiles from 18 to 12, and that the Berlin speech was the second time that President Obama has argued very strongly for multilateral nuclear disarmament?
Danny Alexander
I entirely agree. I applaud President Obama’s leadership of the disarmament debate. I think that the review gives the United Kingdom an opportunity to contribute further both to disarmament and to the global movement towards the de-alerting of our nuclear weapons.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Danny Alexander
No, I will not. I will give way later, but I want to make some progress first.
The review presents a much greater opportunity for change and the consideration of alternative postures, and that in turn presents the possibility of maintaining our nuclear deterrent capability with fewer submarines. This is where the real opportunity resides for making long-term savings, for recalibrating our policy to the requirements of our ages, and—as we just heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell)—for contributing to nuclear disarmament.
Analysis of the national security strategy confirms the position adopted by successive Governments that
“no state currently has both the intent and the capability to threaten the independence or integrity of the UK. But we cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge.”
With no hostile backdrop and a surprise attack against the UK highly unlikely, the United Kingdom could adopt a number of viable and credible alternative postures while maintaining a nuclear deterrence capability that meets the needs of national security.
The review demonstrates that our current nuclear posture of continuous-at-sea deterrence is not the only one available. Let me briefly describe four of the alternative postures that were considered in the review, from highest to lowest readiness. Each of them represents a different rung on the nuclear ladder, with CASD at the top.
A posture of focused deterrence would maintain a continuous nuclear deterrent for a specific period in response to a specific threat. At all other times, the system could adopt a reduced readiness level. We considered three options for reduced readiness. A so-called sustained-deterrence posture would mean regular patrols that maintained deterrence capability, but the number of platforms could be reduced. A responsive posture would allow gaps of irregular frequency and length between deployment, so that a potential adversary could not predict when and for how long a gap in deployment might occur. A posture of preserved deterrence would hold forces at low readiness. Under preserved deterrence, no platforms would be regularly deployed, but the UK would maintain the ability to deploy if the context changed.
The review clearly demonstrates that the concept of a ladder of nuclear capability and readiness is viable and credible, and that there are a number of options for taking steps down the rungs without getting off altogether.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Danny Alexander
I will happily give way after I have made a bit more progress.
According to the review’s description of alternative postures, those options could include operating fewer Vanguard submarines, ending CASD for less frequent patrols, and unarmed patrols.
Of course, coming down the ladder depends on judgments that we make about future threats and our legal and international obligations. I should make it clear that adopting a non-continuous posture means accepting a different calculation of risk from that which existed during the cold war. However, I consider it imperative for us to update our calculation of risk. If CASD is an insurance policy, we are paying too high a premium for our needs.
Danny Alexander
I am going to make some more progress.
The 2010 national security strategy considers state-on-state nuclear war to be a second-tier threat. The argument that a current adversary would take the opportunity to target the UK during a period when no boat is covertly deployed and to launch an overwhelming nuclear strike against Britain is not supported by any analysis that I have seen.
Danny Alexander
I am going to make some progress—oh, I am sorry. I will give way to the former Defence Secretary.
Danny Alexander
As my right hon. Friend will know, the first question is a matter of political judgment for the Government of the day. As for the second, it would depend on which of the alternative postures was adopted. They would all be designed to allow us to surge back to the so-called focused deterrence, which would sustain a continuous posture in response to our needs.
The reality is that in the current circumstances, and for the foreseeable future, the ultimate guarantee does not need to sit on a hair trigger. We can afford to go much further in de-alerting our nuclear deterrent. The option of non-continuous deterrence does not threaten current security, and by changing postures we can reduce cost at the same time. For example, ending CASD and procuring one fewer successor submarine would make a saving of about £4 billion over the life of the system.
Jeremy Corbyn
May I put a simple question to the right hon. Gentleman? In what circumstances would he envisage the use of nuclear weapons, and the problems that would follow as a result of their use?
Danny Alexander
The whole purpose of nuclear deterrents is to deter their use.
The judgment must be made about where on the ladder we believe that it is credible to stand, provided that the ability to scale up or down as threats change and the momentum of proliferation on the one hand and disarmament on the other shift. As a recognised nuclear weapon state under the non-proliferation treaty, we have an obligation to move towards a world in which nuclear weapons are no longer part of state security and defence postures. It is true that Britain has made significant steps since the cold war in disarmament terms. Some would argue that Britain has done its bit for disarmament and we have reached the minimum level possible. That argument has been deployed at every point at which we have scaled down over the past 20 years, but each time it has proven not to be true. The next step down the ladder is to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in our defence policy itself, which means accepting that a cold-war-style continuous deterrent has become unnecessary.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the UK will have a non-continuous deterrent, it means that there will be times when the UK does not have an active deterrent. Why then did he rule out the option, at least, of not continuing with the deterrent programme at all?
Danny Alexander
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question and I have answered the substance of it in answer to an earlier intervention.
David T. C. Davies
Surely we either have a full-time deterrent or we do not. If we do not have one, we might as well stand as high as we possibly can on the ladder so that our enemies can see the white flag that we will need to wave at them.
Danny Alexander
I am afraid that my hon. Friend has clearly not been listening to the analysis or read the review. Just last month, in Berlin, President Obama called for movement beyond the “cold war nuclear postures” and announced a major reduction in the US nuclear arsenal. It is my hope that in the next Parliament the UK will answer that call with a serious consideration of ending continuous nuclear deterrence.
The review is the most comprehensive study on nuclear weapon platforms and postures ever published by the UK Government. I believe that as large numbers of nuclear weapons remain and the risk of proliferation continues, it is right that the UK retains a nuclear capability for as long as the global security situation makes that necessary. But I also believe that that capability should be scaled and deployed to meet the threat we face now, and held as a contingency to deal with the threats we may face in the future. We should seek to balance the costs of this insurance policy against the other needs of defence and, indeed, other priorities across government.
The conclusion I draw from the Trident alternatives review is that although alternatives exist, there is no new system available before the lives of the current Vanguard submarines come to an end to meet those criteria. But a step down the ladder is available: ending 24-hour patrols when we do not need them and procuring fewer successor submarines, moving on from an outdated cold war concept of deterrence to one fit for the world we inhabit now. For the remainder of this Parliament the coalition Government’s policy will remain exactly as set out in the strategic defence and security review. We will maintain the deterrent as it is, and preparations for a successor system will continue. But the final main-gate decision on whether to proceed with a like-for-like replacement of Trident will be made in 2016, after the next general election. It is therefore up to the different political parties in this House to decide the positions they will take before that time. For the country, I hope that the publication of this review will mark the start of a national debate on one of the most profound questions of our time, and I commend the Trident alternatives review to the House.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I have to say at the outset that I have a little difficulty here, because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury either has a different report in front of him or he has read the report and not understood it. The Government commissioned the alternatives review into the future of UK nuclear deterrence back in 2011. It was part of the agreement in the shotgun marriage between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats following the 2010 general election. As he said, the Government’s stated position was to “maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent”, but the Liberal Democrats had an opt-out in that they could be allowed to make the case for alternatives. So, more than two years later, we have finally been presented with those alternatives.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Labour party confirm its admirable commitment to continuous-at-sea deterrence in any coalition negotiations? Will the hon. Gentleman say that in Labour’s view this is non-negotiable?
Mr Jones
My position is very clear: I am working for a Labour victory at the next general election. But on the issue of continuous-at-sea deterrence, my answer is yes. Even though the report was commissioned by Her Majesty’s Government, its first line has the strange disclaimer:
“This…is not a statement of government policy.”
This must be the first time ever that the findings of a Government policy review have been abandoned at birth.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why today’s edition of The Times carries a headline that reads “Labour could cut Trident fleet after review suggests this would save £1.7bn”?
Mr Jones
I am not sure where that came from, first, because the figure that the hon. Lady cites is not correct—this would not be the first time that a newspaper had failed to do its sums—and, secondly, because we agree with what the Defence Secretary says. If changes in technology make the nuclear submarines more reliable, meaning that we can go down to three, we will consider that.
Many Labour Members have waited anxiously to see the report’s conclusion but, 26 months later, the review to make the case for the alternatives, which had the full weight of the Government’s resources behind it, presents us with no conclusions, makes no recommendations and does not even support adopting any of the alternatives put forward by the Chief Secretary. Only the Liberal Democrats could envisage an alternatives review that rejects all the alternatives. It is the equivalent of starting a journey to discover the ark of the covenant only to end up where we began with the conclusion that it does not exist.
The Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto said:
“At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime”
Trident
“is unaffordable, and Britain’s security would be better served by alternatives.”
If that was the case in 2010, given that those alternatives have not been identified in the review, surely it is not too much to ask that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Liberal Democrat colleagues admit that what they claimed in 2010 was wrong. One by one, each of the alternative platforms to Trident are rejected in the review. Heavy bombers, fast jets, low-orbit vehicles, land silos and maritime surface vessels are all discredited for not offering sufficient capability while costing more.
The review even dismisses the Liberal Democrats’ most favoured option of replacing Trident with nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Page 45 of the document states that cruise missiles
“offer a much reduced level of destructive and second-strike capability and an increased level of operational complexity”.
Page 6 states:
“Maintaining the same level of assurance that the UK deterrent can overcome an adversary’s defences is…likely to be harder with a cruise missile-based system.”
Page 8 points out that the cost of developing a nuclear-armed cruise missile would more than double the cost of Trident missiles and would take some 24 years. In support of that argument, the Deputy Prime Minister told Andrew Marr in 2010 that the UK
“could use Astute class submarines and use cruise missiles.”
It is true that they are alternatives but, as the report says, they are not only very expensive, but not very good.
The review totally discredits the Liberal Democrats’ previous policy decisions. In fact, some of the more ludicrous suggestions were not considered in the report because exploring them was deemed to be a waste of civil service time and energy. Page 16 dismisses some of those more wacky ideas, such as using helicopters, unmanned air vehicles or space-based platforms. Hand-held devices on the ground were also excluded
“as they would not meet several constraints, including in particular credibility and absolute range.”
The report is therefore credible, as even the most far-fetched suggestions put forward in the outer reaches of the Liberal Democrat world have been addressed.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is right that not all parties have been entirely consistent on this matter, but may I remind him that, prior to the 1992 election, the Labour party refused to commit to a fourth submarine, but suggested that one way of maintaining employment at Barrow-in-Furness would be to turn the submarine into an underwater oil carrier?
John Woodcock
The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has a point, but does it not prove that we have learnt from our past mistakes and clearly the Liberal Democrats have not?
Mr Jones
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had enough time, and the time is limited.
There was another option that was deemed unworthy of examination by what is otherwise a thorough and forensic document: sending two unarmed submarines out on patrol with the intention of stepping up our posture in a time of crisis. That is the policy the Chief Secretary has just proposed.
Dr Julian Lewis
I read that report in The Times, and it seems to me that what was being said was that the Labour party is committed to continuous-at-sea deterrence and the only question is whether it can do it with three submarines or whether it would have to do it with four. The one thing that is absolutely certain from the report is that it cannot be done with two, yet the Chief Secretary’s position is that if a crisis arose they would step up their performance. How could we build a third or fourth extra submarine in time to step up our performance if a crisis arose?
Mr Jones
I know that the hon. Gentleman has studied this subject thoroughly and is an expert. I totally agree with him. As I said, the Chief Secretary clearly has not read his own report because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it outlines the problem with having only two submarines.
The Liberal Democrats briefed the newspapers earlier this week that the two-boat option would be a way forward, and the Chief Secretary has just re-outlined that ludicrous policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) hit the nail on the head yesterday when he said that it was a little like installing a very expensive burglar alarm on one’s house with no batteries and putting up a sign saying, “Burglars, come in.” The only difference is that this would be a multi-billion pound deterrent that would not deter.
Caroline Lucas
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Government, would pride themselves on adhering to international law, so can he explain how maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons for decades to come is in line with the UK’s obligation under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is
“to pursue negotiations in good faith on… nuclear disarmament”?
Mr Jones
It is very consistent, and I am very proud of the Labour Government’s record on reducing our nuclear stockpiles, as we reduced the number of WE177 bombs and the number of warheads. I disagree with the hon. Lady’s position, but I respect the fact that she has one, which is a lot more honest that the Liberal Democrats.
However, credit should be given where credit is due. I think that the Chief Secretary should get some credit, because he managed to do something yesterday that I thought was remarkable, although I am sad that it was not reported more in this morning’s newspapers: he got the Prime Minister and Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, to agree with one another, on this occasion on the Liberal Democrat proposals. That was some feat. If he is able to bring two individuals with such diametrically opposed views together, clearly he should turn his attention to the middle east peace process. Quite rightly, Unite described the Liberal Democrats’ position not only as reckless, but as a farce and a fudge, and that is exactly what we have here—[Interruption.] The Chief Secretary says that if Len McCluskey agrees with it, it must be a nonsense position, but he agrees with the Prime Minister, so is the Chief Secretary suggesting that the Prime Minister’s position is ridiculous?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
If wishing to end a continuous deterrent is such a reckless position, how does the hon. Gentleman think our other NATO allies in Europe can possibly cope with their current situation? Is he recommending that they should escalate their own nuclear posture?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman has got to try better. The fact of the matter is that France has a continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent. Our deterrent is part of the nuclear umbrella for NATO. He and his Liberal Democrat colleagues would have more credibility if they came out and said that they were unilateralists, because that is a defendable and credible position, unlike the nonsense they are putting forward.
The importance of the nuclear programme to this country’s submarine-building capability has been overlooked in the Liberal Democrats’ proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is right to point out its importance not only to his constituency but to constituencies in Derby and to the wider supply chain in the United Kingdom. If we are to maintain our sovereign capability, we have to do it by building submarines, and we cannot do that if we follow the Chief Secretary’s suggestion.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also recognise that 25,000 people in Devonport’s travel-to-work area are dependent on defence, and this would have a very damaging impact on the local economy, which is a low-skills, low-wage economy.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. No doubt at the general election he will remind his constituents and others of the Liberal Democrats’ position. We have some indication of what they think of people in Barrow and Furness because the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) suggested that they could move to the Bahamas to find work if we killed off the submarine-building industry there.
Mr Jones
But I have the quote here:
“The idea that you should produce weapons of mass destruction in order to keep 1,500 jobs going in the Barrow shipyard is palpably ludicrous. We could give them all a couple of million quid and send them to the Bahamas for the rest of their lives , and the world would be a much better place, and we would have saved a lot of money.”
If that is the Liberal Democrats’ policy, I am sure that the people of Barrow and other places in the supply chain will have a clear view on it. He will have a chance later to tell us whether he has changed his position on sending my hon. Friend’s constituents to the Bahamas.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I must chide my hon. Friend. If he reads the reports on alternatives to Trident, he will see that even the one on the future of Barrow-in-Furness makes the very important point that no one should ever argue for making weapons of mass destruction on the basis of employment, because there are alternative places for people to work. Both reports produced so far have said that alternative work could be found if we invested properly in other things. It is wrong to argue that employment is a reason for having weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Jones
I am not saying that; I am saying that we cannot dismiss the fact that these industries do not just employ people. I am proud of the high-technology industries in this country that support the nuclear programme. If the Liberal Democrats are not proud of that technology and the individuals involved in it, then that is their position, but I am certainly proud not only of their skills but of the wealth they create for many communities across the UK. I agree that that is not the only reason we should have the nuclear deterrent, but it is a very important one.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the strength of his argument. Let me point out—I am sure that he shares this view—that we came perilously close to losing this country’s submarine-building capability. That is a strategically important capability that we need to maintain, and it looks as though the Liberal Democrats are prepared to sacrifice it.
Mr Jones
I did not want to go down this road because obviously the Conservative Government have learned the lessons from the mistake that they made in the 1990s which created the current problems with Astute. We cannot turn these vital skills on and off like a tap when we need them. I have heard various people say, “Is this a justification for Trident?” No, it is not, but we have to take it into consideration when forming policy, and the Liberal Democrats’ position set out in the review document clearly does not do that.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party may reduce the number of successor submarines from four to three. What would be the implication of that for Barrow?
Mr Jones
I did not say that, actually. I said what the Defence Secretary has said—that in thinking about the new nuclear submarines, we should consider whether it would be viable to have three. That is an option worth looking at. We would then have to bring forward the successor programme for Astute. If we deleted two boats—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Devon says, “It’s all right if we do it.” The fact is that if we went down to two we would have a deterrent that is absolutely useless. It would not save the £4 billion that the Chief Secretary suggested because unless we had mass lay-offs in the submarine-building programme, we would have to bring forward more work, including on the successor for Astute.
John Woodcock
Is that not the exact point? Would it not be helpful if the Chief Secretary made clear whether he wants to save that £4 billion over 30 years and decimate Barrow and the submarine-building industry, or whether he will bring forward the work and eliminate all those savings?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point as part of what appears to be a shift in the official Opposition’s position on continuous-at-sea deterrence. I would be grateful if he would confirm what I think he is saying. Is it the case that he wants to maintain a minimum deterrent capability, which would most likely be four boats unless technological change suggested that it could be maintained with fewer than four boats?
Mr Jones
That is exactly the case, and I think that the Defence Secretary has said the same thing. It will be achieved not by sticking a finger in the air and thinking of a policy, but by thinking about what we need to keep our nuclear deterrent credible and by maintaining the important continuous-at-sea deterrent.
As has been said, we are convinced that the only credible way forward for a minimum nuclear deterrent is a continuous-at-sea deterrent; otherwise, the UK would be vulnerable. The Chief Secretary’s suggestion would not only make the UK more vulnerable, but lead to a situation where we would not possess first strike or even second-strike capabilities. It would also be a significant escalatory factor if the UK stepped up its armed CASD posture. It is simply not credible and it is also very dangerous.
There are options that the alternatives review did not consider, so why are the Liberal Democrats set on the proposals outlined by the Chief Secretary? I think it is the old Liberal Democrat trick—many of us who have dealt with them in local government have seen this over many years—of trying to ride both horses at the same time. They want to appease the party’s unilateralist wing and persuade them that they are scaling down the nuclear ladder, while simultaneously claiming to the electorate that they have a credible nuclear policy, but they have been found out by the alternatives review.
The Liberal Democrats have commissioned a review in Government time, using taxpayers’ money and resources, in order to supplement their own party’s policy manifesto for 2015. I tabled a written question to the Chief Secretary yesterday asking how much the review cost, and I await his response. The Lib Dem plans have been found wanting and they are now scrambling around frantically for a bizarre policy solution in order to advance their much-heralded differentiation strategy, through which they are trying to place themselves between the Labour party and their coalition partners.
We have all waited for the publication of this report and I think we all genuinely thought it would suggest a credible alternative. Our position is clear: we are committed to the minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, which is why we put that policy to the House in 2006. I completely disagree with the Chief Secretary’s comment that this is the most thorough review undertaken. That is complete nonsense, because that review was done in 2006. He should also look at the three comprehensive reports commissioned by the Defence Committee, which covered all the issues.
Mr Jones
As my right hon. Friend reminds me, we also consulted on the issue and did not conduct our review behind closed doors, as was the case with this one.
We also believe that the best way to deliver the nuclear deterrent is through a continuous-at-sea deterrent. The review does not appear to suggest anything to the contrary. In fact, it reinforces our point.
Mr Jones
The Chief Secretary asks how much longer I have left. It is taking time to get through the nonsense he has come up with, but I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I know that this is not very comfortable for the Chief Secretary, but he is going to have to sit there and listen.
Mr Jones
It is a serious subject. I just wish that Liberal Democrats would treat it seriously, rather than coming up with the nonsense that they keep peddling.
The alternatives review reinforces my point. On page 5, it states:
“The highest level of assurance the UK can attain with a single deterrent system is provided by SSBN submarines operating a continuous at sea deterrence posture.”
On page 10, it states:
“None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.”
I could not put it better myself. Breaking CASD would involve an unacceptable downgrading of our capabilities.
To return to the issue of cost, we have been told by the Liberal Democrats that the alternatives to Trident would be cheaper, but their review shows that to be complete nonsense. We were told by the Chief Secretary yesterday that the review was not about savings, but about the nuclear deterrent.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats’ review has not only unmasked their political posturing, but reinforced the case for the policy voted for by this House in 2006. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is muttering. When he is put under detailed examination, he will have to explain the nonsense that he peddled in the run-up to the last general election, which his party’s review has completely discredited. Perhaps he has not read the report. The Liberal Democrats must want to have some credibility. I know that it is not unusual for them to look both ways and ignore the truth, but the report clearly discredits most of the things that he has said over the past few years.
The alternatives review has looked at the alternatives and come forward with the conclusion that we all thought it would reach: the minimum credible nuclear deterrent for the UK is submarine-based continuous-at-sea deterrent. [Interruption.] Well, that is what it is saying—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. That really is enough. It is impossible for Hansard to keep a proper record of this debate when senior Members keep shouting across the Chamber and the Member on their feet then replies. Either we have interventions or we do not. We are up against the clock and I would appreciate it if we could get on to the Back-Bench speeches.
Mr Jones
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I await the examination of the report by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife and his justification of his comments over the past few years on this subject.
The standards that we set in this area are important not just in terms of cost. I know that the Opposition and the Government are conscious of the need to ensure that we not only get value for money, but we have a—
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given that he is suggesting that we should retain a like-for-like deterrent, what cuts to conventional services is the Labour party proposing? Would it cut the destroyers or the joint strike aircraft?
Mr Jones
Oh my God! Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am getting a bit frustrated with these people who clearly do not know what they are talking about. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the equipment programme, he will see that the deterrent is in there now. He and his colleagues are peddling the nonsense that we can have either Trident or something else in the defence budget. Is he suggesting that if we cut Trident, the money would be ring-fenced for defence? That would be the first time that the Liberal Democrats have been proactive in support of defence matters.
The alternatives review has discredited the alternatives completely and exposed the reckless policy of the Liberal Democrats on this issue. We await the clear examination of their policy at the Liberal Democrat party conference, where they will no doubt look both ways—portraying themselves as unilateralists while at the same time arguing that they are strong on the nuclear defence of this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. At the beginning of the debate, Mr Speaker indicated that he was minded to set a time limit of six minutes depending on how much time was taken up by the opening remarks from the two Front-Bench spokesmen. We have made up some time with speeches that were commendably short, so I will start the time limit at seven minutes for Back Benchers. However, that might need to be reviewed if others are not disciplined and do not stick to the seven minutes or less limit.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I will begin by saying that this is not the most comprehensive review of this subject carried out in recent years: the previous Labour Government carried out a comprehensive review. I can say that with some confidence, because one of the first things I did as Defence Secretary when we came into government was to ask to see that work and check whether its assumptions and costs were still valid. It was my view that they were, and that continuous-at-sea deterrence still represented the best system and best value for our nuclear deterrence.
In our review, we looked at the previous Government’s review and at the systems that have since been rejected again. No Member wants to have an air-launch system or a silo-based system in their constituency. At the time, the Liberal Democrats put forward a proposal on the cruise-based system that they believed to be credible. We, of course, maintained our belief that CASD was the best, along with a replacement for the Trident programme.
There are a number of reasons why I was happy for the review to go ahead. In particular, it would show the Liberal Democrats that the cruise-based system was a non-starter. First, it would be too expensive. It would require research and development for the missile system and for changes to the submarine programme. It would be slower and more easily intercepted. It would require our submarines to be closer to target, and therefore more likely to be detected. It would also—no small point—be illegal under the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was a non-starter. I am therefore pleased that the Chief Secretary, who is not in his place at the moment, came to the conclusion, rather belatedly, that it would be good to keep the Trident replacement system. It is a gain for the whole House and the country that the Liberal Democrats have seen sense.
What is deeply depressing, however, is the willingness of the Liberal Democrats to abandon CASD. It has been the position of both major parties—the Labour party and the Conservative party—to have CASD based on four boats, or fewer if technology allowed. Let us be frank: in the foreseeable future, technology will not allow us to go below four boats. We need one going out, one coming in, one in refit and one in training. It is not possible to maintain what we have and what we want at lower levels than that, given present technology. If we go down to three, CASD cannot be guaranteed. If we go to two boats, we cannot have it at all, so that is an unrealistic proposition.
What are the Liberal Democrats saying with this policy? They are saying that we would abandon CASD, but deploy at times of increased international tension. What does any Member think would happen to international tension if we deployed a nuclear system that was not otherwise deployed? That would be a crazy foreign policy. I have to say to my Liberal Democrat colleagues that it is all very well to talk about stepping down the ladder, but if the bottom of the ladder is hanging off a cliff, that is not exactly a sensible manoeuvre.
On cost, the Chief Secretary said that they would save £4 billion over the lifetime of the programme—£4 billion over a 34 to 50-year period. That £4 billion is the equivalent to less than two weeks’ spending on the national health service, or six days of what we spend on pensions and welfare. This is supposed to be value for money. For that infinitesimally small saving over a 50-year period, they would abandon a crucial element of our national security—a very interesting definition of value for money.
Dr Julian Lewis
For the sake of clarity, it is important to stress that in the report the only options for Trident are a four-boat fleet or a three-boat fleet. That is where the £4 billion would come into it. The report does not even consider or cost a two-boat fleet, because it would be impossible to reinstate to a higher level of readiness.
Dr Fox
It is not possible to put in monetary terms the risk that moving to a two-boat fleet would pose to the UK. They are completely different currencies. It is ridiculous to say that there would be a £4 billion saving, given the monumental disruption it would cause to our submarine-building programme and all the jobs likely to be lost, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) pointed out many times. The calculations in the report are fraudulent economics.
The crucial question to be asked by anyone who wants to dismantle or diminish the CASD posture is: what will the world look like in 30, 40 or 50 years? It is all very well to say, “The risk assessments says that at the moment it’s okay”, but we do not know what the risk assessments will be in the future, and it is not our job to play roulette with the security of future generations in our country. We are being offered 50 years of protection from nuclear blackmail for the people of our country. There are those who say that £20 billion or more of capital costs is too much for 50 years’ protection from nuclear blackmail, but that it was all right to spend £9.5 billion for six weeks for the Olympics. We need to get our priorities right in this country and recognise what is important in the longer term.
CASD gives us secure insurance that is proven. It is the best deterrent, and to say anything other is political posturing, I am afraid. As has been said, we could drive a nuclear submarine through this report. We all like a good joke in politics, but this is no laughing matter. If it is a joke, however, let us hope it rebounds on the Liberal Democrats, not on the people of this country.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The political class in this country and others struggles to communicate and maintain credibility with the electorate. It is not always our fault, but sometimes we are to blame, and when we commission such a report and present it in this manner, we do serious damage to our credibility when talking to our electorate. In my opinion, the report was born of unworthy motives and conducted without any outside consultation, and to present it with the kind of hyperbole we have heard tonight—as the most comprehensive examination of our nuclear deterrent in a generation—is clear and utter nonsense. The report picks apart nothing in the 2006 White Paper; indeed, despite the best efforts of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) at the last general election, it confirms the basic underpinning of the report and denies the credibility of what was said at the last general election: that we can have a cheap nuclear deterrent.
Of course, there is the question of whether we should have a nuclear deterrent at all. It is raised in all our constituencies all the time and is a perfectly reasonable question. Some Members believe and say openly that we should not have one, while others, I think, believe the same, but do not say so openly. The first question, then, is whether we should have one at all, but the report was not commissioned to examine that question; it was commissioned to examine the second question, which inevitably flows from the first: if we decide to have a nuclear deterrent, what kind should it be? What is the best system? What is affordable, effective and a real deterrent? That is where the report falls down.
There is no such thing as a non-credible or a less-credible deterrent. There can be no such thing as a part-time deterrent. To be a deterrent, something has to deter. Doing anything less than deter stops a nuclear deterrent being a deterrent at all. It turns it into what? Potentially, at times of crisis, it turns into an invitation; it most certainly turns it from a deterrent into a weapon. If we look at what underpins the White Paper— and as the previous speaker clearly stated—we have seen that such a weapon would be dangerous to deploy. How, when and in what circumstances would it be put to sea? How would we disguise, at a time of rising tension, that we were doing that? It would be dangerous to deploy and difficult to sustain. It is all right to say that if we have three boats, we could, for a time in some circumstances, up our level of deterrent and go back to continuous-at-sea deterrence. Yes, we could do that for a while if we got ahead of the crisis, stepped back to CASD, deployed a boat at sea and kept it at sea throughout that time. But with three boats, for how long could we do that?
The Government and the Labour party accept—indeed, it would be nonsense not to accept it—that technology may change the need for a fourth boat. If it does, why on earth would we do anything other than have three boats? However, if technology does not change those basic parameters, we will lose our ability to deter for a considerable time. This is not something we can just rescale in a matter of months; it would take years to rescale and we would therefore be rendering our deterrent non-sustainable.
This report does not ask an honest question and I do not believe it was an honest process, but the review has at least flushed out the issue of whether Trident can be done on the cheap. I would not want to have an examination in a cheap operating theatre by a doctor who had been trained on the cheap, and I would not want a deterrent that was done on the cheap. If we are to have a deterrent, let us have a deterrent that deters, as that is the only one worth having.
Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) on bringing this piece of work to fruition, and I believe it has genuinely taken an open-minded look at the whole issue. The review did not set out at the beginning by offering preconceived conclusions to those carrying out the work, and I believe it has been a worthwhile exercise. I also note that the principal reason why alternative systems were found not to be viable was not—as some have suggested—because they were not technically viable. In contrast, it was because the length of time such alternatives would take, and the amount of money it would involve to equip a warhead to an alternative system, would make such alternatives prohibitive in the medium term. That is the expert view of those tasked with looking at the matter. If that is the conclusion to which they have come, I for one would not seek to question it and we must accept it.
The second part of the study, which looks at alternative postures, concerns the debate that this report can now seek to inform and trigger.
Sir Nick Harvey
Not at the moment.
Given that this report was commissioned by a Government who are a coalition of two parties with fundamentally different opinions on the issue, it was never going to come forward with proposals. It was about considering the alternatives and informing the debate that might follow.
I contend that nobody can rationally argue that the nature and scale of the nuclear threat that the United Kingdom faces in 2013 is the same as it was at the height of the cold war. Then we had a known nuclear adversary, the Soviet Union, that had British targets in its sights and we, similarly, had Soviet targets in our sights. We believed that it might strike at a moment’s notice and we therefore thought it was essential that we were ready at a moment’s notice to strike back. But 25 years after the Berlin wall came down, one cannot rationally argue that the threat we face today is the same as it was then. We can debate what threats we might face in the future, but we cannot argue that the threat we face today is the same as it was in 1980.
Dr Fox
We are talking about building a system that will protect us against the potential risks in 20, 30 or 40 years. The year before the Berlin wall came down, no one could have predicted the world we would be in today. No one can predict what the world will look like in the future. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to take an irrational and dangerous risk.
Sir Nick Harvey
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that we must consider the threat we might face in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time, so we must therefore ensure that we have a nuclear deterrent in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time that is capable of deterring the threat that we might face at that point. My point is simply that the threat we face today is not the same as it was at the height of the cold war. It therefore cannot make sense to operate it on a 24/7 continuous basis facing a threat that simply does not exist at the moment.
I understand the view of those who say that we must retain enough capability to ensure that, in the future when we face threats we cannot anticipate today but know intuitively could come, there is enough of a deterrent to repel them. That is perfectly logical, but it does not make sense for the nuclear deterrent—uniquely among our military capability—to be on patrol the whole time when even our national security strategy has stressed that it is for a second-tier threat and when we do not use our military capability to deter the primary threats on that continuous patrolling basis.
To answer the points made by my right hon. Friend the former Defence Secretary, I am not saying that it might not be necessary in the future to crank up to a more rigorous posture—it might well be—but I do not see how anyone can rationally argue that we have to do that at the moment. The idea that the nuclear capability has a deterrent effect at all only by being patrolled 24/7 is clearly absurd. All the rest of our capability has a deterrent effect against a variety of aggressors in a variety of scenarios and we do not see the need to exercise any of it on a 24/7 basis.
Dr Julian Lewis
I could just about stay with the hon. Gentleman’s argument if he was saying that we ought to build four submarines but not send them all to sea until the situation became worse, but he is not saying that. He is saying that we should build only two or three such submarines, which would mean if the situation got worse, we would not be able to reinstate continuous-at-sea deterrence because we would not have the submarines. Without the submarines, we cannot have the posture, much as he might like to reinstate it when the situation gets worse.
Sir Nick Harvey
I can agree to the extent that we must ensure that we build enough capability that we can mount the deterrent we will need at the point that we need it. What that will comprise is a matter for further debate and further study and I note with interest that even those on the Labour Front Bench and the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), acknowledge that it remains to be seen whether we need four or three to do that.
Mr Ainsworth
Just let me see whether I understand the hon. Gentleman’s position: is he saying that we should build enough submarines to be able to go back to continuous-at-sea deterrence and to maintain it at any point at which the threat increases?
Sir Nick Harvey
I am certainly saying that I think we should have the ability to go back to continuous-at-sea deterrence when we think we need it. I do not know that I would go so far as to say we should be capable of sustaining it indefinitely—I think that is unnecessary in scale—but I do think we should be capable of sustaining it for periods of time when there are heightened tensions. The problem we face is that we run the risk of having a Rolls-Royce nuclear deterrent at the expense of having an Austin Mini as the remainder of our defence capability. During the very decade when expenditure on the Trident replacement will be at its height, there will be a long list of other high-profile, highly important defence projects competing for what we all know will be very limited defence resources.
There are some obvious examples. We are going to put the joint strike fighter on to our two aircraft carriers, and we do not have the slightest idea at this stage what the unit cost of them will be on a through-life basis. We are going to build the Type 26 frigate. We have got to do something about the Army’s equipment programme given that the future rapid effect system programme is now in tatters as a result of the last few rounds of cuts we have had to make. We are going to need another generation of remotely piloted aircraft. We are going to need more amphibious shipping when HMS Ocean goes out of service in 2018. We need more helicopters. We need more ISTAR assets, and we need to deal with the cyber-threat, which the national security strategy said was one of the primary threats and in which we are investing modestly but nowhere near enough.
If anybody thinks that the resources committed to defence, or that can be anticipated as being available to defence, are enough to pay for all of those on the scale everybody in Government, and probably in the Opposition as well, would want to see and think is necessary in terms of our own strategic defence and security review, something is going to have to give. We cannot afford to do all that and have a nuclear deterrent scaled to deal with the menace of the cold war 25 years after the Berlin wall has come down and 19 years after we and the Russians de-targeted each other.
It simply is not the case that in order to get a deterrent effect from our military capability we have to patrol it all the time. That is absolute nonsense. The British, the French and the Americans have a posture of continuous-at-sea deterrence; the Russians and Chinese do not. The Indians and the Pakistanis take each other’s nuclear weapons perfectly seriously, but that does not mean they patrol with them the whole time. It is complete nonsense to say we have to do it on that basis.
I hope the report published yesterday will inform a national debate about this before a decision is taken in 2016, and when that is done the next generation of the nuclear deterrent will have to compete for funds alongside all the other platforms I have described, which are far more relevant to the threats we actually face.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), even if I think it is regrettable that he did not take this opportunity to clarify the remark about sending Barrow workers to the Bahamas, which caused real offence in my constituency. I do acknowledge, however, that he has spent a lot of time over the past two years on this review, even if I find his conclusions completely wayward.
This was supposed to be the Liberal Democrats’ opportunity to show that they could be trusted with the defence of the realm, and I have to say they have blown their chance spectacularly. Smashing the hegemony of a blinkered defence cartel that silenced any debate on the deterrent was heralded as one of the great Lib Dem wins from the coalition negotiations. We can imagine Lib Dem Members reassuring their concerned activists: “Yes, we’re more unpopular than we’ve ever been. Yes, we’re breaking our promises to students. Yes, we’ve given up any hope of being called the progressive party for a generation. Yet we bring you a referendum on the alternative vote, and we will challenge the tyranny of Trident renewal that has bewitched the two other parties.” It has not gone very well, has it?
Mr Kevan Jones
As I understand it, now the Liberal Democrats’ position is pro-Trident. It might be because of the fact that they are only going to have two submarines, but is that not a major change from the last general election?
John Woodcock
I would describe it as a complete collapse in the Liberal Democrats’ position. Two years on, we have a taxpayer-funded document—how much did this process cost the taxpayer, by the way? The document basically confirms what we duped fools have been arguing for years—that unless people show their true colours and come out as unilateral disarmers, and in doing so advocate a path that we strongly believe would make the horror of a nuclear war more likely, there is no credible, cost-effective alternative to the fundamentals of the existing plan to replace our fleet of deterrent submarines.
The alternative review rejects as unworkable and even more expensive what had long been the Liberal Democrats’ preferred option—some sort of mini-deterrent. Then the fall-back plan of halving the number of replacement Vanguard submarines to two, fervently briefed to the newspapers over the weekend, turns out not to have been considered by the review at all. Would anyone like to explain this? Have Liberal Democrats realised that every idea they have put forward so far has collapsed under scrutiny? Did they come to a view that it was best not to test this one in the official review, lest those pesky facts and figures ruin it like all the others?
Dr Julian Lewis
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that all the talk about the Liberal Democrat conference considering a two-boat option comes from a Liberal Democrat document that has been drawn up by a Liberal Democrat group. When I asked the Chief Secretary earlier today at a briefing whether any copy of the review was going to be taken to the Liberal Democrat conference for consideration, he said, “Well, I might take a copy, but it will just be in my briefcase.” In other words, the review is not the document that the Liberal Democrats are going to consider. They are going to consider a completely different document making completely different recommendations, which the review did not even bother to consider.
John Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman is right. If we were living through a Monty Python sketch, this would be the point when the army major intervenes and says that this is all getting too silly and we have to stop it at once. But of course the consequences for the nation’s security, and the 13,000 people directly employed in Barrow and across the UK, would be bitterly serious if the Liberal Democrats had their way on their part-time deterrent idea. That is why it would be a very good thing if this shambolic process now sunk without trace. Even their own document makes it clear just how hopeless an alternative a part-time deterrent would be. It states that
“a 3-boat fleet would risk multiple unplanned breaks in continuous covert patrolling as well as requiring regular planned breaks for maintenance and/or training.”
They are effectively suggesting that we pay billions for something that we cannot be sure will be available to do the deterring when needed.
Proper analysis of the figures makes clear the economic folly of the argument. The Chief Secretary told me that he had considered the cost of maintaining Britain’s submarine-building capacity at Barrow and elsewhere, but his own document makes no suggestion, as far as I can see, that the savings take account of that. It suggests that the extra costs from 2025 of bringing forward the next submarine programme—the successors to the Astute—to avoid a crippling gap in the order book of the shipyard are simply not considered in the £4 billion saving. When he sums up, will the Minister finally confirm what the Chief Secretary has so far avoided admitting—that these relatively modest savings would be completely wiped out by the extra cost?
The choice that the next Government but one would face would be either to leave a gap in construction so large that it could end the country’s capacity to build submarines for ever, sacrificing all those 13,000 jobs, or to end up saving no money at all by embarking on a whole new submarine-building enterprise before it is needed by the Royal Navy.
Dr Fox
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the figures are actually worse than that? The savings that the Chief Secretary set out will not accumulate until far later in the period, while the costs that the hon. Gentleman is describing would be incurred very early in the process.
John Woodcock
Absolutely. On the Liberal Democrats’ official figures, the savings will not even start to accrue until 2025, but by that time work would have to be well under way in Barrow shipyard and the supply chain to make the costly preparations for the Astute successor submarines. The Liberal Democrats need to come clean about the extra cost, because it makes a mockery of what the right hon. Gentleman rightly said are incredibly modest savings over a 30, 40 or 50-year period.
It should be remembered that the capacity to build nuclear submarines is one of the very few sovereign protected capabilities deemed so important and sensitive that the overwhelming majority of construction must be carried out on British soil. The submarine supply chain—centred in Barrow, but stretching from Aberdeen to Plymouth—is so advanced and finely tuned that any period in which it is left idle risks destroying it entirely. That is the lesson of the mass redundancies in my constituency in the 1990s. It is a great shame that some of those who now have the privilege of governing do not seem to have learnt a thing.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am distressed to raise this point, but for some reason the Chief Secretary seems to have adopted a posture of preserved deterrence—that is, he is not here. He left the Chamber shortly after the Opposition spokesman sat down, in a three-hour debate of such importance. I am afraid that I regard that as rather a discourtesy to the House. Did the Chief Secretary give a reason when he left the Chamber and, if not, should he not have done so as a courtesy to the House?
Mr Speaker
I am not aware of whether the Chief Secretary did or not, because I was not in the Chair at the time. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and it is on the record, but nothing disorderly has taken place. There is no breach of order; the Chief Secretary has no obligations in this matter, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)?
It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to talk about the important issue of retaining Trident and our nuclear deterrent. Representing Devonport, which is the only UK dockyard with a nuclear licence, I can speak with some relevance about how my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency is on the front line of defending our maritime interests. I am afraid to say that, if what the Liberal Democrats announced yesterday were to come true, it would have a devastating impact on Plymouth’s travel-to-work economy and skills base. I hope that my comments will carry the support of all Members of Parliament in the travel-to-work area, including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who I understand cannot participate in this debate as she is in the shadow Defence team.
Retaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent—a strategic concept that seeks to prevent war—is a key element and cornerstone of the defence of our country. It is a vital ingredient in our membership of NATO and our relationship with the United States of America, our strongest ally, and ensures our seat on the UN Security Council. Britain’s nuclear deterrent helps to prevent would-be aggressors and other countries from attacking us or using their nuclear arsenals to try to blackmail us.
Our ownership of this highly successful deterrent came about following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which brought about a dramatic end to the final phase of world war two. Like a slap in the face, it shocked the world with its catastrophic implications. The implications of that event were so dramatic that no one has ever sought or dared to push international conflicts to a point where any country has had to use nuclear weapons, which have been Britain’s most effective insurance policy. Indeed, the development of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki continues to have a significant impact on the veterans who were dispatched to Christmas island and other places to take part in the very tests that made the nuclear deterrent that we are discussing today possible. We must remember that we owe them a great debt of gratitude. Indeed, it would be most helpful if the Minister paid tribute to them in his winding-up speech.
The nuclear deterrent continues to play a significant role in maintaining peace throughout the world. Unpredictable countries such as Iran and North Korea, which are threatening to develop their own nuclear capabilities, make it vital that Britain retains its nuclear deterrent. It continues to act as a pressure point, as conventional capabilities cannot and will not have the same deterrent effect as nuclear weapons do. To quote the Prime Minister, it is the “ultimate weapon of defence”.
The deterrent is not just a defence weapon, however; it is also a key part of our economy, nationally and locally. It helps us to retain our skills base, especially in Devonport, which is part of my constituency, and in Barrow and Furness. Devonport dockyard, which is responsible for refuelling and refitting our nuclear submarines, is a vital part of our local economy, as more than 25,000 people in the Devonport travel-to-work area depend on defence for their livelihood. Yesterday’s mind-boggling proposals by the Liberal Democrats that the UK should move away from a continuous-at-sea deterrent and reduce the number of submarines from four to three, or even two, would have a devastating impact on the city’s economy. Their insistence that the main gate should be delayed until after the 2015 election is producing real uncertainty in the local economy.
If the Liberal Democrats’ proposals were to become a reality, they would not only damage 25,000 people’s livelihoods but have a major impact on our low-skills and low-wage economy. They would also damage the job prospects of the young people who are about to start at Devonport’s university technical college, which is set to give youngsters an education that will eventually deliver a skilled work force who could be employed in our dockyard. That would be most unhelpful. A reduction in the number of nuclear submarines would mean less refitting work, and the highly skilled work force in our dockyard would have to move elsewhere to find work.
Given the importance of Devonport to the south-west’s economy and the defence of our nation, I find it extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats are doing everything they can to delay the main gate for the Trident replacement. Perhaps this is going to be one of the bargaining tools that they will use in any negotiations that they might have with Labour, should the result of the next general election be a score draw—I very much hope that that will not happen—as it was in 2010. Sadly, the Leader of the Opposition has not said that the future of four nuclear submarines and the continuous-at-sea deterrent would not be up for negotiation in any potential coalition or supply and demand agreement, and I would be grateful if his position on this could be confirmed. At least we now know for sure that there is only one way in which we can be certain of maintaining our nuclear deterrent. That is to have a Conservative victory at the next election, which would ensure that our country could continue to play a significant part in global politics and that we had the necessary tools to defend ourselves.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I am pleased to be able to take part in a debate on the alternatives review, which many people with different views on deterrence theory believe to be fundamentally flawed because it did not consider all the alternatives. That is more relevant to Scotland than it is to many other places because Scotland probably has the highest megatonnage of weapons of mass destruction of any nation in the world.
The Liberal Democrats must be living in a parallel universe if they think that people in Scotland do not think it important to consider all the options, not least because the majority of our public representatives have voted against Trident renewal. In the Scottish Parliament on 14 June 2007, 71 Members of the Scottish Parliament voted against Trident renewal; only 16 voted in favour. In this place, on 14 March 2007, 33 Scottish MPs voted against the Trident renewal proposals, with only 22 voting for them.
This is the view not only of parliamentarians; it is consistently the view of the majority of people in Scotland. In October 2012, a YouGov poll showed that 57% of people in Scotland thought that the Scottish Parliament should have more powers to bring about the removal of Trident from Scotland. In September 2011, an Angus Reid poll for the Sunday Express showed that 57% of people in Scotland did not agree that Trident should be based on the Clyde. In 2010, a YouGov poll showed that 56% of people in Scotland believed that we should not buy a replacement for Trident. It goes on and on.
Mr Jenkin
Let me draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the report produced by the Public Administration Committee, which experimented with deliberative polling to find out how to inform national strategy at the heart of government by engaging with the public. What did the poll conducted on our behalf show? The final question asked whether the United Kingdom should order four new submarines or give up nuclear weapons altogether. In Scotland, 49% were in favour and 43% were against.
Angus Robertson
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are always outliers in polling—[Interruption.] I reflect on the fact that the Scottish National party is the only majority Government in the United Kingdom, receiving more votes than all of the three UK parties combined on the second vote. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) can laugh, but he represents a party that is the worst-performing centre-right party in the industrialised world. That is how badly it performs in Scotland. Even when his friend Lord Ashcroft polled in Scotland, he found that in principle 48% of Scottish respondents oppose the UK having nuclear weapons.
The Liberal Democrat review would have been worthy, as the former Defence Secretary the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) suggested, if it had taken evidence and spoken with other people—people outside the Ministry of Defence, people outside government. The Lib Dem spokesman could have met the Scottish Trades Union Congress and spoken to its general secretary, Grahame Smith, who said that renewing Trident “will cost Scotland jobs”. We might not all agree with those views, but they are views of important people, and if we are going to have a review that looks into alternatives, surely the relevant people should be spoken to.
Did the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress? No, he did not. Did he meet Unison, whose Scottish general secretary condemned the Government’s decision to replace Britain’s Trident nuclear fleet?
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Angus Robertson
No, I want to make some progress.
Did the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey look at the STUC report, published in November 2012, which said:
“Given that Scottish trade unionists appear to strongly support the removal of Trident, the question of the ‘Better Together’ parties is how else can Scotland and the UK be freed of Trident other than through a vote for independence?”
That is the trade union view, but what about other important actors in public life in Scotland?
What about the Churches, for example? What of the views of the Moderator of the General Assembly and of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland? I quote:
“On behalf of the two largest churches in Scotland, from where the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons are currently deployed…This planned renewal of Trident is contrary to international law and opposed by the majority of people in Scotland…Scotland’s churches have a long history of opposition to nuclear weapons. In April 2006 the Catholic Bishops of Scotland called for Trident to be decommissioned rather than renewed, and urged that the money saved should instead be spent on aid and development…In May 2006, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland reiterated its strongly-held view on the immorality of nuclear weapons and called on the Government not to renew Trident, stating that:
‘To replace Trident would represent a further announcement to the world that safety and security can only be achieved by threatening mass destruction; this is to encourage others to believe the same, and thus to hasten proliferation.’”
Apparently, the Liberal Democrat review did not deem it important enough to speak to the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church, the Muslim community in Scotland or other faith leaders, all of whom oppose the renewal of Trident.
We are aware of the view of democratic representatives in Scotland, the view of the voting public, the view of the Churches and the view of the trade unions, so what about the voluntary sector? The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations says:
“Let’s call time on outdated Trident. They are an outdated hang-up from a past that bears little resemblance to the present political climate, yet Trident missiles still remain armed and dangerous in their silos in Faslane.”
Did the review speak to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations? No, it did not. There are real alternatives, and we disagree on what they might be. My alternatives—the ones I prefer—would be to take Scotland’s share of the Trident nuclear missile system and spend it on something that is, frankly, useful. The Scottish taxpayers’ annual contribution is £163 million. That could train nearly 4,000 junior Royal Navy officers, or nearly 2,000 Royal Marine officers. It could train nearly 4,000 nurses, or more than 4,500 teachers. It could build between 13 and 20 single-stream primary schools, or between five or eight secondary schools, or between five and eight community hospitals. The list goes on. Those are real alternatives, but they were not considered in the review.
People need not hear that only from the Scottish National party. This is a rare occurrence, but let me quote from Scotland’s great Labour-supporting newspaper, the Daily Record. Today’s editorial, headed “People do not want Trident”, states that
“the one option not put forward was the one most would prefer—scrapping the weapons… It was left to the SNP and the Greens to give the majority view from Scotland.
Writing for today’s Record, SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson says we should and could scrap Trident.”—(Laughter.)
The irony that is surely lost on the representatives of the three United Kingdom parties in the House is the fact that the strongest Labour-supporting newspaper in Scotland is endorsing the view of the Scottish National party. The editorial ends with the words
“It’s hard to disagree.”
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Yesterday we were able to read the Government’s much-anticipated report on Trident and its alternatives, and I am delighted that it confirmed that the most effective and value-for-money option for the deterrent was a four-submarine CASD. How vexing, though, for the civil servants who worked so hard on it that half, or more accurately one seventh, of the Government have decided to disregard those findings, and to promote an option that was not included in the report’s brief because it was considered to be too ludicrous: a two-boat, part-time deterrent, which, as we all know, is no deterrent at all.
I would not go so far as to say that some of my best friends are Liberal Democrats, but I am sure that their hearts are in the right place. Sadly, the location of the collective Liberal Democrat head is not always obvious; certainly, on this issue they seem to have taken leave of their senses. Yesterday the Liberal Democrats were in chaos, reeling from the discovery that the three-boat option did not deliver the savings for which they had hoped. In scenes reminiscent of Mitchell and Webb’s “Numberwang”, they ran around Whitehall and Millbank yelling different numbers in the hope that one of them might strike a chord.
Perhaps a more appropriately named game show to describe yesterday’s endeavours would be “Pointless”. Let me explain why. The report puts the cost of two new submarines at £10 billion, the cost of three at £14 billion and the cost of four at £16 billion, excluding the attendant costs of missiles, warheads and infrastructure. According to the Liberal Democrats, those figures plainly show £6 billion of waste, but that analysis reveals a skewed sense of value for money. My understanding of the figures is that we could spend £16 billion on something or £10 billion on nothing, and the Liberal Democrat preference for the latter option has led me to conclude that it may not be a coincidence that the MOD budget was balanced only when Main Building became a Liberal Democrat no-fly zone in the last reshuffle.
In the absence of the Liberal Democrat head, it is perhaps not unsurprising that they are ruled by their heart, which in truth yearns for UK nuclear disarmament. Certainly the former Defence Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), when debating the matter with me yesterday on the BBC, would not agree that we could now proceed to produce two submarines and have a debate about the others later. If he had been pro some kind of deterrent, he would have agreed.
It may or may not be the case that we face no nuclear threat at the moment—although how would we know, because we would have deterred it?—but we cannot know what the future will bring. That point has been well made by several Members today. The Liberal Democrat position is contingent on the continuation of the current international climate, which, I remind Members, is influenced by CASD. Do the Liberal Democrats know something that we do not? Does their influence reach places that we cannot reach? Has the Tigger-like charisma of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and his cycling crusade, for which I salute him, had such an impact on the bicycle-loving populace of China that, should that state fall into malign hands, we need only deploy him on his bike to avert disaster? Or perhaps the Business Secretary has been able to persuade North Korea and Iran that they should not waste their time and treasure on nuclear weapons—after all, if they want to bring down the British Government, they need only give him a call. Or perhaps our polyglot Deputy Prime Minister has managed to negotiate with all prospective despots and promoters of state-sponsored terrorism to cut a deal of non-aggression for the next 50 years. If that is the case, I must counsel them that, in my experience, anything the Liberal leader might promise, even if it is in writing and witnessed by a Select Committee, might not actually come to pass.
The Liberal Democrats might very well know something that we do not, which might explain their relaxed stance on CASD, but we must plan and prepare for the possibility of aggression from a nuclear power, so let us consider the options. What about the middle way of a three-boat fleet? The report concludes that with only three boats there would be several unplanned, as well as planned, breaks in deployment over a given 20-year period, whereas that has not been the real-life experience of operating a four-boat fleet.
Even if we take the cited savings of approximately £3.5 billion on whole-life costs as correct, the average annual saving for the surrender of our continuous nuclear deterrent over 45 years of spending would be £78 million. As Trident and welfare are often presented as rival candidates for cuts, let us put that £78 million per year in context by comparing it with the approximately £160 billion annual cost of social security. Indeed, the total average cost, including missiles, warheads and infrastructure, of the whole shebang of a four-boat fleet would be about 1% of the non-pension welfare budget. CASD is value for money, and any alternative that is not continuous and is vulnerable to attack is neither value for money nor up to the job.
Today, I have made a light-hearted speech about a very grave subject. I have done so because I wish to persuade our coalition colleagues of the error of their arguments. In the past three years they have had a steep learning curve in the realities of power. On the evidence of their current antics, they have at least one more lesson to learn: the first duty of a Government, of any colour or combination of colours, is to protect the United Kingdom from these dread weapons. I urge them to do so.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I wish to begin by paying a couple of tributes, the first of which is to the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who, despite my disagreements with him on this issue, was a superb Defence Minister. It baffles me why the Deputy Prime Minister sacrificed a Liberal Democrat voice in defence and foreign affairs in order to play some pavement politics for the next general election. I hope to dismantle some of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments in a little while, but it is worth noting that he was a very good Minister.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will not take it as an insult when I say that my hon. Friend has demonstrated again why he is now the House’s leading expert on the importance of the deterrent. All Labour colleagues would acknowledge that he has been a champion at ensuring that Labour Members fully understand the importance of the role his yards play in securing our nation’s future.
The hon. Member for North Devon claimed that the world was safer now than it was during the cold war, but I have absolutely to disagree with him. We are in a multipolar world where there will be emerging powers in the next 40 years, and the certainties we had in the cold war about the Soviet bloc no longer exist. It has been said several times, so I will not labour the point, but we are being asked to try to guess what the situation may be in 30 or 40 years’ time. It is not a criticism of the national security strategy from 2010 that it could not see the Arab spring coming less than 12 months ahead. Can he honestly tell us why he is so confident about the state of the world in 30 or 40 years’ time?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has scuttled off, I suspect to cry somewhere in the corner, has claimed that this is a comprehensive document. I tabled about 35 parliamentary questions to the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this year and was astonished at some of the answers that were revealed. There was no discussion with the United States, at any level, about the role of CASD. The Chief Secretary quoted President Obama at length, but he did not even have the courtesy to approach the United States embassy, the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House. There was no discussion with our NATO colleagues. There was no discussion with the French or any other international allies, and there were no discussions with the defence industry, save for cursory visits, I think, to Aldermaston and Barrow. There were no discussions with the local authorities that would be affected, and none with the Defence Secretary, except on one occasion during the two-year process. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not even have a pass for Main Building, which goes to show how little credibility he had. It is worth noting that he was flanked at all times by two heavies from the Ministry of Defence to ensure that he did not stray too far—[Interruption.] I think that they were heavies, albeit in the nicest possible way.
Mr Kevan Jones
Has my hon. Friend heard the rumour—it might be untrue—that the Chief Secretary was not given access to the UK’s targeting policy?
Thomas Docherty
If that were true, I would be absolutely astonished, but then nothing in this review and the work that was carried out by Liberal Democrat Ministers is credible.
The hon. Member for North Devon set out an argument that I have heard before that neither Russia nor China operates a CASD policy. I accept the premise of his argument, but he failed to mention—I am sure that it was inadvertent, not misleading—that both those countries have other platforms, so they maintain a continuous deterrent. We are the only one of the five that operates a single platform, so CASD is a continuous deterrent for us—there is no back-up plan.
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman because after spending two and half years telling us why the Astute boat option would be sensible, he has at least had the courage to come to the Chamber and face up to the fact that he called that wrong. He argues that the problem was not a technical issue, but if his defence— pardon the pun—is that this is something that would cost billions and take decades to introduce, how is it not a technical problem?
Sir Nick Harvey
It was not a technical problem in the sense that technically it would work; it was a financial and a time issue. I accept, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the option is clearly not a runner, but not because it technically would not work.
Thomas Docherty
If the hon. Gentleman is not splitting hairs, he is splitting something or other, because if the option would cost billions of pounds and take decades to develop, the problem is technical. Any solution can be reaped with sufficient money and time.
The hon. Gentleman talked about how money could be circulated back into the MOD programme. We heard from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) that the debate ends up being about things such as nurses and welfare, but the idea that the 4% lifetime cost savings as a result of having three boats would somehow be pumped back into the MOD’s conventional programme is not credible. The hon. Member for North Devon talked about how we could solve the challenges on the wider equipment programme, but we will have to do more with allies, whether on the joint strike fighter, interoperability or the remotely piloted air system. Work such as that started by the former Defence Secretary under the Lancaster House agreement is the way forward.
I noticed that the clock froze for two or three minutes while the hon. Member for Moray was speaking, but having listened to his speech, I felt that his argument had been frozen for 25 years. I was conscious that he did not want to use up his time by taking my intervention, so let me say that although he talked about the trade unions that could have been consulted, he could have spoken to the trade unions I met with my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). If he spoke to trade union leaders at Faslane—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) is in the Chamber but, surprisingly, he has not indicated that he wishes to speak—they would say that their future depends on this. I am sure that it was an oversight that the hon. Member for Moray did not suggest that those trade union leaders should have been consulted.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who I notice has not shown the usual courtesy by staying to hear the following two speeches before leaving the Chamber, made the rather bizarre claim that CASD could be guaranteed only by having a Conservative Government. If he was here, I would remind him that it was his Conservative Government who signed up to this review in the first place. I think that they need to hang their heads in shame for wasting taxpayers’ money and civil servants’ time—they have not wasted Defence Ministers’ time, because apparently they were not asked for their views—and there is absolutely no guarantee that they would not have a fudge at the next general election. The only way to guarantee a future for Barrow and for the Clyde is to send a clear message at the next general election by voting for my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness and other hon. Friends.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has reiterated the point made by my party leader and the shadow Defence Secretary: we will maintain a continuous-at-sea deterrent. That is the exact policy adopted by the Defence Secretary. The only way we would not have a four-boat solution is if the technology moves on, which of course would completely change the configuration and the industrial strategy. I must say that the hon. Gentleman’s question was a classic Liberal Democrat last-minute jump-up. When he speaks, as I am sure he intends to, he can set out his argument. The reality is that the two-boat solution that he and his party support would devastate the community in Faslane.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the past few months we have had several opportunities to debate nuclear deterrence. The hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and I, from our respectively opposite sides of the argument, successfully procured a debate on 17 January. Strangely enough, I did not hear many of these Liberal Democrat midway positions articulated on that occasion. The hon. Member for Islington North then secured a debate in Westminster Hall on nuclear deterrence and the non-proliferation treaty on 22 June, and I seem to remember that there were no Liberal Democrat contributions to that debate at all.
I think that it is possible to make a principled and coherent case either that we should have an effective and continuous nuclear deterrent or that we should not, but one cannot make a sensible case for having a part-time deterrent. I have looked at the report in some detail and will pick out a couple of elements that I regard as particularly significant. The very first sentence of the executive summary states:
“Deterrence rests on the notion of ‘unacceptable loss’—the ability to inflict a level of damage that a potential aggressor would judge outweighed any benefit they might gain by a particular course of action.”
Well, yes and no. It does not just rest on the notion of unacceptable loss; it rests on the twin notions of unacceptable loss and unavoidable loss. That is where the whole concept of continuous-at-sea deterrence is central, because if one thinks one has a chance of avoiding an unacceptable level of retaliation, one might well take that chance in the hope that one will not have to face up to it.
I have quoted before, and I will quote it again tonight, what was stated the first time a senior British defence specialist considered the concept of what in those days would have been called atomic deterrence. That was in June 1945 in a top secret report drawn up by a committee of defence scientists headed by Professor Sir Henry Tizard. He made a comparison between the atomic bomb, which at the time had not yet been tested or used against Japan, and the concept and practice of duelling:
“Duelling was a recognised method of settling quarrels between men of high social standing so long as the duellists stood twenty paces apart and fired at each other with pistols of a primitive type. If the rule had been that they should stand a yard apart with pistols at each other’s hearts, we doubt whether it would long have remained a recognised method of settling affairs of honour.”
However, if the duellists do not know whether the pistol is loaded, then even if they are standing only a yard apart they might just be reckless enough—“reckless” is the word that we hear time and again in the context of this Lib Dem policy—to take a chance. The whole point about nuclear deterrence is that it is unacceptable and unavoidable that a country will suffer nuclear destruction if it uses its nuclear weapons against a similarly armed country.
In the document, which was prepared by two civil servants in the Cabinet Office specially seconded from the Ministry of Defence, a number of strange concepts are articulated. One of them is familiar—continuous deterrence, which is referred to without quotation marks. Then the document refers to things called “focused deterrence”, “sustained deterrence”, “responsive deterrence” and “preserved deterrence”. I have studied this subject for at least 31 years and I have never come across those terms before. At a briefing earlier today, the two civil servants were good enough to admit that in fact they had made them up. That is perfectly okay, except for one thing—the use of the word “deterrence”. They could just as easily have referred to something like “intermittent deterrence”, “semi-deterrence”, microscopic deterrence” or “virtually zero deterrence”. It is not really deterrence unless it is certain; that is why it used to be called “mutually assured destruction”. It is not enough to be able to threaten destruction; it has to be assured because otherwise the person may not be deterred.
It may seem as though the Liberals’ policy is in disarray, but they could still emerge, at the end of this process, as the winners. I will explain why. At the next general election, we could have another hung Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) suggested. The Liberal Democrats could then say to the Leader of the Opposition, “All that stands between you and entering No. 10 Downing street is to get rid of this weapons system.” They would not say, “Go down to two boats”; they would say, “Get rid of it completely”, because that is what they have wanted all along.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
In the unlikely scenario that the hon. Gentleman paints of our having another hung Parliament, the Liberal Democrats would presumably negotiate both with his party and with mine. I think he is going to give me a firm view of what the answer would be from his party, and our Front Benchers have already given a firm view of what the answer would be from our party.
Dr Lewis
I am delighted by that intervention, because it not only gives me an extra minute but anticipates the next part of my argument.
If the Leader of the Opposition accepted that deal, then knowing the Liberal Democrats, they would start making the same offer to the current Prime Minister, who would have to think to himself, “Well, if I say no and the leader of the Labour party has said yes, Trident is doomed anyway, so I may as well say yes as well.” Who knows how these things might work out?
However, a solution is at hand: we could sign the main-gate contracts for some or all of the submarines in advance of the next general election. The only reason we put that off was to enable the Liberal Democrats to have their alternative study. They have had their alternative study, and it did not even consider a two-boat solution; it considered only a three-boat or four-boat solution. It could hardly be a breach of the coalition agreement if we were to challenge the Liberal Democrats to accept signing the contracts on the first two boats, if not the first three. That would at least prevent them from blackmailing either party, in the event of a hung Parliament, to get rid of the deterrent entirely.
At the most recent Defence questions I think I heard from the Opposition a commitment to try to bring forward the main-gate decision to this side of the election. I urge Opposition Members who believe in deterrence to join Conservative Members and put relentless pressure on our leaders for a grand coalition to bring forward the main-gate decision and secure the future of the nuclear deterrent—
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I want to shift the terms of the debate. I do not want to pursue the fallacy of an independent deterrent, although let us be very clear that it is a fallacy: our so-called nuclear deterrent is not independent—we would need agreement from the US to do almost anything with it—and there is not very much evidence that it is a deterrent, either.
Caroline Lucas
I want to make some progress.
Rather than pursuing that particular argument, I want to argue that it is now time to shift the emphasis of the defence debate and that the best deterrence of all is to work with other nations to solve global threats such as fossil fuel-induced climate disruption, transnational trafficking of weapons and drugs, and the poverty and desperation that fuel conflict, hunger and violence around the world.
That is why it is deeply worrying and, indeed, the height of irresponsibility that both the 2010 strategic defence and security review and this review of an alternative to Trident have not explored the full range of options. The Prime Minister trumpeted the review as “neutral” and “factual”, but I would argue that it is biased and empty of essential facts. That means that there is a risk that any parliamentary votes taken in 2016 will be ill-informed and hung up on a cold war era that has long gone.
The decision that should be taken is one based on what would genuinely contribute most to the security of the British people. There is a real argument that says that by not replacing Trident we could improve national security and allow the Ministry of Defence to spend the more than £100 billion saved over the lifetime of any successor nuclear weapon system on an appropriate response to the real security threats and challenges of the 21st century. The 2010 national security strategy identified these as organised crime, cyber-warfare, pandemics and, of course, climate change. Scientists, former US Presidents and, indeed, former UK Prime Ministers, among others, have all agreed that climate change is in fact the greatest threat facing humankind, and every pound spent on Trident is a pound not spent on more appropriate responses to the real dangers linked to climate change.
If that is the case, let us explore how that money could have been better spent. The £80 billion to £100 billion price tag for Trident could have been spent on energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy, all of which represent an investment in a positive future and the opportunity to be world leaders in an area of rapidly advancing technology, as opposed to a cold war past. Just £16 billion would insulate the 16 million homes in Britain that are currently uninsulated, saving 4% of UK carbon emissions and helping to prevent 20,000 annual cold-related deaths, and £30 billion would provide 3,500 offshore turbines, supplying 15% of UK electricity use. Crucially, positive investment in a greener future would make us more secure by reducing the impacts of climate change and ending our dependence on foreign oil—a key root cause of global terrorism.
The national security strategy also highlights the ongoing need to tackle terrorism, but as Tony Blair himself said in October 2005:
“I do not think that anyone pretends that the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 841.]
A group of senior military officers, including the former head of the armed forces, Field Marshall Lord Bramall, reached much the same conclusion in a letter to The Times in 2009:
“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of the violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism.”
As one commentator has recently put it,
“confronting the threats of today with nuclear weapons is as archaic as attempting to fight tanks with a blade attached to the barrel of a rifle would have been 70 years ago.”
The bottom line is that the UK does not need Trident; nor can we afford it. An independent and strategic assessment of risk does not justify spending tens of billions of pounds on Trident when we have, for example, troops on the front line who are not getting the equipment they need. Alternatively, and in this time of austerity, we might also question whether or not the initial estimated £25 billion could pay instead for 60,000 newly qualified nurses or 60,000 new secondary school teachers for the next 10 years. That is why I say that to use the amount of money suggested on a project that will make Britain and the world less, not more, safe is politically irresponsible, morally bankrupt and economically obscene.
Moreover, this Government, like the last, have committed themselves under the non-proliferation treaty to
“make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons.”
The UK committed to multilateral disarmament when it signed the NPT in 1968 and agreed to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons. So far, Britain has not played a particularly constructive role in that process.
Caroline Lucas
Let me give an example. When 132 states gathered in Oslo in early 2013 to discuss the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, the British Government were not even there. Replacing the Trident system means committing the UK to maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons for decades to come. Expert opinion indicates that that is not in line with the UK’s obligations as an NPT signatory to pursue negotiations in good faith on nuclear disarmament.
Mr Jones
I cannot answer for the present Government, but it is a matter of fact that the last Labour Government reduced the number of warheads and got rid of the WE177 freefall bomb, so it is not true to say that the Labour Government did not make moves to reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal.
Caroline Lucas
What I said was that Britain has so far not played a particularly constructive role in the process. I have described what happened in Oslo earlier this year. Irrespective of the firepower, the message that we are sending to other states is that the way to be secure is to get more nuclear weapons. That is likely to make us less safe, not more safe. I do not know how we will be able to argue that Iran should not get nuclear weapons, as I deeply hope it will not, if we are perceived to be enhancing our nuclear weapons.
Caroline Lucas
No I will not, because I have more to say.
Moral and diplomatic leadership is required in multilateral disarmament initiatives such as the global nuclear abolition treaty and the UN’s proposed weapons of mass destruction free zone in the middle east. How can the UK participate constructively in multilateral negotiations on a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons when it is perceived to be doing the opposite at home?
Moreover, if we keep and upgrade our nuclear weapons, we will send a signal to countries in the rest of the world that they should go out and get nuclear weapons as well. Remaining nuclear-armed for at least another half century will encourage other states to take the nuclear road and ensure that we face the very threats in decades to come that we least want to see. As Kofi Annan has put it:
“The more that those states that already have”
nuclear weapons
“increase their arsenals, or insist that such weapons are essential to their national security, the more other states feel that they too must have them for their security.”
The more countries there are that have nuclear weapons, the more risk there is that they will be used. We cannot preach non-proliferation to countries such as Iran and expect it with any conviction while we are perceived to be maintaining and increasing our own arsenal. It is a very odd insurance policy that makes us less safe, not more. For those who are worried about our status in the international community if we do not have Trident to sit astride, Dr Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, points out:
“Japan and Germany seem respected even without nuclear weapons.”
In conclusion, the economics, the evidence and the ethics all point in one direction. What happens next is a game changer, because any decision about the future of Trident will shape the future that we face. I believe that we need to show leadership and courage. We are on the brink of committing a huge amount of money to a system that might well make us less safe, not more. The signal that it will send to the international community is that the way to be safe is to acquire more nuclear weapons. As more countries do that, our own security will be further undermined. That is why we ought to use this historic opportunity to begin seriously the effort of disarmament by not replacing Trident and by using the money in a far more creative way.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who was a very good and collegiate colleague in the Ministry of Defence. I am sorry that he was not able fully to carry out this work, because had he done so, I suspect the result would have been a lot better than this inadequate document that has been presented to the country today. It has taken two years to produce what has amounted to a mouse.
It is important that we remember the context. In 2009, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, said in this House that
“we should admit that we neither need nor can afford to replace Trident.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 297.]
That is where the Liberal Democrat party was a few years ago. It now appears to agree that we should continue with the deterrent, albeit on a part-time basis. However, this is not the end of the story. This is not the party’s defined position. The document does not represent the settled policy of the Liberal Democrats. That is to be settled by their whacky members at their party conference later this year. Therefore, whatever is said from the Dispatch Box, or by Liberal Democrat Members, is not the final word on this matter of huge importance. One thing that can be said of the document is that at least it has sparked this important debate, which has produced some extremely impressive speeches that I hope will gain wider currency across the country.
I wish to make three points. First, the deterrent has deterred. It has worked. We therefore do not need to invite people to make an act of faith.
Mr Jenkin
I listened carefully to the honest and courageous speech by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), in which she said that the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that they will be used. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only time nuclear weapons have been used was when only one country had them, and that as more countries have acquired them the likelihood of their being used has decreased? No nuclear weapon has been used since more than two countries have had nuclear weapons. Does that not tell us something?
Sir Gerald Howarth
It does, but, if I may, I will come on to my hon. Friend’s point in a moment.
My second point is that, yes, the deterrent has worked and it worked during the cold war. The argument is that the cold war has ended and so we no longer need the deterrent. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, we cannot predict what threats we might face in the next 30 or 40 years. While there appears today to be no immediate nuclear threat to our country, we know that other countries either have, or intend to acquire, a nuclear capability, and that there are approximately 17,000 nuclear weapons in existence.
Sir Gerald Howarth
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I, too, have quite a lot to say. If she will permit me to continue to make my argument, this is an important point.
In 2010, the Ministry of Defence’s Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre published an updated version of Global Strategic Trends to 2040. On nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear capabilities, its report noted:
“The likelihood of nuclear weapons usage will increase.”
Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, that is the view of the centre. It stated:
“Nuclear proliferation will be a significant factor affecting global security, especially as the transition to a multi-polar distribution of power brings change and uncertainty.”
Given those circumstances, my third point is that in the face of such analysis it would be a dereliction of duty to render our people vulnerable, and the Liberal Democrats are proposing to gamble with the security of Britain. I refer to paragraph 32 of their review. In respect of the alternatives cited, it states:
“The analysis has shown that there are alternatives to Trident that would enable the UK to be capable of inflicting significant damage such that most potential adversaries around the world would be deterred.”
It goes on to say:
“None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.”
When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that his proposal would deter most potential aggressors, he owes it to us to tell us who the aggressors are who would not be deterred. We need to know the answer to that.
The case tonight has been made overwhelmingly. I would like to add an ancillary benefit to the main thrust of the purpose of the deterrent. It was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) when he said that the possession of this deterrent conferred upon the United Kingdom an important degree of influence in the world. It gives us enormous respect with the United States of America, and although that alliance might not be important to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), it is important to the rest of us. It is important, therefore, that we recognise these ancillary benefits, which confer important influence on the UK.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that with all the cross-party agreement between the Opposition and ourselves, we should proceed as early as possible to ensure that the security of the United Kingdom is put beyond doubt and bring main-gate forward.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I am pleased we are having this debate and that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has spoken, because he sincerely believes in nuclear weapons as much as I sincerely disbelieve in them. Interestingly, he quoted Tizard as one of the main scientists involved in the Manhattan project and the development of nuclear weapons, but we should also recall that many of the others involved, including Joseph Rotblat and Einstein himself, were later appalled at what they had discovered, at how it had been used and at the consequences for humanity of possessing nuclear weapons at all.
I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I and one or two others might manage to bring to the Floor of the House a sense that there are alternatives to Trident. The review that the Liberal Democrats have asked for and that was no doubt produced at enormous expense is not a discussion of the alternatives. It is a discussion of weaponry and, in part, of perceptions of security and risk, but it is not a discussion of the alternative to Trident and nuclear weapons, which is not to have them at all and instead to aspire to a nuclear-free world. Interestingly, when those who support nuclear weapons are challenged, they all say they want to live in a nuclear-free world—
Jeremy Corbyn
Not all of them. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I exempt him from my last remark. He wants to live in a nuclear world, but many who agree with him about the decision on Trident want to live in a nuclear-free world, yet they go on to say that they cannot do anything about it, because now is not the time to do it, and then they head off rapidly down the road of weaponry and cold war attitudes towards deterrence and defence.
One or two fundamental questions need to be asked. A nuclear weapon is not a targeted weapon. Let us imagine we set off a nuclear weapon against, say, France. Let us suppose a Conservative Government got very angry with President Hollande. They are frequently angry with the French on most matters. They have never quite forgiven them for the 100 years war or the French revolution—[Interruption.] See, they are cheering up now. They are licking their lips at the prospect of war with France. Indeed, this whole building is festooned with memorabilia about the French revolution and the defeat of Napoleon. If they wanted to teach the French a lesson by sending a nuclear weapon against them, it would not take out a military establishment or an airport; it would take out millions of people in the civilian population, just as it would if used against Moscow, Pyongyang, Tehran or anywhere else. A nuclear weapon is a weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction against a civilian population. Small nuclear weapons were used in 1945 over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were tiny in comparison with one warhead on one part of a Trident submarine now, and the cancers from those weapons have existed and lasted for 60 years. The use of a nuclear weapon sets off a nuclear winter and an environmental disaster for those affected.
To those who want us to spend, in reality, £100 billion on Trident, I say that by 2020—if the main-gate decision is taken in 2016—a large proportion of the defence budget will be taken up in building new submarines and the warheads to accommodate them. Will defence chiefs at that time accept cuts in every other area of defence expenditure to accommodate the construction of those new submarines and new missile systems? I seriously doubt it. Those in the House who talk so glibly about nuclear weapons know full well that there is a serious debate in the Royal United Services Institute and the defence establishment about targeting defence expenditure on nuclear weapons when so many other demands are apparently being put forward by different service chiefs.
To my colleagues in the Labour party, who have been through this debate on nuclear weapons many times, I say that if we win an election in 2015—obviously, I hope we do—the demands on that incoming Government about apprenticeships, student fees, benefits, hospitals, schools, council housing, railways, roads, and a whole range of things, will be massive. Will we say to our supporters, “Sorry, the priority is weapons of mass destruction. The priority is nuclear weapons”? I like to think we would not.
Yes, we face threats in this world, including from terrorists, but holding nuclear weapons did not do the USA much good on 9/11, or us much good on 7/7, and it has not done anybody else much good. We must look to the causes and the humanitarian effects of war. A 1996 International Court of Justice ruling stated that
“the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.”
Let us look for alternatives such as nuclear weapon-free zones, supporting a non-proliferation treaty, or a conference of middle eastern states to bring about a nuclear weapon-free middle east. The review is not an alternative document but one that leads us down the road of nuclear proliferation and danger. The real alternative, produced by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, sets out an agenda for peace and investment in people, jobs and a good future for this country, not investing in weapons of mass destruction.
I hope I have managed at least to bring an alternative view to this debate.
Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)
I first stopped and thought seriously about nuclear weapons and the issues associated with them 30 years ago after I spent some time in the forest near a little town called Menden in West Germany. I was there with 50 Missile Regiment, which had battlefield nuclear weapons—we do not have those any more. The purpose of that regiment, come war time, was to fire its Lance missile into Soviet tank configurations, possibly in a battlefield context as a first-strike weapon. The regiment had three missiles, but it only ever trained to use one because its signature would have been picked up and the regiment would have been wiped out by Soviet battlefield nuclear weapons before it had even got close to loading the second missile. Its members did not bother practising to drive away either, as they had worked out that they could not get away fast enough to get out of the impact area of the weapon that would be fired against them. I have no doubt that the regiment would have been prepared to fire its weapon, and it was a sobering experience.
A few years later in the Army I was tasked with lecturing and explaining the consequences of using intercontinental nuclear weapons, and I had to learn the difference between the consequences of using ground-burst weapons—those have been replicated on television and people might have seen the force that moves out along the ground—and air-burst weapons. Ground-burst weapons are appalling, but the consequence of air-burst nuclear weapons is truly horrific by comparison. I learned two lessons from those experiences. First, that such weapons are the worst example of man’s ability to cause death and destruction, and secondly that this country must never be exposed to those who believe they could use such weapons against us with impunity.
I realise that over the years others have taken a different stance, and have done so in a principled way—I am thinking of previous Labour party leaders who had an open and sincere belief that they expressed during the 1980s. They were wrong: the SS-20s did not disappear from the Ural mountains because well-meaning people danced around Greenham Common air base but because cruise missiles were put into Greenham Common air base.
I understand, too, that for some the idea of putting country before party is difficult. I understand that when coalition offers an opportunity for power, their approach might well be that party policies are paramount and not what is best for the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate when that happens, not least because it leads to a large amount of expenditure of time and money on reports such as the one we have been considering over the past couple of days. Commissioning a report in the false hope that it would undermine the argument for a submarine-based nuclear deterrent was always going to fail. Russia is not modernising its submarine fleet for no good reason and China is not expanding its submarine programme on a whim.
The report is published and confirms that the only viable option is the submarine-based system, but what comes next, sadly, is the most appalling piece of “party before country” politics that I can recollect. The analysis of my coalition partners seems to be, “Our report has confirmed that the submarine system is the only option. It is the only option because it provides an effective continuous deterrent, so we will therefore go with the submarine system, but seek to make it non-continuous and therefore less effective and seek to portray that as progress.” If the Chief Secretary is a unilateralist, he should have the moral courage to come out and say so. If he is not, he should realise that this idea ranks somewhere between third rate and poor. The “four boat, continuously at sea” policy is the only practical way to maintain the effective deterrent that has protected these islands for a long time. It is about time we got on with its modernisation.
Political maturity and national interest should dictate that coalition partners now accept that the part of the agreement that delays matters to 2016 has been rendered obsolete by this report and that a positive decision can and should be brought forward.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Sometimes, we have to be blunt with the public and tell them what we are talking about when it comes to the nuclear deterrent. We are talking about what stops war, and it is a question of unacceptable loss and reaching a point where the losses from fighting are so great that one cannot contemplate moving forward.
It is important and necessary for aggressors to believe that the UK has the capability and the resolve to deliver unacceptable losses in response to an imminent attack. We have thrown around lots of words tonight in this debate, but for me the most important has been credibility. Credibility is what the debate must be about. How credible are the threats out there that we face? How credible is our nuclear deterrent capability to our allies? How credible is our deterrent to our potential enemies?
We have been told that this has been a comprehensive review and analysis, but I cannot believe that. I have read the document and, like many right hon. and hon. Members, I found little in it of substance. The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) said that the nature and scale of the threat are no longer the same as they were during the cold war. He also, I believe, said we were not facing a tier 1 threat, but the national security strategy highlights the risk of nuclear attack under two tiers: tier 1, which is international terrorism including a nuclear attack by terrorists; and tier 2, which is an attack by a state proxy using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material.
We need to look at the credibility of the threat. On Iran, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said in his report to the board in June 2013:
“As my report on safeguards implementation in Iran shows, the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. However, Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable us to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. The Agency therefore cannot conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”
Iran remains a credible threat.
Turning to Pakistan, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute confirmed in 2011 that Pakistan had increased its total number of warheads from between 70 and 90 in 2010 to between 90 and 110 in 2011. The risks of instability in its relationship with India and of the spread of its technology and expertise to other nations have to be a great concern.
North Korea is increasingly unstable. Earlier this year we saw an increase in tension and we cannot begin to contemplate what that Government would see as an acceptable thing to do.
Is there a credible threat of nuclear terrorist attack from non-state actors? According to Barack Obama in 2010:
“The single biggest threat to US security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organisation obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Last week my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and I were in Washington as part of a NATO delegation, meeting people from the Pentagon, the State Department and a number of think-tanks. I have also talked to NATO partners about the UK’s nuclear capability, and I asked them what their views would be if the UK removed, or failed to replace, its continuous-at-sea deterrent or CASD. With the exception of only one country, they reacted with horror. I cannot begin to contemplate what the US would think in terms of its pivot to Asia if Europe’s nuclear deterrent were downgraded. It is already concerned at Europe’s inability to meet the 2% budget commitment for support to NATO, yet in this report we are contemplating downgrading our nuclear deterrent. NATO is involved in collective defence and it is a nuclear alliance, yet here we are talking about removing some of that nuclear deterrent.
Finally, there is the issue of the credibility of the deterrent. None of the alternative systems and postures offered in this review offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of CASD, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances. We just cannot move away from that one statement. That says it all. The risk this review finds we would face is unacceptable. It has to be unacceptable in respect of the safety and security of this country, our role and responsibilities within NATO and our role and responsibility to work towards world peace through that nuclear alliance.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I will confine my remarks to just a few points. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on bringing out the NATO side of the debate. Our continuous-at-sea deterrence is an important contribution to NATO. It is a pay-back to the United States for being the ultimate guarantor of European security. We should not imagine for a minute that if we started downgrading our deterrent, the United States would remain as interested as it is now in maintaining security in Europe, with all the benefit for this country.
This debate has demolished the credibility of the document. The idea that it came as a surprise that submarine-launched cruise missiles with new nuclear tips were going to be fantastically expensive represents a scale of political dishonesty that stretches the imagination even for Liberal Democrats. I cannot imagine how anybody has ever taken the document seriously.
The debate has essentially been about continuous-at-sea deterrence or not. The document damns the idea of a part-time deterrent. Paragraph 33 states that a non-continuous posture depends upon political confidence that
“a potential aggressor would not launch a no-notice pre-emptive attack”—
there is no guarantee of that;
“with sufficient warning, the UK could re-constitute back-to-back patrolling”—
there is no guarantee of that;
“such back-to-back patrols could then be sustained long enough to cover any emergent crisis”—
and there is no guarantee of that if we have only three or two boats.
The point that I wish to make briefly is what defence policy is really about. It is not about predicting the future and working out what we might use. It is not about pretending that we can assess threats and that then settles what we need for the future. The whole point about defence planning and defence policy is that it is about preparing for what we do not expect, making contingencies for what we cannot foresee. That is what the whole document fails to do. The idea that we now live in a different world from the one we lived in during the cold war, and therefore that the global environment has given us permission to downgrade our nuclear capability, is clearly nonsense.
There is another misunderstanding. This is not a weapons system that we have not used, do not use and are unlikely to use. The importance of our continuous-at-sea deterrent is that we use it every day. It shapes the global environment in which we live. Why is state-on-state warfare a second-tier threat rather than a primary threat? Why has state-on-state warfare between the major powers become unthinkable since the end of the first half of the 20th century? It is because those major powers have nuclear weapons. Were we to start destabilising the credibility of our continuous-at-sea deterrence, we would be destabilising the very global environment that the Liberal Democrats believe gives them permission to go part-time on our deterrent. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) put it well. The part-time deterrent is no deterrent. We might as well pack it in unless we are going to stick with continuous at-sea deterrent.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am conscious of the expertise that has been demonstrated in the House today. Although I have much respect for the Chief Secretary, I would not include him in that after today’s performance. His body language today suggested somebody who was well out of his comfort zone. He missed much of the debate, which was exceptionally good. The debate was about continuous-at-sea deterrence. It is a good job that it was not about continuous-at-Chamber attendance, because the Chief Secretary scurried out of the Chamber after only the second speech. He was quoted as saying that the Army has more horses than tanks so there is plenty of room for defence savings. This does not reflect a firm grasp of military matters.
Many of us have gone through this journey. I have been influenced by many hon. Members and not least by Franklin Miller, who is an expert on these matters. We have taken the same journey in recognising what is required for continuous-at-sea deterrence. Our deterrence protects us from nuclear coercion, nuclear blackmail and nuclear attack. That is not just for now, but for the lifetime of the vessels, which is way beyond the horizon that the Chamber can predict. The Lib Dems recognise that there is a threat—that is clear—but they want a package that will mean that the UK is vulnerable. It is a part-time deal and proves that matters of security are not safe in their hands.
The “Guinness Book of Records” might one day honour many of us on the Government Benches for the length of time that we have had to grit our teeth and tolerate the coalition, but this latest idea from the Lib Dems is as mad as it is dangerous.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been an important debate. I congratulate all Members who have contributed. A number of strong and passionate opinions have been expressed. It is important that all views are heard in this debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that it is a shame that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was not in the Chamber to listen to the debate. Indeed, I think it was quite discourteous of him to leave his ministerial colleagues from the Conservative party to listen to the debate on their own.
I pay tribute at the outset to the men and women serving in our forces, in particular—in the light of this evening’s debate—the Royal Navy and staff based at Clyde naval base, who work with the deterrent day in, day out. It is somewhat questionable that the Member representing them—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid)—chose not to speak in today’s debate. However, many of those men and women are my constituents. I also pay tribute to the civilian and the industrial work force who support the operation. We are all—
Gemma Doyle
I am sorry; I do not have time to. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman could have put in to speak and he chose not to.
We are all aware of the important job that the Barrow work force do. [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary has no business calling me discourteous; I have been in the Chamber for the entire debate and he has not. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for speaking up so assiduously for his constituents, but there are companies and workers throughout the UK supply chain who are also integral to the success of the deterrent. I also pay tribute to the naval families who are without their loved ones, sometimes for a very lengthy period, with limited or no contact. It is not an easy position to be in. They, too, deserve our support and recognition.
We live in an uncertain and unpredictable world, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree. New threats emerge, but that is not to say that the traditional threats have disappeared. In response, we must have an equipment programme that enables us to deter, detect and tackle the entire spectrum of threats that we face as a nation. We on the Labour Benches are committed to the minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, which we believe is best delivered, both in effectiveness and cost, through a continuous-at-sea deterrent. We have rightly been keen to scrutinise the report on the grounds of capability, cost and disarmament, but absolutely nothing in it suggests that it would be in the UK’s interests to move away from a CASD.
We have heard from some Members that our deterrent is nothing more than a legacy of the cold war. Of course, the old divisions of the cold war have passed, but they have been replaced with new uncertainties. Indeed, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) outlined those threats, which are real. They are not imaginary or historic; they are very much present. We cannot predict what will happen. It is this age of uncertainty that is one of the driving reasons why it would be foolish to give up our deterrent now. Important points on that were made by the hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).
We support a policy of multilateral disarmament. Like many speakers in the debate, I want to see a world free of nuclear weapons. It should be a cross-party priority for the UK to continue on the path towards multilateral nuclear disarmament, alongside our international allies, as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. The last Labour Government made progress towards that, as we have heard. I know that work is ongoing to reduce the number of warheads further. I am sure that we would all appreciate some information from the Minister about that.
Those who were expecting the report to be published with some credible alternatives—they included my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—will be sorely disappointed, as he pointed out. It was all too clear from the Chief Secretary’s opening remarks that the report offers nothing new. In fact, it showed that the Liberal Democrats have taken two years to review a policy and spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, only to conclude that their past policy simply does not work. In fact, the only thing that we have learned from the report is that the Liberal Democrats are now well and truly a Trident party.
I am not sure whether to feel sorry for the Chief Secretary or to admire him. He has now reversed his party’s long-standing opposition to Trident, and I certainly do not envy him his job at his party conference this year. There is real concern that the review has been nothing more than an exercise in Lib Dem and Conservative party management, paid for by the taxpayer and taking up the valuable time of civil servants. That is no way to run a country, especially in relation to a decision of such great importance.
We have heard a number of excellent contributions on the importance of the continuous-at-sea posture, including from the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell). It is not just the existence of our nuclear deterrent but its continuous nature that is central to our discussions and to the report. The report makes it clear, for those who were under any illusion to the contrary, that the
“highest level of assurance the UK can attain with a single deterrent system is provided by SSBN submarines operating a continuous at sea deterrence posture.”
That has been the basis of our deterrent for more than 40 years: an assurance that our deterrent operates 24/7, 365 days a year. In short, any move away from CASD will result in a reduced capability. If our deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy, it cannot be taken seriously if it is only part time. If that is what the Liberal Democrats are proposing, it will confirm what a lot of us have suspected for a long time—that they cannot be taken seriously either. They seem to want a part-time deterrent, but that simply would not deter anyone.
We should also remember that, although the future of the deterrent is a decision for this House, that decision should not be taken in isolation from the rest of the world. It would appear, however, that the Chief Secretary did not even bother to consult anyone outside Whitehall, let alone in the rest of the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, the UK is a proud member of NATO, alongside our international allies, and any decision to switch to an alternative platform, or even to adopt the Lib Dems’ part-time deterrent, would have consequences for NATO. It would indicate a significant change in our approach to defence across the world.
The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and I share a desire to see a world free of nuclear weapons, although our views differ on how that would best be achieved. We are looking to work with our international partners to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but his party’s policy is a uniquely insular one—namely, to remove the deterrent from the Clyde and claim victory because it has moved 100 or so miles south. The hon. Gentleman might also want to check his statistics, because the most recent YouGov poll showed that 52% of the Scots surveyed thought that having our own nuclear deterrent was important, with only 38% against that proposal. That is far from the majority against the proposal that he spoke of earlier. Also, given that not a single poll has ever shown a majority of Scots to be in favour of independence, he should be very careful about wanting to carry out public policy by opinion poll.
In fact, the hon. Gentleman led the way for the Chief Secretary to make his U-turn, because the hon. Gentleman U-turned the Scottish National party’s opposition to nuclear weapons by forcing the party conference to adopt a pro-nuclear alliance position, in line with its ambition to join NATO. So he has no credibility on this issue—[Interruption.] And quoting himself is not going to make him any more credible.
Paragraph 32 of the report states:
“None of the alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence.”
I thank the Chief Secretary for using the report so effectively to make the case for continuous-at-sea deterrence, and I welcome the conversion of his party to supporting the nuclear deterrent. The report sets out very clearly that CASD is the most efficient and cost-effective deterrent, and I hope that we can all now proceed on that basis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who spoke with great good humour, particularly in demolishing some of the arguments of the isolationists on this issue.
This has been a most unusual debate on a most a critical subject of the utmost importance to the first duty of Government: defence of the realm. It is unusual, as it reflects a challenge of governing in coalition. This debate in Government time was opened by a Government Minister, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—for whom I have considerable respect, for his day job—who supports one position, and is being closed by another Government Minister who is about to advocate an alternative view.
This difference of view was, of course, anticipated when the coalition came into office. The coalition agreement of May 2010 said:
“We will maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.”
Later, in the 2010 strategic defence and security review, the Government’s commitment to maintaining a continuous submarine-based deterrent was confirmed and the work of replacing the existing submarines was begun. Yesterday, the Cabinet Office published an unclassified version of the review into Trident alternatives, so the Government have now delivered on their commitment set out in the coalition agreement.
This debate has been remarkable, too, for the quality of contributions from right hon. and hon. Members. Before addressing some of the points raised, I want to make clear a few points of my own.
The UK’s nuclear deterrent exists to prevent, at the extreme, any threat to our national existence or nuclear blackmail from a nuclear-armed state against the UK homeland or our vital interests. We hope never to use nuclear weapons, but to deliver deterrent effect under all foreseeable circumstances. Our ability to do so must be credible and assured at all times, and this depends on there being no doubt in the mind of a potential adversary about our ability and determination to employ our nuclear weapons, if necessary. This has been the judgment of successive Governments since the nuclear age began.
Although I recognise that the cold war is over, I do not recognise the argument advocated by the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey)—that this allows us to drop our guard against threats that might emerge over the next 50 years. This debate is not about our security today; it is about the security of our children and our children’s children.
No one may like it—least of all the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—but there remain 17,000 nuclear weapons around the world. Russia is spending $650 billion over 10 years to modernise its armed forces, including upgrading the readiness of its nuclear systems. We live in a time of unprecedented acceleration in the development of nuclear technology and the desire among nations in unstable regions of the world to procure nuclear capability.
Mr Dunne
I am afraid I do not have time.
Iran has a well-established ballistic missile programme, is looking to extend its range and is close to being capable of developing a nuclear weapon. North Korea has proven nuclear capability and has tested ballistic missiles with increasing range. Only last week, a ship destined for North Korea with missile parts on it was intercepted in the Panama canal. This is a very uncertain world. I for one do not have the confidence to forsake a capability that has served this nation so well these past nearly 50 years in maintaining the security of the nation.
The maintenance of the UK’s deterrent in the face of the clear threat during the cold war and the uncertainties of today’s world has been possible only because of the dedication of those who have worked tirelessly to provide it. I am sure the whole House, regardless of Members’ views on the issue, will join me in paying tribute to the crews of our submarines and their families, and all the men and women, both military and civilian, who are engaged in providing our deterrent. I also wish to take the opportunity to congratulate them on the successful conclusion a few weeks ago of the 100th patrol undertaken by the Vanguard class of submarine under Operation Relentless—a significant achievement and a testament to the commitment, professionalism and skill of all those involved.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) have requested, I pay tribute to the service of the veterans of British nuclear test programmes whose contribution ensured that the United Kingdom has been equipped with an appropriate deterrent over the past 45 years.
During tonight’s debate, many Members on both sides of the House have commented on the purpose of the Trident alternatives review. That is worth revisiting, because of the context that it provides for the debate and the conclusions of the review.
The Liberal Democrats’ opposition to the renewal of our nuclear deterrent based on the Trident system is well known. In 2007, they voted against the then Government’s decision, set out in the 2006 White Paper, to maintain our nuclear deterrent by building a new class of submarines. In 2009, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said
“we should admit that we neither need nor can afford to replace Trident.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 297.]
In their 2010 general election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats said that they would
“rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons...it is unaffordable, and Britain's security would be better served by alternatives”.
The Chief Secretary has just confirmed that, as the author of the manifesto, he wrote those words. So the Liberal Democrats’ position was very clear: there would be no replacement of Trident, but they would explore alternative nuclear deterrent systems. As I have said, that position was reflected in the coalition’s programme for government.
I have to say that I feel some sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. It was no doubt an uncomfortable moment for him when he realised during the course of the review that he would have to come to the House and report that, in fact, there were no cheaper alternatives to our Trident system after all. It must have been even more uncomfortable for him to realise that, instead of being able to stand at the Dispatch Box and make the case for some sort of cruise-missile based system—which, by the way, would offer a far less credible deterrent than Trident—he would have to execute a major U-turn, and accept Trident.
Of course, having been forced by the facts to accept the Trident system for party political reasons—to try to maintain some sort of differentiation on nuclear weapons, and to appease the disarmament wing of the Liberal Democrat membership—the Chief Secretary is now advocating a breaking of the posture that has been the foundation of our deterrence for the past 45 years: continuous-at-sea deterrence.
The Chief Secretary said a good deal about the parameters of the review and the conclusions that it drew, but he missed one vital point of which I am sure the House will want to be aware. Members will no doubt have spotted that paragraph 4 of the Executive Summary of the document states that the review
“does not produce a comparison of like-for-like capability.”
There is a very simple reason for that. The review demonstrates that no alternative system has a capability that is comparable to our continuous-at-sea submarine-based deterrent with Trident missiles. The two former Secretaries of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), are perhaps better placed than any other Members who have spoken today, given their own reviews, to see that that is clearly the case.
Having listened carefully to the Chief Secretary’s speech and to contributions from the only other Liberal Democrat Member who was prepared to support this position today, I am still completely at a loss as to what the Liberal Democrats’ policy on Trident actually is. After a two-year review that was specifically designed to help them to come up with a policy, they still have not decided whether they are in favour of two or three submarines. At the start of the week, they briefed the national newspapers that they would come out in favour of just two successor submarines. One newspaper reported:
“Mr Alexander has concluded there is no practical alternative to Trident…but he will detail alternatives for downgrading it, making clear the leadership’s preference is for a two-submarine replacement.”
Yesterday, however, it was revealed that the Trident alternatives review did not even examine the option of replacing the current fleet of four Vanguard submarines with just two successor boats. Why not? Because at the outset, when the Liberal Democrats had the opportunity to raise the issues that they wished to be considered in the review, they did not do so. What a shambles. Only the Liberal Democrats could hold a two-year review, brief the newspapers that they are in favour of an option that was not even in the review and then, when the review is published, refuse to confirm whether they are in favour of it or not.
This Government recognise the need to provide our nation’s security in the most efficient and effective way possible. We need a credible deterrence posture, and CASD alone provides that. I welcome the clear confirmation tonight from the official Opposition Front-Bench team of its new commitment to a continuous-at-sea deterrent, which it expects to be delivered by a minimum effective deployment. That was not its position last week, but it is now. If this change in posture or clarification of the official Opposition—
Business without Debate
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 and 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Defence
That the draft Armed Forces Act (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2013, which were laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
That the draft Armed Forces (Retrial for Serious Offences) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
Question agreed to.
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Companies
That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.
That the draft Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.
That the draft Companies and Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I take great pleasure in presenting this petition on behalf of Mrs Wendy Binder, Mrs Sally Tooth and some 700 local residents of the Churchill and neighbouring wards in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of residents of Churchill and neighbouring wards in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency,
Declares that they object to the plans by the Post Office management to close its office at Lupus Street, Pimlico, London SW1 by March 2015 as it would be to the serious inconvenience of local residents and to the detriment of the community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to intercede on their behalf to require that the Post Office maintain this important facility in its current form and location and desist from its plans to close it.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001198]
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Last Friday, I had the pleasure of going to Falconer’s Hill infant school in my constituency, where I met the excellent head, Coleen Wilkins, and a number of the students who had collected this petition. Gemma Powell, aged seven, Freya Green, aged six, and Lola Gunn, aged six, told me about the need for a pelican crossing outside their school.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe a controlled crossing should be installed outside the Falcolner’s Hill/Parker E-ACT Academy/Dolphin Day Nursery on the Ashby Road.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to install such a controlled crossing.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001215]
Organ Transplants
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Variation of the Limit of Compensatory Award) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 204 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 205 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) 2013 (S.R. (N.I), 2013, No. 175), dated 26 June 2013, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 203 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Civil Procedure (Amendment No.5) Rules 2013 (S.I., 2013, No. 1571), dated 26 June 2013, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 202 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last week was national transplant week, and the NHS highlighted an important campaign to increase organ donation. Donor rates have, pleasingly, increased by 50% since 2008, but although almost every one of us would accept a donated organ if we needed a transplant, only 57% of relatives agree to organs being retrieved. However, that proportion rockets to 95% if the deceased has discussed his or her wishes in advance with family members. Some 19.7 million of us are on the organ donor register, but three people still die each day while waiting for a transplant, so I wholeheartedly support the efforts of NHS Blood and Transplant to increase the number of organs donated. I add my voice to those who advocate an opt-out scheme.
Having met and talked to transplant survivors, I can testify to the immense gratitude that they feel to donors who have literally given them a new lease of life, but donation is only half the story. Although the selection and allocation of organs for transplant is much less widely discussed, it is also a complex and controversial issue.
A few weeks ago, I met my constituent, 18-year-old Natalie McCusker, who had been on the waiting list for a lung transplant for 19 months. She described to me what it is like to live in a state of limbo waiting for a suitable transplant. She has been too unwell to go to school, although her school arranged for her to participate in classes via Skype. She wanted to study sciences, but could not because oxygen cylinders and science experiments do not mix. As a young girl, she had enjoyed and been very good at sport, but that has become impossible since she became too ill. The effects on her family have also been profound; for example, her mum has taken a five-year career break.
Natalie was first told that she would need a transplant when she was 15. She initially hoped it would be carried out at Great Ormond Street children’s hospital, but people transfer to the adult register at the age of 16, so she was advised to delay transplant surgery until she moved to the adult list.
When Natalie first moved on to the adult system, she was able to access treatments that are deemed unsuitable for children. At first her condition improved, but seven weeks after taking her GCSEs, she became much more unwell. She was eventually listed for a transplant in November 2011. I completely accept that there are different clinical demands when treating children and adults, and that there is a need for separate systems. However, from the patient’s point of view, it seems that the transition may lengthen waiting times, and it also means that a new relationship of trust and confidence must be built up between the patient and new teams of clinicians.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the House. I have a particular interest in organ transplants and donation because I have carried a card since I have been able to do so. In Northern Ireland, we carried out about eight transplant operations in 2008, but now in 2013 we carry out more than 50 a year—almost one a week. That has happened not only because those who carry the card pass on their organs when they die, but because we have the largest number of live donors in the whole of the United Kingdom—far above the average for England and Wales. If more effort was made on live donors, it could help to address the problem faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent. The evidence from Northern Ireland indicates that the longer one is on a donor list, the less one’s health deteriorates, so perhaps the Minister will address that point when she responds to the debate.
Kate Green
I note with interest what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to that point. Obviously, we would want to explore all methods of increasing the number of donor organs available. We should bear it in mind that one person may donate up to nine organs following their death.
I was talking about the crucial importance of a sense of trust and confidence between patients and clinicians. For a course of treatment as massive and life-changing as transplant surgery, that is certainly no trivial matter. I cannot suggest any easy answer to that, but my first point to the Minister is to ask her to consider ways in which the disruption of the transition process between childhood treatment and the adult list could be minimised, with a particular interest in ensuring that waiting times are not extended unnecessarily.
There are other concerns relating to the allocation of organs for those on the waiting list. The current process for allocating hearts and lungs for transplant is based on dividing the country into a number of zones. That means that if someone lives in one zone and a suitable organ becomes available in another, they might not receive it simply because they are on the wrong waiting list. In following a rigid zonal approach, important considerations of equity across the country could be neglected. A patient can be registered on only one list, and the result can be a postcode lottery for treatment.
Patients in my region, the north-west—it is your region, too, Mr Deputy Speaker—wait the longest in the country for lung transplants: over 400 days in Manchester, compared with under 200 in Cambridge. According to a written answer I received from the Minister on 15 May, between April 2008 and March 2011 62.2% of patients in the north-west waited more than six months for a lung transplant, compared with an England average of 47.3%, and 23.2% of patients in the north-west waited more than 18 months for such a transplant, compared with an England average of 15.8%. The north-west also has among the highest death rates for those on the waiting list for a lung transplant—between 20% and 30%.
I believe that we need to look again at the operation of the zonal system so as to get the balance right between the underlying issues of urgency, geographical proximity between donors and recipients, and waiting times. The most urgent cases should clearly take priority. One approach could be to treat urgent cases on a national basis and, if no urgent case exists, to allocate on a zonal basis. If that approach were adopted, zones would need to be more dynamic. In other words, if the waiting list grew the zone would also expand to give access to more organs.
More radically, we could move to a fully national allocation system, whereby patients could be matched with suitable organs across the country. I recognise that geographical considerations are of course important, not least if the ischemia time, the time between organ retrieval and transplant, is integral to the success of the operation. For heart transplants, in particular, it very often is, and the system for heart transplants in fact appears to work effectively. That seems to be much less true for lung transplants. Equity is also a consideration. It is of course important to have regard to the interests of those who have been on the waiting list the longest, and that really should not be dependent on where someone lives and which list they are on.
I understand that the NHS is now considering whether to move to a national registration system, which would be fairer to patients in regions such as ours. In the US and much of Europe this approach has already been adopted or is being considered. The evidence suggests that it could achieve greater equity without any increase in mortality rates, or indeed cost.
So what is the block? Inertia and convenience undoubtedly play a part. I acknowledge that there is already better sharing of organs between zones when a suitable match cannot be achieved within a zone, but it seems that some transplant centres might be more interested in building up the scale of their own activities rather than progressing the idea of a national scheme that could deliver greater equity for all patients. Progress towards delivering a national list scheme in this country is proving painfully slow.
What steps are being taken to make progress towards a more equitable national scheme of allocation, and what is the Minister’s attitude to the development of such a scheme? What work, if any, is being done to develop a national approach, and over what time scale might progress be expected? How best can we make use of technology and the sharing of data to facilitate the allocation of organs between zones? What learning and best practice can be adopted from other countries? What incentives would encourage a more equitable system of allocation between transplant centres and protect or improve outcomes for patients?
I am very pleased to report that Natalie had a successful lung transplant two weeks ago. She is growing stronger every day and it is hoped that she will be well enough to return home next week. She and her family are of course absolutely delighted and hugely appreciative of the treatment she received from the transplant team at Wythenshawe hospital. However, for 19 months, while waiting for her transplant, her life was put on hold. Perhaps that wait could have been shorter if she had not been restricted to a single zonal waiting list. Yesterday she wrote to me to say how pleased she is that this debate is taking place in Parliament, which she says she hopes will help “to achieve something that will in future benefit the thousands of people that will need life saving transplants.”
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to commit tonight to working towards a national system of organ allocation that offers equity of access to organs for transplantation and rapid progress towards achieving this. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter and look forward to her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing this debate, raising this important issue, and enabling us to discuss it for this very short period. It is not really a debate but a number of questions quite properly asked, no doubt many of which I will not answer, through no unwillingness on my part but because, as I always say, the usual rules apply. However, all questions will be answered, if not by me tonight then certainly by way of a letter. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his helpful and interesting contribution. He has been good enough to provide me with a clipping. I believe that it is about kidney transplants and kidney donations, and I will make further inquiries.
As you will know and understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter has come up by way of the fact that hon. Lady, as she explained, has a constituent, Natalie McCusker, who has had a lung transplant. We are all delighted that she was able to have that lung transplant.
As we know, the donation of organs is sometimes from a living source, to put it in crude terms. There are many examples of people who have made the most amazing sacrifices, often within families, to supply a kidney to a loved one so that they can live. There is, of course, the whole additional subject of what happens on death and the wishes of somebody in relation to their organs, and the absolutely amazing difference that that generosity after life can make to people. No doubt Natalie is a very fine example of that, and no doubt she and her family are profoundly grateful to the person who had the good sense to indicate that they were willing that on their death their organs would be donated. Then there is the great and often very emotional matter of the family deciding that they are all content for this to happen. There is nothing worse than when someone is taken from us when they die. It is very difficult for anyone in the medical profession—we have nurses who are specially trained in this—to approach the family in those profoundly difficult times and discuss the possibility of organ donation. The work of those nurses and other medical professionals is one of the reasons we have seen an increase in organ donation.
We all know the benefits of transplants and know that we need to do more to increase the number of organs donated. That would give many more people the opportunity to benefit from a transplant that could save their life or significantly improve the quality of their life. About 8,000 people are listed on the national transplant list waiting for a transplant. Many more could be listed if more donated organs were available for transplant. Many people wait months and years for a phone call telling them that a suitable organ has been donated and calling them in for a transplant. I am aware through my work as a Minister of some of those families and their anguish as they literally sit around waiting for that phone call, especially when it is a child who so desperately needs the transplant to, in effect, save or improve the quality of their life. For some, that phone call never comes and about three people—adults and children—die every day waiting for a transplant that could have saved their lives.
Given that the number of people needing organ transplants in the United Kingdom is greater than the number of donor organs available, there has to be a system to ensure that patients are treated equitably and that donated organs are allocated in a fair and unbiased way. Allocation is based on the patient’s need and the importance of achieving the closest possible match between donor and recipient, which is often very difficult.
All patients waiting for transplants are registered on the national transplant database. Rules for allocating organs are determined by the medical profession in consultation with other health professionals in health departments and specialist solid organ advisory groups. The blood group, age and size of both the donor and the recipient are all taken into account to ensure the best possible match for each patient, and the cardiothoracic advisory group is currently looking at improving the allocation of donated lungs to help to ensure equity and better outcomes for patients.
At present, lungs are allocated to the transplant centre based on the location of the donor, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said. The transplant centre will decide whether or not to accept the lungs and will select the most appropriate recipient. NHS Blood and Transplant is working with transplant centres to consider whether the current allocation system can be improved. It is considering whether it would be worth while implementing a national allocation scheme offering lungs and other organs nationally, rather than by centre. Other models are also being considered. NHS Blood and Transplant monitors the current allocation system closely to ensure that there is equity of access across the UK, and a recent analysis showed no statistical differences in outcomes across the UK in relation to lung transplant centres.
Kate Green
I appreciate that the Minister may not immediately know the answer to this, but does the equity of outcome apply not just to survival rates, but to waiting times?
Anna Soubry
As the hon. Lady has anticipated, I do not have the answer to that question in my brief, but I will make sure that she receives a proper answer.
Over the past five years, we have been strengthening the donation infrastructure by implementing the 14 recommendations of the organ donation taskforce, which were published in 2008. Is it not nice that in this sort of debate we can pay tribute to another Government of a different political persuasion? We are all united on this issue; it is not a party political issue and it is always a pleasure to take part in these sorts of debates.
The number of donor co-ordinators across the United Kingdom has nearly doubled. They are working closely with intensive care clinicians and families to identify potential donors and obtain consent. As I have said, it is difficult work but, goodness me, what a difference it can make when it is successful.
We have appointed clinical leads and established donation committees and chairmen in all trusts. This has driven improvement in hospitals, optimising the potential for organ donation. I am delighted that we have achieved an increase of 50% in organ donor rates and of 30% in transplant rates over the past five years, helping many more people to have the transplant that they so desperately need. We need to do more, however, to enable many more people like Natalie to receive the organ transplant that in many circumstances will save or enhance their life.
On 11 July, NHS Blood and Transplant published the new UK strategy for organ donation and transplantation. “Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020” sets the agenda for increasing organ donation and transplant rates to world-class standards over the next seven years by aiming to improve consent rates to organ donation to more than 80%—they are currently 57%—and transplant more organs and increase the number of people receiving an organ. The strategy calls for a revolution in public attitudes and behaviours, and emphasises the importance of individuals and families agreeing to donation. That important work needs to take place irrespective of someone’s background, ethnicity, religion, faith or whatever else. We need to ensure that more people in all parts of society sign up to donate their organs and that we are able to persuade people’s families to allow their organs to be donated upon death.
Jim Shannon
The Welsh Assembly has recently taken a decision on organ donation, which is a positive step. Is it the intention to consider having that system in England, because that might help the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) in her quest?
Anna Soubry
The Welsh Government have introduced legislation under which people will have to opt out. We need to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that that system works, because there are concerns about the effect it will have across the United Kingdom when one country has people opting out as opposed to opting in, as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The independent organ donation taskforce examined the case for moving to an opt-out system in 2008 and its recommendation was against such a system. Spain had an opt-out system, but I think that it has now rejected it. In any event, it no longer has an opt-out system. I know that because I had a conversation with Spain’s Health Minister at a recent EU conference, as one does at such events, where people learn from each other, which is extremely useful. Spain has one of the highest uptake levels for organ donation and there is an awful lot that we can learn from it.
When people apply for a driving licence, they can now tick a box to sign up for organ donation. That has its value. I think we should take every opportunity to encourage people to donate. However, if people are applying for a driving licence, there will be a tendency to skip that box because they want to get on with filling in the form.
I will be quite frank. When I got this job, ITV ran an excellent campaign for about a week in which it encouraged its viewers to sign up to be donors. I suddenly realised that I did not have a donor card. I was informed by my brilliant officials that I did not need a donor card and that all I needed to do was go online. I went online and signed up extremely easily and quickly. I was highly impressed by that system. I would not have known about it if ITV had not run that campaign. There are many opportunities to encourage and positively enable people to sign up and donate.
I will keep an open mind on the opt-out system. We will look at what happens in Wales. We may well have a great deal to learn from it. It may be that that system, which the Welsh Government have great hopes for, will be successful and that, in looking at it, we will form a different view. It is important to keep all one’s options open.
As I was saying, NHS Blood and Transplant announced its new strategy on 11 July. It has a new chair who is full of vigour and who I am sure will do an extremely good job.
In conclusion, transplantation offers many people the opportunity of life and enhances the lives of many others. I am delighted that Natalie has had that opportunity and we all wish her a long, happy and healthy life. We have made significant progress over the past five years and we must thank all the families of donors for agreeing to or supporting donation and giving the gift of life at such a terrible time in their own lives. We want to build on that progress and increase our donation and transplantation rates up to 2020 to match the world-class performance in many other countries. There is no reason why we cannot do as well as the Spanish or even better. We will continue to monitor the procedures in the United Kingdom for the selection and allocation of organs, and to consider whether changes to the allocation of organs need to be made to ensure equity of access for all people on the national waiting list.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, whom I congratulate again on securing this debate, has been heartened by the points that I have made. If there are any questions that I have not answered, I will of course write to her, unless she wants to make a quick intervention before I finish. She seems content and I am grateful for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Consultants
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jim Murphy
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which consultancies have been given contracts with his Department since May 2010; and what the (a) cost, (b) purpose and (c) scope of work conducted under each such contract was.
[Official Report, 6 February 2013, Vol. 558, c. 228-34W.]
Letter of correction from Mark Francois:
An error has been identified in the written answer given on 6 February 2013 to the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy).
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Francois
[holding answer 10 December 2012]: A list of consultancies that have been awarded Ministry of Defence (MOD) contracts since May 2010 is provided as follows. The table includes contract value and a broad description of the requirement. Contracts awarded by MOD agencies and trading funds are included, but the list excludes contracts awarded under the Framework Agreement for Technical Support and those classified by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation as Principal Service Providers; these contracts are defined separately from consultancy services.
Total MOD expenditure on consultancy for the last five financial years is listed as follows. These figures include spend by MOD trading funds. The table shows that between 2007-08 and 2011-12 expenditure on consultancy fell by 84%.
£ million | |
|---|---|
2007-08 | 120 |
2008-09 | 106 |
2009-10 | 79 |
2010-11 | 26 |
2011-12 | 19 |
MOD consultancy contracts awarded since May 2010
The contract value represents the limit of liability against which expenditure may be incurred and actual expenditure against individual contracts may be lower.
Start date | Consultancy name | Description of requirement | Contract value (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
1 May 2010 | Harness IT Consulting | Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project—Implementation and Development—Project Team Costs | 216,843 |
20 May 2010 | Criterion | Leadership Forum design | 16,800 |
21 May 2010 | Cap Gemini plc | Barcoding Project—Transition and Project Management Consultancy | 43,236 |
21 May 2010 | Cap Gemini plc | Barcoding Project—third party services and software | 41,150 |
21 May 2010 | Pinsent Mason | Legal services for Project Delphi | 60,000 |
27 May 2010 | KPMG | Operational Efficiency Programme/Asset Management Review | 101,592 |
7 June 2010 | Criterion | Amendments to questionnaire | 18,500 |
7 June 2010 | Criterion | Update the Managing Performance V3 course | 5,600 |
29 June 2010 | Dr Mukulika Banerjee | Provision of subject matter expert advice to the Chief of the Defence Staff Strategic Advisory Forum | 2,000 |
12 July 2010 | Libra Advisory Group | External Assistance (EA) for Afghan Counter Insurgency Centre | 18,250 |
23 July 2010 | Criterion | Creation of Abstract Reasoning Test | 17,000 |
1 August 2010 | Cap Gemini plc | ERP Project—Implementation and Development—Technical Services | 15,000 |
1 August 2010 | Worldwide Technology UK Ltd | ERP Project— Implementation and Development—Project Team Costs—Cutover Management | 120,006 |
1 August 2010 | Ipsos Mori | Fleet Auxiliary Flotilla Survey | 17,990 |
10 August 2010 | Inventures | EA on Defence Training Rationalisation Fall Back Plan | 15,000 |
10 August 2010 | Concerto Consulting Ltd | EA on Defence Training Rationalisation Fall Back Plan | 11,000 |
16 August 2010 | Pinsent Mason | Career Levelling—Legally Privileged | 1,675 |
16 August 2010 | Zenst | Provide coaching to support nominated senior managers | 999 |
24 August 2010 | QinetiQ | Support to Develop IA Training Courses | 17,663 |
8 September 2010 | Criterion | One Day Consultant design | 2,800 |
27 September 2010 | KPMG | Cost Assurance and Analysis Development Programme | 12,000,000 |
5 October 2010 | SCS Ltd | Field Army Stock Efficiency | 31,500 |
6 October 2010 | InterCultures Ltd | The provision of cultural advice and guidance to Commander Task Force Helmand and his staff covering political, economic, social and development environments, as well as civil-military issues | 49,770 |
11 October 2010 | CPCR | To tweak and update current Line Managers course | 3,220 |
12 October 2010 | Atkins Ltd | EA for Defence Acquisition Reform Programme (DARP) Partnering for skills Project Management Scoping Study | 218,144 |
20 October 2010 | TMP | Review of AIB | 25,450 |
31 October 2010 | Cranfield University | NATO Capability Culture Scoping Study | 49,000 |
1 November 2010 | Deloitte | External Assistance to the Re-Negotiation Process | 120,000 |
5 November 2010 | SCS Ltd | SO2 mission specific training resource management | 100,000 |
23 November 2010 | C.O.I | BFBS Media Broadcast Tech Support | 40,000 |
20 December 2010 | CPCR | Development of a one day Bringing the Business Plan To Life event | 1,610 |
7 January 2011 | Quatrosystem Ltd | Carry out a soft issues assessment of the six bidders competing for new ISP contracts | 103,177 |
10 January 2011 | KPMG | EA for Puma Mk2 Simulator and Synthetic Training Upgrade | 64,578 |
14 January 2011 | Transcend | To undertake work for the new operating model for DIO | 48,500 |
4 February 2011 | Criterion | Design of first Learning Community session. | 2,800 |
4 February 2011 | Criterion | Design of one day event for Line Managers of Technical Consultants | 7,000 |
15 February 2011 | Criterion | Graduate Development line manager training design. | 1,400 |
16 February 2011 | Mayo Learning | Training design | 3,500 |
28 February 2011 | In Partnership | Coaching and Organisation change projects | 4,344 |
2 March 2011 | Catalyze Ltd | Request for Technical Support to Assist in Down Selection of Site Options | 15,000 |
10 March 2011 | Bray Leino | Graduate Development Programme—Team build design | 638.00 |
15 March 2011 | Criterion | Design of a two day training event for technical consultants | 9,000 |
15 March 2011 | Criterion | Research and development of simulation | 9,000 |
21 March 2011 | Freight Transport Association | External Support for Driver Certificate of Professional Competences | 7,051 |
25 March 2011 | KPMG | Admiralty Holdings Limited strategic review | 110,762 |
1 April 2011 | Deloitte | External Assistance for Defence Infrastructure Transformation Programme | 441,000 |
19 April 2011 | In Partnership | Coaching and Organisation change projects | 12,150 |
20 April 2011 | Criterion | Additional development costs for the extension of the Building Technical Consulting Excellence event | 4,200 |
29 April 2011 | Serco Ltd | Continued Provision of Technical Support to Defence Crisis Management Centre | 177,760 |
9 May 2011 | Deloitte | Assist in the design and delivery of Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Transformation Programme | 5,000.000 |
26 July 2011 | Ernst and Young | Future Defence Storage and Distribution Project (FDSDP) EA Support | 222,000 |
14 November 2011 | QiResults | Provision of a Phase 2 Efficiency in Support Leader to Support the Materiel Strategy—Business Case/Investment Appraisal | 72,000 |
29 November 2011 | Deloitte MCS Ltd | Sale of Marsh wood | 99,900 |
29 November 2011 | Ernst and Young | EA for the Commercial Development of RAF Northolt | 94,000 |
1 January 2012 | PricewaterhouseCoopers | SDSR Renegotiation of PFI Projects | 169,465 |
4 January 2012 | Deloitte MCS Ltd | EA to the Army 2020 study | 106,000 |
16 January 2012 | Ernst and Young | External Assistance Support To The FDSDP Tender Exercise | 470,000 |
17 February 2012 | Deloitte LLP | The provision of a Benchmarking exercise for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary against the Royal Navy and commercial operators | 850,000 |
1 April 2012 | Ernst and Young | Study into retaining part of Defence Support Group (DSG) within the MOD on sale of DSG | 39,000 |
12 June 2012 | Detica Ltd | Delivery of Cross Government ICT Strategy Outputs | 149,430 |
13 June 2012 | Deloitte LLP | The provision of consultancy support services to deliver improved leadership behaviours | 1,529,912 |
1 July 2012 | Prof J F Alder | Provision of specialist support and advice on chemical and explosives activities | 5,000 |
6 July 2012 | Catalyze Ltd | External Assistance to the Change Programme Team at RAF Lyneham | 10,000 |
9 July 2012 | Deloitte MCS Ltd | EA to support Army 2020 Study | 70,000 |
13 July 2012 | LEK | Business Strategy Partner for Materiel Strategy | 1,950,625 |
18 July 2012 | Change Partners | Provision of services to support Corporate Intervention 2 | 20,000 |
31 July 2012 | Atos Ltd | External Assistance for Logistic Commodities Category Management Assessment | 16,500 |
10 August 2012 | Maxxim Consulting LLP | Corporate Strategy Review and Development | 51,325 |
14 August 2012 | Deloitte MCS Ltd | Consultancy for the provision of technical advice and support to progress management and liabilities and rationalisation in the warship build sector | 599,836 |
10 October 2012 | Bell Pottinger Public Affairs Ltd | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD DIO transformation Project to support the Change Leadership and Communication requirements of the transformation programme | 995,000 |
10 October 2012 | PWC | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD DIO transformation Project to support the Portfolio Integration and Management requirements of the transformation programme | 942,560 |
10 October 2012 | Deloitte | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD DIO transformation Project to support the Enhanced Operating Model and Technology Solution Implementation requirements of the transformation programme and the Strategic Business Partner Procurement | 5,922,928 |
15 October 2012 | Deloitte | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD DIO transformation Project to support the Footprint Strategy of the transformation programme | 253,341 |
18 October 2012 | Deloitte | EA for the Defence Fire and Rescue Project | 426,474 |
19 November 2012 | KPMG | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD Material Strategy Project to support the construction of business cases, investment appraisals and benefits realisations for the transformation programme | 1,145,250 |
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Francois
[holding answer 10 December 2012]: A list of consultancies that have been awarded Ministry of Defence (MOD) contracts since May 2010 is provided as follows. The table includes contract value and a broad description of the requirement. Contracts awarded by MOD agencies and trading funds are included, but the list excludes contracts awarded under the Framework Agreement for Technical Support and those classified by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation as Principal Service Providers; these contracts are defined separately from consultancy services.
Total MOD expenditure on consultancy for the last five financial years is listed as follows. These figures include spend by MOD trading funds. The table shows that between 2007-08 and 2011-12 expenditure on consultancy fell by 84%.
£ million | |
|---|---|
2007-08 | 120 |
2008-09 | 106 |
2009-10 | 79 |
2010-11 | 26 |
2011-12 | 19 |
MOD consultancy contracts awarded since May 2010
The contract value represents the limit of liability against which expenditure may be incurred and actual expenditure against individual contracts may be lower.
Start date | Consultancy name | Description of requirement | Contract value (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
1 May 2010 | Harness IT Consulting | Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project—Implementation and Development—Project Team Costs | 200,907 |
20 May 2010 | Criterion | Leadership Forum design | 16,800 |
21 May 2010 | Cap Gemini plc | Barcoding Project—Transition and Project Management Consultancy | 43,236 |
21 May 2010 | Cap Gemini plc | Barcoding Project—third party services and software | 41,150 |
21 May 2010 | Pinsent Mason | Legal services for Project Delphi | 60,000 |
27 May 2010 | KPMG | Operational Efficiency Programme/Asset Management Review | 101,592 |
7 June 2010 | Criterion | Amendments to questionnaire | 18,500 |
7 June 2010 | Criterion | Update the Managing Performance V3 course | 5,600 |
29 June 2010 | Dr Mukulika Banerjee | Provision of subject matter expert advice to the Chief of the Defence Staff Strategic Advisory Forum | 2,000 |
12 July 2010 | Libra Advisory Group | External Assistance (EA) for Afghan Counter Insurgency Centre | 18,250 |
23 July 2010 | Criterion | Creation of Abstract Reasoning Test | 17,000 |
1 August 2010 | Cap Gemini plc | ERP Project—Implementation and Development—Technical Services | 15,000 |
1 August 2010 | Worldwide Technology UK Ltd | ERP Project— Implementation and Development—Project Team Costs—Cutover Management | 148,779 |
1 August 2010 | Ipsos Mori | Fleet Auxiliary Flotilla Survey | 17,990 |
10 August 2010 | Inventures | EA on Defence Training Rationalisation Fall Back Plan | 15,000 |
10 August 2010 | Concerto Consulting Ltd | EA on Defence Training Rationalisation Fall Back Plan | 11,000 |
16 August 2010 | Pinsent Mason | Career Levelling—Legally Privileged | 1,675 |
16 August 2010 | Zenst | Provide coaching to support nominated senior managers | 999 |
24 August 2010 | QinetiQ | Support to Develop IA Training Courses | 17,663 |
8 September 2010 | Criterion | One Day Consultant design | 2,800 |
27 September 2010 | KPMG | Cost Assurance and Analysis Development Programme | 12,000,000 |
5 October 2010 | SCS Ltd | Field Army Stock Efficiency | 31,500 |
6 October 2010 | InterCultures Ltd | The provision of cultural advice and guidance to Commander Task Force Helmand and his staff covering political, economic, social and development environments, as well as civil-military issues | 49,770 |
11 October 2010 | CPCR | To tweak and update current Line Managers course | 3,220 |
12 October 2010 | Atkins Ltd | EA for Defence Acquisition Reform Programme (DARP) Partnering for skills Project Management Scoping Study | 218,144 |
20 October 2010 | TMP | Review of AIB | 25,450 |
31 October 2010 | Cranfield University | NATO Capability Culture Scoping Study | 49,000 |
1 November 2010 | Deloitte | External Assistance to the Re-Negotiation Process | 120,000 |
5 November 2010 | SCS Ltd | SO2 mission specific training resource management | 100,000 |
23 November 2010 | C.O.I | BFBS Media Broadcast Tech Support | 40,000 |
20 December 2010 | CPCR | Development of a one day Bringing the Business Plan To Life event | 1,610 |
7 January 2011 | Quatrosystem Ltd | Carry out a soft issues assessment of the six bidders competing for new ISP contracts | 103,177 |
10 January 2011 | KPMG | EA for Puma Mk2 Simulator and Synthetic Training Upgrade | 64,578 |
14 January 2011 | Transcend | To undertake work for the new operating model for DIO | 48,500 |
4 February 2011 | Criterion | Design of first Learning Community session. | 2,800 |
4 February 2011 | Criterion | Design of one day event for Line Managers of Technical Consultants | 7,000 |
15 February 2011 | Criterion | Graduate Development line manager training design. | 1,400 |
16 February 2011 | Mayo Learning | Training design | 3,500 |
28 February 2011 | In Partnership | Coaching and Organisation change projects | 4,344 |
2 March 2011 | Catalyze Ltd | Request for Technical Support to Assist in Down Selection of Site Options | 15,000 |
10 March 2011 | Bray Leino | Graduate Development Programme—Team build design | 638.00 |
15 March 2011 | Criterion | Design of a two day training event for technical consultants | 9,000 |
15 March 2011 | Criterion | Research and development of simulation | 9,000 |
21 March 2011 | Freight Transport Association | External Support for Driver Certificate of Professional Competences | 7,051 |
25 March 2011 | KPMG | Admiralty Holdings Limited strategic review | 110,762 |
1 April 2011 | Deloitte | External Assistance for Defence Infrastructure Transformation Programme | 441,000 |
19 April 2011 | In Partnership | Coaching and Organisation change projects | 12,150 |
20 April 2011 | Criterion | Additional development costs for the extension of the Building Technical Consulting Excellence event | 4,200 |
29 April 2011 | Serco Ltd | Continued Provision of Technical Support to Defence Crisis Management Centre | 177,760 |
9 May 2011 | Deloitte | Assist in the design and delivery of Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Transformation Programme | 5,000.000 |
26 July 2011 | Ernst and Young | Future Defence Storage and Distribution Project (FDSDP) EA Support | 222,000 |
14 November 2011 | QiResults | Provision of a Phase 2 Efficiency in Support Leader to Support the Materiel Strategy—Business Case/Investment Appraisal | 72,000 |
29 November 2011 | Deloitte MCS Ltd | Sale of Marsh wood | 99,900 |
29 November 2011 | Ernst and Young | EA for the Commercial Development of RAF Northolt | 94,000 |
1 January 2012 | PricewaterhouseCoopers | SDSR Renegotiation of PFI Projects | 169,465 |
4 January 2012 | Deloitte MCS Ltd | EA to the Army 2020 study | 106,000 |
16 January 2012 | Ernst and Young | External Assistance Support To The FDSDP Tender Exercise | 470,000 |
17 February 2012 | Deloitte LLP | The provision of a Benchmarking exercise for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary against the Royal Navy and commercial operators | 850,000 |
1 April 2012 | Ernst and Young | Analysis of the capabilities required to deliver future Fleet management services within Defence Support Group (DSG) | 39,000 |
12 June 2012 | Detica Ltd | Delivery of Cross Government ICT Strategy Outputs | 149,430 |
13 June 2012 | Deloitte LLP | The provision of consultancy support services to deliver improved leadership behaviours | 1,529,912 |
1 July 2012 | Prof J F Alder | Provision of specialist support and advice on chemical and explosives activities | 5,000 |
6 July 2012 | Catalyze Ltd | External Assistance to the Change Programme Team at RAF Lyneham | 10,000 |
9 July 2012 | Deloitte MCS Ltd | EA to support Army 2020 Study | 70,000 |
13 July 2012 | LEK | Business Strategy Partner for Materiel Strategy | 1,950,625 |
18 July 2012 | Change Partners | Provision of services to support Corporate Intervention 2 | 20,000 |
31 July 2012 | Atos Ltd | External Assistance for Logistic Commodities Category Management Assessment | 16,500 |
10 August 2012 | Maxxim Consulting LLP | Corporate Strategy Review and Development | 51,325 |
14 August 2012 | Deloitte MCS Ltd | Consultancy for the provision of technical advice and support to progress management and liabilities and rationalisation in the warship build sector | 599,836 |
10 October 2012 | Bell Pottinger Public Affairs Ltd | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD DIO transformation Project to support the Change Leadership and Communication requirements of the transformation programme | 995,000 |
10 October 2012 | PWC | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD DIO transformation Project to support the Portfolio Integration and Management requirements of the transformation programme | 942,560 |
10 October 2012 | Deloitte | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD DIO transformation Project to support the Enhanced Operating Model and Technology Solution Implementation requirements of the transformation programme and the Strategic Business Partner Procurement | 5,922,928 |
15 October 2012 | Deloitte | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD DIO transformation Project to support the Footprint Strategy of the transformation programme | 253,341 |
18 October 2012 | Deloitte | EA for the Defence Fire and Rescue Project | 426,474 |
19 November 2012 | KPMG | The provision of consultancy support services to the MOD Material Strategy Project to support the construction of business cases, investment appraisals and benefits realisations for the transformation programme | 1,145,250 |
Petitions
Closure of Barclays Bank (Marston Green)
Anti-social behaviour on Cato Street (London)
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Localism in Planning
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Good morning, Mr Hollobone. I will try to keep my remarks reasonably brief, to allow my hon. Friends the opportunity to participate in this debate, but the number who wish to do so is evidence of the growing concern in our constituencies about planning matters and the need to ensure that we strike the right balance between providing housing and ensuring that the countryside can be protected and that we keep the promises that we made to local people. I am therefore grateful for securing this debate.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I apologise to my right hon. Friend for intervening so early, but I am also serving on a Joint Committee, to which I need to return. I just want to say how much I welcome his securing this debate and the fact that so many colleagues wish to take part. I have made it clear to the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House that the national policy planning framework is not working to protect the green belt. There is greenfield development in the green belt designated for my constituency at the behest of a planning inspector, rather than local people, which is evidence that our system is not working. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is raising these issues today.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. Eleven Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and I am absolutely determined to do my best to ensure that those 11 people speak. It would greatly help the chances of those who want to speak if they do not intervene beforehand; otherwise we simply will not be able to get everybody in.
Nick Herbert
I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt). Protected landscapes, including the green belt, are specifically singled out in the national framework to ensure that they are not subject to these pressures. My concern is for the wider countryside, which does not have such designation, yet he points out that there is concern in those protected areas, too. That is another reason why we need to reconsider the matter.
We agree that we need more housing. Houses have never been less affordable. The gap between incomes and house prices is very wide, and there is clearly a problem. There is clearly a need for more houses, given the rising population, changing lifestyles and so on. That much is not in dispute.
The new Government agreed to approach those issues by moving away from the top-down approach of setting housing targets, so the coalition agreement was explicit:
“We will rapidly abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils… In the longer term, we will radically reform the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their inhabitants live”.
The regional spatial strategies have been abolished. The top-down target has nominally gone in the south-east, but a number of problems have arisen, despite what the coalition agreement promised.
First, district councils in my constituency, and I believe elsewhere, do not believe that the targets have really disappeared. There is considerable danger that because of the way the process has been set up—with a requirement to conduct a strategic housing market assessment that may not properly take into account the downturn that we have had—and other pressures, which I will address, what those councils are really being told is that they have little choice but to reimpose the target that we said we were taking away. That damages confidence and removes the freedom that local authorities should have to deliver housing.
The whole theory of the localist approach is that, if we move to a system of incentives and encourage responsibility from councils, they will plan for additional houses in a way that does not set up conflict. Indeed, in my own area, whereas 51,000 houses were allocated to the four district councils that cover my constituency under the south-east plan, the current proposed plans of the four councils suggest that they will build nearly 40,000 houses, which is well over three quarters of the target originally set by the previous Government.
We must reject the false dichotomy that there is either a highest housing number or zero houses, with my constituents or councils rejecting the prospect of any house building. The councils are not doing that; they are actually planning for a very responsible level of housing, but it is important that they do that by consent and can carry their communities with them, which is the principle that we set out. If the emerging plans that they published are overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, or if the councils set a higher number than they want to build because they fear that some plans will be overturned by the inspectorate, that freedom has effectively been taken away. So my first key point is that we must not chase the target that we said we would abolish. If we chase that target, we will undermine confidence in the system that we said we would set up.
Secondly, although planning authorities are required to assess housing needs in their area—it is right that they should be able to do so—it is important that they also weigh up the availability of infrastructure to support those housing needs. We have a serious infrastructure deficit in West Sussex. We have an inadequacy of water and real pressure on unprotected countryside, which is important for agricultural use. We have pressure on school places and rural roads. The system will be failing if district councils are not able to adjust their figure to reflect that and say, “This is what is realistically deliverable in our area.” Again, district councils feel under huge pressure to adhere to the original high housing target with little regard to such infrastructure considerations, which should be material and allow councils to set a reasonable level of housing.
Thirdly—this is the real point that I wish to make—there is now a growing risk that we will return to the bad old days of planning by appeal, under which the plans put together by local authorities are effectively overturned by the inspectorate. More to the point, before plans are fully in place, the inspectorate might be allowed to uphold appeals from speculative developers that are charging into my constituency—I understand that they are all over the countryside—and putting in applications in the hope that, in the climate that has now been set, the inspectorate will uphold them. I believe that those developers are responding to a signal that has been sent to them.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
My right hon. Friend probably knows the district of Uttlesford as well as he knows his own constituency. Does he not think it is particularly iniquitous if the Planning Inspectorate makes the kind of decisions to which he has just referred when the district plan is not in place, not because of the planning authority’s idleness or unwillingness, but because it is being held up by waiting for confirmation from the highways authority or the Highways Agency?
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree. My right hon. Friend makes his point very well.
The dangers of returning to planning by appeal are multiple. First, such a return is founded on the mistaken belief that the way to get house building moving is to send some kind of signal through the system and the Planning Inspectorate that such speculative applications are to be rewarded. That is not the way to get house building moving. We need a correct analysis of the real reason for the slow rate of housing starts, which is the economic downturn. In so far as the rate is increasing again, that is due to the upturn in the economy.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not being able to stay for all this debate, as I warned him. The process that he describes is exactly what is happening in Gloucestershire. There is evidence that developers are trying to submit applications under the wire before the democratically approved joint core strategy can be implemented—again, not due to any laziness in local councils. Local politicians are trying to distinguish between real housing need and demand, whereas the inspectorate appears just to be backing demand, and in areas such as his and mine, demand is virtually insatiable.
Nick Herbert
I agree with every word my hon. Friend says; he describes the problem precisely.
The first mistake is to believe that sending a signal and using the inspectorate in that way to reward speculative applications will contribute to getting construction going. It will not, because what is happening frequently is that developers are simply land banking permissions. They are not necessarily building. When they choose to build, it will be when they think that they can make a return and when there is demand for the houses that they wish to sell. What they are doing at the moment in many cases, in my constituency and elsewhere, is taking an opportunity to obtain a permission where they have absolutely no intention to build immediately.
The system is rewarding those developers by having insufficient regard to permissions that have already been granted. That is the second key concern. Given how the rules are set up in relation to the five-year land supply, the calculations that local authorities are required to undertake mean that they cannot include swathes of existing permissions that they have allocated, which places completely unrealistic targets on them.
In one district council in my constituency—Horsham—a rate of house building is now being required that has never been achieved in the area, even in the boom years. It is good news for the developers, who will not be developing for years but will secure planning permissions on greenfield sites. By setting up a formula that fails to give weight to unbuilt planning permissions, many of which are on brownfield sites, we are effectively moving not to the brownfield-first site policy that we should have but to a greenfield-first policy. That is an environmental disaster.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
One problem on the Isle of Wight—and, I have no doubt, elsewhere—is that local people cannot afford housing because people from overseas come to the island.
Nick Herbert
More affordable housing is clearly needed, and there is strong support in local areas for that housing to be provided, to maintain the character of villages and ensure that communities remain strong. No one disagrees that more housing is needed, particularly more affordable housing, but as the policy is constructed with a five-year land supply requirement that pays insufficient attention to unbuilt planning permission and is effectively a greenfield-first policy, it will not deliver the affordable housing needed; it will simply enable developers to build their balance sheets.
There is disagreement about the number of unbuilt planning permissions nationally; the Minister has had an exchange about it. It would be helpful to have some up-to-date, reliable national figures. According to the four district councils covering my constituency and beyond, the total number of unbuilt planning permissions granted is well over 16,000 and the number of houses proposed to be built is 39,000. The number of unbuilt planning permissions granted is getting on for half the number of houses wanted, yet the councils are being told that those unbuilt permissions cannot really be taken into account when they set the number. That is the problem.
The practical effect of the policy is damaging to a principle that I know that the Minister adheres to strongly, as do I—neighbourhood planning underlying the publication of local plans. That was the most potent feature of the Localism Act 2011: neighbourhoods would be given the responsibility and incentives to plan for their own futures. In my constituency, some parish councils have stuck their necks out to prepare responsible neighbourhood plans, saying what amount of housing they can take. Some are taking an amount that they would not have dreamed of, and are now feeling considerably undermined. I cannot overstate how seriously I take that.
In my constituency, the parish councillors—good people—are all volunteers who have taken a considerable amount of local effort and, in some cases, risk to promote the plans, while speculative applications are coming in that are being granted either because the district council wants to grant them or, in many cases, because it fears that they will be upheld by the inspectorate. Such speculative applications are often completely contrary to what is wanted in the parishes under the neighbourhood plan. The consequence is that faith in the neighbourhood planning process, which could be so powerful and will deliver the local and affordable housing that we need, is in danger of draining away.
I have just forwarded to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, copying the Minister, a letter from three chairs of parish councils in my constituency. They specifically asked me to draw the letter to Ministers’ attention. It says:
“Neighbourhood planning should encourage partnership working between parishes and districts. In truth, it is damaging the very fabric of these important tiers of local government. We also run the risk of damaging the trust of local people who have been allowed by government, and encouraged by parish councils, to engage in the neighbourhood planning process. To have their contribution disregarded will be damaging at resident, parish and district levels.”
Those are not party political elected councillors; they are volunteers of no party who are committed to the neighbourhood planning process, and they feel that it is being chucked back at them by the actions of the planning inspector.
I will conclude by suggesting some remedies, so that I do not simply criticise what is happening and because I believe that the current situation is retrievable. It is not so radical a suggestion to abolish the Planning Inspectorate entirely. The Conservatives used to believe that we would not hand decisions to quangos—indeed, that we would get rid of quangos. I note that the Conservative party manifesto at the election, entitled “Invitation to Join the Government of Britain”—an invitation that I have now declined—says:
“To give communities greater control over planning, we will abolish the power of planning inspectors to rewrite local plans”.
There it is. We set it out in those terms. I accept that that did not find its way into the coalition agreement, but that is the promise that this party made to local people, yet we are now effectively allowing the inspectorate to do exactly that.
We could also extend the moratorium on speculative applications as plans emerge. That approach is not necessarily the right way to go, as it would mean that there would be no way to incentivise areas that are not planning responsibly to continue.
I have three suggestions that I believe the Minister could follow, even if we are to continue reneging on our manifesto promise. First, we must give proper weight to emerging plans, not just pay lip service to them or produce written answers and say publicly that weight is being given to them. In particular, where applications are not supported by parish and district councils, the inspectorate should be required to take notice of that, yet it is doing exactly the opposite at the moment. That could be done by executive decision, and a signal could be sent from the centre.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
An appeal decision on a wind farm has just come through, following the new guidance and a big policy change, but one of the points made by the Planning Inspectorate was:
“National policy has not been changed by the recent Ministerial Statements”.
Surely, therefore, we must go slightly further than my right hon. Friend’s first point might suggest.
Nick Herbert
I saw the response that my hon. Friend refers to, and I am sure that it will have raised the eyebrows of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who was clear about the signal he intended to send. Further clarification is now necessary. We need an unambiguous and published signal to be sent about the weight to be given to the emerging plans.
Secondly, we need a brownfield-first policy, not a greenfield-first policy, which means clarifying the issue of deliverability set out in the national policy framework. Unused permissions should not be discounted simply because developers say, “Oh, well, we can’t build there”. That should not be the definition of deliverability, entirely to suit the developers. Of course they will say that, because that is how they can secure planning permission for their greenfield sites. We must have a more intelligent approach.
Thirdly, we need to take proper regard of infrastructure, and guidance due to be published by the Government provides the opportunity to do so. The Minister kindly suggested that I should go to see Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who has been responsible for drawing up the guidance, after I tabled an amendment to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill and made my points about the inadequacy of infrastructure. I accept that there is no impropriety and that Lord Taylor has properly registered his interests with the authorities, but I am concerned that not only is he producing the guidance on infrastructure, but he is a director of a company that is seeking to build a new town in my constituency. In doing so, that company is trying to overturn the local plan, which has just been produced by Mid Sussex district council. If we believe in localism, and having said that local authorities were to have the ability to set their own housing numbers and be in charge, we cannot allow people simultaneously to try to overturn those plans and be involved in the publication of guidance that is meant to reinforce localism. The system is making a serious mistake if it is permitting that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his proposals would provide an opportunity for people who are able to purchase only a house of a certain cost, in other words affordable housing? Does he feel that a portion of land should be set aside within a development, so that some land is processed for development now and some land is banked? We have that in Northern Ireland, and I want to see what he thinks.
Nick Herbert
That is an interesting suggestion. So far as further policy development is concerned, we should look at what measures can be taken to prevent land banking and at more radical reform of the planning system, which is undoubtedly constraining supply in a way that drives up prices. In the meantime, we need to make the system of localism that we promised work.
In my constituency, one chief executive of a district council, whom I will not name, told a group of parish councillors who were discussing with him their proposed neighbourhood plan, “Localism is dead.” That is the message that people on the ground are beginning to receive. When we explicitly promised localism not only in the Conservative manifesto but in the coalition agreement, when we have just passed a Localism Act, when we have told people that they will be in charge in their local communities and when we have put on them the responsibility for planning sensibly, we must uphold their ability to do so. Allowing a quango, through the back door, to reimpose the top-down housing targets that we said we would abolish is damaging to the process of localism, to public trust and, if we persist, to the Government themselves.
I am a passionate believer in localism. I want to be able to go out and defend the policy. It could be made to work, but that first requires acceptance that it is going wrong.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, John Mann, I thank Nick Herbert for his contribution. Owing to the level of interest in the debate, the Chairman of Ways and Means has given me permission to impose a three-minute time limit. I know that that is short, but it will mean that everyone gets in if there are no interventions. The running order that I propose is as follows: John Mann, Nicholas Soames, Annette Brooke, Caroline Nokes, Stuart Andrew, Bob Neill, Penny Mordaunt, Andrew Bingham, Zac Goldsmith, Chris White, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and John Howell. All should be able to get in. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has kindly agreed to limit her remarks to 10 minutes, which will give the Minister slightly longer—perhaps with interventions at that stage—to respond to any residual concerns. I hope that that is acceptable to everyone.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I have cut my speech accordingly. It is safe to say, and let it ring from every single rooftop tonight, “Localism is dead!”, and the Conservative party admits it. We have heard an excellent speech, demonstrating the absolute betrayal of the Conservative party manifesto and of local communities, and a shift to the centre by the Government, the Minister and, in particular, his predecessor, who is now the chairman of the Conservative party. That is in spite of the warnings of people such as myself about the national planning guidelines.
I have a few questions for the Minister—he will need his pen—which I am sure he will want to answer. Will he endorse my early-day motion 428, tabled today, on UK Coal? UK Coal is the largest landowner of brownfield sites throughout the country. I would be happy to have 10,000 houses on the site of Harworth colliery—destroyed by the regional spatial strategy and the inability to have flexibility. Will he endorse that approach?
Is it possible, where the regional spatial strategy has imposed housing targets on a local district council’s core strategy, for a local council now to reduce those targets? Is it possible for a local district council with targets set—even if it kept them—to redistribute those targets between different communities, in order to shift more to the brownfield sites and away from the greenfield and green belt sites?
A wind farm application was defeated unanimously in recent months in the local council, because it was opposed by all local residents—I declare a vested interest, I am one of those residents—but it was resubmitted this week. What will happen when the council turns it down again? Will the developer win on appeal, after a second unanimous decision by a local authority backing its local population?
The community infrastructure levy is a tax on development—will the Minister remove this tax on self-build housing and on tiny developments to allow economic regeneration at the micro-level by small builders, family builders and young couples? The affordable housing levy means a tax in Hertfordshire of £186,000 per property for new properties. Will the Minister remove this new taxation for single developments and, I suggest, small developments of perhaps three to five? The tax was brought in by the national planning guidance and did not exist before—
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I am pleased to support my parliamentary neighbour and close working friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), on his passionately argued speech this morning. In view of the time constraints, I say for the record that he did not make a single point that I am not profoundly in agreement with and wholly support. I was in the Chamber when you had your debate on such matters, Mr Hollobone, and many of the same issues have been raised today.
My hon. Friend the Minister has been extremely helpful and encouraging to Mid Sussex district council, taking the trouble to come down to see and talk to it. Will he acknowledge in detail the real quandary that district councils now find themselves in? In good faith, taking part in and using the values and ethos of the localism system, they find themselves constantly being hung out to dry. Frankly, it will shortly amount to a credibility question throughout the country.
Will the Minister accept that West Sussex county council’s proposed announcement today or tomorrow of its support for a second runway at Gatwick will put further pressure on mid-Sussex district with an almost unsupportable torrent of applications? Will he see what he can do to give guidance to the Planning Inspectorate so that full weight is placed on the views of local authorities who have a clearly emerging plan when applications are brought to its attention?
I want to raise one more point with my hon. Friend. The process is susceptible to well-funded lobbyists and developers promoting pet projects that local people believe are out of all proportion to what they want in their community. An example of that in mid-Sussex is the wholly unsuitable Mayfield new town scheme on a greenfield site, despite the proposal having been reviewed and rejected when preparing the district plan and despite overwhelming public criticism.
Will the Minister take very seriously the points made by my right hon. Friend—in his usual way, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) also made a powerful point—about the credibility of the scheme to which we gave our name? We campaigned vigorously and local people signed up to it. They supported our party on the basis that it would be a scheme that we would undertake. I am afraid that we are falling woefully short of that target and ambition. I urge the Minister to support the views of my right hon. Friend.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I agree with much of what he said. We are looking at aims that should be complementary, but are contradictory at the moment: protecting the countryside and green spaces, and providing much-needed housing through local decision making. Given the time constraints, I will give a brief report.
The good points that have scored highly for the coalition Government include scrapping the regional top-down spatial strategies, listening on the national planning policy framework, introducing brownfield-first, having three pillars of sustainability, and in theory not letting economic growth trump protection for the green belt, landscapes and urban green spaces. I am also keen on neighbourhood plans, which score high marks. However, the downside is that the numbers from the regional spatial strategies are retained. Core strategies are out of kilter timewise with neighbourhood plans. Local people should be able to say, “We don’t want the houses there. We know we need them. We want them here.” But there is not time. Inspectors are overturning.
It is important to know when we will get planning guidance and whether there will be consultation. Five-year plans must put brownfield sites first and include undeveloped sites with planning permission, and windfall developments. We want to address the need, not demand. Areas for improvement include more social housing. More publicly owned land should be released and we should work proactively to bring more brownfield land forward and to stop interference with local democracy. Result: can do better.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on a fantastic opening speech. I cannot disagree with a single word of it. I served for 12 years on Test Valley borough council and I commend anyone to serve an apprenticeship on a local planning authority, which can show how vexed the world of planning and politics can be.
I want to make some basic points as briefly as I can. The first is about a brownfield-first policy. In Romsey, we have waited since 1983 for the brewery site, the only major brownfield site in the town, to be developed. At last, there is some real progress, but it has taken 30 years. There must be a far more robust mechanism than the local authority considering compulsory purchase time and again to try to bring it forward, at which point the developer simply suggests more enthusiastically that he was going to build something. It has taken 30 years to get the site developed while greenfield sites on the edge of the town and in surrounding parts of the borough come under immense pressure.
The five-year land supply is incredibly important. In Test Valley borough, developers have competed against one another at appeal to prove that for some reason or other their site will be developable but their competitor’s site will not. At the moment, we have the spectacle of a developer competing against himself to prove that site No. 1, for which planning permission was granted on appeal, needless to say, is not developable so he is bringing forward another one. There is no guarantee that either site will be built on until prices are right and the developer believes he will maximise his profit, so there is an ever-growing land bank. My right hon. Friend may have mentioned that planning permission has been granted for 1 million houses throughout the country, but they are not being built. We must find ways to encourage developers to build on sites with existing planning permission.
The problem is not restricted to rural areas. In Bassett in Southampton, there is no town or parish council, but just a city council and residents’ associations, which work hard to introduce neighbourhood planning. My constituent, Jean Wawman, recently wrote to me saying that developers constantly have the upper hand, and that article 4 directions to control houses in multiple occupation are clunky, cumbersome, time-consuming, and prevent local people from having real control over the character of their neighbourhoods.
Finally—I have only 30 seconds—there is no green belt in Hampshire, save for a small corner in the south-west, which is preventing the spread of the Bournemouth conurbation, which is not even in the same county. In my constituency, greenfield sites without the additional protection of being green belt invariably come under pressure for development, particularly for Traveller sites. That is a huge concern in villages such as Timsbury.
I urge the Minister to think again. There is no such thing in the Test valley as ordinary countryside. It is all extraordinary and deserves protection.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Over the past 10 or 20 years, every part of my constituency has been affected by overdevelopment. The old mills and industrial sites have been replaced with massive new housing, which has put huge pressure and strain on the local infrastructure. Our roads are congested and our schools are bursting. We now have a massive issue in the Guiseley area, where the council is desperately trying to find places for schoolchildren for the coming year.
Local anger and frustration with the local planning system cannot be overstated. Too many people believe that planning is something that happens to them, and when localism came in there was a feeling of hope that they would be able to have some input. Local communities’ ability to develop neighbourhood plans is welcome, and I am fortunate that in my constituency rafts of people have come together to try to face the challenges head on and to take advantage of the opportunities to shape the future of their towns and villages. In Aireborough, Jennifer Kirby is leading a group that has provided workshops and involved children in the future that they want for their town. Parish councils in Horsforth and Rawdon are engaging actively with residents and their views.
The feedback I am receiving is united. People complain that despite their work, the local authority’s five-year land supply supersedes everything they are doing. It has sent applications for thousands of new houses to the inspector for approval. If that plan did not have to be approved by the inspector, I wonder what the real figure would be. I suggest that it would probably be far more realistic.
The people I speak to are anxious about the green belt in our area. An urban constituency such as mine values its green belt, which helps us to identify our separate towns and villages. We are in danger of creating urban sprawl. We have heard from other hon. Members that developers are going to the inspector, and that is happening in my constituency. Developers have taken applications for some of our precious green areas to the inspector, and I hope that they will be turned down so that local people have time to determine where houses should be.
One parish councillor said to me that he is worried that nothing decided at parish level can change the decision made by those at unitary level, who themselves are hidebound by central Government housing targets. We need to address the problem urgently, because local people are rightly getting angry. Let us give local people the real power that we promised. Let us stop the developers thinking that they can do what they like, and let us seriously look at abolishing the inspectorate, so that we can even the playing field and tip planning towards having far more localism.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing the debate? In relation to our history, he and I accepted an invitation at the same time, and my little role in the invitation was to be a part-author in the national planning policy framework. I pay tribute to the preliminary work that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) did on that.
I understand the strength of feeling on the issue. After my 24 years or so in local government before I came into this place, I am very conscious that ever since 1947, planning has been about striking a balance. We are absolutely right to cherish and protect valued landscape. Equally, for a party and Government who believe in aspiration, one of the most significant aspirations is to enable young people and future generations in this country to have homes that they can afford. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs that those things can be reconciled, and we need to see how best we can do that.
It is worth pointing out that from the dirigiste and centralised situation that we inherited, much progress has been made. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about the significant advances that I am proud we were able to make with the national planning policy framework. We also need to bear it in mind that other issues are already taken on board, including the question of materiality and the views of district councils. They are significant, and I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is worth saying, of course, that it has been long-established planning law that decisions are taken according to all material considerations, and emerging plans can and should be a material consideration. What we may need to do—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is working on this—is ensure greater consistency in the application of the policy by the Planning Inspectorate. I pay tribute to his work on strengthening the quality control in that regard. It is an important point that we need to deal with.
I wish to make another short point relating to the protection of green land and to brownfield-first. I note that the core planning principles in the NPPF refer specifically to using
“land of lesser environmental value”
and encouraging the use of brownfield land. On the question of housing supply and the figures relating to the five-year deliverable supplies, it is worth pointing out that footnote 11 to paragraph 47 of the NPPF specifically states:
“Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years”.
Perhaps my error was not to have that put in bold rather than in a footnote—I will own up to that—but we need to ensure that it is fully taken on board by decision makers. However, the provision is there for that to be achieved. We need consistency of approach, and finally, we must deal with the issue of delay by statutory consultees, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). He is not unique in considering that, and I know that the Minister is already working on that case.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing this timely debate. I want briefly to give an example, make a request of the Minister, and put forward a suggestion.
The example I want to give is of a dementia care home, which was a high-rise building due to be built in my constituency on an undeveloped beach and unsurprisingly, also on a floodplain. It was an awful design, and in fact, the developer had to put in a subsequent application, because it had not realised that dementia patients might need nursing care and there was no provision for any nurses. The application reassured us that we could be relaxed about the flooding issue because—I am not making this up—it was a high-rise building, and therefore, in case of flooding, residents would be able to reach higher ground. The application was dismissed locally but overturned by the inspectorate. I give that example not only because it shows how the local voice has not been listened to, but to illustrate that this is about both the quality of services in our communities and the quality of the built environment.
The request I make of the Minister is that in his summing up, he emphasise how we can strengthen the local voice and give communities ownership of the quality of life that they want for their communities. In particular, that should happen through local plans, especially in communities such as mine, which do not have a great deal of capacity to develop such plans.
Finally, I suggest that where we have third parties, such as the Environment Agency, which is forming a view on such schemes and dismissing them as reckless and bonkers, we give some publicity to those decisions— there is definitely a gap in the market for “www.EAsaysno.com”. We should consider other ways in which we can provide the potential buyers of homes or care home places with information about what they are taking on; for example, whether they are built on floodplains. The more we can influence developers to be much more responsible and raise the quality of what they are proposing for our communities, the better. Transparency with regard to the Environment Agency and other organisations would go a long way towards doing that.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), I spent 12 years on the local council. For some of that time I sat on the planning committee, so I have some knowledge of the way in which the planning system has worked, and I, too, am concerned about recent events. In the three minutes available to me, I shall try to crash through a few of the points that I wish to make.
In the High Peak in recent weeks, we have seen significant applications for development on greenfield sites. They have been refused by the local development control committee on High Peak borough council. Those decisions have been met with great approval and, in some cases, relief by local residents. However, they have then been overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. I want to be clear: neither I nor my residents in the High Peak are nimbys. We are aware that there is some need for housing, and nobody would dispute that, but seeing such decisions being made by local councils and then overturned by the Planning Inspectorate is not what the process should be about. It completely devalues the faith that people have in the planning system.
I want to highlight a particular area called Harpur Hill on the outskirts of Buxton. Harpur Hill has approximately 900 to 1,000 houses, and applications are swirling around to more or less double the size of that small area. The residents association, which is headed up by a couple of my constituents, Ken Greenway and Pam Reddy, is really concerned. It sees the applications being refused, and then granted by the Planning Inspectorate, and it is wondering how some sense of proportion can be introduced. It is not saying “No houses”, it just wants a proportionate number of houses in the area, because the infrastructure cannot cope with those huge numbers.
What can we do about the issue? My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) made some excellent suggestions, and I would agree with all of them, but we have a gap, which is not being helped with in the High Peak. I grant that the local council has delayed the introduction of its local plan—wrongly, in my view—and a window of opportunity has been created. Developers are jumping through that window with great enthusiasm. They are putting in speculative applications for greenfield sites that are being granted by the inspectorate. That is creating what many people see as a free-for-all in the High Peak. The residents association in Harpur Hill has seen that going on, and it is concerned that the problem will come knocking on its door.
I am asking for a sense of proportion, which is what a local plan should bring, using local people and local councillors. However, it is not there in the High Peak, and developers are making the best of that. Giving parish councils more say is an excellent idea. In Chapel-en-le-Frith, the parish council has now said that it will object to all applications because it is the only voice it has, even though it is not being listened to. I would like the Minister to give me some assurance that I can go back to my residents and say, “Yes, we are listening, we do understand this.” The way it is at the moment, it is just not working. The High Peak is a fantastically beautiful area and I can understand that people want to live there, but at the moment it seems to be open season on development on greenfield sites, which I do not think is right.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing the debate. I agree with everything that he said in his excellent speech, and I want to take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to concerns raised by many colleagues about proposals to reform the laws on permitted development. It would have been absolutely wrong for the Government to remove people’s right to object to plans that would have an impact on their homes, and I am very pleased that he managed to find an alternative that would both encourage non-contentious extensions and preserve the all-important right to object. I wanted to put that on the record.
I join the debate today because I fear that we are losing sight of the huge emphasis that many of us in Parliament placed on localism before the election. Local authorities have been stripped of authority over such a long time and to such an extent that more often than not, even on absolutely local issues, they are simply overruled by the centre. I recognise that there has been some rowing back on that since the election. As has been said, there is great potential in neighbourhood plans, for instance. However, we cannot say with any real conviction that our planning system is genuinely local, despite the noises that we all made to our constituents before the election.
I know that the Minister will make the point that there is a real and urgent need for new homes, and that is obviously right—I do not think that anyone will argue with that—but before we give up for ever our precious green spaces, I would simply encourage him to acknowledge that the reason why we are not seeing new homes is not the planning system. Vast tracts of land are available for development but lying idle. There are 250,000 plots in the south-east alone. That is in addition to 31,000 acres of brownfield land. All could be developed now. It is worth pointing out also that roughly 90% of applications are successful; they go through. The problem is not a lack of permissions. It is more likely to be, as we have heard, a lack of access to finance. Therefore, even if we were simply to rip up the planning system, we probably would not see a net increase in development. We would simply see more development in the wrong places—in the most unneighbourly places.
As a rule, it must make sense to have a strong brownfield-first approach, and that should be crystal clear in planning law. We might even want to look at the US, where there is a tax bias in favour of developing brownfield sites and against developing greenfield sites. That is the case in a country that is far less compressed than our own.
It is also worth looking at empty homes. We do not know how many empty homes there are in this country—the figures are so unreliable—but some people put the figure at about 1 million. Clearly, that is an area where we should be making more inroads.
I want to finish by commenting on the national Planning Inspectorate and echoing the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs. If I were asked to design a body with the specific goal of alienating and enraging communities, I do not think I could do better. It is a remote, virtually invisible, unelected body that simply tramples over local wishes and opinion. Even where local people are absolutely united and backed up by their councillors, they are still routinely overruled. I am about to run out of time. I will simply say that if there is to be any point at all in being a local authority councillor, we have to do away with that organisation.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Hollobone, not least because I intended only to intervene and you very kindly put me down to speak.
I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, not least about abolition of the Planning Inspectorate, which seems to be one of the biggest excuses that I have come across in my term as a Member. Currently, Warwick district council is consulting on a proposed local plan, which has met with widespread disapproval from local residents, and for valid reasons—whether pollution, gridlock or infrastructure—that need to be taken into account. I appreciate that planning is difficult, but we need to engage more with our local residents on planning and collaborate with them and local parishes and town councils to ensure that they feel ownership of a plan in the end.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has just mentioned the real and urgent need for new homes, but very few people in my constituency consider that there is a real and urgent need for so many homes. If we are not careful, words such as “localism” will be viewed with very little confidence indeed. We need to change things significantly and soon; otherwise the system will not have the confidence certainly of my constituents.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am very grateful to you, Mr Hollobone, for allowing me to speak, especially as I, too, had only hoped to intervene. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing the debate. I agree wholeheartedly with his comments that the emerging local plans should be given more weight by the inspectorate.
I have a particularly difficult constituency in terms of planning: 80% of it is an area of outstanding natural beauty; I have 10 historic market towns that are absolute gems—if there were a listed town status, all 10 would qualify—and I have the highest number of listed houses as a proportion of the housing stock of anywhere outside London. I therefore want to make three specific points to my hon. Friend the Minister.
First, I did praise the national planning policy framework when it came out, but I had one specific reservation, which has come back to bite our communities. As the Minister knows, one case in my constituency is now to be reviewed in the courts. It concerns the 20% historical under-provision. This is grossly unfair. It is quite reasonable to have a five-year land bank, but my council has a very good record of bringing forward developments. It has a very good new homes bonus rate. To impose an additional 20%, on top of the five-year land supply, is completely unreasonable and unsustainable. If we are not careful, we will lose those 10 historic market towns—we will lose those little gems that we have in this country.
Secondly, we must have a mechanism by which infrastructure is provided before large-scale developments are built. There is a lot of sewage flooding in my constituency. Thames Water’s performance in my constituency is woeful. We had a case in which sewage flooded an existing community, and because the system could not put sufficient weight on Thames Water’s representations, another 150 houses were given permission right next to where there was already sewage flooding.
My third point relates to solar farms. We have been assailed in the Cotswolds by applications for solar farms recently. I do not object to that necessarily, although there is no guidance to say what the impact should be on an area of outstanding natural beauty. Suffice it to say that there is no mechanism in the planning system for the community to benefit from these solar farms. They would be classed as large developments if they were housing developments. They are between 20 and 50 acres and involve many millions of pounds for the developer. If it were a residential development, the local community would get considerable benefit through the infrastructure levy, yet there is no such mechanism in relation to solar farms.
I therefore say this to the Minister. Let localism work. Let the local councils decide where to put these houses. In the Cotswolds, the number of permissions granted is now three times the historical 10-year rate. That is unacceptable and will lead to the loss of those historic communities in the Cotswolds.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Last but certainly not least—John Howell.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow, if somewhat distantly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). There was much in his speech with which I agree.
I have in my constituency the town of Thame, which has recently completed a neighbourhood plan. During completion of that neighbourhood plan, which took a year and a bit to come to fruition, the council’s district plan was the subject of an examination in public under the old rules, under which the inspector could have interfered in where the housing went in Thame, but he did not. He said that he would interfere in where the housing went in Wallingford, which had no neighbourhood plan, but because Thame had an embryonic neighbourhood plan—an emerging plan—he would not determine where the housing would go; he would leave that to the people of Thame to determine during the production of their plan.
I think that that is a clear model for how the inspectorate should take into account emerging plans. It has set a very good precedent and one that I urge the Minister to get the inspectorate to follow. I remember from my days as a mere Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department that we frequently had to call in the Planning Inspectorate to stress the point of consistency in how it approached taking plans into account.
There is no excuse for a district council not having a local plan. It is a great shame that we could not have abolished the regional spatial strategies on day one of coming into office. We could not do that for a number of legal reasons: the challenges that it would have involved. It has taken quite a long time to get, on a rolling basis, the abolition of those regional plans. Nevertheless, councils that have looked at this have taken into account where the thing is going and have gone back, where they have had time, to look at the housing numbers. In many cases, they have found that the housing numbers now exceed those that were originally in the regional spatial strategy, but that is for them to decide.
The one thing that we have skirted around in this debate is not the housing targets, but the need for a robust five-year land supply. If we are going to say, “We have this number of houses to provide,” we need to show the mechanism by which we are going to provide it. By insisting on a robust five-year land supply, we should be able to do that. Neighbourhood plans have to be in general conformity with the district council’s plan, and that includes the five-year land supply, so there should be no difference at all between the two. There should be a great overlap between the two forms—
Mr Andrew Turner
I am rather concerned about this five-year provision in a country in which we are cutting migration. That means a significant reduction—a significant lowering—in demand.
John Howell
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but in some ways it is irrelevant. That is an issue for district councils to take into account.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Thank you all. Everyone has been exceptionally well behaved, and as a result, we can relax the no-interventions rule. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has agreed to keep her remarks to 10 minutes, so there will be plenty of time for the Minister to make his remarks and for hon. Members to come back, if they wish.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). He serves a beautiful constituency and he spoke passionately and in an informed way on behalf of his constituents. I agree with much of what he said, and I do not know whether that is a greater worry for him or for me—we shall see. I almost feel guilty for intruding on the Minister’s misery, because his own side appears to be doing a very effective job in opposing his policies. Nevertheless, I want to share with him my concerns about the move away from localism and echo some of the points made eloquently by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Everyone spoke strongly and powerfully on behalf of their communities.
As we heard from hon. Members, localism was a key Conservative pledge during the 2010 election, and that was apparent in the early months of the coalition Government. When the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government introduced the Localism Bill in 2010, he claimed to be
“getting out of the way and letting councils and communities run their own affairs”
in order to
“restore civic pride, democratic accountability and economic growth—and build a stronger, fairer Britain.”
Nowhere was the commitment to localism more fervent than in planning policy. The Conservative pre-election green paper, “Open Source Planning”, exemplified the localist approach, but three years, on a gigantic U-turn has taken place. The NPPF and the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, along with reams of secondary legislation and vicious local authority cuts, have completely torn apart the Government’s promise to instil localism in the planning system. Almost a year and a half on from the introduction of the NPPF, the full consequences of the Government’s approach are starting to become clear.
In March, a Local Government Information Unit research paper concluded that, far from putting people at the centre of planning, the NPPF is at
“risk of undermining localism in planning”.
The latest planning application statistics, released by the Department for Communities and Local Government, show barely any change in the number of approvals or the speed of decision making since the implementation of the NPPF.
Robert Neill
May I remind the hon. Lady that when the NPPF was introduced, her party criticised it and she advocated the retention of regional spatial strategies and targets? Is that still Opposition policy?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We did not oppose the NPPF and I certainly did not argue for the retention of the regional spatial strategies. I must put that on the record.
In many places, planning criteria have worsened.
Annette Brooke
If there had not been a change in Government, a new town, which was not supported by any democratically elected person in any council, would be on its way by now in a beautiful village in Dorset. We have moved on from those top-down regional spatial strategies.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because, as she will hear in a moment, the Opposition are demonstrating a strong commitment to localism, which I am sure that she would want to applaud. Popular planning policies, such as brownfield-first, have been undermined by the NPPF—a point we heard hon. Members make today. Six months on from the introduction of the NPPF, any remaining claim the Secretary of State had to being a localist Secretary of State was exposed by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, in which he mentions himself no fewer than 158 times. The 2013 Act, which the Campaign to Protect Rural England states
“marks a dramatic shift away from the Government’s commitment to localism”,
includes powers that allow the Secretary of State, from October, to designate a local planning authority as failing and to strip it of its planning powers, bypassing the local community in deciding planning applications. The Conservative-led Local Government Association said that that
“represents a blow to local democracy, by taking authority away from democratically accountable and locally elected councillors and placing it instead with the Planning Inspectorate”—
a body that has been the object of ridicule for hon. Members today. The LGA goes on to say that the legislation could prove
“counterproductive in terms of stimulating growth, since the removal of local decision making risks seriously denting trust at the local level. This could mean some communities are likely to be increasingly reluctant to accept new development in their areas.”
The Planning Minister, however, was not done. In case anyone, anywhere, still thought that the Government’s localist promise held any meaning, he turned his attention to stripping local people of their right to have a say on the high streets at the heart of their communities.
The Government’s most recent move—brought in by the back door without any parliamentary debate whatsoever—temporarily allows shops to be converted into payday lenders, bookmakers or fast food shops, without any say for the local community. That is the exact opposite of what the vast majority of the public want. Polling shows that 76% of people would support the Government giving new powers to local councils to help them shape the high street in line with the wishes of the community. Can the Minister explain how his policy, which is the opposite of that, does not remove powers from local people?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am interested in and intrigued by the hon. Lady’s new-found localism. When her party was in power—for 13 years—it had planning at the remotest regional level. Having found localism, if she, unfortunately, came into Government, what would her party do specifically to ensure that local authorities had greater powers than they have now?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I will come on to specific things that a Labour Government would do in a moment. We are arguing very strongly that local people now have little say in what happens to their high streets. Is the Minister still arguing that local authorities should use article 4 directions to get round his new policy?
I shall now answer the question of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about what a Labour Government would do specifically to give powers to local communities.In May this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) pledged that a future Labour Government would ensure that local people and councils have greater powers to stop the proliferation of certain types of unwanted shops or premises on their high streets, thereby showing that Labour is the party of true localism. That is the opposite of what we are now seeing under this Government, who are taking powers away from local communities, and the same is happening with neighbourhood planning. We want to build on neighbourhood planning, integrating it more clearly into the planning system and building on the success of places such as Thame in Oxfordshire, where 775 new homes have been planned for. We would like to see such success mirrored elsewhere. If we are to deliver the number of houses that we so desperately need, it is important that we work strongly with communities to gain their consent.
Our approach is a strongly localist one. We want to work with local communities to deliver growth and development, and the Minister could do worse than listen to his colleagues this morning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing this important debate. He, as everyone here would attest, is one of the most effective campaigners in modern politics. There is probably no one to whom we owe more gratitude for the fact that we still have sterling rather than the euro, and no one who has more responsibility for the introduction of directly elected and locally accountable police commissioners. Furthermore, the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill through Parliament just last night owes as much to him as to any other Member.
You can probably understand, Mr Hollobone, why it makes me a little nervous, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is now turning his sights on me and my portfolio, which is planning. If I were asked to rate my chances against him, I am not sure whether I would fancy my odds, but I will try to persuade him that he need not turn his sights on me or on our planning reforms, because although the reforms are clearly a work in progress and it is only a short time since the Localism Act 2011 was enacted and the national planning policy framework was brought into force, early signs are positive and it is worth being a little patient before rushing to conclusions.
I want to engage with all the points raised as best I can in the time available, but I will start with what I think is the big argument: what does localism mean? I want briefly to take everyone away from the question of meeting housing need, which seems to be the particularly vexed issue that taxes us today, to the other needs that we all recognise human beings and families have, and which in many cases local authorities have a responsibility to provide. There is the need for schooling. There is the need for environmental management for waste collection. There is the need for care for vulnerable children and adults. We all accept, respect and welcome the fact that local authorities have responsibility for deciding how to meet those needs, and in none of those cases do we think they should have the ability not to meet them. Localism means control over how the fundamental needs of the people who elect the authorities and reside in their communities are met; it is not about deciding whether the needs will be met.
We all must be clear about our corporate, collective failure, as a society, over not five or 15 years, or over the lifetime of the previous Government, but over several decades. We have failed to meet the legitimate housing needs of our population.
Mr Andrew Turner
Does the Minister believe that homes for local people are more important than homes for people from afar?
Nick Boles
I certainly think that in every local community we want, first and foremost, to provide housing for local people. However, in response to my hon. Friend’s question and to the points he raised in his previous interventions, it is not the case that our housing need chiefly derives from the levels of immigration over the past decade, of which I am as critical as he. Immigration explains only about 40% of the formation of new households; the remainder is explained by the fact that we are all getting older and not dying as quickly as we used to. I come from a family that has four generations in it, as do many right hon. and hon. Members, but that was not common 30 years ago. Now, people in their 80s and 90s are much more common to all of us than they were when we were growing up, and they all need houses.
We have failed as a society and as a country to meet the need, and the Localism Act and the national planning policy framework make it clear that every local authority has a duty, first and foremost, to meet objectively assessed housing need. We do not allow local authorities to determine whether they will provide primary and secondary school places, or social care for vulnerable adults and children. We expect them, as branches of Government, to meet the responsibilities passed to them, and meeting housing need is among those responsibilities.
Martin Horwood
Does the Minister accept that in some areas it is difficult to meet endless need and demand? Certainly in a constrained urban borough such as Cheltenham, almost all the unprotected green space has already been built on or is right now under attack from developers. The problem is that in the end we will lose other things for which people have a need. Green space is good for local food production, physical and mental health, and for people’s access to recreation, including free access to recreation for poor communities, which reduces health inequalities. Those are needs as well, and we cannot be totally single-minded and blinkered.
Nick Boles
I certainly hope I am not being single-minded and blinkered; perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks I am. I of course accept that almost every urban area finds it very difficult to meet its needs within its boundaries, and that is entirely accepted within all our policies. The regional strategies of the previous Government effectively completely removed any flexibility from local authorities, and that is why in the national planning policy framework we have the duty to co-operate.
I am happy to say that I have met with an authority that is a neighbour to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and that authority is engaged in co-operation with his local authority to see how it can meet needs, not least those of the hon. Gentleman’s town. As he says, his town cannot meet the needs within its own borders without threatening its precious green spaces. Such spaces are, if anything, even more valuable in relatively built-up towns than in the countryside, and there needs to be co-operation within broader areas to meet the needs of all our citizens.
Robert Neill
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s analysis. He makes a powerful and sophisticated case. Does he agree that the duty to co-operate is significant not only because it is the first time we have sought to have such a duty on a voluntary and localist basis—by agreement rather than imposition—but because of its link to incentives such as the new homes bonus and the reforms to local government finance with business rate retention, so that we can persuade communities that growth in the right place—I stress “right place”—is not a threat but potentially an opportunity that we can realise if we collaborate, sometimes across local authority boundaries?
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and puts the argument much better than I could. The Localism Act and the national planning policy framework attempt to achieve just that, replacing the previous approach of entirely denying local flexibility in how and where housing need was met.
It is right, briefly, Mr Hollobone, to give appropriately short shrift to the rank hypocrisy displayed by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). She was a Member and a supporter of a Government who introduced regional strategies that tried to impose eco-towns on constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), and who introduced the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which had no democratic accountability at all. For her suddenly to pretend that she is now a localist rings pretty hollow.
I will move on to trying to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends—I seek not to persuade the hon. Lady—that localism is not dead but in gestation. At the heart of the Localism Act is the idea that control is gained from having a plan. A plan that fulfils the criteria of the national planning policy framework puts those with the plan in charge, and their decisions will not be overturned. Decisions might be challenged, but no challenge will be supported by the Planning Inspectorate. It all rests on having a plan, and the difficulty faced by many hon. Members and their communities is where no plan is in place. That is why so much of the discussion has focused on the question of what weight can be attached to emerging plans.
I want to share with my right hon. and hon. Friends the difficulty of the position that some of them want the Government to take, which is the suggestion that an emerging plan should immediately be given substantial weight in any decision on a planning application. That could simply create the problem that every community in the country that wanted to oppose a development might start the process of working up a neighbourhood or local plan and then take their own sweet time about it. That would immediately create an opportunity for communities to block all development by simply saying that they were engaged in a plan-making process.
That is why there must be a sense that a plan has reached a relatively advanced stage before it can be given substantial weight. Such a position has not been established by policy or Government, but over many years in the courts, as has been pointed out. I know that many people here think that an easy solution would be simply to abolish the inspectorate, but I say to them that all such decisions would then be taken by judges in courts. Developers will not stop challenging local decisions that they think do not accord with local or national policies. They will simply challenge them in the courts, at much greater cost to the taxpayer and, I suspect, to the not much greater contentment of residents.
The critical thing is to engage in plan making. The reason why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to give up on the process is the good news that plan making is happening at a speed and intensity that has never happened before: three quarters of all local authorities in the country have now published a plan, and half of them have submitted a local plan to the Secretary of State. Some 800 communities in this country are now engaged in some stage of neighbourhood planning, and several hundred of them have already had their plan areas registered. The first three neighbourhood plans submitted to an examiner and passed as sound have passed their referendums, which is the first time that a Government have said to local people, “You get a vote on whether and how you develop in your local area.”
The referendums passed not just by resounding margins, but on a greater turnout than for the county council elections taking place on the same day. In Thame in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), people turned out to the polls to vote on the neighbourhood plan and did not vote for a county councillor. Why? Because the plan matters to people. As has been pointed out, the plan contained proposals to build 775 new houses in one of the most beautiful market towns in one of the most high-pressured areas in the country.
Nicholas Soames
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and nobody doubts his commitment to seeing this right, but does he not understand that it is precisely the backing and energy that he expresses that renders it so deeply unsatisfying for councils that go to all this great effort when their plans are overturned by spiv developers trying to take advantage of a very difficult position?
Nick Boles
I entirely understand that. I might well wish that we were in a world where we could say to everybody, “You’ve got a year. Make as much progress as you can in a year, and nothing will happen in that year.” My right hon. Friend will understand that, given the level of housing need and the appalling record of housing delivery even during the boom—when, frankly, money, developer finance and mortgages were not a problem—it is simply impossible for us to impose that kind of moratorium. However, I can tell him that in a matter of days, we will introduce the planning guidance that we have long promised and that will address the issue of the weight given to emerging plans. We will make it clear that once a plan has reached the point that, first, it has become specific and, secondly, it has gone through a fairly substantial level of public consultation, it will become something of real materiality—to use the lawyers’ phrase—as a consideration in decision making.
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend and I agree about housing need and the value of plans when they are formed—it is good to hear that weight will be given to emerging plans in the new guidance—but my concern is that he seems to be giving the impression that everything is going swimmingly; it is not. The very neighbourhood plans that it is so important for people to embrace—he believes in that as much as I do—are being undermined, because people will walk away if they think that the inspectorate will overturn those plans. It is therefore a mistake entirely to dismiss the idea of giving stronger guidance. Unless people have confidence that they can take such judgments without their being overturned, they will not engage in the process. That is the damage that is being done. Commitments on giving weight to emerging plans have been given before. They were given during the passage of the Localism Bill. So far, those commitments have not counted for anything.
Nick Boles
Perhaps this is the core of our disagreement: my right hon. Friend argues that I am too sanguine, and I say that he is in too much of a panic. Even on neighbourhood planning, the fact is that the figures for April, June and July show that the number of communities engaged in it has gone from 650 to 710 to 750, that the number of plans designated has gone from 300 to 360 to 408, and that the number of plans published pre-submission has gone from 24 to 28 to 35, so progress is being made. I understand that people are concerned, which partly prompts them and gives them the incentive to get the move on that we all want in trying to avoid unwelcome developments.
Nick Boles
I will not give way to my right hon. Friend, because I have only three and a quarter minutes, and I want to address the many points made in speeches.
The guidance that will be produced at the end of July will be in draft. It will all go on what is an explicitly beta website. In truth, what applies now is the inherited guidance on prematurity from the last Government—it still applies in all decisions made in courts and elsewhere by decision makers—but the new guidance will be in draft form later in the summer and will be available for everybody to comment on. I absolutely encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to comment if they do not believe that the guidance goes far enough in attaching weight to the emerging plans. I reiterate, however, that the best possible thing is for them to look up from the here and now and to think about their community in 10 years’ time—
Nick Boles
I am sorry, but I will not give way again as I have many points to cover.
My right hon. and hon. Friends may miss one development that their communities do not like and that they would have opposed, and which would have been backed up by the inspectorate if their plan was in place. Perhaps they will, but they will be able to control and decide 10 years-worth of developments if they put in place a plan that meets their objectively assessed needs. That has been done in Thame, which will now determine its own future. There have been developments in Thame that the town did not like: it did not just say, “Right, we’re giving up,” but, “That makes it even more important to put even more energy into the process of producing a neighbourhood and local plan.”
I therefore urge communities not to lose heart. Childbirth is a painful process and gestation is not without its pains and difficulties, but the process resulting in local communities having local plans and neighbourhoods having neighbourhood plans will—I promise—be one in which everyone feels that they are in control of development in their area in a way that was never true under Labour or previous Conservative Governments. We are involved in a revolution. Revolutions are not quick or painless, but this revolution is gathering pace and beginning to work.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to continue to write to me and to invite me to their constituencies to submit me to absolutely proper pressure, but not to give up hope. Every Government Member will be able to campaign with pride on the Localism Act at the next election in 2015, because by 2015 it will have delivered.
International Commission on Missing Persons
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the important issue of UK policy on the International Commission on Missing Persons. The debate is particularly timely as last week we commemorated the 18th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, in which 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed in what was declared to be the worst crime on European soil since the second world war. At the memorial service of that anniversary, 409 newly identified bodies were buried, giving families some closure on the grief that they have been living with for almost two decades.
Last year, I travelled to Bosnia on Project Maja with Baroness Warsi and, while in Sarajevo, I visited the International Commission on Missing Persons. I was struck by that unique and highly effective organisation, which has revolutionised the international community’s approach to addressing the issue of missing persons. In doing so, it has made a genuine contribution to justice and peace building in the Balkans and elsewhere in the world. Since that visit, I have wondered what the UK Government can do to support its vital work, and I am grateful for this opportunity to put some questions to the Minister directly today.
By way of background, it may be helpful if I first offer Members a brief introduction to the organisation. President Clinton founded the ICMP in 1996 as an organisation to clarify the fate of missing persons following the Balkans war. Confronting the scale of the problem, the ICMP developed state-of-the-art DNA identification technology and has helped to resolve 70% of missing persons cases from the 1990s conflict, including 7,000 of the 8,100 missing from Srebrenica. Such unparalleled results provide the means to end the desperate uncertainty that families have endured. The ICMP has also provided irrefutable evidence to the domestic and international courts that heard war crimes cases, including those of Karadzic and Mladic. For the first time in history, DNA evidence is being used to convict the architects of genocide.
The distinctive expertise that the ICMP brings to this field is reflected in the growing contribution that it is making beyond the Balkans. This year, having just opened up offices in Libya, the ICMP received funds from the UK, which were announced by the Prime Minister during his visit to Tripoli. The organisation has already started DNA testing, and within just one month it identified 100 victims of Gaddafi’s forces.
The ICMP has also been working in Iraq for several years. Sadly, it is clear that, in the future, Syria will also require similar assistance. Indeed, as the conflict in Syria continues to rage on, it should be noted that according to information received by the ICMP, at least 28,000 people are thought to be missing. As we look to the future and hope for a peace settlement, I would like to ensure that the issue of missing persons is addressed in the context of any future peace agreement, just as it was in the Dayton peace accords that ended the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Furthermore, it is important that action is taken now to work with the thousands of families who are displaced in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq because of the conflict and who have missing relatives, so that when the conflict ends, measures will already have been taken to address an issue that will figure prominently in rebuilding Syria and restoring peace to the region.
In addition to its post-conflict work, the ICMP has assisted Chile, Colombia and South Africa with addressing missing persons cases following human rights violations, and it has also assisted in the aftermath of natural disasters in Thailand and the Philippines and Hurricane Katrina in the United States. In total, the ICMP has identified the remains of more than 19,000 individuals in the past decade.
Having learned about the widespread and vital work of this organisation, I now come to the crux of the matter, which is that the future of this important organisation is in jeopardy. I believe that the UK Government can do more to support its future. However, this is a matter not of funding but of diplomatic support. Having achieved what it was established to do in the western Balkans, the ICMP is gradually winding down its assistance in that region. Yet all of its programmes worldwide rely, with varied effectiveness, on a legal status recognised in a few states in the Balkans and a headquarters in Sarajevo. That is not a sustainable basis for its future.
The ICMP is not incorporated under the domestic law of any one country, and it is not a non-governmental organisation. Its lack of formal international legal status hampers its ability to carry out its work and, as a result, it was forced to close its office in Colombia and its efforts in Libya and Iraq are being put at unnecessary risk. A draft legal framework was negotiated by the US, the UK, the Netherlands and Denmark in 2004, within which ICMP could operate, but the document was never concluded, leaving the ICMP without a permanent, internationally recognised status.
So what can the UK do? I was initially keen for the UK to take the lead on supporting the ICMP and for the organisation to be based in the UK, but I have been persuaded that the logical place for it to have a sustainable headquarters would be in The Hague, which is keen to provide the ICMP with a home. As the seat of many international justice institutions, including the International Criminal Court, The Hague would be an ideal permanent base for the ICMP. However, the Dutch condition is that the ICMP’s legal status be put on a more sustainable footing, allowing it to operate in the Netherlands, and in the often dangerous countries in which it works, with the immunities it needs to protect its database of genetic information, some of which is voluntarily provided by family members of the missing.
The Dutch Foreign Minister is prepared to lead a process aimed at securing that status, but only if he has reassurance that the other partner countries will support his efforts. This is where the UK Government could do more. To assure the future of the ICMP and to secure its work, it is vital that the UK give a clear signal of support for the Dutch initiative. I therefore urge the Minister to make the UK’s support clear, thereby making a decisive contribution to securing the organisation’s future for the benefit of all.
The Foreign Secretary visited the ICMP last October, which was an excellent signal of support, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been actively working with the Netherlands ever since to resolve questions over the ICMP’s future status. As a matter of principle, I am no advocate of tying the UK to permanent financial commitments with international organisations, but the fact that ICMP has not had the luxury of permanent funding, and that it has innovated and managed costs effectively at every stage in its history, underscores another critical reason for me to support the organisation. Furthermore, having developed a broad range of programmes and the world’s largest human identification laboratory, the ICMP has a budget of a mere £5 million, which means that its endeavours to alleviate suffering around the world are very cost-effective. It does not seek any permanent funding commitments. Instead, a permanent legal status will enable it to build on an exceptional track record of success in raising voluntary contributions.
It is clear that an effective response to the tragedy of missing persons caused by conflict is, and will remain, a fundamental element of successful conflict prevention and post-conflict resolution. The UK has a direct interest in ensuring that present and future international peace-building strategies include missing persons as an integral element. To assure the ICMP’s future, it is now time for the UK to take a leadership role in encouraging other states to support the Dutch initiative to give the ICMP a permanent status. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response both to the idea of giving the ICMP a permanent legal status and on what the FCO can specifically do to give the ICMP the support it duly deserves.
Finally, I wish to thank a number of individuals for their insights: first and foremost, Adam Boys and his team at the ICMP for the tremendous work that they do; Baroness Warsi, for introducing me to Bosnia through Project Maja; my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for sharing their experiences in the Balkans; Lady Nott, for taking me to meet the mothers of Srebrenica; my researcher, Lara Nelson, for helping me to put together this speech and indeed for all her work for me during the past three years; and finally everyone at the Foreign Office, especially Arminka Helic, for their input and encouragement in helping me better to understand the work of the ICMP.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
May I begin by saying how delighted I am to serve under your guidance this morning, Mr Hollobone?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) on securing this important debate on the International Commission on Missing Persons. I know that it is an issue in which he takes a very keen interest, and with my colleague Baroness Warsi he has visited Sarajevo to see the ICMP’s incredible operation at first hand. I also congratulate him on the articulate and knowledgeable way in which he introduced this important debate.
I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that often when conflict and violence end, our attention is drawn away too quickly to another crisis and other parts of the world. However, for many people a conflict cannot truly end until they know the fate of their missing loved ones. Those loved ones are parents, wives, husbands or children, who are often civilians and not combatants and who were separated from their families by the chaos of war, who disappeared while in detention or who simply did not return home one day.
As the House may be aware, this week saw the burials of another 409 newly identified victims of the Srebrenica massacre. This year alone, more than 6,000 victims of that massacre have been identified and 6,000 families—after 18 years of uncertainty, anguish and longing—at last have a chance to mourn their dead and to give them the dignity of a decent burial, as well as an opportunity for acceptance and closure.
However, as my hon. Friend quite rightly pointed out, those events, while solemn, could not have taken place without the ceaseless and vital work of the ICMP. As he also rightly said, the ICMP has identified approximately 16,000 people from the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, including 85% of those reported missing after the fall of Srebrenica. The ICMP has also responded to requests for documentation and expert testimony from international and domestic courts on matters relating to serious international crimes. Without the ICMP, many families in the former Yugoslavia would have been unable to gain any form of closure, and without that vital closure the feelings of injustice and resentment would continue to build, fuelling ethnic tensions and making reconciliation all but impossible, particularly for future generations.
That is why the Government have played an active role in championing the ICMP’s work, alongside our broader conflict prevention, peace-building and international justice policies. We are firmly committed to the ICMP, just as we are committed to challenging impunity and ensuring accountability for the most serious international crimes. We are clear that where there is no accountability, there is no justice, and that where there is no justice, there will not be lasting peace, reconciliation or stability. That is why we also welcome the excellent work that the ICMP has done, including sharing its pioneering expertise, particularly in the use of DNA, in other conflict zones.
Although it is of course saddening that the ICMP’s work continues to be relevant and needed, we recognise the important role that it has played, and will continue to play, in identifying many missing people in places such as Iraq, Kosovo, Libya and—my hon. Friend made this point forcefully—in Syria. It is clear that in the aftermath of the terrible conflict that is raging in Syria, Syria will face many challenges to achieving peaceful transition, recovery and reconstruction. The UK will continue to support the Geneva II process to deliver a transitional governing body with full executive authority. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that it is for the Syrian people to agree the make-up of a transitional Government who can win the consent of all Syrians, and to decide how transition will take place, including—importantly—the future role of the ICMP in Syria. However, we believe that the ICMP’s expertise will be relevant, and we continue to work closely with the United Nations to ensure that the international community is ready to support a future Syrian authority to rebuild stability and democracy.
Of course, the ICMP makes a vital contribution not only in conflict zones but in its work to identify the victims of natural and other disasters, such as those that have happened in Thailand and the Maldives, and following Hurricane Katrina in the United States.
It is in recognition of its work that the Government have provided consistent political and financial support to the ICMP for a number of years; again, that was accurately pointed out by my hon. Friend. In addition to contributions made through the European Union, the UK Government have directly provided more than £3 million in funding towards the work of the ICMP since 2000. Recent UK programmes have included funding of almost £400,000 to assist the ICMP with identification of missing persons in Libya.
Mr Newmark
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for everything that he is saying. However, it is not only a financial commitment that the ICMP seeks, because frankly I could go round to a bunch of my friends and raise £5 million to keep the ICMP going. The ICMP’s frustration is at the lack of political will by the major countries—including even the United States, which originally formed the ICMP—to give it permanent legal status. That is what the ICMP needs, and I wonder what the Government will do to assist it in giving it the permanent legal status it needs, because that is what its future depends on. The clock is ticking, the ICMP’s centre will close down this year and if the ICMP does not gain permanent legal status we will not be able to help families, for example in Syria, who will have missing persons and who will need the support that the ICMP provides.
Mark Simmonds
I am grateful for that intervention by my hon. Friend; he is not only visionary but prescient, because I am about to address exactly the point that he has just raised. He is absolutely right that it is important to fund the future work of the ICMP through projects, but the ICMP does not just need financial support. The ICMP is keen to secure a legal status and move its headquarters. Despite the success of its projects, we also understand—again, this was a point that he correctly made—that ICMP programmes have been thwarted because of its current legal status. That is why it is all the more important that the ICMP be afforded a status that allows it to operate with Governments and countries across the globe.
The Government support the ICMP’s efforts to establish a legal status that will afford its staff, records and equipment the protection required to allow it to operate in potentially hostile political environments, and to have a global reach and an international profile that befits the importance of its role. It is vital for the families of the missing, and for the processes of reconciliation and international justice, that the ICMP be able to continue its work unimpeded and that the expertise that has been developed is not lost. I agree with my hon. Friend about that.
The city authority of The Hague has offered the ICMP the opportunity to relocate its headquarters there, and the Dutch Government have offered assistance in dealing with questions of policy and legality, such as securing legal status for the ICMP. We readily support the Dutch Government’s initiative in offering the ICMP a new home in The Hague, alongside other international institutions. Officials from the British embassy in The Hague took part in an initial working group held in May, specifically to discuss the issues that my hon. Friend outlined, and we will participate in further discussions as we move the process further.
For my hon. Friend’s information, we will participate in the next ICMP event in The Hague at the end of October, at which it will share its ambitions and plans for the long-term future. In parallel, we will also consider who should fill the significant role of the UK’s international commissioner to the ICMP.
As my hon. Friend will know, last week we marked the 18th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. It needs to be said that, although significant work has been done, there is still a significant amount more to do. Sadly, some of those responsible for the appalling atrocities that took place are still at large and many victims’ remains have not yet been identified. The difficult, painstaking work must continue, not just in the former Yugoslavia but in some of the other places that we have discussed this morning.
In conclusion, the Government will continue to support strongly both the ICMP’s work and efforts to formalise its status. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend. I reiterate that the UK Government are committed to the ICMP and will continue to press other Governments to do likewise to ensure that it is as effective a body as possible, so that reconciliation, peace and stability can be brought into being and maintained in some of the places around the world that have suffered terrible conflict and atrocities.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) for his well crafted and well delivered speech and the Minister for his succinct, detailed response.
Money Transfer Accounts
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
Order. Colleagues who want to take their jackets off are free to do so.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley.
I am delighted to have secured this debate on the provision of money transfer account services by banks and their impact on Britain’s ethnic minority communities in particular. Remittance plays a vital and complementary role in helping to lift millions of people out of poverty across the world, and it plays a vital role in ensuring that, as well as our commitment to aid, we engage the public in giving to their loved ones, who are often on the verge of poverty and would not qualify for development aid. This is a vital debate because we need to consider how we support individuals to give to family members across the world.
Remittance helps to save lives through direct support by providing for loved ones in remote areas of the world. It helps save lives in the Indian subcontinent, for instance in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and in many other places, especially during times of crisis such as Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh a few years ago and the earthquake and floods in Pakistan. Many of our constituents from various African and Latin American countries send money through remittance.
I will focus on the recent decision that has propelled us into calling for this debate. Barclays made the decision to withdraw banking facilities from small and medium-sized community-based money transfer agencies, which provide low-cost, legitimate routes for sending money to remote places across the world. In some of those places, it is very difficult for mainstream money exchange and money transfer companies that do not have networks, agents or structures to get assistance to family members. Taking the example of disasters, those are the times when people need to get assistance to their families immediately, which is certainly what happened in countries such as Pakistan and the many others that I mentioned.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so early in this debate. One area she has not mentioned is Poland. I have a large Polish community in my constituency that is facing the loss of One Money Mail, which has become a tried and trusted service for many people in the Polish community when sending remittances back to Poland. Those people are extremely concerned that they may have to lose the service, which they have grown to trust and which they use frequently; it will be a great loss to the community.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She has added an important perspective to the debate, which is that the issue also affects countries that people might not have thought about.
I commend parliamentarians, because some 46 Labour MPs have already signed a letter to Barclays, and I know that the all-party group on Somaliland and Somalia has also made representations to the Government. MPs and parliamentarians from both sides of the House, and many other people, have raised the alarm bell with the Government. That highlights our deep concern about how decisions that have been made in the past, not just by Barclays but by other banks such as HSBC, to remove banking facilities that are affordable for hard-pressed families who are trying to get support to other parts of the world, have been supported rather than punished. We should encourage people to give, and I hope that the Government will consider the issue closely.
According to the Financial Times, more than 250 money transfer companies are now facing closure following the decision by Barclays to withdraw the service. Other banks have already withdrawn it, so the suggestion that those small and medium-sized companies could go elsewhere is nonsense. We need to ensure that the decision of those banks does not send a signal to other banks that there is something wrong with such businesses and that other banks should not do business with them, which is essentially what has happened. That is the insidious conclusion that is being drawn at the moment. Allegations are being made that those businesses, many of which are in our constituencies, are engaged in activity that is not legal.
Barclays has said to me that it is concerned about only the 1% of companies that represent 46% of the problem. The Government and regulatory authorities should consider how to assist Barclays and other companies that need to clean up operations where there are problems. If that 1% is a problem, assistance should be provided to address that problem rather than involving the 99%, in the case of Barclays, that do not pose a problem. If that logic were applied to the banking sector, for instance, we would not have a banking sector left. I ask the banking sector to have some empathy and to think about what the consequences would have been for it if, during the financial crisis, all companies in the sector had had to be shut down just because there were certain bad apples.
I hope the Minister will consider the issue and answer the question about how we can focus and zoom in on the areas where there are cowboy operators, which none of us want. The diaspora and ethnic minority communities in this country and across the world do not want to see cowboy operators; they want legitimate, well regulated mechanisms for sending money to loved ones.
As I said, 45 other MPs and I supported the letter to Barclays bank that the Minister has seen, and I look forward to hearing what he, his Department and the regulatory authorities will do to try to help with this important matter. We are asking for some breathing space. We are asking Barclays—I do not believe this is an unreasonable request—to extend the date from August by another six months to give the Government, the regulatory authorities and the Minister the breathing space to bring people together, including the British Bankers Association, the banks and interested parties such as the money transfer agencies and the communities that use their facilities, wherever possible, to arrive at a solution that does not lead to the industry’s closure.
More than $3.2 billion of remittance a year is sent from the UK, and remittance amounts to some $530 billion worldwide, which is more than the total global international development budget. We must act internationally in concert with our American partners. The decision to apply fines to Standard Chartered and HSBC has led to the decision by UK banks such as Barclays to stop remittance facilities. Frankly, the companies have nothing to do with what has happened in the US with the breaching of sanctions, or with the other cases in which banks have been involved, but they are being punished.
If we do not find a way to address the problem, the risk is enormous, because there will be no legitimate ways for people to send money to remote parts of the world. Of course, there is virtually no way for people to get assistance to countries such as Somalia through a legitimate route. We need a constructive way forward, and I hope the Minister can explain how his Department and officials will work with the banking sector to develop an industry-wide solution so that we can ensure that the remittance and money transfer industries are strengthened in light of the crisis, rather than destroyed.
I also hope that the Minister will consider that if banking facilities to money transfer agencies end, what is likely to happen is what used to happen before a regulated mechanism was in place. On the whole, people who are not wealthy want cheap and affordable means to get assistance to their loved ones, particularly in times of desperation and crisis, such as when a family member has died and money needs to be sent quickly for burials and associated costs, or when there is an urgent health care emergency, likely or actual conflict or a humanitarian emergency, as was the case in Somalia and the rest of east Africa in 2011 and as is likely to happen in future. If there is no legitimate route to send money, there is a major risk that the industry will be driven underground and that clandestine mechanisms will be used to get money to family members. If that happens in the billions of pounds, we will not be providing remitters with the back-up, support and legal mechanisms to send money safely to their loved ones. It will also mean that some countries are unlikely to be able to monitor the amount of money flowing into their economy, leading to inflationary pressures.
Furthermore, there are security issues. People worry, rightly, that their money might end up in the wrong hands, and potentially in the hands of extremists. In countries such as Somalia and Somaliland, there are grave concerns about that risk.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She mentioned that more than £2 billion in remittances is sent abroad. It is important to emphasise that although that is a large amount, people often send small amounts— £50 or £100—to their family. Small businesses are therefore incredibly important to people without a lot of means who send small amounts of money.
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amounts of money are often small. People work hard to make a living and provide a bit of support. I know that because many of my constituents tell me stories about how they are supporting the education of distant relatives or immediate family members by sending them money every month. During Ramadan, which we are in right now, people have a duty to give charity, or zakat. They want to give it to people they know who are poorer, and not through charitable organisations, where administration costs are high compared with direct giving. There are many occasions on which people give small amounts of money. For example, the Muslim community in Britain contributes £100 million in charitable giving during the month of Ramadan alone.
A local activist in my constituency recently said:
“There is simply no other legal way of sending money to Somalia. If these firms are closed, it just means people will have to carry large amounts of money from airport to airport, and all that’s achieved is that everyone will end up a criminal.”
We cannot risk criminalising people who are simply trying to support their families.
Another major opportunity is at risk. Ethnic minority communities have insights and connections in their countries of origin. I see that in my constituency, as I know other right hon. and hon. Members do. They have insights into how to trade with their countries of origin, and affordable remittance facilities are critical to doing so. We are closing off opportunities for small businesses to operate and develop. It is also costing more than 3,000 jobs here in the UK and jobs in those countries.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She has explained the security issues created by driving remittances underground. Is it not also true that it could drive the business into the hands of the big American globals, wiping out our domestic small and medium-sized enterprises in the market? That is a dangerous step, which the Government should do all they can to avoid.
Rushanara Ali
Absolutely. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has had any representations from such companies. I understand that some lobbying has been done, certainly in America. It would be useful to know whether he has had representations from bigger agencies, including MoneyGram and Western Union. One concern is that the underlying agenda is to shut down small operators because they do not charge as much and banks do not get as much revenue, and that this is about profit as much as anything else. We need clarity on the criteria that Barclays and other banks have used to stop providing banking facilities.
It is depressing that, unfortunately, the banking sector seems to have learned nothing from the past few years. Small community-based businesses are being hurt while they are trying to run decent businesses and support people. They should come together to consider how to address some of the underlying problems. We understand that there are grave concerns in the banking system about being fined by the US authorities. It is right that we should support the banking sector in ensuring that their due diligence processes are done, but that cannot be an excuse to shut down smaller companies just because they provide competition.
I will press on quickly to a few final points so that others can speak. Somalia presents a unique problem: it does not have a banking sector. That means not only that Somalia will be affected when remittance flows stop, but that humanitarian aid organisations such as Oxfam will lose the ability to send money to the region. Some 40% of people in Somalia who depend on remittance would be affected by that decision. Last year, the Somali authorities said that about $2 billion, or one third of the country’s GDP, is channelled to Somalia through small money transfer agencies.
The country has come out of a conflict that went on for a long time and cost many lives. It relies on the Somali diaspora around the world, who are working hard to rebuild Somalia and Somaliland. This decision would cripple the country. We cannot afford to let that happen, not least because it is in our interest to have a stable, prosperous and effective state in Somalia and Somaliland. That is what my constituents, many of whom are from Somaliland, want. I hope that the Minister will see the connection between this decision and its effect on undermining our aid and peace-building efforts in countries such as Somalia.
Although it could be said, and the Minister may have been told, that this is not as much of a problem for other countries that have a banking sector, the reality is—as he will know from his experience and background, as I do—that in remote places such as the Indian subcontinent, where we have our origins, during floods and in areas where there is no proper infrastructure and no proper roads, getting money to people is difficult. The banking sector is not localised enough. Banks such as HSBC might call themselves the world’s local bank, but they are not local enough. Our response must address the fact that it is impossible to get money to people, in particular at times of crisis, in countries throughout Africa, where there are still major infrastructure problems, and in many Asian countries, so that the banking sector—Barclays in particular—does not fob the Government off by saying, “Well, there are plenty of other operators available,” or, “The Government own a couple of banks, why don’t they to do it?” We need an industry-wide solution that is constructive and that safeguards the remittance industry and companies providing remittance services at low cost.
I have a few final points. On competition, I hope that the Government and the regulatory authorities will look closely at what is really going on. To what extent is this about trying to respond to the fact that these organisations are giving—to use a metaphor—the larger money transfer agencies a run for their money? To what extent is this about the regulatory pressures? I believe that to some extent it is. Where the regulatory concerns are legitimate and genuine, what can the Government and the regulatory authorities do so that we have a set of criteria for those companies to fulfil? Barclays and the regulators certainly have not provided any criteria or explained why banking facilities are being withdrawn. That is the least that these businesses should expect when they employ more than 3,500 people here in the UK and provide desperately needed assistance, not to mention trading opportunities between our country and developing countries.
I hope that the Minister will be able to look broadly at those interconnected issues. I have been told by his fellow Minister in the House of Lords that Barclays is merely making a commercial decision, but we have a responsibility to developing countries, where remittances support millions of people, taking pressure off our international aid budget. We also have a responsibility, if the sector is pretty much eliminated through those decisions, to ensure that money transfers and flows are not driven underground. How do the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for International Development intend to address this? Will he work with our American allies on an international solution, because we recognise that they are calling the shots on fines? Will he make representation to Barclays to provide six months of breathing room to allow the industry, working with the Government, to come up with a framework that can protect this vital industry?
As we speak, thousands of people are signing petitions; the diaspora community, in particular, and the aid agencies in the different sectors believe that people’s lives will be devastated. I hope that the Minister will work with the regulatory authorities on a solution—my colleagues and I are also happy to work with him—because we do not want to return to a debate in years to come and hear that, because of the decision today, many of the agencies stopped operating and people ended up being exploited. In some cases, money might be stolen—we have seen past examples of that—because the sector is not regulated at all, and in some cases remittances might end up in the hands of the wrong people, such as terrorists, and that would be a dereliction of duty on our part. The international community has a responsibility to ensure that people can get money safely and securely, and at an affordable rate, to their loved ones around the world.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I intend to start the wind-ups at 3.40 pm, which leaves us about 45 minutes. With six people wanting to speak, that works out at about seven and a half minutes each.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I also place on record my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), not only for securing the debate, but for championing the cause—raising awareness, expressing concern and bringing MPs of all political parties together to ensure that the issue reaches a far wider audience. I genuinely appreciate that. She said much about this banking policy and how it will affect people in Somalia and other countries, and I want to concentrate my comments on the impact in my constituency and similar towns in the United Kingdom.
As long ago as November last year, I wrote to HSBC about one of my constituents, Mr Shamshad Ali—I have the letter with me. He has a money service business called Sterling Currency Exchange Ltd and is the general secretary of the remittance association of the United Kingdom. HSBC decided unilaterally to close his bank account, because it no longer wished to operate in the sector. I worked with Shamshad to get the bank to change its mind, but to no avail. He and I then worked together to find an account with another bank, again to no avail. As Shamshad pointed out, we tried the Royal Bank of Scotland and NatWest, both funded through the public purse and in receipt of much public money, but they too refused him. He now has to operate his business in conjunction with another business, which still has an account with Barclays—but time is running out, and that might well end as well.
The Government need to know about the serious consequences, which include the closure of good businesses, as my hon. Friend pointed out, at the cost of many thousands of jobs throughout the United Kingdom and certainly of a number of jobs in Rochdale. There is also a direct impact on people in my community. Migrant workers, many of them professionals, many on whom the Rochdale economy relies, depend on those independent businesses to be able to send money back to their country of origin. Those workers are being turned off working in towns such as Rochdale, which concerns me.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing the debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for giving way. I, too, have many people from Somalia and other parts of the world living in my constituency. The important thing, which we often learn, is that the family back home rely on the money being sent to them to survive. If they are not allowed to survive in that way, they go underground and are driven to other means. The sooner the Minister takes the matter up and talks to the banks in this country, the better, because not only are people in Somalia affected, but Somalians and other people who have businesses in this country, through transactions and jobs.
Simon Danczuk
That is exactly the point that I am leading on to. People in my community send money back to their families—in this instance, in my constituency, to Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh. At this important time of Ramadan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed out, people rely on the businesses that we are discussing to help them send charitable contributions to the countries from which they originate. We should not underestimate that. Friends and families out in other countries may be exceptionally poor and reliant on such charitable donations, in particular at this important time of year of Ramadan, to help them to celebrate Eid and to buy new clothes, so that they can have a reasonable time at a key point in the Islamic calendar. As a result of the changes, my constituents, instead of being able to use a good, local and independent firm, which complies with all the regulations, will have to use one of the banks, Western Union or MoneyGram.
Yasmin Qureshi
On the point about small businesses following regulations, may I share with my hon. Friend my experience of sending money abroad? In my constituency, the regulations are followed with passport copies, addresses and so on. Does he agree that it is disingenuous of the banks to use that as an excuse for not carrying out transactions for those companies?
Simon Danczuk
Absolutely. That does seem to be an excuse, and is the crux of where we are.
Another point that has been made clear to me is that without the small independent firms in towns such as Rochdale, my constituents, instead of paying a flat fee of £5 and receiving a good exchange rate, will have to use Western Union or MoneyGram, pay a flat fee of £20 and receive a less competitive exchange rate. They will have to use a less local and less personalised service and pay more for it. That is the consequence, which can only be described as outrageous.
I have some points for the Minister to consider. First, why is Barclays closing these accounts after it made businesses spend thousands of pounds on compliance? Secondly, why are Western Union and MoneyGram not affected? I believe that Western Union in registered in southern Ireland, not the UK, for tax purposes and perhaps that is an issue in its own right. Thirdly, will the banks benefit and start to do the sort of business that they are denying small independent firms from doing? The changes will push such businesses underground, which could feed the criminal fraternity. I urge the Minister to do all that he can to remedy the situation.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on securing this important debate and on all her work on the matter. I declare an interest, which is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a non-executive director of a global consultancy, Developing Markets Associates, which is an expert on this subject.
During my time as a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for Africa and the Caribbean, I received many briefings on the importance of remittances and the role that they play. As the hon. Lady pointed out, they complement the aid and development programme of many countries, including Britain, France and America. Very often, those remittances get through to areas such as small businesses, self-employed people and small non-governmental organisations and charities that aid money can never get to. Furthermore, they bypass any infrastructure of bureaucracy or middlemen and go direct to communities, where they can make a real difference.
I think that everyone agrees that those remittances are vital not just to the communities that receive the money in developing countries, but to the developed countries from where the money comes. As the hon. Lady said with her intimate knowledge of her own community, which was reinforced by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), communities here that we welcome as part of this country often feel a moral responsibility to help family members back in the countries where they came from. The agenda is incredibly important.
I know, from having visited Somalia on a couple of occasions, the importance of that country, which is coming out of conflict. It has been through the most appalling time. At long last, there is stability in Somaliland, and there has been for some time. There is now a Government in Mogadishu who can control much more of the country, and certainly the big cities of Kismayo, Beledweyne, Berbera are now under the Government’s control. It seems that normality is resuming in some of those areas, but there is still a long way to go before a normal banking system can be set up to support businesses and communities in the way that banks do, or should do. The more recently that a country has come out of conflict, the more crucial that is to its economy.
I want to touch briefly on one or two points concerning recipient countries and then on the current crisis that has been caused by the action of some banks. In recipient countries, the danger in the past has been that a lot of remittance money has simply gone under the bed. Many people have not had enough of an incentive to use money responsibly through a bank account or to invest in a business. The tendency has been to put money under the bed for a rainy day and to use it on an ad hoc basis.
Perhaps our own Department for International Development and aid departments in other countries should explore how money can be made available for investment in small businesses, self-employed projects and other areas. At the moment, there is certainly a considerable lack of understanding of how that money is spent. It reaches the communities in different ways and often the charges when transferring it and sometimes when receiving it can be excessive.
What work can the Treasury and the Department for International Development do to understand better what is happening in some of those countries, how that remittance money can be better harnessed for the benefit of the communities and whether there is a role for telephone banking, which is taking off in many developing countries? I understand that the UK has signed up to the five times five commitment to halve remittance prices by 2014. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress has been made on that commitment.
As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed out, the UK has 60% of the total number of authorised payments institutions and single payment institutions in Europe. That is a huge figure, so any action taken by the banks in the UK in closing accounts of money transfer agents will have a disproportionate effect on the UK. We are facing a serious problem. I do not want to underline too heavily any criticism of Barclays and HSBC. It has not been said so far that Barclays was fined $300 million in the United States earlier this year and HSBC was fined a larger amount for allegations of money laundering that were not proved in court but were settled out of court. Our high street retail banks are wary of any dealings with America, but their action is precipitate.
Will the Minister have urgent discussions with the US Treasury Department and the US State Department because US regulators are setting the agenda, which is having the damaging impact that hon. Members have referred to and that will lead to job losses and many people being put out on a limb? They will have to take whatever action they can and may have to look at illegal routes. More money will go to cash couriers and there will be huge disruption, so I urge the Minister to have urgent discussions with his US counterparts, having listened carefully to what has been said in this debate.
Perhaps the Minister could also have discussions with the Financial Conduct Authority, because we are talking about a regulated sector. The irony is that it is regulated, but it is respected, does a good job and fills an incredibly important niche. It employs a significant number of people, but it could be forced underground and people would have to pay much higher rates. Furthermore, consolidation may be sensible in some industries, but we would see many small businesses put out of business with higher charges and a worse service. I urge the Minister to take this agenda seriously.
It would be helpful if the Minister told us what discussions he has had with the Department for International Development on this important matter and whether the Treasury and DFID will work together on what is happening not just here in the UK, but in receiving countries, which badly need help, involvement and engagement.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
A colleague whom I was expecting to speak has left the Chamber, which leaves us with three speakers and 10 minutes each.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, and I know you take a great personal interest in these issues. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate other Members on the excellent contributions that we have heard so far.
I declare a number of interests. Like many other Members, I have a significant number of constituents from Somaliland, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sudan. Those communities have a long and proud history in my constituency, and they all remit funds to those locations. I also declare an interest as the secretary of the all-party group on Somaliland and Somalia.
Some weeks ago, these issues were brought starkly to my attention by a number of the money transfer organisations involved in remitting to Somaliland and Somalia. A month ago, we had urgent discussions with the new ambassador to Mogadishu and with senior Foreign Office officials, so people have been aware of this challenge for some time, and I will return to that at the end of my remarks.
I want to underline how important remittances are and how crucial it is that we find a solution and get things right. Members have spoken of the value of remittances to individual families, who are often in difficult circumstances. Oxfam provided a helpful briefing, which said:
“in most cases, money received is used to cover basic household expenses including food, school fees and medical costs.”
It notes that, in a recent survey,
“one third of respondents said that they would not be able to meet these basic needs if remittances were stopped.”
That is in addition to the concerns Oxfam and other humanitarian organisations have about their ability to provide services if money transfer services are stopped.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the security and stability implications, particularly in the case of Somaliland and Somalia. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) eloquently noted that the changes could be a step back for the country, which is coming out of conflict and instability. That is certainly not what the UK Government want, particularly after the recent Somalia conference and the many other steps that friends of Somaliland and Somalia have taken to see the two countries progress.
Remittances are also a complement to aid. There are two crucial issues. This is not only about my constituents; it is also very much in the UK national interest to find a solution to this problem. Remittances play a crucial role alongside our aid moneys. In the end, we want to graduate countries out of aid and ensure that they can stand on their own two feet, so pulling the rug out from under a number of them in this way will be particularly problematic.
We have heard many of the figures already, but I want to reflect on a few of them. I have tabled questions to the Treasury, and the answers show that the UK remits upwards of $23 billion a year to third countries. Remittance flows globally are estimated at upwards of $500 billion. Those are huge sums and often dwarf aid flows to countries.
An answer from the Minister of State at DFID said that the Department estimated that Somaliland received upwards of £500 million annually, while 50% of Somalia’s gross national income came from remittances, which ultimately supported 3.8 million people. Those are huge numbers, so this is not a small problem—it is fundamental to the ability of these countries to be successful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, Somaliland and Somalia face particular problems, which need to be addressed. They do not have the services that are available in some other countries, and with 70% of money transfer services potentially affected by the changes, we really have a very large problem.
I do not think that anyone would disagree that we want safe and secure transfer methods for senders and recipients. There are also legitimate concerns about money laundering, terrorist financing and other issues, although only a small amount of remittances are affected by such activities, and the vast majority end up in the destinations where they belong. However, we really could be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. We could increase the security risk and end up with channels for transferring money that are not policed or regulated in the same way as existing channels. Individual constituents could be ripped off, as they are forced to use more expensive or less secure methods of sending remittances —indeed, there is the possibility of theft increasing and money going missing—rather than the reputable organisations that already operate in this field. With 70% of money transfer services potentially at risk from the changes, we have a huge problem.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I met Foreign Office officials and the new ambassador to Mogadishu some weeks ago. Since then, I have had discussions with the Minister and with other officials. I have also had discussions with Barclays itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and I secured a meeting with it the other week, and we had a constructive conversation, notwithstanding the criticisms and concerns that have been raised, a number of which Barclays must answer further questions on. To be fair, however, Barclays was constructive, and it did not just want to shrug its shoulders and turn away from the issue; it wanted to work with the Government and diaspora communities to find solutions.
I was therefore concerned when Barclays told us that it had written to the Treasury two weeks ago. I have the letter here, and it is dated 3 July. Indeed, Barclays has had other correspondence with the Treasury. I very much hope that the Treasury has responded by now. Barclays offered to sit down and have constructive discussions with the Treasury, the Foreign Office, DFID, the Home Office and all the other interested Departments to try to find solutions. This is really one of those cases where the Government have to step in.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
We were indeed at the meeting together. It is a very constructive suggestion that there should be a round table with all the major banks, which can then work with Treasury to resolve the problem. It is unfair to load everything on to just one bank, which happens to be the last in line. The Treasury needs to address this issue very seriously. Mr Bayley, let me also apologise for coming late to the debate, owing to another commitment.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. As I said, there was a great willingness on the part of Barclays to sit down with Departments. I hope the Minister can reassure us by telling us what steps have been taken—perhaps in the past week—so that we can know that these conversations are going on and will involve all the crucial Departments. Obviously, numerous Departments, banks, organisations and Members have an interest in resolving this matter. Barclays had a number of technical solutions, which I was unable to comment on, but I hope that Treasury officials and the Minister might be able to.
I second the comments made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk regarding the need for the Government to engage in urgent discussions with the United States, where a lot of the regulatory pressures are coming from, so that we can secure answers.
In conclusion, this is a huge problem with serious implications not only for my constituents and their families, but, ultimately, for this country’s national interests in international development financing and our security needs. We urgently need to find a solution because time is pressing and will run out at the end of August; otherwise we will find ourselves in a very difficult situation.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I should do a commercial between each speech: the Minister is asking to have a little more time, if possible, so that he can better answer your questions. I leave that thought in your minds.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Mr Bayley, I will endeavour to get through my speech as quickly as possible, given that request from the Minister.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for the fantastic job she has done in leading the campaign on this issue. She has been a brilliant advocate on behalf of her constituents and those of many other Members in the room, and I thank her for that.
Last year, my hon. Friend visited my constituency, which is the neighbouring constituency to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), whom I am following in the debate. She met many of my constituents who use a business in Riverside called Trust Exchange UK Ltd, which is run by Anwar Ali. It is a model of what a small business in our local communities should be—goodness knows, we need more small businesses in Wales, in particular. It is the only business of its kind in Wales. It deals with many of my constituents, my hon. Friend’s constituents and others who want to transfer money to relatives, often overseas.
I will not go through the arguments other hon. Members have given for the importance of such transfers. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed to the huge value of this business and its importance to developing countries, with remittances representing a far larger sum than international aid. That is not something we hear much about in the press, but I hope the debate will help to highlight it, as well as the importance of remittances to the countries involved and to our constituents.
My constituent Anwar Ali approached me some time ago about this matter. I was quite shocked when he told me that, effectively, he would be put out of business by the decision by Barclays bank. His business not only provides a valuable service to my constituents but has been involved in setting up charitable work, aid projects and so on, particularly in Bangladesh, reflecting Mr Anwar Ali’s ethnic origin. It provides a service to people of all sorts of ethnicities and from all sorts of communities.
The point has been made that it is not only Barclays that is involved, and that other banks involved in the business have withdrawn before. HSBC was found guilty by the US authorities of a “blatant failure” in relation to anti-money laundering legislation, and was required to pay a record $1.9 billion fine as a result. Perhaps understandably, it has become extremely risk-averse about the sort of business we are talking about, and businesses such as Barclays have taken notice.
It seems that the principle that applies for large banks is “innocent even if proved guilty”. Being found guilty of money-laundering activity and getting a huge fine means being permitted to carry on business. Western Union, which was mentioned before and which seems to be due to benefit greatly from what is happening, paid $94 million in February 2010 to settle civil and criminal investigations by the Arizona attorney-general’s office, in relation to having turned a blind eye to the movement of illegal funds by drug cartels in Mexico. In the light of that, would not it be ironic if Western Union were to benefit from the decision to withdraw services from the small companies that provide our constituents with financial services on a small scale, and which have done everything to obey the compliance regulations, and if those local businesses were to be put out of business?
The local businesses seem to be subject to the principle that they are guilty when nothing has been proved against them—when they have done all that is legally required to comply with regulations. Small is not beautiful in this case; small is vulnerable, and small businesses are being assumed to be guilty when they have done nothing wrong—even when big businesses have been proved to have acted illegally and have been fined. Is the Minister content that small businesses that have done everything possible to comply with the law and regulations will be put out of business by the decisions of large organisations, which, leaving aside the activities that nearly brought the country to economic ruin, have often been proved to have engaged in activities outwith regulation, and have been heavily fined? If he is not content, what will he do to ensure that the Government, and in particular the Treasury, take a more active role to save those small businesses at the eleventh hour, before they are put out of business?
We have heard about the Barclays letter, and I hope that the Minister will give a positive response from the Government to the proposal for an industry round table. I hope that he will speak up for small British businesses, which have done nothing wrong.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and to the Minister. I have a Select Committee meeting at a quarter to 4 and hope that they will accept my apologies for having to leave.
I want to comment briefly on two things. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) referred to the position taken by Ministers at the beginning of July; but unfortunately, I am going to disappoint him. I have received a letter dated 10 July from Lord Deighton, in response to representations that I made in June on behalf of constituents. He said:
“I hope your constituents will be able to secure banking facilities from another bank, or make alternative contractual arrangements, rather than close. I cannot oblige the banks to make facilities available. The choice of business customer is a commercial decision for banks to make.”
He simply refers to the fact that the Office of Fair Trading will examine support for small and medium-sized enterprises later in 2013.
As for the 12 August deadline, which businesses in my constituency face, I received a letter from a Mr Duale of the largest organisation that transfers money to the Somali community—other Members may have received the same letter—and it pointed out how just a few weeks after the international Somalia conference in London, when we pledged £180 million of support, the damage implied by the decisions that have been made could outweigh that increased support.
Other hon. Members have talked about the effects elsewhere. I have constituents in various organisations who are very concerned about the impact in countries all over the world. My constituent Mr Shah of Zak Money Exchange, Ilford lane says that the business could close and that eight employees would lose their jobs. He raised the same concerns that others have raised: why cannot the nationalised banks do more? Barclays may have got into trouble, and we have heard about Mexican drug barons and money laundering, but why cannot other banks do something?
Barclays’ reputational damage in this country is an issue. I suspect that many people who will be affected by what is happening will have bank accounts—their own commercial bank accounts for their small businesses, or personal accounts. It is not good for Barclays’ reputation if the perception arises among millions of British people that it has a down on the poor and on migrant communities. Barclays should consider that carefully.
As for Western Union, there is a wider issue to do with the relationship between the United States, the US authorities—perhaps in particular US jurisdictions—and their way of dealing with extraterritoriality. We have the potential through the forthcoming European Union-US negotiations, which are to do with trade and international co-operation, to exert pressure back from the European side. Britain is more significant than many European countries in such matters, but we should not ignore the potential to raise with the US authorities, at all levels, the effect of their behaviour globally on communities in the UK, in the wider European context and worldwide. That is a matter for another debate—perhaps tomorrow—but I want to highlight the need for us to be more robust about the issues.
It is true that we need to eradicate money laundering, crack down on terrorist and drug financing, and all the rest. However, an alternative to the present arrangements is that people will start to take money in suitcases through airports and smuggle it across borders, making themselves vulnerable to being taken prisoner—to hostage taking, banditry and piracy. That is a bigger global threat than some of the other problems that are cited.
Yasmin Qureshi
I should like to comment on the point about fears of money laundering and drug dealing. People in my constituency—I do not know about other parts of the country—who use small companies to send remittances are hard-working people who earn very ordinary amounts of money. They send very ordinary amounts: £50, £100 or £150. They do not send thousands and thousands of pounds, and therefore those small businesses feel insulted that somehow they are being tarnished by the suggestion that they are laundering money.
Mike Gapes
People are right to feel that way, because it appears on the one hand that Barclays and on the other that the Government do not care. The Minister says, “This is a commercial matter and we are not going to get involved.” However, Barclays, without giving reasons to people in small money exchange firms, is simply saying, “Sorry, we are no longer prepared to deal with you.” It is not saying that those people have done anything irregular or illegal; it is saying only that the facility is no longer available. That is terrible.
In a wider context, we have been criticising the banks for their failure to support small and medium-sized enterprises; yet it seems in this context that the Government are not prepared to get off their seat and do anything to help the poorest communities globally and the people in Britain who are trying to transfer money, which, as has been said, is a larger amount than the international development assistance that is transferred from states to countries and people in the poorest countries in the world. Instead, the Government say, “This is nothing to do with us. This is simply a commercial arrangement.” I am sorry, but that is not good enough.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on securing this important and very timely debate: we are coming up to a period when the clock is ticking and those who might be affected are facing the prospect of significant anxiety and a change in the circumstances. It is an incredibly important point that she and others who have participated, on a cross-party basis, have been making.
Given the realities of internationalism these days and the crises that some families can encounter, the ability for people to support their family is part and parcel of the warp and weft of much of society. The role that legitimate small and medium-sized remittance and money transfer companies play should not be ignored; it is absolutely crucial. However, it is no surprise, given what has been happening in financial services in the past couple of years, that a lot of the agenda of the anti-money laundering reforms to deal with particular concerns is beginning now to bite. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) commented, it is more than ironic that it tends to be the smaller firms that end up being punished most of all, when the anti-money laundering reforms that we require and some of the changes need to be made particularly by the larger organisations. They are the ones where, in my view, there is a significant risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) made a pertinent point in the speech preceding mine about the fact that we should not see this only as a commercial matter—we should not take a laissez-faire approach and let the market decide—because ultimately, regulators and public policy are very much part and parcel of what is happening here. It is also not only a UK question, but a global matter, which requires leadership from UK Government authorities to do something now to sort out the problem.
Of course, it is vital that strong steps be taken to deal with the risks of money laundering. Nobody is arguing against that, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the impact that crude, blanket attitudes to these issues might have on real lives and businesses. We do not want to find ourselves with perverse consequences occurring in the endeavour to solve a very real problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, particularly in this month of Ramadan, when so many of my constituents and hers are making charitable donations—small sums of money—and sending them abroad, it is a good time to be thinking about the solution.
The points that many hon. Members have made about Somalia and Somaliland are very relevant. There is the need to ensure that this is not seen only as a Treasury concern, but as one that touches on policy questions in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. We need to see all those branches of Government working together in co-ordination on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) made a number of strong points, particularly on the dangers of ending up with a less competitive market here, especially where fees and exchange rates would be higher for the consumer and where access to those services is potentially at risk.
I would be the last person to voice concern for some of the big banks on this one. They can and should do much more, but it would not be right simply to pin this on one banking institution, which might be at the end of a queue on this issue. However, I would like the Minister to say what conversations he has been having with Barclays bank, in particular, about the imminent decision. To me, it seems not only that a long-term problem must be resolved, but that we are facing an immediate short-term crisis. Will the Minister address the discussions with Barclays, in particular, about the grace period and the extent to which there needs to be a different time frame to the approach being taken?
We have to focus on solutions now, and it is important that we give the Minister ample time to address those, so that we can cross-examine him and scrutinise the Government’s attitude. I just want to raise a number of points with him. Does he agree that it should be incumbent on the banks, as well as the regulators, to tell the industry—those small firms—what due diligence, improvements and audit checks they feel are necessary to overcome some of the hurdles and concerns? They would be the first to want to put beyond doubt any concerns that might exist about them.
As well as the Minister saying whether he has been able to talk to Barclays, will he address the questions that go beyond the United Kingdom? Clearly, the United States has a slightly different regulatory attitude, which is impinging very much on the larger banks and Barclays in particular. Therefore, we need to know what conversations have happened so far and ought to be happening with the American regulators and with the US Treasury Department and the State Department. Can we have some co-ordination with those other authorities? We do not want to see money laundering risks any more than the Americans do, but they will also be facing their own problems internally in the United States on some of these questions, because they are also a diverse society and a diverse community. Can we align ourselves to ensure not only that we have a gold standard of anti-money laundering practices, but that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater?
What conversations has the Minister had with the Department for International Development and the Financial Conduct Authority? The FCA is a brand-new regulator, which has been operating for several months. It has a consumer remit and a competition remit. It seems to me that the FCA needs to be firmly involved in the issue and that it may have some expertise to bring to bear.
Suggested solutions have involved guarantees from the state or some sort of underwriting. Should the state-owned banks take that on their shoulders? The Bank of England has been mentioned perhaps as a way to do that in the short term. I am a little wary about the taxpayer ending up always being the one who must bear the burden of the solution; but clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed out, the issue cuts across our international aid and development policies in another bit of the Government. We do not want to see Somalia, for example, retrench in development terms because of something that has been happening in another branch of the Government. I wonder what the Minister’s attitude is to those aspects and, in particular, to whether some aid agencies might be part and parcel of a solution in the interim, until we get some of the regulatory issues ironed out.
Can we have a round-table discussion with the whole sector and particularly with small and medium-sized businesses, involving not just the regulators but the Treasury, the Department for International Development and the FCO, and can we have that quickly? We are coming up to the summer holidays, but that is no excuse. The deadline is expiring very soon, and all hon. Members will want action taken, particularly on the issues that my hon. Friends the Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and others have talked about in their contributions.
As I said, I want to give the Minister time to respond, so that we can question him on policy. In summary, this cannot just be left as a commercial decision. We cannot say, “We are walking away from this. We don’t care about it. This is just one company making a particular call on this matter.” It is not just a market question. There is a downstream consequence from public policy, and it is therefore incumbent on us to get public policy right—to go the extra mile and ensure that we spend the time and effort necessary to find a solution. I just do not believe that having strong anti-money laundering policies is anathema to having proper facilities for diaspora communities to provide decent family support on an international basis. That is the sort of society that we need to support at this time.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I, too, add my thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this important debate. We have had a number of discussions on this issue already, and I look forward to continuing to have those discussions with her. I know that this is a very important issue for her and for all of us in this Chamber and beyond, and I welcome this opportunity to respond.
This issue is of concern to Ministers across Government and to hon. Members on both sides of the House, because a healthy, functioning remittance sector is crucial for the thousands of our constituents up and down the country who use such services to send money abroad. If you will allow me, Mr Bayley, I would like to speak for a moment about my gran. My gran—my mother’s mother—has been receiving remittances regularly for more than 50 years, since my parents first arrived in our great country and settled, first, in Rochdale. She continues to receive the benefit of remittances. When I first visited her while I was growing up, one of the things that I noticed was that she lives in a very remote village in Pakistan that has no bank. I think that the nearest bank is at least 10 miles away. She is unbanked. There were only a few remitters, at least to begin with, many years ago, that could get money to my gran. I mention that only to show that, at a very personal level, I do understand this issue and how important it is in Britain and particularly to British individuals such as myself, who are from an ethnic minority background.
The sector plays a crucial role in supporting the economies of all the developing countries that have been mentioned today that receive these funds. We all want to see a healthy remittance sector, but we also want to see a legitimate remittance sector. Our banks and regulators have a real responsibility to ensure that they are not inadvertently facilitating any kind of criminal activity. That could be money laundering, drug trafficking or the financing of terrorism, some of which we have heard about today. All are activities that pose real threats not just to UK citizens, but to global security. Of course, there is a fine balance to be struck between managing those risks and ensuring that essential services are still available to families in the UK. I would like to reassure hon. Members that we are committed to getting the balance right. This afternoon, I will set out some of the steps that this Government are taking towards ensuring a robust and sustainable remittance sector.
We recognise the role of Government in effectively supervising and regulating the money service business sector to help to drive up standards in this area. Last year, we strengthened the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, with a particular view to helping Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as the relevant regulator, to strengthen its supervision, and HMRC is making every attempt to close down those businesses that are engaging in criminal activity and tarnishing the sector as a whole. Last month, it worked closely with the Metropolitan police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to target organised criminals operating in this sector. However, in the longer term, proactive solutions must be found to avoid the need for such action in the future. The best way to achieve that is by creating a remittance sector in the UK that is trusted by all stakeholders and with which all banks can feel confident about doing business.
I have spoken with several of the leading high street banks—including, of course, Barclays—during the last few days. Some have expressed important concerns on the structural features of the sector and particularly on the issues surrounding transparency. I can confirm that I am looking urgently into what measures the Government might be able to take, and speaking to all relevant authorities to look at what options are open to us to try to allay as far as possible some of the concerns that those banks have expressed.
Separately, work has already been under way for some time through Project Quaver, led by HMRC and SOCA, on developing a healthy and sustainable sector. That project brings together the Government, law enforcement, regulators and industry to help banks and money service businesses to understand the risks that come from abuse of this sector, and to strengthen their compliance.
However, we recognise that having effective anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing procedures in place is not only essential to preventing, detecting and disrupting illicit finance. They provide the confidence for foreign investment and stable economic growth in many of the developing countries that have been mentioned. Developing effective regimes requires effective co-operation between the public sector and the private sector to understand and mitigate the threat of illicit finance, so under the UK presidency, the G8 has this year committed to launch a public-private sector dialogue on illicit finance, which will be held in Namibia in September of this year. That will not only help to tackle the issue of robust regimes in the traditional financial sectors, but address the opportunities and the risks posed by new payment methods, such as mobile money services. By bringing together private sector experts from around the world and Ministers and officials, the dialogue will be a unique opportunity to leverage expertise and drive reform that meets the specific needs that countries face, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
Sajid Javid
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).
Kevin Brennan
I am sure that some very good initiatives are being developed, but will the Minister be able, in his remarks this afternoon, to give any direct comfort to the businesses that hon. Members here are concerned may go out of business in the next few weeks?
Sajid Javid
I will, but before I respond fully, I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) as well.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for being very generous about interventions. Again, I am very interested to hear what is going on at international level—dialogues and so on at the G8—but, echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we want to know what will happen in the next couple of weeks, given what is happening on 12 August. I do not want to betray any confidences, but Barclays was offering a meeting at its headquarters. Will we see a meeting of the key stakeholders—the banks, the non-governmental organisations and the diaspora communities—in the next fortnight?
Sajid Javid
I think that both hon. Gentlemen knew that I was coming to this issue next. I am referring to the immediate effect of Barclays’ decision. I recognise that some of the things that I mentioned a moment ago, although very welcome, are long-term projects. In the short term, the Government are committed to doing everything that they can to minimise the impact on individuals and businesses in the UK of any immediate changes in this market. I understand that businesses in this sector will face challenges. That is why we are committed to working with the banks, trade associations and money service businesses to try to find solutions that do not mean extensive business closures. However, the truth is that we do not know what the full impact of some of the decisions that have been discussed here today will be. We are monitoring the situation and will continue to do so in the course of the next few months.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. In terms of immediacy, does he not agree with this point? My constituent George Boateng has contacted me to say that an entire parallel industry—the so-called hawala system—exists now and is totally and utterly unregulated, and we could end up with a situation in which we have a sort of reverse Gresham’s law: we end up losing money transfer that is legitimate and regulated and going into a completely unregulated system. Surely that cannot be anyone’s intention.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. He is correct, to the extent that if individuals cannot find a legitimate alternative that can reach the parts of countries they want to reach at a reasonable cost, they may be tempted to use illegitimate means, which makes the issue all the more important. I accept his general point.
We are committed to ensuring that commercial decisions taken by banks do not inhibit individuals in the UK from remitting money to families abroad, but, once again, there may be challenges. Individuals might need to approach firms other than those with which they are used to dealing. There may be increased charges. Remittance flows to some countries may be affected, specifically those with less developed or non-existent banking sectors, such as Somalia, as we heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. I share his concern.
Rushanara Ali
I was encouraged to hear the Minister’s reference to his personal experience—his family experience —but I am disappointed at the lack of focus in his response on the fact that we need an urgent solution. I appreciated his time before the debate thinking through a constructive way forward. I hope that he will use the last 10 minutes to talk about how he will get his officials, the FCA and interested parties to use their insights to look at how we can solve the problem. He would be commended for making that happen. Across Government —in DFID as well as in the Foreign Office and his Department—and in his party and my party, there are grave concerns, which have been expressed in the debate. I hope he will use the last 10 minutes to focus on action and delivery, because he will be commended for that.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to set that challenge and say that we should focus on action and delivery, and that is what I believe we are doing. I am sure she understands that there is no magic bullet or overnight solution that can be provided by any Government. As we heard today, this is a complex matter. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) recognised in his remarks that the banks have legitimate concerns. Other regulatory authorities are involved and hon. Members have mentioned the United States. Whatever the solutions, they may not be perfect and we may not get back to the world as it was before in this space. There will probably be changes to the structure of the industry. I hope she will be reassured, as I make further remarks, that we take the issue seriously.
The hon. Lady mentioned DFID, which I was coming to. I have discussed the recent bank actions with DFID officials and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. Initial indications do not suggest a significant impact on the economies of developing countries or their humanitarian situation. The Government will however assess the impact of market restructuring on developing countries and work with private sector and aid partners to mitigate any negative repercussions. The Secretary of State confirmed that the provision of UK Government aid will not be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who has great experience in development, talked about the work of DFID. It has said that it will commission an independent research report to understand the impacts of the recent bank actions on development outcomes in recipient countries.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the Minister for being generous. Can he explain what evidence DFID used to come to that conclusion? I have not been given any evidence, nor have my hon. Friends or other hon. Members. DFID should be looking at how to improve this important industry, because we want to end aid dependency. It is scandalous that DFID is being so complacent and commissioning a research project, when businesses will go bust in the next month. Will he press DFID to take urgent action with him? I accept that there are no magic wands, but there have been constructive suggestions in the debate, which I ask him to take forward and lead on. He will be commended for coming up with a solution.
Sajid Javid
I assure the hon. Lady that DFID takes the issue as seriously as other parts of Government and Members here today do. DFID, the FCO and the Treasury are working closely on it, because it affects all three Departments.
Simon Danczuk
If the Minister does not give a clear indication this afternoon that there will be a round-table meeting of which Government are part, everybody will leave with the impression that the Government support big business, but not small businesses.
Sajid Javid
I will come to that point before I finish, but, given the questions asked today, let me say a few words about Barclays.
When I met Antony Jenkins, Barclays chief executive, we discussed its recent decision to end its relationship with a number of money services businesses in the UK and I tried better to understand its perspective. Although we did not discuss decisions taken on individual firms, I was reassured to understand that the recent review of its customers in the sector is being conducted on a case-by-case basis. I was also reassured that it is working with firms to manage the impact of its decision. He confirmed that Barclays will consider on a case-by-case basis extensions to any initial notice period it has given companies, particularly where those companies can show that they are in active discussions with other banks that may take their business.
Sajid Javid
I do not have much time. A number of questions were raised by hon. Members, but I will give way very briefly.
Barry Gardiner
Without wishing to betray any confidence that Barclays relayed at the meeting with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), it is clear that it has decided not to continue to do business with certain remittance companies, and, despite what the Minister has said about the assurances he received from the chief executive, that was made very clear to us in the meeting. The matter is much more urgent that the Minister is acknowledging.
Sajid Javid
I take those points on board. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that Barclays has made the decision. It is however showing flexibility over the timing of closing certain accounts, and that flexibility is better than no flexibility.
I shall turn to a few questions raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asked whether I had received representations from the large money transfer companies. I have not received any representations from such companies. She also suggested—if I understood her correctly—that the banks’ behaviour could be anti-competitive. There is no evidence that banks are acting in concert or are distorting competition. They appear to have acted in accordance with their commercial interests and their desire to minimise risk.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) asked why larger organisations, such as Western Union, are not affected by the decisions of the banks and whether the banks would benefit from the withdrawal of some services. The short answer to why some larger institutions are not affected is that their internal compliance procedures are in many cases similar to what the banks themselves adopt internally; in many cases, they spend more resources on compliance and transparency issues, which they are clearly in a better position to afford than smaller operators; and in many cases they are regulated differently. All companies are supervised by HMRC, but there is a difference between a company registered with the FCA and one fully authorised with it, and banks take that into account.
The hon. Member for Rochdale and others, including the hon. Member for Nottingham East, asked whether we were having discussions with the US. We work closely with the US Treasury and State Department at all times on all regulatory matters, including money transfer. It is important to point out that since many transfers are ultimately in US dollars, there is a US interest. Lastly, I asked the British Bankers Association for a round-table meeting and it has agreed. We will have one, the Government will of course take part and I look forward to it.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I thank all hon. Members for co-operating on the time limit.
UK Energy Infrastructure (Wales)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Bayley, as I know that you are a green Chair in a green chair. In this debate, I will talk about Wales’s contribution to UK energy, and the development thereof.
Wales currently produces about 22,000 GWh of energy a year and consumes about 18,000 GW. We export approximately 4,000 GWh to England, but that figure is due to grow because of the abundant opportunities provided by the sea and the wind, and by solar energy. Essentially, I want to discuss the need to have the right balance between green energy and green tourism, with future tourism and economic opportunities paying due respect to our seascape and landscape.
The global population is growing, from something like 6 billion to 9 billion, and we are therefore not in control of the environment beyond our immediate physical surroundings. The size of the middle class in China, for instance, has grown from 2% to 20% of the population in the past 10 years, and more people from developing nations are travelling. Opportunities for green tourism in places such as Wales, which has a relatively sparse population, are therefore enormous and need to be borne in mind, as do opportunities in the creative industries. “Da Vinci’s Demons” is filmed at the old Fabian way site in my area. Our landscapes lend themselves to extraordinary Hollywood-type productions. We need a balance.
There are opportunities for nuclear development in Anglesey to produce another 34 GWh, which would be an increase of 150% in Wales’s total energy production and should justify further investment in Wales. We do not get our fair share of investment: some 80% of current infrastructure investment plans and 90% of transport plans are for London and the south-east. I know that hon. Members are interested in freight, for instance, and there is a case for investment in that.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Uskmouth power station in my constituency, which is one of the oldest power stations, is having huge problems getting rail freight capacity—it is difficult for rail freight companies to invest in the future—which is causing problems locally and increasing the costs to the power station’s operators. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider that further?
Geraint Davies
I completely agree. The big political debate is the balance between growth and cuts to get down the deficit, and we need to focus on growth, which means investment in infrastructure. We need to get the right gauges for freight—from Milford Haven, Swansea, Cardiff or Newport—and we need to move around universal freight modules, which are ship-carried in many instances, and energy from power stations, as my hon. Friend mentioned. There is a case for investment now, given the expected future income from new energy sources in Wales. There has been some discussion of a barrage that might generate up to 16,500 GWh, which would be 5% of UK energy, but the idea has clearly been kicked into touch, partly by the European habitats directive.
Meanwhile, the Swansea Lagoon is a big issue in the local press. It could generate some 400 GWh, which would be 0.1% of UK consumption and 2% of what the barrage could produce. That is a relatively small level of production, but it is big scheme in that it would take £650 million to build, with its footprint extending from Swansea docks halfway to Mumbles pier. The electricity produced would be enough for about 121,000 households, but it would be for the UK grid and not for Swansea itself, which has about that many households. I am concerned, therefore, that on balance the development is at least neutral in tourism terms. We hope to become the UK city of culture in 2017—we are on the shortlist of four—and next year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Dylan Thomas’s birth. We have high hopes for prosperity from cultural tourism in the emerging Swansea Bay city region, so preserving our iconic view is enormously important to us locally.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank my near namesake for allowing me to intervene. He focuses on tourism, and green tourism is a hugely important part of the economy in my constituency. At the moment, we face six wind farm applications without any knowledge of how the infrastructure will take the power out. If the mad scheme goes ahead, it will be absolutely crucial that the infrastructure is undergrounded, and that will not happen without Government pressure. It is vital that the whole line be undergrounded, because of the damage it would do to the economy.
Geraint Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes the point well that there needs to be a balance between the value of the electricity and the prospective value of the tourism. Aerial views show that England is relatively densely populated and Wales relatively sparsely, and that will be a key asset for our environmental tourism. We want to think strategically, therefore, about where our energy production is. With wind, there needs to be access up the Severn estuary to the grid at Hinkley Point or Port Talbot, but there is less of a case for pylons right into the centre of Wales. I respect the fact that some of these issues are devolved, but we need a balance because we are talking about a once-and-for-all change to our views and to the value of our tourism. Once the infrastructure goes up it will not be pulled down, so we need carefully to consider the pros and the cons.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes the point that Wales is not as densely populated as England, but it has a growing number of energy sources, from the energy island of Anglesey in the north right down to the south. There are large projects and smaller community ones, with a growing number of solar panels. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the grid infrastructure must be of sufficient capacity to cope with that, and to ensure not only that people can feed in the energy from their solar panels but that the energy, which will be generated in Wales, is fed in properly to the national grid system in the most efficient and cost-effective way?
Geraint Davies
Yes, I certainly agree. My understanding is that Wales produces about 27,300 GWh of energy, but that nets down to about 22,000 GWh because of inefficiencies in transmission. The issue of energy loss is very important. We need to run a sophisticated and effective network, which pays due regard to environmental impacts and therefore to the economic impacts on tourism. I am not putting to one side the important subjective impacts on people’s everyday quality of life, but there are also quantifiable economic impacts.
Coming back to the Swansea Lagoon, the Minister might want to comment on whether an evaluation of the impacts on tourism has been done. The construction phase would create discontinuity for retail and tourism. If the sea bed was dug up—which it would be—to provide some of the material for the wall, would that generate a lot of contamination from industrial waste brought up with it? Is the visual impact shown on the promotional literature accurate or slightly misleading?
Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that there is an opportunity now for local investors to put down a £800 stake and get £3,800 back if planning permission is granted? That means that local opinion makers, such as me, are under a lot of pressure from people who have put the £800 down. All the risks are taken by local people. There are fears that when the tide went down there would be an unsightly view which would block the iconic view from the town centre, Town Hill and the Uplands. In addition, given that in future years we want to pursue the idea of a Dylan Thomas festival on a scale more akin to that of Hay, there is a question as to whether the perimeter of the construction—its footprint is nearly as big as Cardiff—would impede future cruise-borne tourism in Swansea bay.
There are therefore several questions—I do not know whether the Minister has any preliminary answers—about the environmental and economic impact, and the trajectory of the short-term problems and of where we will end up if we want a more strategic development of the bay front and then have a lagoon. It may work out well, but those are important questions.
I also want to touch on the Atlantic Array, which, as hon. Members may know, is a bold and imaginative opportunity to have wind turbines offshore. They would be about 12 km offshore, but the National Trust has told me that the Germans normally want them 35 km offshore, so that is an issue. This may sound strange, but, importantly, the biggest harbour porpoise population in Britain is in that vicinity; one of a similar size is in Cardigan bay. Apart from not wanting to disturb that habitat, there is a question mark in relation to future environmental tourism over whether that habitat might be so disturbed by the erection of pylons that those breeding grounds move for ever. I want to make it clear that, in principle, I am in favour of such developments offshore.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I apologise for missing the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. What consideration has he given to other marine turbine technologies? I spent a very happy morning with the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) in a boat on the Severn estuary off the north Devon coast, and there is an imaginative scheme for marine turbines in the Severn estuary that would alleviate some—not all—of the concerns that he has voiced, particularly the environmental ones.
Geraint Davies
I am sorry that I could not be in that very boat. We should of course look imaginatively at all opportunities. I think that the hon. Gentleman was talking about underwater marine turbines, which are certainly enormously important. In the Severn estuary, which is virtually the biggest of its sort in the world—the bore is enormous—the whole idea of a barrage is predicated on such turbines, rather than on ones driven by the tide coming in and out, which is the case in the lagoon. We should certainly look at that in the future.
Solar energy has been mentioned. If the technology was there, I would like public sector buildings across the country to be tiled with solar panels to provide a solar footprint for the future, although the numbers must add up, because people can get such things wrong. The Chinese invested a lot in solar, but suddenly found that their technology had become obsolete.
There are therefore many opportunities, and I think that it would be best to give the Minister time to respond to some of the ideas and possibly to take some interventions as well.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Bayley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on raising the issues. Balancing the impacts of energy infrastructure against the benefits is a key consideration for the planning system, so I welcome the opportunity to talk about energy infrastructure in Wales.
Wales has an essential role to play in meeting our energy needs. We are committed to putting frameworks in place to ensure that the much-needed investment in infrastructure takes place, which is key to getting our economy moving in the short term. The energy sector has the biggest infrastructure programme in the UK, and many such projects are ready to start. It has been estimated that replacing and upgrading our electricity infrastructure alone will require about £110 billion of capital investment in the decade to 2020, supporting up to 250,000 jobs up and down the supply chain. That is half the total infrastructure investment pipeline in the UK, and nearly double the amount needed for transport.
Wales already plays a significant part in powering the United Kingdom, and is home to a range of vital energy infrastructure across the different energy sectors. It is a net exporter of energy, which helps to meet energy demand across the UK. The most recent figures—for 2011—show that it exported 13% of electricity generation to the rest of Great Britain, and it has been even higher in recent years. Since July 2012, Wales has also been a net exporter of electricity to the Republic of Ireland, via the east-west interconnector.
Wales also plays a central role in ensuring that our gas needs are met. It is home to one of our main liquefied natural gas import facilities in Milford Haven, and LNG is an increasingly important part of our energy mix. The terminal has the capacity to import nearly 29 billion cubic metres of gas a year, which is nearly a quarter of our total gas import infrastructure. The facilities there cost upwards of £1 billion, so major global energy players—such as Qatargas, Exxon Mobil and BG Group—have clearly recognised the great benefits of investing in Wales. That decades-long relationship will continue to benefit Wales and thus the rest of the UK.
Geraint Davies
The Minister is making the case that the net export of energy to the UK from Wales will grow. At a time when austerity measures are hitting Wales more than elsewhere, including because it has more public servants and more people on benefits, is there a case for Wales to have, instead of cuts, a greater proportion of investment in infrastructure to build growth to get down the deficit? As we make a growing contribution towards the UK pot, there is a case to be made for more investment, whether in freight railway lines or other infrastructure, to help give people the tools to provide growth and jobs.
Michael Fallon
I was in fact coming to exactly that point. Wales will benefit, and to some extent already benefits, from the steps we are taking to ensure the investment in infrastructure that we need. We are committed to providing the certainty that industry wants and to ensuring that the UK, including Wales, is one of the best places in the world to invest in low-carbon electricity generation. Our electricity market reforms are critical to that. As we know, a large proportion of our existing capacity—the equivalent of about 18 large power stations—has to close by the end of the decade. At the same time, we may need as much as double today’s electricity capacity by 2050 to deal with growing demand from the electrification of transport, heating and industry.
To meet our legally binding carbon targets, significant new electricity generating capacity will be needed by 2030, most of which has to come from low-carbon technologies, such as nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. By 2050, emissions from the power sector must be close to zero. The reforms that we are delivering through the Energy Bill and electricity market reform will be the biggest change to the market since privatisation and will transform the sector.
I am pleased to say that today, as planned, we have published the draft delivery plan that sets out the detail of how the Government will drive investment in low-carbon technology while securing electricity supplies at lower cost to consumers. Electricity market reform is now at the implementation stage in preparation for its introduction next year.
The challenge now is to unlock the investment, and I believe that Wales is well placed to do so. We have already seen success in Wales. Since 2010, my Department has granted consent to five major energy infrastructure projects there, covering a wide range of types of infrastructure, including onshore wind farms, biomass plants, and tidal and gas generation. In total, the projects already given consent alone can provide a generating capacity of about 1.5 GW, which is enough to power more 1.5 million homes. Many more projects are in the pipeline: developers in Wales have registered an interest with the Planning Inspectorate in relation to bringing forward 17 more major projects that all have the potential to lead to significant jobs and investment there, as well as to increasing our energy security and reducing carbon emissions.
Glyn Davies
The one part of the thinking about which I have not so far heard from the Minister is local opinion. There was a recent statement on the impact of local opinion on the Government’s view about smaller wind farms. In mid-Wales, we face a large number of very big wind farms. In general, does the Minister feel that local opinion should have a key place in the consideration of larger wind farms in Wales?
Michael Fallon
My hon. Friend knows that I cannot comment on individual applications or on those in his constituency, but the whole intent of our recent statement was to secure a greater degree of involvement for local communities through their being consulted before the submission of applications and having the ability to take into account wider considerations, such as visibility or the visual impact and the cumulative impact of successive applications in one locality. I hope that that will do something to redress the balance between developers and communities.
Nia Griffith
The Minister mentions the large number of projects in the pipeline. Whenever I have asked whether the Department of Energy and Climate Change has any central records of the number of biomass applications, I am always told that only local authorities know about the applications. It concerns me that we may be reaching a situation in which we are no longer able to supply our biomass plants from local sources, which I find acceptable, and that we end up importing from much less acceptable sources, which may be deforesting the world. Can his Department set up a register so that we have some idea about where we are running to in the future, otherwise we may find that we have biomass plants that can be sourced only from unacceptable sources, which would be a bad place to be?
Michael Fallon
That is an important issue, and one that I have been discussing recently with the domestic wood industry, especially the wood panel industry. I am aware that the Scottish Government require of a biomass plant a plan that shows exactly how sustainable the feedstock is likely to be. If I may, I should like to reply to the hon. Lady in writing, after a little more thought.
As I was saying, Wales is now seeing huge investment in its renewable energy infrastructure. Wales already accounts for around 6% of overall UK renewables. Since 2010, £1.3 billion of investment has been announced in renewable generation in Wales, potentially supporting around 2,000 jobs.
Just last week, the Secretary of State visited the site of the Pen-y-Cymoedd wind farm in south Wales, which is set to be the largest onshore wind farm in Wales and England. The announcement from Vattenfall that construction is to commence on the 76 turbines on the site in 2014, with the first power being generated for the National Grid in late 2016, is welcome news. That project alone represents more than £400 million of investment, creating around 300 jobs, and providing power to 140,000 homes. Furthermore, Vattenfall has confirmed that it will also invest £1.8 million every year in community funds for the 25-year life of the wind farm, ensuring wider benefits for local people.
This is also an exciting time for nuclear new build here in the UK. We were delighted to welcome Hitachi to the new nuclear market in Britain last October, with its purchase of Horizon Nuclear Power. Hitachi brings with it significant experience of building reactors and it holds an excellent track record for building on time and to budget. The first site it is planning to develop in the United Kingdom is Wylfa on Anglesey.
Hitachi is keen to develop its long-standing programme of industrial development in Wales. Horizon held successful supply chain events in Llandudno in May and in Gloucester, which I attended, which attracted some 400 business representatives. Hitachi’s entry to the new nuclear market shows just what a highly attractive proposition new nuclear is and reflects the strength of the Horizon project. I want to assure hon. Members that the Government are firmly committed to ensuring that new nuclear goes ahead in the UK and that all parts of the UK will benefit from it.
Geraint Davies
Will the Minister comment on shale gas in Wales for the future?
Michael Fallon
Yes, I am happy to do so. We are now accelerating the pace of shale gas exploration by putting in place a robust regulatory framework, and ensuring that where shale is hosted by a local community, that local community benefits, just as it benefits from onshore wind farms and as it will do from nuclear stations. The Chancellor has also announced fiscal measures to incentivise the expensive early years of exploration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will be setting out some amended planning guidance so that both developers and local communities that want to consider their applications will be clearer about how the applications are to be handled. We want to make sure that we do not miss out on the potential of shale gas.
Last month, we published the first authoritative estimate of the amount of shale lying underneath the northern basin—the Bowland-Hodder basin covering the northern counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire and so on. We now have a similar study going on in the south of England. Eventually we need to start mapping the resource right across the United Kingdom.
Finally, I can say that I have authorised a new 14th onshore licensing round, which is in preparation at the moment and will commence next year. Again, that should provide opportunities right across the United Kingdom to check and tap the potential of this resource. It is only potential at the moment; we do not yet know whether shale gas is recoverable as cost-effectively and as easily as it is in the United States. We know that the shale here appears to be thicker, so potentially there is a lot of gas that could be extracted and that could make a real difference to our economy. We also know that given the increasing volatility of international oil and gas prices, we have to do more to secure our energy supplies here at home by encouraging a stronger mix of energy from different sources, whether it is wind, other renewables, nuclear, other gas or shale gas.
Jessica Morden
The Minister rightly talks about long-term energy projects. In the short term, we have to maximise the capacity of what we have, particularly when demand is high. Will he look at the issue of lack of rail freight for existing power stations?
Michael Fallon
I am certainly prepared to look at that.
In conclusion, with the framework for investment in place, the energy legislation in front of the House and the details of electricity and market reform being published in greater detail and in draft, we now need to get investment flowing. That is the challenge over the coming years. If we can get investment in a new efficient, low-carbon and diverse energy mix, the jobs and growth that we all want to see will follow. Based on the evidence to date, and the points I have been making, I am confident that Wales is up to the challenge. It is already seeing deployment on the ground, and it is well placed to take advantage of the new investment that we need.
Michael Fallon
In further conclusion, let me just say—I am sorry not to be more helpful—that I am aware of the proposal from Tidal Lagoon Power to develop a bay tidal lagoon in Swansea. My officials have met the developers concerned, but because the project is now at the pre-application stage in the consent process of the Planning Act 2008, I am not able to offer from here any particular comment on the merits or otherwise of the proposal, but I look forward to the outcome of the planning process with interest.
Surrey County Council and Adoption
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I am raising the anonymous case of a small group of parents—potentially—who started an adoption procedure with Surrey county council at the same time. I am not happy with the procedure, and nor are the individual set of parents whom I will talk about. I must say at the beginning that I am very supportive of the Government’s moves to speed up and sort out the adoption procedures. Perhaps they ought to be grabbing Surrey county council by the back of the neck and shaking it.
This case—the one I am choosing to talk about—involves a married couple in my constituency. They are professional people, they own their own home in a small village in the constituency and they are near an excellent primary school, which feeds one of the best secondary schools. The mother has become a full-time mum for the two little sisters they have adopted. Put bluntly, after an appalling start in life things are looking good for those two little girls.
The adoptive parents expressed an interest in adopting to Surrey county council at an adoption meeting in November 2010. They submitted a formal application. A meeting was held with a social worker in January 2011. Prior to approval to progress, the couple attended an initial four-day training course in 2011 with seven other couples. So we are talking about eight couples, potentially—this is not a single-couple case.
On the fourth day of the four-day training course, the couple I am talking about were shown details of some children who were available for adoption. However, it soon became apparent that Surrey county council should not have done that, as its procedures had another eight months to run before approval. My constituents—this couple—looked at the list of children’s details in late March 2011, as produced by Surrey county council, and were attracted towards adopting two young sisters. One was aged five, going on six, and the other was aged two, going on three. At that stage, the two little girls had been in care for two years. On that final day of the training course, all the couples were told that Surrey county council would fast-track an application, as we would wish, if a suitable match was identified during the preparation for adoption. However, in my opinion, or at least in the opinion of the couple, Surrey county council seemed incapable of speeding up any progress at all. In fact, looking at the case in retrospect, the council did the opposite.
At the end of the first stage, the couple were assigned a social worker to take them through the preparation stage; that was in late March 2011. They first met their assigned social worker at the start of May 2011—two months’ delay. By early summer, the couple had started to express serious interest in adopting the two little girls, having seen their child permanence reports and later a short DVD of the children. As a result of that, the social worker agreed to start to run the adoption approval process, so as to approve the couple as adopters. It was agreed that the matching panel process would run in parallel. In October 2011, six months later, the couple met the children’s social worker for the first time, and reconfirmed their wish to proceed to adopt these two little girls, so that the processes could continue in parallel. At that stage, there seemed to be mutual agreement that, given the girls’ age and the length of time they had spent in care, the process should be moved quickly.
The adoption panel was set for early November 2011—12 months’ delay. The matching panel was expected to take place in late November 2011, but no date was set. The couple were deeply concerned that, at that time, their social worker had still not interviewed the required three referees from the six who had written reports about them as potential adoptive parents. In October 2011, as the distance between the meetings got longer, the social worker realised that she could not complete the work in the time required and the adoption panel meeting was slid back another 10 days.
After 14 separate daytime meetings, each one lasting between two and three hours, the social worker prepared a report and took the potential parents and the report to the panel in late November 2011. Appallingly, the panel decided that there were some basic deficiencies in the report. For example, the social worker was required to interview three referees but she had only interviewed two and, to make matters worse, still presented the report.
The panel therefore felt that it had to defer the case. To make matters even worse, the panel felt that, among other things, the social worker’s report contained too many references to the specific children—the two girls—instead of fictitious ones, which apparently was the normal procedure. Again, that was a Surrey county council problem.
As a result of that, the panel was apparently not confident that the couple were a suitable match, but that was entirely based on the inadequate report, and so we went backwards. As I am sure the Minister will understand, the adoptive couple were slightly upset—to put it mildly—as the panel was supposed to be judging their suitability as generic adopters, but in fact the couple had been led down the road of considering specific individual girls.
Things got worse. First, the social worker went off sick with stress and disappeared for nine months. A week after the social worker went off sick, the couple met the social worker’s manager, who apologised for the inadequate report. I find that somewhat strange, because the manager is ultimately responsible for the report before it is progressed with. However, the manager did not appear to notice that.
The couple were told to drop the match prospects with the two little girls, which was very upsetting. There were three further meetings with the manager, written submissions from the couple and so on. The matter proceeded on, so that the panel decision was brought forward to late January 2012 and was positive.
I find it extraordinary, but at that stage the couple had difficulty persuading the manager working with them that it was appropriate for them to adopt siblings. The couple were assigned a new social worker and told to look for a new potential match. In March 2012, they discovered from other potential adopters that the two little girls—
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
We have been absent for seven minutes, so the sitting will continue until 5.7 pm.
Sir Paul Beresford
I will scurry, Mr Bayley.
In March 2012, the adoptive couple discovered that their potential adoptees—the two little girls—were still on the list for adoption. They had been offered to other potential adopters but not accepted, for some reason. On that understanding, the couple approached the manager. They were told by the manager, once again, to forget the match and move on, even though Surrey county council had no alternative options for the children. Thanks to delays, at this stage the eldest girl was now nearly seven. At no time during the process were my constituents ever informed why they may or may not have been an unsuitable match.
In April 2012, my constituents ran out of patience with Surrey county council. They discovered, through Adoption UK, that there was an adoption exchange day in London, where a large number of adoptive agencies were present with the profiles of children for adoption. They discovered that it would be helpful to bring along a short biography to give out. This they prepared themselves, only to discover on arrival at the event that it should have been prepared with the assistance of Surrey county council. They still attended. Different Surrey county council staff were present, to whom they explained this long difficulty. They were assured that the staff were somewhat appalled.
Fortunately, on a Friday evening in April, the same manager—the one who had been there all along and who originally took them through the adoption panel—rang to say that she had had further discussions with colleagues. She said that Surrey county council now supported placing the two youngsters with them. The next matching panel took place in June 2012, which was a further delay of two months. Introductions were to commence in early July, but there was another two-week delay. To save the Minister the arithmetic, that was some 16 months after the first possible approach, after having first seen the details of the little girls. The two sisters latterly moved in with the adoptive parents, because of success, in August 2012. By this stage, the two girls had been in care for more than three years and had lived with two sets of foster carers.
Bad though that is, there is more. First, there was a shambolic lack of clarity over the contact arrangements with the birth parents. In broad summary, there were two differing opinions from two social workers. One social worker wanted up to six contacts a year for the birth parents with the girls, the other wanted no contact. Decisions were made, undone and remade. Confusion and upset reigned for the wee girls, for the adopting parents and for the birth mother. The final decision was no contact, which was backed by the court but opposed by the birth mother.
Surrey social workers decided at this stage that they needed to support the new combined family once the children had moved in with their adoptive parents-to-be. In September, the two girls were about to start at their new school. The elder of the sisters was going through a difficult settling-in stage. In its wisdom, children’s services decided that the mother would need more help, which was accepted. A social worker was allocated to the new family on a weekly basis, after school. She was, I understand, young and clearly inexperienced. Whatever advice was sought, or when changes were suggested in the strategy for caring for the children, she had to rush back to the manager, again, and return with the advice the following week. This support was so pathetic and inadequate that, by mutual consent, these support arrangements were shelved.
In addition to this inadequate support, the adoptive mother received visits every three weeks from the children’s social worker and from the parents’ own social worker—not together, but separately. The two social workers did not agree with each other’s approach. This, of course, made life challenging and every visit from the children’s social worker resulted in a period of unsettled behaviour from the children, who blamed the adoptive mother for the move. Fortunately, Surrey did something right. It bought in SafeBase, an external specialist organisation, which supported and helped the parents.
In January 2013, when the children were quite settled—they had got through their first Christmas with their new parents and the adoption process was about to begin—for some unknown reason, the children’s social worker decided that she needed to start visiting once a week to work on the children’s life story books. Why she needed to do this in conjunction, and in close proximity, with the children, I cannot fathom, and the timing was bad. Of course, predictably, that weekly visit, including pulling information together for the life story, had the immediate effect of unsettling the children yet again, as the social worker raked up their past on a weekly basis. That persisted for more than a month, until the social worker was signed off sick with a broken wrist—so they could not inflict other visits. The frequency of visits reduced and a semblance of normality started to return, and there was progress through to what one would consider proper normality.
To add to the problems, the children’s social worker delayed the commencement of the court process for the adoption by almost four weeks, by failing to provide the parents with the address of the birth parents. This was only resolved by going back to the manager again. To further aggravate the situation, the first court hearing was adjourned because the judge was not satisfied that adequate efforts had been made by Surrey county council to contact the birth parents, and he delayed the adoption by another six weeks.
In the middle of all that, the children were told about the contradiction of the contact with their birth parents. That was done by the children’s social worker in March 2013. I understand that it went through well.
The children are now adopted and in the home. I have met them, although the children do not realise it. It is understandable that Surrey county council children’s services department was concerned about how the parents would cope with the demands, but it seemed to make it worse at every stage. The adoption is now complete, and I should like the procedures that Surrey county council went through to be looked at, preferably independently, by somebody outside, if the Minister—if he acts—can persuade Surrey county council of that.
I have had dealings with Surrey county council’s social services in the past, and it was like banging my head on a brick wall. It shelters behind data protection, and progress is zero. A group of potential parents came together in November 2010, and I hope they can have their cases briefly looked at as a paper exercise and that the individual parents can then be interviewed, because if social services continue as they have been in Surrey, we are doomed when it comes to helping those children.
The children are now in what I know is a happy home. I wish them all the very best, but I must warn the parents, as a parent with adult children: just wait till those wee girls are teenagers. Then the fun starts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing this important debate. I know from his contributions to the Commons stages of the Children and Families Bill that he shares my determination to speed up and improve the adoption system from start to finish.
It is a shame that this debate has come about because of the catalogue of distressing experiences that my hon. Friend’s constituents have had with Surrey’s adoption service. It is pleasing to hear that, despite those problems, his constituents have persevered and are now the proud parents of two little girls who now have the stable, loving family home that they so desperately needed. I am sure that he will understand that I am unable to comment or intervene on an individual case—such cases are always best dealt with locally, where the circumstances are well known. I can assure him, however, that if his constituents want to provide my officials with permission, I am more than happy to write to the chief executive of Surrey county council to inquire about whether the director of children’s services is aware of their concerns and has any plans to consider them formally in the way that he suggests.
I can very much relate to the many challenges and joys of adoption and the care system that my hon. Friend describes. As he knows, I have two adoptive brothers who are among the more than 80 children, many from incredibly difficult backgrounds, that my family have fostered over 30 years. That clearly was not always easy, but I came to treasure seeing how love, stability and routine helped my brothers lay down roots, grow and eventually thrive. I know first hand just how life changing adoption can be.
We know that the permanency of adoption provides vulnerable children with one of the strongest foundations for a brighter future, so it is right that we do all that we can to remove the barriers and blockages that keep children in need and prospective parents apart.
As my hon. Friend’s constituents found, the existing system is clearly far too often failing to deliver for many people. Chronic delays mean that children in care wait on average two years—in the worst cases, three years—to be adopted, and some children are never adopted. Currently, just over 4,500 children are waiting to move in with their new family, and we need around 2,000 more adopters than are currently approved to meet that demand, with an extra 700 adopters needed each year to meet future demand, which is a 25% growth in the system’s capacity. We need not only more adopters but more adopters such as his constituents who can welcome older children and pairs or groups of siblings into their family. There is no doubt that we face a significant challenge on adopter recruitment.
The hopes of children waiting for a family are draining away all the time. Evidence shows that a child’s chances of adoption are reduced by almost 20% for every year that they spend in care. I am determined to do whatever it takes to change that situation, which is why we are taking action on a number of fronts to speed up and simplify the adoption system. I assure my hon. Friend that that includes significant measures to drive up performance locally.
We have made £150 million available to councils to boost adoption rates, and through adoption scorecards we have strengthened accountability by publishing information on how long it takes each local authority to place children for adoption. Nationally, some local authorities are doing excellent work on adoption, which we must recognise. That work is reflected in the 12% rise in adoptions last year, compared with the year before. Although that is very welcome, performance across the country is still too patchy, which is why we will continue to monitor closely local authorities, including Surrey, through the adoption scorecard and other available data. Where progress gives cause for concern, we will not hesitate to take the appropriate and necessary action.
As well as getting local authorities to raise their game on adoption, there is also increased support for prospective adopters, backed up by the excellent training available from adoption agencies. When I talk to adopters and prospective adopters, one of the many questions that they have, as well as those on the assessment process, is on what happens next. Where does the support come from? What role will the local authority or voluntary adoption agency play in ensuring that the adoption will be successful? The worst thing that can happen to the child is that the adoption is not successful because the right support was not provided at the right time. We need to ensure that we work closely with local authorities, voluntary adoption agencies and other national adoption organisations, so that we can make really good progress by implementing the adoption action plan, by creating the adoption gateway, by reforming regulations to create more streamlined approval processes and by publishing transparent scorecard data on timeliness, so not only officials and politicians but the public and prospective adopters can see the performance of local authorities and so that others can also have a chance to understand how good or bad the performance of their local authority is.
Sir Paul Beresford
I hear what the Minister is saying, but on paper and from what he is saying, Surrey county council would have appeared to have put in the support and so on. The difficulty is that, looking at it from the outside, it is virtually impossible to tell that that help is a hindrance.
Mr Timpson
My hon. Friend makes a key point about the quality of the support that is available. One of the areas on which we are putting more focus is the quality of social work training, and therefore on the standard and quality of social workers who work with families right from the very start, so that they get a better, higher and more consistent level of support, which we know can help to ensure that a placement is successful.
One of the changes that will help push that through is the new inspection regime that Ofsted is introducing, which will bind together both child protection and looked-after children, including adoption, so that there is a much brighter light and a much deeper look at what is happening within children’s services. We owe it to the children whose best future we have decided lies in adoption to provide them with the best opportunity at the earliest opportunity to make those all important attachments with their new family and to ensure that any delay is flushed out of the system wherever possible.
We will continue to develop the adoption scorecards and ensure that they are contextualised in a way that really reflects performance within local authorities. We have also introduced the First4Adoption phone and online service and the adoption passport, so that potential adopters have much better information and support. They do not have to go to the local authority to get that information and support, because it is provided in one place by many people who have personal experience of adoption and who are therefore in a good position to provide a better understanding of what prospective adopters are letting themselves in for and the great benefits that adoption can bring to them and, we hope, their family in the future.
Additionally, we have the new, fast, two-stage adopter approval process that started on 1 July. In most cases, prospective adopters can expect to wait no more than six months to be approved from when they register their interest. I was recently told of a couple who started the process in about October 2012, and twin babies were placed with them on an adoptive placement by February 2013. That is a fantastic example of how we can speed up the process but still ensure that we get a good match and a good-quality placement.
Sir Paul Beresford
Surrey county council seemed to take the right approach to begin with. It was a twin-track approach of sorting out the parents and bringing in the children together. Then, of course, it flew apart. Is that what the Minister means by a twin-track approach?
Mr Timpson
What I am talking about relates to the adopter approval process. The twin-track approach is sometimes called concurrent planning. In the Bill, we are trying to promote fostering for adoption, so that rather than waiting until the final decision is made about whether the birth family is capable of caring for a child in the long term, moves can start to be made to establish the child in the placement most likely to be their permanent one. The aim is to avoid situations in which a child planned for adoption is still within the care system, moving from one foster placement to another.
The beauty of fostering for adoption, which some authorities, such as East Sussex, already carry out, is that the risk falls fairly and squarely on the prospective adopters. There is no risk to the child, who can be placed much earlier with their prospective adopters, so that the family can start to create the bonds that will stabilise their future hugely and avoid unnecessary delay, which we know only causes more problems rather than more solutions.
The two-stage process involves the initial two-month preparation period, during which the prospective adopters gather the information that they need to understand adoption in greater detail and the relevant checks and references are carried out. Those who successfully complete it then go on to the second stage—a more detailed and more appropriately focused four-month assessment. The beauty, as I said, is that it focuses on the essentials to ensure that prospective adopters can give what is necessary for a child to be placed with them successfully.
It is also worth noting that, since 1 July, a fast-track approval process has been introduced for those who have already adopted and fostered and are looking to adopt again. They do not need to start the whole process again, as they currently do; they can be fast-tracked, which will help reduce delay. The approach will dramatically reduce the amount of time that children must wait before they can move into their permanent home and their number of temporary placements. Stability is a key factor of a successful outcome for a child in care moving on to a permanent placement. The more we can reduce the number of placements, the more likely the child will have a successful childhood.
Adopters will be able to take a much more active role in identifying children through the measures in the Bill to allow approved prospective adopters to access the adoption register directly, which they have not been able to do before now. Again, we expect that that will drive up speed and the number of matches made, as well as increasing the pool of potential matches available directly to prospective adopters. We will pilot the new register in a number of local authorities before deciding whether it should be rolled out nationally, but we believe that that is the right approach, and it is supported by many excellent adoption charities.
We will change contact arrangements through the Bill, so that they are demonstrably more in the best interests of the child than anybody else’s. There have been dramatic reductions in delays since we introduced the new clause on the 26-week time limit for care proceedings. The time has gone from an average of 57 weeks to about 40 weeks, and it is falling fast. That will also help to solve many of the problems identified by my hon. Friend and experienced by his constituents.
As I have outlined, a great deal of work is under way to overhaul the adoption system fundamentally and tackle head-on many of the issues that my hon. Friend rightly raised, but we need to go further and faster, especially with regard to adopter recruitment. The backlog of 4,500 children in care waiting to be adopted needs to fall rapidly, and the system needs to sustain the ability to cope with increased future demand for prospective adopters. We know from the recent research carried out that hundreds of thousands of people out there would love the opportunity to adopt and consider it an aspect of their lives that they would like the opportunity to fulfil.
We need to grab that opportunity and make people feel welcome when they approach a local authority or voluntary adoption agency, so that they feel that the whole system is not set against them but there to support and encourage them and provide them with the advice and guidance that they need to feel equipped and confident when the great day comes and that child or those children end up in the bosom of their family. We will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we have a system that is deserved by our most vulnerable children, as well as by the thousands of generous, loving people like my hon. Friend’s constituents who have gone to such great lengths to open up their homes and hearts. I join him in wishing his constituents and their two little girls the very best in future.
We must always be alive to the fact that the system that we have created is never perfect, but we do know that for too long the adoption system has failed to deliver for too many children. That is why it remains a high priority not just for me or the Secretary of State, who has his own personal experience of adoption, but for the Prime Minister, who from the start of this Government has championed adoption as one of the best ways to give children, some of them with the most difficult start in life, the best possible chance of the brightest future. It is therefore incumbent on us all to ensure that we achieve that, and I believe that the work that we are doing will go a long way to address many of the concerns that my hon. Friend’s constituents have rightly raised and that he raised on their behalf. We will not take our foot off the gas.
Written Statements
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Concurrent Jurisdiction
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has today published the final guidelines to prosecutors on decision making in certain cases involving concurrent jurisdiction. The guidelines, which take immediate effect, follow a recommendation in the report of the review of the UK’s extradition arrangements by the right hon. Sir Scott Baker that there should be more transparency about the principles that are applied by prosecutors in this jurisdiction when determining whether criminal proceedings should be brought here or in another jurisdiction.
The guidelines were issued on an interim basis and were the subject of a consultation exercise that ended on 31 January 2013, The interim guidelines were reviewed in light of the comments received and to ensure that they were consistent with the forum bar legislation that was approved by Parliament earlier this year. The guidelines provide guidance for prosecutors in cases where criminal investigations have been commenced in more than one jurisdiction and involve suspected criminal conduct that crosses international boundaries. The CPS recognises that decisions made in accordance with these guidelines will form the basis of consideration for the courts when applying the forum bar.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office has indicated that his prosecutors will also consider themselves bound by this guidance.
Copies of the guidelines will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Traineeships (16 to 24-year-olds)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
As part of plans to reform the education and skills systems we need better support for young people aged 16 to 24 who are focused on securing an apprenticeship or sustainable job.
Traineeships for 16 to 19-year-olds were announced in May 2013 and I made a written ministerial statement at that time. We published a framework for delivery for 16 to 19 traineeships and indicated that the programme would be extended up to age 24 in due course.
Today, I am publishing an updated framework for delivery for traineeships, following the announcement in the recent spending review that traineeships will become available to young people up to age 24. Traineeships will address the needs of young people and employers directly, providing an important link between school or college and apprenticeships or sustainable work. This is a key part of my drive to ensure greater rigour and responsiveness in further education, placing the employer and their needs at the heart of delivery.
Government funding for the programme will begin for 16 to 24-year-olds from August this year. Traineeships will be designed to help young people develop both skills and work experience and have flexibility around this core to respond to individuals’ needs.
Copies of the document we are publishing today will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Ministerial Pensions
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 abolished separate pension arrangements for future holders of the great offices of state. Future holders of the great offices of state will instead accrue pension in the ministerial pension scheme.
Amendments to allow future holders of the great offices of state to participate in the ministerial pension scheme are therefore required.
These amendments will:
Allow future Lord Chancellors, Prime Ministers and Commons Speakers to remain members of the ministerial pension scheme on appointment.
Allow the current Lord Chancellor to rejoin the ministerial pension scheme for future appointments.
The changes do not affect the current Prime Minister and Speaker.
The amendments do not make any provision in relation to an accrued right which puts—or might put—a person in a worse position than the person would have been in apart from the provision.
The details of the new scheme will be laid in the House today, along with a copy of the response to the consultation from the chairman of the parliamentary contributory pension fund trustees.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
Today the Government are introducing the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill to the House of Commons, with explanatory notes and impact assessments.
This is the first Government to proactively publish meetings that Ministers and permanent secretaries have with external organisations. The Bill will extend this transparency to give the public more confidence in the way third parties interact with the political system, ensuring that these activities are accountable and properly regulated. These parties play an important role in the political process, helping to inform policy making and ensuring views are heard by those in Government.
This Bill will ensure that we know who lobbyists lobby for; how much money is spent on third-party political campaigning; and to make sure trade unions know who their members are.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces a statutory register of lobbyists which will address the problem that it is not always clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists. It will enhance transparency by requiring consultant lobbyists to disclose details about their clients on a publicly available register and will complement the existing Government transparency regime whereby Government Ministers and senior officials proactively disclose information about who they meet.
The Government will today respond to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report “Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists”. We are grateful to the Committee for its detailed consideration and scrutiny of the Government’s initial proposals for a register.
Part 2 of the Bill sets out new rules on third parties campaigning in elections, ensuring that spending by third parties is controlled and fully transparent. In particular, it will expand the scope of controlled campaign expenditure. It will also reduce national spending limits for third parties, ensure that, above a certain limit, political parties explicitly authorise third-party spending which supports that political party, and introduce geographical limits on the amount that third parties can spend in individual constituencies.
Part 3 of the Bill will give assurance of trade unions’ compliance with the existing obligation to maintain the register of members by requiring trade unions to produce an annual membership audit certificate. It also gives the certification officer new powers in relation to investigation and enforcement.
A copy of the Bill and explanatory notes can be found on the website:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/.
Alcohol Fraud
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I can inform the House that the Government are today publishing the response to the 2012 consultation on legislative measures to tackle alcohol fraud.
Alcohol fraud is a serious problem which HMRC estimates leads to revenue losses of approximately £1.2 billion a year. It also has a detrimental impact on the legitimate businesses attempting to compete in this sector. This is why the Government consulted last year on potential measures to deal with this problem. Measures covered by the consultation included beer fiscal marks, supply chain legislation and a registration scheme for alcohol wholesalers. The consultation also explored alternatives to these options that could assist HMRC’s enforcement strategy.
The responses to the consultation highlighted the potential anti-fraud benefits but also some considerable impacts the proposed measures might have on legitimate alcohol supply chains. After fully examining the case for and against the proposed measures, the Government have decided not to proceed with beer fiscal marks or supply-chain legislation at this time.
Compelling evidence was provided on beer fiscal marks to show that, although it could be a useful tool to counter trade in illicit products, the costs of affixing stamps to goods could be significant for the UK brewing industry and particularly for legitimate importers and exporters. Therefore, the Government will not be proceeding with the introduction of beer fiscal marks at this time to allow exploration of other, less burdensome options to address alcohol fraud.
Regarding supply-chain legislation, the consultation highlighted issues regarding the practicality and cost of introducing new “track and trace” systems across the brewing industry, as well as concerns regarding the likely effectiveness of the measure. The Government do not therefore intend to legislate for this measure at this time, but wishes to continue to explore available and emerging technologies that could help to secure alcohol supply chains. The Government will also consult shortly on new proposals to strengthen due diligence obligations of excise businesses throughout the supply-chain.
The Government note the positive response across all sectors towards the option to register alcohol wholesalers and can also see that there could be benefits in authorising this part of the supply chain, which is frequently the point at which illicit products are distributed. The Government wish to consult further with relevant sectors informally over the summer of 2013 to refine the design of a registration scheme, and fully understand the costs, benefits and implications if it were introduced. This will also include seeking views on the specific powers and sanctions that would be essential if the scheme is to be effective. The outcome of this further work will inform the Government’s future decision on whether to proceed with wholesaler registration.
The consultation also considered a large number of alternative measures, including many proposed by industry. The Government intend to progress a wider programme of change to policy and enforcement to strengthen the current “Tackling Alcohol Fraud” strategy. Full details of that programme, will be published shortly but will include steps to increase collaboration with industry and between enforcement agencies; measures aimed at tightening controls in the existing excise regulatory system; dealing more robustly with those found holding or moving illicit goods, and increasing co-operation with other EU member states.
A copy of the full response to the consultation will be available online on the GOV.UKsite at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?publication_filter_option=consultations.
Commission on Devolution in Wales
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The first report of the Commission on Devolution in Wales made 33 recommendations to increase the financial accountability of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government.
After careful consideration of the commission’s recommendations, the Government recognise that the Assembly’s financial accountability and autonomy would be enhanced if it was funded through a combination of block grant and self-financing.
However, the Government wish to consult with business on the potential impacts of devolving stamp duty land tax (SDLT) to the Assembly in advance of making a full response to the commission’s first report.
The commission’s first report included the recommendation that SDLT
“should be devolved to the Welsh Government with Welsh Ministers given control over all aspects of the tax in Wales”.
Further to the commission’s analysis underpinning their report and the Government’s subsequent assessment of its recommendation, the Government would like to seek further views, especially from business, on devolving SDLT. In particular, the aim would be to understand the potential impacts on the construction industry and housing market given the populous border between Wales and England.
Based on the outcome of this short and targeted consultation, the Government will make their response to the commission’s recommendations. The Government will also set out how this can help, including through looking at the Welsh Government having early access to borrowing, to support a funding solution for the M4 improvement scheme in south Wales.
Fiscal Sustainability
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Today the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) published its third fiscal sustainability report (FSR). This document meets its requirement to prepare an analysis of the sustainability of the public finances each financial year, and provides an important insight into the state of the public finances taking into account the significant impact of demographic change. The report was laid before Parliament earlier today and copies are available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.
The OBR/FSR projections show that public sector net debt is expected to fall to a trough of 66% of GDP in the early 2030s, before rising to reach 99% of GDP in 2062-63 in the absence of further policy change. The FSR shows that, without additional policy change, an ageing population is projected to increase age-related spending by 4.4% of GDP between 2017-18 and 2062-63, as health, social care and pension expenditure become an ever larger proportion of total public spending and the economy.
The FSR also examines the long-term sustainability of Government revenues. As in previous years, the OBR projects that oil and gas revenues will decline markedly over the coming decades. Updated projections show revenues declining from 0.4% of GDP this year to 0.03% of GDP in 2040-41, with total revenues over the projection period revised down by £11 billion. The OBR consider the impact of alternative scenarios for oil and gas prices and for production and conclude that revenues will fall below 0.1% of GDP in the coming decades, even in these more optimistic scenarios.
The Government are committed both to strengthening our fiscal position now and making it sustainable for the long term. The OBR analysis makes it clear that the Government’s medium-term consolidation plan is essential to restoring long-term sustainability of the public finances. A deterioration in the primary balance in 2017-18 worth 1% of GDP could increase projected public sector net debt in 2062-63 to around 150% of GDP. The OBR discusses the impact of changes to policy on their long-term projections. They show that excluding policy changes announced since the 2012 FSR, public sector net debt would have been projected to be around 50% of GDP higher by 2062-63. They identify the additional spending reductions announced for 2017-18 as one of the key factors in containing the growth of spending over the long-term, demonstrating the importance of the Government’s programme of fiscal consolidation for the long-term health of the public finances.
The FSR presents long-term projections of state pension expenditure including the Government’s new single tier state pension. The single-tier reforms will restructure current expenditure on the state pension into a simple flat-rate amount, to provide clarity and confidence to better support saving for retirement. This reform will cost no more than the current system.
The single tier reforms will complement the bold measures already taken by this Government to improve the sustainability of UK pension systems. Bringing forward the increase in the state pension age to 66 to 2020 is expected to deliver savings of around £30 billion while bringing forward the increase to 67 to 2028 is expected to deliver savings of around £70 billion. Further, the Government have set out their plans to consider future changes to the state pension age in a more regular and structured manner, ensuring that the state pension age keeps pace with changing demographics and putting state pension expenditure on a more sustainable footing.
Together, single tier and state pension age reform will provide individuals with greater certainty about their retirement income and ensure a more sustainable system which represents a fair outcome across generations. This provides a solid foundation upon which individuals can plan for their retirement.
Reform of the state pension comes alongside the Government’s reforms to public service pensions. The Government have set out a package of reforms to rebalance taxpayer and member contributions in the short term, and to ensure that costs are sustainable and fair in the long term. The new scheme designs, rebalancing of contributions between members and the taxpayer, and switch to uprating by the consumer price index (CPI) are forecast to save £430 billion over the next 50 years.
The OBR’s report also focuses on the pressures of an ageing population on social care spending, and the projections reflect for the first time the impact of the historic reforms to social care funding announced earlier this year. The Government will introduce a cap on lifetime care costs, greater means-tested support for residential care and deferred payments, so that nobody faces unlimited care costs, more people get support with their residential care costs sooner, and nobody is forced to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for residential care. The Government are also taking action to deliver better, more efficient care. For example, the spending round set out radical plans to create a £3.8 billion pooled budget shared across health and care, to deliver more integrated services, which we expect to manage down pressures across both services.
Recall of MPs
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
The coalition programme for Government included a clear commitment to establish a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and 10% of his or her constituents have signed a petition calling for a by-election.
We set out our proposals and draft legislation in a White Paper which has been scrutinised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and we have today issued our full response to their report.
In our response, we have reiterated our intention to proceed with the introduction of a recall mechanism and to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.
We believe this recall mechanism will go some way to restoring trust and accountability to the political process. It will provide an important tool for the House to add to its own suite of disciplinary measures and will give a reassurance to constituents who should not have to rely on their MP choosing to stand down following the committal of a serious wrongdoing.
The recall mechanism we are proposing will have two triggers. Firstly, where a Member receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, a recall petition will be automatically opened in that Member’s constituency (under the Representation of the People Act 1981, where a Member receives a custodial sentence of more than 12 months, they are automatically disqualified from membership of the House). If 10% of constituents sign the petition, the MP’s seat will be vacated and a by-election called. The former MP may stand as a candidate.
Secondly a recall petition will be opened where the House of Commons resolves that one of its members should face recall. This will ensure that a Member could also face recall where they have committed serious wrongdoing which did not result in a custodial sentence, for example, a serious breach of the House of Commons Code of Conduct. This will be a new disciplinary power for the House to help ensure that it is able to deal with disciplinary issues effectively. Constituents would again then have the opportunity to decide if a by-election should be held.
We welcome the Committee’s thorough consideration of the proposals and have accepted many of their recommendations, particularly on the conduct of the recall petition. The process of pre-legislative scrutiny has been valuable and will result in an improved Bill being presented to Parliament in due course.
Primary Assessment and Accountability
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
I am pleased to announce today the launch of our consultation on primary assessment and accountability.
We believe it is crucial that as many children as possible should leave primary school having reached a level that leaves them ready to progress and achieve their full potential at secondary school. Our reforms to the national curriculum, statutory assessment and school accountability for primary schools are designed to ensure that pupils are well prepared for the next stage of their education and that schools do not allow pupils to fall behind.
We want to see a step change in attainment at the end of primary school. In the past, the achievement bar was set too low and too few pupils cleared this bar. Our ambition is that all pupils, excepting some of those with particular learning needs, should be secondary ready at age 11—that means using a higher measure of what success looks like. We are already raising the threshold for the percentage of pupils to be ready for secondary school to 65%. But we know that schools and teachers have already raised their game way beyond this. For that reason, we will expect a very high proportion of pupils—85%—to reach the new, higher secondary readiness threshold for a school to be above the bar. Since we know that both children and schools can achieve this, it is right that we set this as a minimum standard.
Our new national curriculum is designed to give schools genuine opportunities to take ownership of the curriculum. The new programmes of study, published on 8 July, set out what pupils should be taught by the end of primary education. Teachers will be able to develop a school curriculum that delivers the core content in a way that is challenging and relevant for their pupils.
Statutory assessment in core subjects at the end of key stages is designed primarily to enable robust external accountability. We will continue to prescribe statutory assessment arrangements in English, mathematics and science. National curriculum tests in English and mathematics will continue, and will show whether pupils have met a demanding secondary readiness standard, which will remain the same from year to year. We propose to report pupils’ test results as a scaled score, such as those used in international surveys, to make sure that test outcomes are comparable over time. We will report each pupil’s ranking in the national cohort by decile to show their performance relative to their peers nationally.
It is vital that we set high aspirations for all schools and pupils. Our new targets will prepare children for success. At the moment, pupils are being asked to reach a bar that too often sets them up to fail. So that all children—whatever their circumstances—can arrive in secondary school ready to succeed, we are giving significantly more money to primary school pupils eligible for the pupil premium. This will support this step change in ambition.
We introduced the pupil premium in 2011 to help schools close the attainment gap for disadvantaged pupils. In 2014-15, total funding through the pupil premium will increase by an extra £625 million to a total of £2.5 billion. We will use the extra funding to increase the level of the pupil premium for primary schools to £1,300 per pupil compared with £900 in the current year. This 44% rise in the pupil premium is the largest cash rise so far. This should enable more targeted interventions to support disadvantaged pupils to be “secondary ready” and achieve our ambitious expectations for what pupils should know and be able to do by the end of primary education. We believe in early intervention because the greater the numbers of disadvantaged pupils that leave primary school with basic literacy and numeracy, the greater their chances of achieving good GCSEs.
We also want to treat schools fairly by acknowledging the performance of schools whose pupils achieve well despite a low starting point. We will therefore look at how we can introduce a reliable, robust measure of progress that we can take into consideration when holding schools to account. A school that does not achieve the attainment threshold will not be judged to be below the floor standard if its pupils are making good progress. The progress measure will also help identify coasting schools, whose pupils do not achieve their full potential. Ofsted will focus its inspections more closely on schools below and just above floor standards, and inspect schools with good performance on these measures less frequently.
We will continue to report on the progress pupils make during primary education. In order to measure pupils’ progress, we need to measure how each pupil’s end of key stage 2 test results compare with the results of pupils with similar prior attainment. Currently the baseline against which we measure progress is at the end of key stage 1. We could continue to keep the baseline at this stage. Alternatively, we could introduce a similar teacher-led baseline check early in reception, which would help teachers understand the stage the child has reached and allow the crucial progress made in reception, year 1 and year 2 to be reflected in the accountability system. Our consultation seeks views on which is the best option.
Finally, we recognise that teachers are professionals, and we want to give schools more freedom over the way they measure assessment. We have already announced that we will remove the current system of national curriculum levels and level descriptions, which imposes a single system for ongoing assessment and prescribes the detailed sequence for what pupils should be taught. This will leave schools free to decide how to track pupils’ progress. Ofsted will expect to see evidence of pupils’ progress, but inspections will be informed by the pupil tracking data which schools choose to keep.
The results of national curriculum tests, along with summative teacher assessment, will continue to be published. These provide important information for parents, governors, Ofsted, the wider public, and the secondary school where the pupil will continue their education. The Department will continue to use floor standards to identify schools which are underperforming.
I will place a copy of the consultation on primary assessment and accountability in the Libraries of both Houses.
New Nuclear Power Stations (Community Benefits)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
The Department of Energy and Climate change is today announcing a package of benefits for the communities that host any new nuclear power stations.
The new nuclear programme will substantially contribute to the Government’s growth strategy, creating significant numbers of jobs around the UK, bringing investment in the UK’s nuclear and wider construction supply chains, and encouraging growth for local businesses in the surrounding communities.
The community benefit package recognises the role of communities that are being asked to host such large infrastructure projects that will contribute significantly to national energy generation and growth, and the reduction of the UK’s carbon emissions.
The total package will be proportionate to the amount of energy the power station generates, up to a value of E1000 MW per annum for up to 40 years. In the case of Hinkley, this could amount to approximately £128 million. The package will be delivered in two distinct phases.
In the first phase, authorities will benefit from the business rates retention arrangements which were introduced by the Government in April this year. They will keep a share of the business rates paid in their area, and also keep a share of any increase in business rates, subject to payment of any levy that might be due. Authorities hosting new nuclear power stations will therefore benefit significantly from the increase in revenues that will arise from the development of those facilities. They will get the reward from these increased revenues for up to 10 years.
The second phase is intended to deliver the remainder of the package over the period 2030-60 which will be an annual payment of equivalent amounts, funded by DECC. These funds are specifically intended to benefit the local communities who are hosting new nuclear power stations and the Government fully expect that the local authorities will involve their communities in developing their spending plans, with Government also providing assistance and support in its development. Given the amount of time before this phase of funding will be issued and recognising the differences between communities, DECC will extensively discuss the implementation of this funding with each local area to determine how the needs of the community may best be served.
Business rates are a devolved matter and business rates retention does not apply in Wales. As a result, DECC will work with the Welsh Government to provide a community benefits package equivalent to that delivered in England for the communities surrounding Wylfa power station.
Foreign Affairs Council
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 22 July in Brussels. The FAC will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland.
Introduction—Water Security
Baroness Ashton will update the FAC on the EU’s work on water security in her introductory remarks. We do not expect a discussion. Conclusions that acknowledge the importance of water security and endorse the EU water diplomacy strategy paper are under negotiation.
Introduction—Western Balkans
Baroness Ashton will then briefly outline progress on the Serbia/Kosovo dialogue. The UK remains a strong supporter of the EU-facilitated dialogue. It is important that the momentum for normalising relations between Kosovo and Serbia is maintained. We expect conclusions on Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) that focus on support for the EU special representative and for early resolution of the Sejdic-Finci constitutional issue that is preventing BiH’s stabilisation and association agreement from coming into force. These conclusions should mirror the strong messages Commissioner Füle and Baroness Ashton have been passing to BiH’s leaders this month.
Human Rights
Ministers will discuss the EU’s external human rights policy, one year on from the adoption of the EU strategic framework and action plan on human rights and democracy, and the appointment of Mr Stavros Lambrinidis as EU Special Representative for Human Rights. We expect conclusions to be adopted that reaffirm the Council’s determination to promote and protect human rights and democracy around the world.
Southern Neighbourhood
On Syria, we expect Baroness Ashton to update Ministers on progress made in preparing for the Geneva II talks. This will be an oral presentation. The UK will continue to encourage increased humanitarian assistance from EU member states and institutions; to ensure the EU continues to focus on a political solution to the Syria crisis; and to encourage the EU to engage in concrete planning for a post-Assad transition in Syria.
Following the intervention by the armed forces in Egypt, Ministers will discuss the situation in Egypt and consider the EU’s response. The UK remains committed to supporting Egypt in its transition to democracy. We will press for conclusions which make it clear that the Egyptian authorities should make good their promises for a swift return to democratic processes; that political leaders and journalists who have been detained are charged with recognised crimes or released; and that a free media is guaranteed.
Africa
Ministers will discuss a number of issues under the Africa item on the agenda, such as the Great Lakes region, Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan, and Mali.
On the Great Lakes region, Ministers will discuss what an EU strategy in support of the peace, security and co-operation framework for the Great Lakes region should contain. We expect to agree conclusions that focus EU efforts on such work.
Ministers will discuss Somalia, looking ahead to the EU-Somalia conference in Brussels on 16 September, and will agree conclusions that take stock of recent progress and agree priority issues for the coming months. We expect the conference to focus on bringing together Somali and international partners to agree a new deal compact; securing the required financing to implement the Government’s priorities; and providing a platform for the Federal Government of Somalia to set out a clear political vision and process for building an appropriate federal system. The UK will push for ambitious conclusions that set out the EU’s long-term commitment to providing support and assistance to Somalia.
Ministers will also discuss the current setback in implementation of oil and security agreements between Sudan and south Sudan, as well as the conflicts in the Sudanese states of southern Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur and the south Sudanese state of Jonglei. The discussion will be an opportunity to agree priorities for EU activity in the coming months. Ministers are expected to agree conclusions.
On Mali, conclusions are being prepared that will record the latest developments in the run-up to presidential elections which begin on 28 July, and will take note of an European External Action Service (EEAS) options paper on possible civilian CSDP activity in Mali in the future. We are urging further discussions with both the UN and the Malians in order to identify clearly how the EU might add value. We expect any discussion at the FAC to focus on these issues.
Eastern Partnership
Baroness Ashton will brief Ministers on her and Commissioner Füle’s recent visits to Moldova, Armenia and Georgia. Ministers will then discuss the proposed outcomes for November’s eastern partnership summit in Vilnius, ahead of a ministerial meeting of the eastern partnership that will take place after the FAC. The ministerial meeting will focus on progress made over the last year and expectations for the summit. The UK supports the efforts of eastern partners in seeking a closer relationship with the EU through association agreements and deep and comprehensive free trade areas on the basis of continued and irreversible political and economic reform.
Middle East Peace Process
The FAC will revert to the middle east peace process as agreed at the June FAC. Ministers will take stock of recent developments, including ongoing US efforts, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, to make progress toward the resumption of direct and substantial negotiations and further consider how the EU can support these efforts.
Lebanon
The evidence that Hizballah’s military wing is a terrorist organisation and that they have engaged in terrorism on EU soil is compelling. That is why we believe that their formal listing by the EU as a terrorist organisation is fully justified. We are working closely with EU partners on this issue and want to reach a robust, collective EU position.
International Criminal Court
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Today is World day of International Criminal Justice. I take this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s strong support of global efforts to tackle impunity and bring those responsible for the most serious crimes of international concern to justice. As part of this work I am pleased to announce that we have today launched a new strategy to support the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
We will work to ensure that the ICC retains its independence, delivers justice, increases its membership, builds more support for its decisions from states and from the United Nations Security Council, gains wider regional support and completes its work more efficiently.
We will help build a stronger, universal ICC, complementary to domestic jurisdictions, by being a strong advocate for the ICC in our diplomatic relations and encouraging states not party to the Rome statute of the ICC to consider becoming a state party, or supporting its work. We will address the issues of non-co-operation by working on this through our network of embassies in those states where it is a problem and by ensuring that we follow our own guidelines on essential contact. We will use our voice in the UN Security Council to promote the ICC where it has a role. And we will promote the role of international justice in UK policy.
It is our clear hope that through universality of the Rome statute and the development of domestic jurisdictions the ICC’s role will eventually become increasingly limited. Until then we will continue to support the ICC as it plays a vital role achieving justice for the victims of the worst international crimes.
I have placed a copy of the strategy in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available on: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office.
President U Thein Sein of Burma (Visit)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
From 14 to 16 July Burma’s President Thein Sein visited the United Kingdom for discussions with the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development, Lord Green and I.
This was the first official visit of a Burmese president to the UK. It was an opportunity to discuss with President Thein Sein the significant political reforms his Government have achieved over the last two years, including releases of political prisoners, ceasefire agreements with 10 out of 11 ethnic armed groups, and steps to increase freedom of expression. It was also an opportunity to urge further progress in areas where additional reforms are needed.
The Prime Minister and I also raised our concerns about a wide range of human rights and ethnic issues, including the continuing plight of the Rohingya community in Rakhine state. I welcomed the president’s announcement of the abolition of the Nasaka security forces in Rakhine state. The president committed himself during his visit to releasing all political prisoners by the end of 2013, and said that he hoped over the coming weeks to achieve a nationwide ceasefire with the ethnic armed groups. The president also welcomed our initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. He acknowledged the need to reform the constitution ahead of the 2015 elections.
The Secretary of State for International Development emphasised the need for the president’s leadership on ethnic reconciliation, peace-building and inclusive growth, and confirmed our continued commitment to supporting Burma, notably helping foster private investment, jobs and better livelihoods, advance health care and schooling, bolster peace-building, and provide humanitarian aid to people hurt by conflict and ethnic violence. She also announced £10 million for the 2014 census, £5.65 million to support Burma’s economic development and £13.5 million for a humanitarian programme in Kachin delivering food, shelter, water and adequate sanitation.
We emphasised the importance of reforming the Burmese military and of pursuing a sustainable ethnic peace process. The focus of our future defence engagement in Burma will be on adherence to the core principles of democratic accountability and human rights. The Defence Secretary offered to support the participation of around 30 Burmese officers in the British military’s flagship “Managing Defence in the Wider Security Context” course in January 2014. We sought assurances from the president that any links to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), contrary to UN Security Council Resolutions, have ended.
The president met a range of British businesses at events hosted by the UK ASEAN Business Council, and discussed the importance of transparency, building a stable regulatory framework and harnessing private investment for the good of the people. We will offer our support to develop Burma’s financial services sector; Lord Green launched the financial services taskforce, which will support the development of financial services in Burma to help facilitate economic growth.
The British Government will continue to work with the Burmese Government and build constructive ties to secure long-term democratic development and reform, while making it clear, both directly and through the UN, our human rights concerns, especially in the areas affected by ethnic conflict.
HFEA and HTA (Government Response)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
The Department of Health is today publishing Government response to the independent report, “Review of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority” by Justin McCracken.
On 25 January 2013 I announced to the House that, following a consultation carried out in 2012 on proposals to transfer functions from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Human Tissue Authority (HTA), I had commissioned an independent review of both bodies which would also give serious consideration to their merger. This review was conducted by Justin McCracken, the then chief executive of the Health Protection Agency, between January and April 2013 following which he reported to me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
We have now considered Mr McCracken’s report in detail and have taken careful note of his conclusion that the current arrangements deliver generally effective regulation and achieve high levels of public and professional confidence. We have also closely examined his finding that there is little overlap in the activities of the two bodies and his conclusion that greater efficiency is to be gained from reducing the burden of regulation than from structural reform. The review recognises that there is scope for improvement in the ways the bodies operate, and that efficiencies can be achieved by way of a review of human tissue legislation. There are 18 recommendations in total to help achieve a reduction in the burden of regulation. Most of the recommendations are aimed at the HFEA and HTA and we will work with them to ensure they are implemented.
The report recommends that the Government review human tissue legislation. We recognise the importance of that and understand that there will be particular sensitivities around such an undertaking but believe that the evidence presented in the McCracken report is persuasive. We are committed to safeguarding the principles of the Human Tissue Act (and the requirements of EU legislation) but believe that after nearly a decade in force, a review of this legislation is timely. We aim to produce a consultation document in this financial year.
The Department, therefore, accepts Mr McCracken’s recommendations in total, and will work closely with the HFEA and HTA as they implement those recommendations for them.
In conclusion, we believe that implementation will bring about increased efficiency and effectiveness of the regulators while maintaining public and professional confidence in these sensitive and complex areas.
A copy of the Government response to the report of the independent review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority by Justin McCracken along with a copy of the independent report, “Review of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority” have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
2010 Adult Autism Strategy for England
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
In line with duties under the Autism Act 2009, the Department of Health is currently leading a review of progress in relation to the 2010 adult autism strategy for England “Fulfilling and rewarding lives” and its related statutory guidance.
The adult autism strategy is an essential step towards realising the Government’s long-term vision for transforming the lives of and outcomes for adults with autism. The Department of Health is the lead policy Department for implementation of the strategy but with delivery shared across a range of Government Departments and agencies, and local health and social service providers, who have the freedom and responsibility to decide how best to design and deliver services for their local populations.
The autism strategy has five areas for action aimed at improving the lives of adults with autism:
increasing awareness and understanding of autism;
developing clear, consistent pathways for the diagnosis of autism;
improving access for adults with autism to services and support;
helping adults with autism into work; and
enabling local partners to develop relevant services.
The strategy is not just about putting in place statutory autism services but about enabling equal access for people with autism to support and opportunities through reasonable adjustments to everyday services, training and awareness raising.
The review is an opportunity for us across Government to assess whether the objectives of the strategy remain fundamentally the right ones, to take an honest look at what progress is being achieved by local authorities and the NHS, and consider what should happen to continue to make progress. We will issue a report after the investigative stage of the review which will last until the end of October, on revising the strategy as necessary by March 2014.
The National Autistic Society’s (NAS) “Push for Action” campaign coincides with the review and has a central thrust on local implementation. We are working with NAS and other key partners to ensure that the voices of people with autism and their families and carers are heard during the review and there will be a range of opportunities for people to feed in. I would welcome views and input from hon. Members and their constituents during these processes.
Disclosure and Barring Service (Annual Report)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
The 2012-13 annual report and accounts for the Disclosure and Barring Service for the four-month period from 1 December 2012 to 31 March 2013 is being laid before the House today and published on www.gov.uk. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
Terrorism Acts
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Mr David Anderson QC has completed his third annual report as the statutory independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 in 2012. This report will be laid before the House today and copies will be available in the Vote Office.
I am grateful to David Anderson for his thorough report and will, following consultation with other relevant departments and agencies, publish the Government’s response as a Command Paper in due course. At that time the response will also be made available in the Vote Office.
Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I am today announcing the triennial review of the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that NDPBs continue to have regular independent challenge on their remit and governance arrangements. The review will challenge the continuing need for the function of the council and its form. In conducting the review, officials will be engaging with a broad range of stakeholders and users. The review will be aligned with guidance published by the Cabinet Office. If it is agreed that it should remain as an NDPB, the review will consider its control and governance arrangements to ensure that it is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance. I intend to announce the findings of the review early next year, and will place a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
Freedom of Information Act (Code of Practice)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
My noble friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:
The Government will today issue, under section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a new code of practice in relation to the release and reuse of datasets under FOIA. It supplements but does not replace the existing code of practice issued under section 45 for public authorities on the discharge of their current obligations under part 1 of FOIA.
This new code of practice will provide guidance for public authorities on best practice to follow in discharging their new responsibilities in relation to datasets provided for by section 102 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Section 102, which is not yet in force, amends section 11 (means by which communication to be made) and section 19 (publication schemes) of FOIA and inserts new sections 11A and 1B. Once commenced, these changes, which form an important part of our transparency agenda, will mean that where a person requests information under FOIA that is or forms part of a dataset, and expresses a preference to receive it in electronic form, the public authority must (if FOIA requires the dataset to be released) provide the dataset in an electronic form which allows its reuse. The result will be that the public authority must, first, provide the dataset in a reusable format, where reasonably practicable; and, secondly, grant a licence (in accordance with one of the specified licences referred to in this code) under which its datasets may be reused.
In particular, this code of practice provides further guidance on key definitions and the circumstances where it will be reasonably practicable for public authorities to provide datasets in a reusable format; the disclosure of datasets; their reuse, including licensing and charging arrangements; the circumstances where it may be appropriate to publish updated versions of datasets on an ongoing basis; and the provision of advice and assistance to applicants in relation to these provisions.
The code of practice will take effect when section 102 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is commenced on 1 September. To coincide with commencement. Regulations authorising the charging of fees for reuse of datasets will be made and laid before Parliament under section 11B of FOIA. These will also come into force on 1 September.
In line with my responsibilities under section 45 of FOIA, I will arrange for a copy of the code of practice to be laid before each House of Parliament.
North Liverpool Community Justice Centre
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I am today launching a consultation on the closure of North Liverpool Community Justice Centre. It is proposed that the work of the centre, and the principles of its problem-solving approach, moves to Sefton magistrates court less than two miles away.
North Liverpool Community Justice Centre has operated from its Boundary Street site, a former primary school, since September 2005. However, the local work load has fallen to the extent that the centre is now underutilised. In the light of current and future financial constraints it is increasingly difficult to justify the ongoing operation of the Boundary Street site.
In this case, and on any future local consultations on court and tribunal closures, I believe that a consultation period of six weeks is sufficient to canvass the views of interested parties rather than a 12-week national consultation exercise. I am committed to ensuring that we continue to provide court and tribunal users with effective access to justice while seeking ways to do so at a lower cost and alongside our efforts to improve the efficiency of the justice system as a whole.
The consultation document is published on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk
Probation Trusts (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
On 27 March 2012, in his written statement—Official Report, column 129WS, announcing the launch of consultations on community sentences and probation reform, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Justice explained that the consultation exercise and subsequent Government response would form the basis of stage 1 of the triennial review of probation trusts. That is, it would identify and examine the key functions of these non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), look at how they contribute to the work of Government, and consider whether they were still needed.
Triennial reviews are a central part of the sponsorship and governance relationship between a Department and their NDPBs. All NDPBs are subject to triennial review, and the probation trusts formed part of the wider programme of such reviews for the Ministry of Justice.
On 9 May this year, following a further public consultation, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary announced the publication of “Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform”. This set out the Government’s plans for transforming the rehabilitation of offenders by opening up rehabilitation services to a more diverse range of providers, drawing from the best of the voluntary, community and private sectors, equipped with the flexibility and incentives to reduce reoffending, extending statutory support to some 50,000 offenders who receive prison sentences of under 12 months and putting in place a nationwide “through the prison gate” resettlement service.
As an integral part of developing the strategy, we looked in detail at the full-range of probation trust functions and at how we could organise the public sector probation service in the most efficient manner to discharge its new responsibilities. This is in line with the requirement of a triennial review to look at the function and form of an NDPB and to consider the best delivery model, options for which would include moving delivery from an arm’s length body to an in-house provision. On that basis, we will create a new national probation service, working to protect the public and building upon the expertise and professionalism already in place.
The design of our delivery model is based on our goals of harnessing the expertise of a more diverse market of providers to reduce reoffending, making use of new payment incentives and protecting the public from the most serious offenders through a strong public sector which is organised in the more efficient way for the delivery of its new functions. By sharing back-office functions within the public sector we can release efficiency savings to invest in rehabilitation, and by MOJ through National Offender Management Service (NOMS) managing the new public sector probation service directly, we can ensure that contract managers can effectively oversee the work of both the public sector probation service and competed providers, and how they interact. In considering the most appropriate delivery model, the consultation and strategy have addressed the central questions asked by stage 1 of a triennial review.
In line with the Cabinet Office central guidance on triennial reviews, where a review recommends that an NDPB no longer continue in its current form, there is no need to proceed to stage two of the review. This statement, therefore, marks the formal closure of the triennial review. In line with Cabinet Office guidance, my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, has signed off the outcome of the triennial review.
Security Situation
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
Following the decision by the UK and Irish Governments to wind up the Independent Monitoring Commission in 2011, my predecessor made a commitment to provide bi-annual updates to the House on the security situation in Northern Ireland. This is my second such statement as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Overall threat in Northern Ireland
This statement comes after a very successful G8 summit in Northern Ireland that passed without significant incident. This is an achievement of which we should all be proud. Nevertheless we remain vigilant in the face of the continuing threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland.
We are currently at the height of the parading season in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, rioting has once again broken out in connection with 12 July parades. As well as causing damage and injury directly, such disorder also potentially provides opportunities for terrorist attacks on police, as illustrated by the pipe bomb thrown at the police on Monday from Brompton Park in Ardoyne.
Since my last statement to Parliament in February 2013, the threat level in Northern Ireland has remained at “Severe”. This means that an attack remains highly likely.
There were 24 national security attacks during 2012, compared with 26 attacks in 2011. So far this year there have been 10 national security attacks. Some of these involve the use of relatively simple and basic pipe-bomb devices, but these can be lethal. There have also been a number of more sophisticated attacks, including two failed attempts to use mortars against PSNI stations. Many more attacks were prevented and disrupted through the excellent work of the PSNI and their security partners. I would like to congratulate and thank the PSNI and the security service for their highly effective work in countering the threat from terrorism.
Police officers, soldiers and prison officers continue to be the primary target of the terrorist groups. This was illustrated by an attempt last week to lure police officers to a house in Alliance avenue in North Belfast where two pipe bombs had been primed to go off to kill anyone who opened the front door. A similar attempted attack took place in May when two PSNI officers were shot at when responding to a reported burglary in west Belfast near Twinbrook and a pipe bomb was thrown at them. Were it not for effective deployment of the training all PSNI officers receive on dealing with this kind of “come on” attack, these incidents could well have had fatal consequences.
Another device near the M5 at Newtownabbey could have fatally injured the three police officers who attended the incident.
There was a serious risk with all of these attacks that people in the local community could have been injured or killed, as well as police officers.
One of the most significant incidents of the past 6 months was an attempted mortar attack on a Londonderry PSNI station in March. It was aimed at murdering police officers but such devices are highly dangerous and inaccurate. This attack could have caused mass casualties amongst anyone who happened to be in the vicinity if it had been successfully fired. This provided further evidence that so-called dissident republican groups have no regard to the people living in the areas which they target. It was only through the highly effective work of the PSNI that this attack was disrupted as it was underway.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security service, along with An Garda Siochana, continue to demonstrate a robust commitment to bringing to justice those who carry out such attacks.
Northern Ireland has already witnessed a historic year with the G8 summit in Fermanagh and the accompanying visit by the President of the United States to Belfast. The successful delivery of these events would not have been possible without the co-operation of the PSNI, security service, An Garda Siochana and police forces from across the UK who came to Northern Ireland to provide mutual aid support. Despite recent public order problems, this year contains further opportunities to present a positive image to the world, with events associated with the Derry-Londonderry city of culture and world police and fire games.
Those who dedicate themselves to making Northern Ireland a safer place will continue to work together to ensure that these events pass off successfully and without incident.
Activity of republican paramilitary groups
The so-called “new IRA” continues to contribute significantly to the threat in Northern Ireland. They have conducted one national security attack—the brutal murder of prison officer David Black in November last year.
That they have only conducted one attack is at least in part down to the achievements of the security forces. As mentioned earlier, in March of this year PSNI successfully intercepted a mortar in Londonderry moments before it was deployed. In April, a young member of this grouping was caught in possession of five handguns and in June the PSNI recovered a quantity of high explosive. These disruptions serve to prevent specific attacks while also demonstrating to potential terrorists across Northern Ireland the reach of the security services.
The efforts of the PSNI has been ably supported by An Garda Siochana. In March, An Garda Siochana arrested five persons following the shooting dead of Peter Butterly in a car park near Drogheda, County Louth. Three of the men were subsequently charged with membership of an unlawful organisation, namely the IRA. In the same month, eight men were arrested in connection with terrorist activities and have also been charged with membership of an unlawful organisation. In recent weeks, An Garda Siochana recovered their biggest ever find of dissident arms and explosives including approximately 15 kg of Semtex. This is a significant find which has undoubtedly saved lives.
Despite these successes for the security forces, this grouping continues to try to develop its capability. Its lethal intent and disregard for the wishes and safety of the wider community means that it remains a high priority for the PSNI and their security partners.
Oglaigh na hEireann (ONH) has been very active over this period and has demonstrated increased lethal intent, including IED, shooting and pipe-bomb attacks on PSNI officers in the Belfast area. In March the group was responsible for a failed mortar attack against New Barnsley PSNI station in north Belfast, as well as a large vehicle-borne IED which was abandoned in County Fermanagh. Fortunately the group has had only limited success; if the devices been deployed and functioned as intended, they would almost certainly have resulted in injuries or fatalities.
Continuity IRA (CIRA) has splintered into several competing factions. These groups continue to be dangerous. Over the last six months they have been responsible for a shooting attack against PSNI officers in Craigavon as well as multiple hoax devices. These hoaxes are extremely disruptive to the community with families evacuated from their homes and suffering from a range of disturbances on an all too regular basis.
Groups involved in these terrorist attacks continue to engage in a range of criminal activity including fuel laundering, smuggling, drug dealing, robbery and extortion.
Threat to Great Britain from Northern Ireland-related terrorism
The threat level in Great Britain remains at “Moderate”, which means an attack is possible but not likely. We recognise, however, that dissident republican terrorists continue in their aspiration to conduct an attack in Great Britain. All threat levels are, of course, kept under constant review.
Activity of loyalist paramilitary groups
As noted in my last statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland, the UDA and UVF leadership remain committed to their ceasefires, although individuals associated with these groups continue to be engaged in criminal activity.
Paramilitary-style shootings and assaults
Throughout this period, paramilitary style attacks continued with involvement by both republican and loyalist groups. These attacks, which include beatings, shootings and even murder, continue to cause significant and irreparable harm to families on both sides of the community.
Co-operation
The Government continue to offer their full support to the PSNI to ensure that they have the capability they need to tackle the threat. The Government recently confirmed that the PSNI will receive an additional £31 million funding in 2015-16 to tackle the threat faced from terrorism in Northern Ireland. That funding package extends the £199.5 million of support provided to the PSNI by this Government in 2011. The ongoing provision of £31 million in security funding for the PSNI is part of the Government’s continuing strategy to maintain pressure on the terrorists to make Northern Ireland a safer place for everyone.
Co-operation across Government and agencies has been strengthened by the working arrangements around the G8 summit, including even stronger links with Irish counterparts. I hope that these new relationships can provide a sound basis on which to further enhance our work on tackling the threat faced in Northern Ireland. Cross-border co-operation with An Garda Siochana remains strong and they continue to work with PSNI to ensure that those who exploit the border for criminality and terrorism are bought to justice. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the role of An Garda Siochana in ensuring a successful, safe and secure G8 summit. I keep in very close contact with the Northern Ireland Justice Minster, David Ford, and the Irish Minister for Justice and Equality, Alan Shatter TD.
Conclusion
There have been some striking successes for Northern Ireland this year, not least of which is the G8. The Government are committed to building on that success. However, the significant public disorder that has occurred on and around 12 July provides an illustration of some of the continuing policing and security challenges in Northern Ireland.
We remain fully committed to tackling the threat from terrorism and keeping the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure.
High Speed Rail (Phase 2)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Today I am beginning a period of public consultation on the proposed route for phase 2. This is the route the new high-speed line will take from the west midlands to Manchester and Leeds, with connections to the west and east coast main lines to serve the rest of the north of England and Scotland.
HS2 will be a vital part of our infrastructure. This new high-speed line will open up opportunities for this country that we have not seen in generations. Its scope to transform this country is enormous.
The delivery of a state-of-the-art, safe, reliable high-speed network will not only better serve our great cities but will return Britain to the forefront of engineering and construction. We must seize the chance to deliver it. We can generate jobs, support regeneration and growth in cites and unite regions. This will enable them to better compete with the capital, building a stronger Britain.
Phase 2 will turn HS2 into a truly national asset that we can be proud of. It is vital that we get it right. We need the views of the people who will be affected by the HS2 line or who stand to benefit from it, including representatives of cities and businesses to ensure that the high-speed lines from the west midlands to Manchester, Leeds and beyond are the very best that they can be.
This is an opportunity to strive for the very best in every aspect—to boost our regions, to embrace new and sustainable technology and to ensure the very best passenger experience. The views we get during this consultation will play an important part in informing my decision on a final route, station and depot options by the end of 2014.
The phase 2 consultation will run for six months and will be accompanied by a series of public information events from mid-October 2013 to early January 2014 where people will be able to review local information and speak directly with HS2 Ltd staff about the proposals.
Although HS2 will benefit the whole country, the Government understand the impact and anxiety that these proposals have on property owners affected by the route. That is why I am today launching an exceptional hardship scheme (EHS) to assist property owners during the early stages of phase 2 development. The scheme is designed to assist owner-occupiers of residential, agricultural, and small business property before the route itself is firmed up.
It is a temporary scheme to help people whose properties are affected by the plans for the line, and are experiencing (or are at risk of experiencing) exceptional hardship because they can not sell them. Successful applicants will have their properties purchased at 100% of their un-blighted open market value. That is, the value of the property were there no proposals for phase 2 of HS2.
It is not the only opportunity for compensation. As plans for the phase 2 line are firmed up, we will consider options for further long-term discretionary compensation. We will shortly launch a fresh consultation on such options for phase 1. All this is in addition to statutory compensation measures.
I am determined to find the solutions that benefit the greatest number of people, best support our cities and have the least impact on our environment. Our consultations with the public are a vital part of achieving these goals—we want people to join the debate on phase 2 of HS2—and help us to shape a network we can all be proud of.
Copies of the consultation document, “High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future Consultation on the route from the West Midlands to Manchester, Leeds and beyond”; “HS2 Phase Two Exceptional Hardship Scheme Decision document”, and other supporting documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)
The informal Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 11 and 12 July in Vilnius. I represented the United Kingdom.
On the first day, there were three simultaneous workshops covering: efficiency and effectiveness of the social investments; implementation of the European alliance for apprenticeships; and wage-setting mechanisms and economic growth. The UK attended the first workshop on social investments and stated that effective spending was about how money was spent rather than the amount and that member states can benefit hugely from sharing experiences. The UK urged caution about using relative poverty to measure the situation and referred to the consultation the Government are running to look at alternative measures of poverty. The UK found the Commission’s multi-dimensional model and focus on the root causes of poverty helpful.
On the second day, the discussion focused on the social dimension of the economic and monetary union (EMU). Setting out its vision for a social dimension of the EMU, the Commission outlined its proposals for action under the three pillars: better monitoring of social policies, better co-ordination of social policies, and better involvement of social partners. The United Kingdom highlighted that spill-over was not so relevant to member states outside of the eurozone. The UK stressed the importance of respecting subsidiarity and proportionality, and that primary competence in this area lay with member states and the Commission.
Grand Committee
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013.
Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013 and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Guidance on the Making or Renewing of National Security Determinations) Order 2013, along with copies of the attendant surveillance camera code of practice, which I will refer to as the code, and the guidance on the making or renewing of national security determinations, which I will refer to as the guidance, were laid before Parliament on 4 June and 24 June respectively. Both orders are made under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This Act delivers important changes to the law, ensuring that we strike the right balance between respecting the rights of individuals and protecting the public, which reflects a key commitment of this Government. I will explain each order in turn.
The first order, on the surveillance camera code of practice, follows on from Section 30 of the 2012 Act and reflects a coalition agreement commitment to the further regulation of CCTV. The Government support the use of CCTV, automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—systems and other surveillance camera systems to cut crime and protect the public. In general terms, the public support their use. However, that support is conditional on these cameras being used proportionately to meet a legitimate aim and being used effectively in meeting their intended purpose. For too long we have seen the use of CCTV and the advance of technology develop without a proper regulatory framework, with ever greater potential for surveillance and ever greater potential to interfere with citizens’ rights and freedoms.
This code seeks to reassure the public about the use of surveillance camera systems and applies to England and Wales. Section 34 requires the appointment of a Surveillance Camera Commissioner, whose role is to encourage compliance with the code, review its operation and provide advice about it. Noble Lords may be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has considered this draft order, and the draft code, and has drawn the special attention of the House to these documents on the basis that they may imperfectly achieve policy objectives. My belief is that bringing the code into force will be a critical step in our incremental and measured approach to regulation.
We have worked closely with our partners including the police, local authorities, the Information Commissioner, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner in developing this code. The code is based on 12 guiding principles which are applicable to any overt operation of CCTV in public places. Those who work to these guiding principles will be better placed to reassure the public about their intentions and to share images and information of evidential value with the police and the criminal justice system to help investigate crime and bring criminals to justice. The commissioner will provide additional information which complements the guiding principles and helps system operators turn them into reality.
We have always been clear that our approach to further regulation in this area is to be incremental and measured, starting with state surveillance and getting the basics right, then taking further steps as necessary, informed by advice from the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. This order also exercises powers under Section 33(5)(k) and seeks to add the three non-territorial police forces—the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence Police—and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to the list of relevant authorities which will be placed under a duty to have regard to the code from the outset. Each has been consulted over the proposal and each has consented to it. Our intention in expanding the list to additional forces is to provide further assurance to the public that overt surveillance by the state is being effectively and transparently regulated.
I turn to the second order before the Committee today, which brings into force the guidance on the making or renewing of national security determinations as provided for by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This order implements an important element of the Government’s commitment, set out in the coalition’s programme for government, to restore balance between the protection of individuals’ rights and protecting the public in respect of police retention of DNA and fingerprints.
We propose to commence the substantive powers in the 2012 Act from October this year. This will mark an important change. From this point, with the exception of convicted individuals, DNA and fingerprint material will not be held indefinitely. This guidance deals with a limited exception whereby it may be necessary to extend retention for the purposes of national security. We want to ensure that, in exercising their powers to extend retention by the making of a national security determination, chief officers and chief constables are doing so in an open, transparent and consistent way. This guidance seeks to achieve that. The guidance is introduced pursuant to Section 22 of the 2012 Act and is applicable throughout the United Kingdom. It sets out the basic principles underpinning the new powers, specific requirements governing consideration of necessity and proportionality and clear processes for making or renewing a national security determination, including appropriate direction as to the responsibilities of chief officers or chief constables.
The Act establishes for the first time a comprehensive regime for the retention, destruction and use of biometric material held for national security purposes. This regime is to be independently overseen by the new commissioner for the retention and use of biometric material—the Biometrics Commissioner, Mr Alastair MacGregor QC. The retention of biometric data by the state is a justifiable interference with the right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights where it is necessary and proportionate to do so and where it is in accordance with clearly defined law. The Act’s provisions, coupled with the guidance and the robust independent oversight we rightly and confidently expect from the Biometrics Commissioner, in my view achieves this objective.
We consulted extensively over the preparation of the code and the guidance which are before your Lordships for consideration today. The code and the guidance were published in draft form on 7 February and 26 March respectively for public consultation. There was broad support for these changes. A summary of the consultation responses and resultant changes made for each have been published on the Home Office’s website.
These orders are intended to build and maintain public confidence in both overt surveillance camera activity in public places and in the retention, destruction and use of DNA and fingerprint material held for national security purposes now and in the future. I commend them to the Grand Committee.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I will say a few words because this is an area in which I take an interest. In principle, I have no trouble with using surveillance cameras around the place to find out what happened after an event and, in some cases, to anticipate what might happen. The only thing that has ever worried me is when things are linked together to try to surveil and track a population around. From that point of view, ANPR cameras could be used for purposes other than traffic management and could start to be used for tracking people. A lot of that stuff involves data protection, so all this looks fairly innocuous.
The main thing that I am worried about is whether it really does anything. At the end of it all, these are all good words. Are we just adding more cost and stuff than can be more effectively used elsewhere? It looks like we have just invented a couple of extra posts, which will be very nice for someone; it will do a bit more box-ticking so everyone will think that it has all been covered. However, if it starts being really effective, it will interrupt other people’s jobs where they do need cameras, and make them more difficult.
So I am giving a few words of caution: let us not waste public money on something that is merely a cosmetic exercise. At the same time, many of the issues that do matter in this are covered by the Data Protection Act, for instance accurate databases and things like that. So they are already covered elsewhere. Will having an extra commissioner really make a difference? It is obvious that I am sceptical about it. It does not really address the big problem about the surveillance state and things like that, but we do not have that yet, thank goodness.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his helpful explanations and information. Just prior to the Committee, I indicated to the Minister that we are considering praying against these instruments. I apologise if he was not told beforehand, although the Whips’ Office knows. In future I would talk to them directly. These are important issues.
I want to offer the Minister the opportunity to answer my questions first, because that might alleviate some of my concerns. His answers will be very important in that regard. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, hit the nail on the head with some of the concerns that I want to raise as well. The Minister referred to our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which was quite damning about this order’s ability to achieve the objectives that the Government set out. It stated:
“While the principles themselves are commonsense, some of the explanation is vague, with frequently used terms such as ‘proportionate’ or ‘appropriate’ left undefined in the context”.
Those are wise words. I would impress on the Minister the committee’s final comment, which stated:
“The House may therefore wish to question the Minister about the Government's plans for the wider application of the code and to invite the Minister to clarify how its benefits will offset the costs of the additional bureaucracy involved”.
This SI increases costs and bureaucracy to local authorities and the police of installing CCTV. The Explanatory Notes claim that this is a policy decision motivated by a desire to halt,
“the extent to which private lives are exposed to ever greater scrutiny by other individuals, organisations or the State, leading in some instances to a potential exposure to criminality, or more generally, to an erosion of personal privacy”.
That is the point that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made. Can the Minister say where in this order is anything that restricts the use of CCTV by individuals or private companies and makes any difference to the potential exposure of criminality that the Government have identified? I am not sure what that means in the context of this order. It may be a government objective, but it is nowhere in this order that I can find, because only public bodies—mainly the police and local authorities—are bound by the order before us today. The consultation and the order will not prohibit the installation of CCTV. What it will do is increase the paperwork and bureaucracy, making it considerably more expensive.
The Government have made a commitment to lean government, and I do not think that it was just a reference to Eric Pickles’s diet when the Chancellor said it. The impact assessment states that this extra flood of bureaucracy is not subject to the Government’s principles of “one in, two out”, in terms of regulation. Why is that? What is the point of having such a policy if the Government can then simply exempt a regulation from it? That makes a complete nonsense of the policy. The Home Secretary said:
“After years of bureaucratic control from Whitehall … this government trusts you to fight crime”,
but apparently not where CCTV is concerned. Here, the Home Office is creating 25 pages of statutory guidance for local authorities to go through—25 pages of hoops for the police to jump through before they can install CCTV.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for his contribution and for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It is the first time that we have had the chance to debate these issues, and some of the questions that she asks me arise because we have not had a chance to discuss these matters before. I am pleased to be able to seek to answer her uncertainty about these measures.
I have to say to the noble Earl that this is not a cosmetic measure; it is not designed as a patch, to cover something up. The recent report of the British Security Industry Association made it clear that there are a very large number of cameras in this country, and these measures will apply to just 2% of the cameras in place, because the vast majority are in commercial premises or private situations.
One feature of the current surveillance apparatus that we have in this country, which is extensive, is the relatively random way in which it has developed and the lack of quality assurance that exists within it. The whole focus of this code—and Andrew Rennison and I had a meeting today about his work in overseeing it—is going to be on improving the effectiveness of surveillance. An awful lot of cameras can take an image which is then of little or no evidential value because the camera systems have been installed to improve public confidence but do not necessarily provide images which can be used in the fight against crime. This is one of the purposes of the code of practice and the appointment of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and am grateful to him for giving way. However, he said that I asked about the cost of the commissioner. I did not do so as I referred to that matter in my comments. What I was asking about were the powers of the commissioner and how they could be enforced, not the cost.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The powers are clearly laid out in the instrument which places those bodies identified under a statutory obligation to comply with the code. That is what the statutory instrument is about. Those are the powers of the commissioner and his power is, of course, to see that the code is enforced by those public authorities so affected.
As I say, the Home Office will take an early and visible lead in the voluntary adoption of the code and, along with the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, will show how working with the 12 guiding principles can help build and maintain public confidence. Along with the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, we will be raising awareness of the code and its guiding principles. There will be practical advice on how to apply those principles so that where CCTV is needed it is effective in meeting its purpose. Maintaining public confidence is in itself an incentive for voluntary adoption. Not to adopt the code will be to risk reputational damage by appearing to be unwilling to engage with the public or to follow good practice.
The number of cameras is not really the issue. The BSIA’s recent report was clear that the issue is whether the cameras have the ability to meet their purpose and adhere to legal requirements.
The additional costs—the noble Baroness may care to take notice of this—incurred by a local authority are estimated to be on average £2,000 a year, and on average £23,000 for a police force. These are modest costs and are expected to bring the benefits of better quality images and help in investigating crime and bringing criminals to justice and greater public confidence. Placing a monetary value on these benefits cannot be done easily, as I think that the noble Baroness accepted, and yet they are important.
The Surveillance Camera Commissioner plans to generate a self-assessment test, which will be a speedy and efficient mechanism for an organisation—or a business in the case of voluntary adoption of the code—to assess whether it is complying with the code. This will be faster than digesting the code in its entirety and will help to demystify the principles in the code and any technical terminology used. There is no mandatory requirement to replace an existing system but organisations will be encouraged to work to approved operational and occupational standards. This can be done by better use of the existing resources. So I have focused once again on the effectiveness of the systems in delivering what is needed.
CCTV and ANPR are used in a variety of settings for a variety of purposes. Therefore, if some of the definitions are vague and general rather than specific, that is because the code does not contain a detailed, prescriptive and one-size-fits-all guidance which defines every circumstance. Some may regard it as vague but it is a matter for operators to assess necessity and proportionality when using CCTV and ANPR, and to then test their judgment with the public and their partners. This code and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner will provide a framework within which they can exercise their discretion to do so.
The commissioner will provide advice on approved operational, technical and competency standards. He is already meeting with relevant certified accreditation bodies to explore a formal certification scheme for CCTV. In addition, he is developing a self-assessment template, as I have said, to help system operators to assess compliance and to follow the code.
The noble Baroness asked about SOCA. Currently, of course, when Ministers say SOCA they mean the National Crime Agency, which will be its successor. I can demonstrate to her how public authorities have viewed the establishment of the CCTV and surveillance commissioner and his role by the response of authorities such as SOCA and, for that matter, the non-territorial police forces which have been pleased to sign up to this code. They can see the huge advantages of being part of a group of law enforcement agencies that receive the support and technical assistance of the commissioner and the reassurance that the commissioner’s appointment offers.
The noble Baroness also asked about the mechanism for enforcing compliance with the code. Perhaps I may explain. Local authorities and the police will be under a duty to have regard to the code when exercising their functions. The SI will place a statutory duty on them. When a local authority or police force fails to do so, it will be vulnerable to judicial review for a breach of that statutory duty. The possibility of being subject to such a legal challenge will incentivise local authorities and the police to adhere to that statutory duty.
Before I go on, I shall talk about DNA and the noble Baroness’s comments in that area. This is complex legislation, as she will appreciate, and considerable work has been carried out to date to prepare the relevant systems and to consult law enforcement authorities. Having made the policy decision, we undertook a full public consultation and carefully considered the responses before we brought this guidance forward. I am satisfied that it is in time and is specifically designed to address the concerns that the noble Baroness raised.
The noble Baroness particularly asked about the current legislative framework against which decisions have been made. The current legislative regime whereby material is held by the police and other law enforcement authorities is still in effect. There have been no applications to extend the retention period on national security grounds and no material has been destroyed as a result of not extending the time period on those grounds. There have been no applications, but the framework has not ceased to exist.
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, will be pleased to hear that under guiding principles one and two we are clear that the use of CCTV or ANPR must be in pursuit of a legitimate aim and meet a pressing need and must take account of privacy, which, as I have tried to emphasise, is the countervailing balance that this code is designed to reconcile. These first principles establish the need for surveillance and reassure the public that it is necessary.
The Government’s intention is to give communities confidence that camera systems are used to meet a legitimate aim, that they are necessary and proportionate —words which noble Lords will fully understand—and that they are used effectively to meet a stated purpose. The vast majority of systems are operated privately. However, local authorities and the police are key organisations in ensuring the safety and security of our public places—which is where the code is initially focused—and therefore have a significant interest in the use of CCTV. That is why the starting point of our journey of incremental and measured regulation is to place them under a duty to have regard to the code. CCTV is used in a wide variety of settings for a wide variety of purposes. Therefore, the code does not contain detailed, prescriptive, one-size-fits-all guidance which attempts to define every circumstance. Some may regard this as vague, but it is for operators to assess necessity and proportionality when using CCTV and then to test their judgment with the public and partners. This code will help them do so.
In this complex and challenging arena we have always been clear that our approach to regulation will be incremental and measured. Andrew Rennison characterised this as taking small but practical steps, and I am sure that that is a strategy that the noble Baroness will endorse. We are taking action to reassure the public and as a driver of public standards. We in government remain committed to ensuring that, where the powers which these orders seek are granted, they are necessary, proportionate and transparent and, crucially, that their use goes hand in hand with respect for our long-held individual rights and freedoms. Both the orders before the Committee today go to the very heart of that matter, and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who has sought to address the points that I have made. However, I am not convinced that he has addressed them all. I am still unclear on the point, which he did not answer, on the enforcement or monitoring powers of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. He said that it was a statutory duty on local authorities or the police, so the fear of judicial review would ensure that they carry this out. My experience of local authorities is that the fears of the cost of judicial review often lead them not to take an action that they would otherwise take. My fear would be that the costs of a judicial review—and there are 12 principles under which they could be judicially reviewed—could lead a number of local authorities to say that they will just not bother with this because it is too much effort.
I am disappointed that the Minister described what I think are genuine concerns as hyperbole. The place to question such issues is your Lordships' House; that is our role, as well as scrutiny. I am sorry that the Minister was unhappy with that position.
On the final order, the Minister said that there have been no applications to destroy biometric information, and none had been destroyed. Can I take it that that means that there have been none over three years old? Those are a couple of points that were not raised. I shall take this back and read the Hansard to see from what has been said whether my points have been addressed.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Guidance on the Making or Renewing of National Security Determinations) Order 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Guidance on the Making or Renewing of National Security Determinations) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2013 and the Financial Services Act 2012 (Consumer Credit) Order 2013. I will refer to the former as the RAO order and the latter as the consumer credit order.
I am sure that we can all agree that a well functioning consumer credit market is vital to the functioning of a healthy economy. However, the market is not functioning as it should, and consumers are not being properly protected. The current licensing regime, run by the Office of Fair Trading and established under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, lacks the capacity and powers to comprehensively tackle consumer detriment in a fast-innovating market. The National Audit Office estimated that there was £450 million of unremedied consumer detriment in this market last year. This Government are determined to ensure that the market functions well for consumers, firms and the economy. That is why we are moving the regulation of consumer credit to the Financial Conduct Authority next April. Consumers will be far better protected; the FCA will require higher standards of firms and will have more robust enforcement powers. However, we will also make sure that the regime is proportionate and supports a sustainable and competitive credit market.
There is widespread support for the transfer to the FCA, and agreement that we have got the balance about right. We first consulted at the end of 2010 on broad policy options. Then, following extensive work on regime design with firms and consumer groups, the Government published detailed proposals on 6 March this year.
The statutory instruments that I am introducing today take into account the feedback that we received from a wide range of stakeholders during the consultation period. These instruments effect the transfer of consumer credit regulation to the FCA under powers taken in the Financial Services Act 2012. The RAO order amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or FiSMA, and associated secondary legislation, to bring consumer credit into the scope of FCA regulation and to apply the FiSMA regulatory regime to consumer credit. The order also makes extensive amendments to the Consumer Credit Act 1974—or CCA—in relation to the functions of the OFT. The consumer credit order ensures that retained provisions of the CCA continue to apply appropriately and can be effectively enforced.
Before turning to the specifics of the new regulatory regime for consumer credit, I draw attention to the scope of regulated activity in this market. The Government’s policy is to carry forward the current scope of consumer credit regulation. We are, however, making a few key changes that were well supported by respondents to the consultation. The most significant of these relates to a new growth sector in the market, peer-to-peer lending.
First, the RAO order creates a new, bespoke regulated activity that brings together what peer-to-peer platforms do when they arrange credit agreements between lenders and borrowers. It ensures that the consumers who borrow and those who lend via the platform are both protected. Secondly, we are aligning the definitions of credit broking and credit intermediation, and narrowing the definition of credit reference agencies to capture only those who provide credit references as a primary activity. Thirdly, we are removing third-party tracing agents from the scope of regulation, as they do not carry on a financial activity. Fourthly, we are clarifying that not-for-profit debt advice is carried out by way of business and is therefore a regulated activity. This was called for by not-for-profit debt advice providers themselves, and will ensure consumer protection is consistent. Finally, in view of responses to the consultation, we are extending the current exemption for insolvency practitioners to include advice that they may reasonably provide in their professional capacity in anticipation of a formal appointment.
I now turn to the three main components of the new FiSMA regime for consumer credit. The first one is authorisation. Unless they are exempt, all firms will need to be authorised by the FCA in order to carry on consumer credit business. They will have to meet a much higher bar than under the current licensing regime. The RAO order revokes the OFT licensing regime to allow for the move to authorisation under FiSMA, but the Government recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach will not deliver their vision for a competitive and sustainable credit market.
The RAO order therefore provides for what is known as the “limited permission regime”. To be eligible for this regime, firms must only conduct certain specified lower-risk credit activity. The quid pro quo is that those firms will face lower costs and fewer regulatory burdens. The RAO order defines the activities which are eligible for the limited permission regime. They include: credit brokerage, where firms do this as a secondary activity to their main business, such as car dealers; and sellers of goods and services who provide credit without interest or charges, for example a gym or golf club.
The FCA must assess firms against prescribed threshold conditions. Limited permission firms will have to meet a smaller, modified set of threshold conditions which have been designed to suit the lower-risk nature of their business. For example, a simpler solvency test will apply. One of the advantages of the FCA regime is that it can make rules to tackle actual or potential detriment in the market much more quickly than the Government could legislate. Its rules are also binding on firms, while the OFT’s guidance is not.
The RAO order repeals certain provisions of the CCA and related secondary legislation to allow the FCA to make rules in these areas. It revokes advertising requirements so that the FCA can make rules under its financial promotions regime instead and it revokes “form and content” requirements in the CCA so that the FCA can cover these requirements in its rules.
Finally on enforcement, the FCA has a more flexible and robust enforcement toolkit than the OFT, and will have greater resources to take action on breaches of its rules. The RAO order therefore provides that certain requirements in the CCA that are currently subject to criminal penalties should instead be punishable by the FCA’s regulatory powers. Some criminal offences in the CCA will remain in force under the FCA regime, where there is greatest risk of consumer detriment.
In addition, the consumer credit order applies the FCA enforcement toolkit to provisions of the CCA which will still apply under the new regime. It also ensures that there is no double jeopardy—a person may not be convicted of an offence under the CCA where the FCA has already used its enforcement powers in relation to the same breach. The consumer credit order provides for the continued role of local authority trading standards, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland, in investigating and prosecuting offences under the CCA. Trading standards will play an important new role in supporting the FCA to police the regulatory boundary and to take action against illegal loan sharks.
Consumer credit firms should not see this transfer as wiping the slate clean. The RAO order gives the FCA the power to take enforcement action against any breach of the CCA prior to the transfer, but it will not be able to apply its rules or sanctions retrospectively, as this would be unfair to firms. Unlike the OFT, the FCA also has the power to require redress to be paid to consumers. In addition, customers of consumer credit firms will still have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The timetable for the transfer to the FCA is driven by the demise of the OFT on 31 March. We recognise that this is a challenging timetable for firms, which is why the Government have introduced provisions to help smooth the transition. We recognise that firms will need to prepare for FCA authorisation, so the RAO order allows the FCA to grant interim permissions based on firms’ existing OFT licences. Interim permissions will allow firms to continue to trade from 1 April, but all firms will still need to apply for full authorisation by April 2016.
This approach will mean business as usual for firms but allows the FCA to deploy its full enforcement powers to protect consumers during this period. The RAO order includes transitional provisions, so that firms who have already applied to the OFT for a licence do not have to reapply from scratch for FCA authorisation and live enforcement action will be seamlessly picked up by the new regulator.
The Government are committed to promoting continuity in the conduct requirements that firms need to abide by to ensure that the compliance burden is manageable. The RAO order allows the FCA to designate, as rules, secondary legislation made under Part 2 of the CCA. The new regulator is also incentivised to replicate CCA requirements in its rules. Where rules are the same, or substantially the same, as CCA provisions, the requirement to conduct a cost-benefit analysis is waived and the FCA’s competition duty does not apply.
I hope that I have been able to explain the purpose and the benefits of these orders and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, I will make a brief intervention in the Grand Committee’s proceedings. These are extensive and important orders. I confess that I defer to the knowledge that other noble Lords have on consumer credit, but I would like to tax my noble friend with a request for assurances about payday loans and unsecured household credit. There have been some big changes in that field and I want to detain the Committee for a moment on that issue.
However, before I do that—and my noble friend will understand why I have been put up to this in a moment—I want to raise an issue about Article 9 of the consumer credit order, which includes provisions for local weights and measures authorities to institute proceedings in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. Given my accent, he will not be surprised to know that I would like an assurance that this does not mean that weights and measures enforcement cannot take place in Scotland. I am sure that he will tell me that it is a Section 30 order or some such thing but I will be able to go home more safely at the weekend if I can say that I asked the question.
I come at these orders from the niche direction of the whole question about unsecured short-term household lending. Other people have been doing a lot of work on this but the matter has been drawn to my attention simply because of the massive increase that we have started to see in the amounts of money rolled over and borrowed under the existing payday loan provisions.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I shall comment on three aspects of these orders, of which I am very supportive. First, I welcome the elements of the order that create a regulated environment for peer-to-peer lending platforms. While most industries have spent their energies saying, “Remove red tape”, this industry has been coming to the Government and the regulator saying, “Please can we have proper regulation”, because it knows that without proper regulation, rogue players can come in from the outside, undermine the credibility of the industry and probably provoke a regulator to come in with inappropriately heavy regulation as a consequence.
Can the Minister reassure me that the industry has been involved in negotiating and structuring these regulations? It looks to me as though they meet the test, but can he assure me that they reflect the kind of safeguards that that industry has already outlined in its code of conduct, established under its trade association? I think that that code was to be the basis of most of the discussions. It is a real way forward because, as we know, the banks have been very challenged over providing the credit we need in our economy, and peer-to-peer lending is increasingly coming in to fill that gap to provide both competition and additional resource, which is useful and positive.
Secondly, I pick up my noble friend’s comments on payday lenders. I share many of his concerns about this industry. Indeed, the whole House did so, as the Minister will remember, during the passage of the Financial Services Bill in 2012, when an amendment that we colloquially called the Sassoon-Mitchell amendment put very effective powers into the hands of the FCA. When it takes over supervision of this industry in April 2014, the FCA will have powers to regulate, manage and supervise it.
The powers were written with an eye to some of the regulation that has been put in place in Florida—I believe 13 states use this kind of regulation—which includes the ability to limit the amount of borrowing to $500 outstanding at any one time, to limit the number of outstanding loans, to cap interest rates and fees and to provide for a grace repayment period. It also has various other characteristics. I would like assurance that the order does not compromise the wide range of powers sought by the House in the legislation and in the amendment.
Like my noble friend, I am concerned with the impression the industry is giving of marketing energetically and raising its interest rates above and beyond what most of us already regard as high levels. I hope the FCA will be able to hit the ground running. That means going through the consultation process and deciding how it will manage that regulation.
It is also a systems issue. As the Minister knows, the various US states that have regulation have systems that allow them to see on a real-time basis what applications are taking place, what the amount is, what the interest rate is, unauthorised rollovers and so on, and they are able to manage the process. This not only allows the regulator to look at the data and intervene in retrospect, but enables it to set up systems so that if the rules are contravened an automatic decline shows up and an offending loan cannot be made. While it needs time to put such a system into place, I wonder how likely it is that the FCA will be in a position to deliver it as early as April and, if not, what the thinking is around it.
I am afraid my next question comes from my lack of understanding and my difficulty in reading my way through orders. It concerns social impact investment, the financial promotions order and its relationship to the FCA. The Minister will know that if, for example, a social enterprise attempts to create a new community hall, it can turn to members of the local community and ask them to donate. However, it cannot ask them to invest without offending Finprom unless it has become a qualified investment, which is financially impossible for any kind of small project.
We raised this issue during the passage of the Financial Services Bill and the Government expressed their desire to deal with this problem and enable a project to turn to individuals with small amounts of money and allow them to invest. Will the FCA have the necessary power to make those changes under Finprom without having to come back for new primary legislation? I assume that, in the end, we will see a kind of materiality clause that will state that if you want to make an investment of less than £500, or whatever, you will not have to go through all that incredible palaver and you will be able to do so. Will these orders affect that, or will it fall outside their scope?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity in introducing these orders. Very often we are not wholly behind what the Government are doing but, on this one, we are. We welcome the move to the FCA and these SIs. I have supported the policy behind them for a long time, but I do not know for how long my party has done so. We particularly welcome the powers they give to the FCA. As the Minister implied, they will be its enforcement tool kit for consumer credit and will strengthen its powers to punish misconduct. We also welcome the Government’s decision not to exempt small businesses, as that might have weakened, rather than strengthened, consumer protection.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and for their broad welcome for the provisions that we are introducing.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about Scottish weights and measures. He will have read Paragraph 9, which says:
“Local weights and measures authorities may institute proceedings in England and Wales”.
As he will know, it would be completely improper in Scotland for anybody but the Lord Advocate to initiate prosecutions. I have no doubt that he will wish to talk to his noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, as I am sure that he is doing his job properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, concentrated, as other noble Lords did to a certain extent, on payday loans and what is happening about them. The FCA has a formal responsibility for managing payday loans from next April, but it is not waiting until next April to start to think about the issue. Indeed, it is going to set out draft rules in September for a consultation. I am sure that many people will want to get involved in that consultation. That gives a certain amount of time to get rules in place by the time it takes over the formal responsibility. The FCA has also reminded the banks of their obligations when cancelling continuous payment authorities, which is obviously an issue for payday lending consumers.
The noble Lord said that he hopes that micro-businesses will not be exempt from this provision because they are very important even if they are not very big. The micro-business exemption does not apply in this area; that would obviously compromise consumer protection because there are a lot of small businesses. Although we tend to be familiar with a number of brand names, very often the worst offenders—literally—are small, local operations.
BIS has launched a review on voluntary payday codes that will survey lenders and consumers and provide a sense of progress. The codes were implemented by lenders last November, and we expect BIS to publish findings in the autumn. We hope that will put pressure on the trade association to raise its game ahead of April.
The noble Lord made the point that credit unions are not a perfect substitution for payday lenders, and I completely agree. The extent to which the two seem to be equated with the good and bad ends of short-term lending has rather surprised me. Credit unions are really vehicles for people who take a longer-term view of a loan. If you are signed up to a credit union and have established a history of savings, it can help if you get into difficulties and can act in the same way as a payday lender would, but they are very different. The other problem is that, in many areas, there is no credit union of any significance or it is quite difficult to find out about it. Having said that, the Government support credit unions, and we are doing a number of things to make them more attractive, such as increasing the maximum rate of interest that they can charge from 2% to 3%, but as the noble Lord said, they are a partial solution to the problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, began by discussing peer-to-peer lending. I congratulate her on the extent to which she has been able to raise peer-to-peer lending as an issue in this House and more broadly and has encouraged the Government to come forward with these regulations. We are in discussions with the industry. We were actively engaged with it before we produced these regulations and it has been very keen to be regulated because it, in a sense, gives a stamp of authority to the whole sector which, for a new sector, is very welcome.
On payday lenders, the noble Baroness asked whether the order in any way compromises the FCA’s ability to undertake a number of things, including a capping power. It does not. That was one of the issues that it will consider as it thinks about its rule-making power. She described the conditions in Florida which have enabled very effective regulation of payday loans while enabling the payday loans sector to carry on in operation. Like her, I have been extremely impressed by the extent to which Florida has managed to go a long way to solving the issue that we are grappling with, which is how to ensure that poorer people can get access to money when they need it but do not get fleeced. We hope that there are some lessons that we can take from Florida, not least on a real-time payday database, which the FCA is very interested in. If we decide to go for it, it will take a bit of time to put in place, and it would be expecting a bit too much to think that we could do that by next April.
The noble Baroness asked about social investor exemption from the financial promotions regime. These regulations do not affect the rules in that respect. We are actively looking at how we can resolve the problem she explained. The challenge is, as ever, to make sure that we are able to put in place a regime that not only allows the kind of lending she is talking about but safeguards consumers. That is the balance we are still grappling with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about R3 and its concern that in extending the exemption for insolvency practitioners, in part in response to its concern, we might not have got it quite right. We are pretty confident that the extended exemption that is designed to give comfort to insolvency practitioners when giving advice will do that without running the risk that she talked about. Officials have been and will remain in discussions with them to make sure that their fears are put to rest. We do not believe that they need to be worried.
The noble Baroness raised multiple rollovers of debt and hoped that we will not delay work in this area. The FCA is very much on to this. There is no delay. The business models of payday loan companies is one of the things it will look at.
Finally, the noble Baroness asked when the rule book will be available in draft. It will be available in draft early in the autumn, and we hope that the FLA and others who have a direct interest in it will, as they have until now, play a major part in scrutinising it and giving us their views. I hope we will be able to come up with something that they will find easy to live with.
I hope that I have answered the questions that have been raised, and I commend the order to the Committee.
Financial Services Act 2012 (Consumer Credit) Order 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Financial Services Act 2012 (Consumer Credit) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Companies and Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) Regulations 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Companies and Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Committee considers the following three statutory instruments, which I will speak to in turn: first, the Companies and Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) Regulations 2013; secondly, the Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Reports and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013; and, thirdly, the Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.
With my apologies to noble Lords for beginning this debate with a technical and specialised subject, I will introduce the Companies and Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) Regulations 2013. These regulations close a loophole in the implementation of the EU Fourth Company Law (Accounting) Directive. They do this by amending the Companies Act 2006 and the Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008.
The businesses most affected by these amendments are limited partnership investment funds in the private equity, venture capital and real estate sectors. These specialised businesses have been aware of the planned changes as far back as 2010, when BIS consulted on closing the relevant loophole. The loophole allows certain limited partnerships to avoid preparing accounts and reports where these are required by EU law. Accounts such as those for limited liability companies are required where the partnerships in question are structured to have limited liability.
Work on these regulations started as soon as this problem was identified. Following the 2010 consultation, we have continued to work with stakeholders who responded. Certain other unlimited companies and general partnerships are also affected, but we believe there are few, if any, of these in existence. The amendments in the regulations close the theoretical loophole that is available here also.
By way of background, these loopholes originated in the 1993 regulations that first implemented the relevant provisions of the EU fourth directive, after they had been inserted into that directive, in 1990. The defective drafting that caused the loophole was then carried over from the 1993 regulations into the Companies Act 2006 and the Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008, so these regulations insert a new systematic definition of a “qualifying partnership” into the Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008. This replaces the previous definition, which contained a technical drafting error. The regulations also insert a systematic definition of what is meant by the “members” of a qualifying partnership. This addresses similar technical drafting errors and removes some previous unnecessary gold-plating.
The regulations also correct the implementation of requirements relating to the publication of a qualifying partnership’s accounts. Where a qualifying partnership has no UK limited company members or EU equivalents, the regulations ensure that accounts are made available for inspection in the UK. Where the qualifying partnership has no principal place of business in the UK, it will now have to publish the accounts at a nominated UK address. This ensures that the directive requirements are met and are enforceable under UK law.
These regulations also address a separate and unrelated issue in order to complete the implementation of the 2009 EU electronic money directive. They ensure that all forms of e-money issuers are covered by the full audit and accounting requirements of the Companies Act. These amendments were missed when the EU electronic money directive was implemented in 2011 and have been developed in consultation with the Financial Conduct Authority and HM Treasury.
The impact assessment published with these regulations estimates that between 5,000 and 8,000 limited partnership investment funds are affected. The costs are likely to be between £8,000 and £30,000 per fund per year in accounting and audit. These costs would be likely to double in the first year, as the relevant partnerships and their auditors will have to prepare and audit full accounts for the first time. The costs will also be higher for around 10% of limited partnerships, which will have to prepare consolidated accounts. The remaining 90% will be able to take advantage of recent changes introduced to UK accounting standards, which allow them not to produce consolidated accounts.
The revised regulations have the following important effects. First, they increase the transparency of accounting and reporting by the partnerships affected and, secondly, they address outstanding issues with the implementation of two EU directives. The changes take effect for accounting years beginning on or after 1 October. The limited partnerships affected will have at least the whole accounting year to prepare.
I now turn to the second statutory instrument under consideration, the Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Reports and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013, which covers narrative reporting. The Government cannot overemphasise the importance of clear concise narrative reporting by companies. The annual report is a key tool for shareholders to understand how their company operates, to hold it to account and to promote informed discussion at the company’s annual general meeting.
Over the years, the average length of annual reports has risen to more than 100 pages, with the longest being more than 500. This makes key information difficult to find and makes it hard for shareholders to gain an immediate understanding of how their company operates. To quote Sir Winston Churchill:
“The length of this document defends it well against the risk of its being read”.
That is why we propose a simplified framework to help companies focus on the key messages that they want to communicate to their shareholders.
Specifically, the Government will require the creation of a new section of the annual report—the strategic report—in which we expect companies to discuss their strategy, their business model and their principal business risks. The current structure is unhelpful to shareholders as this information is not in a prominent place and can be hard to find. We will also ask quoted companies to disclose other information necessary to understand their business, including about their impact on the environment, social and community matters, their employees, and human rights issues that the company needs to address.
For example, the tragedy in Bangladesh brings into sharp focus the need for companies to produce high-quality reporting on their social, environmental and human rights issues. Although there is no specific requirement for companies to report on their supply chains, the requirement in these regulations to report on human rights will provide a proportionate regulatory response. However, we recognise that business and government can do more, and the Government intend to publish the UK action plan on business and human rights later this year.
Businesses should be aware of the compelling case for respecting human rights in their activities, as it reduces operational risk, promotes prosperity and helps to establish a stable and sustainable market. The requirement to report on human rights will focus the corporate mind on these obligations and provide evidence for shareholders to hold their company to account.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, as I was saying, in removing the requirement for reporting on policy and payment of creditors, we are taking this issue seriously. In November, my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister of State at BIS, Michael Fallon, wrote to companies to encourage them to become signatories to the prompt payment code. By 1 April 2013, more than 1,371 organisations had signed up to the prompt payment code. These regulations are not intended to stand alone and will be supported by guidance from the Financial Reporting Council. This guidance will be published for consultation in the coming weeks and will provide help for those companies whose thinking on their reporting is still in development.
I turn now to the third statutory instrument on today’s agenda, the Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, covering reporting of directors’ pay. It is worth taking a few moments to elaborate on the reasons why it is important to make company reporting on directors’ remuneration more transparent. As the Committee will know, the Government’s comprehensive reforms to executive pay addressed concerns that the link between directors’ pay and performance has grown weak. This is damaging for the long-term interests of business and it is right that the Government are acting to address this failure.
These draft regulations are the final part of those reforms. Changes to primary legislation contained in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act have given shareholders new voting powers to hold companies to account. These regulations give detailed effect to those changes for shareholders by setting out the information that quoted companies must include in a directors’ remuneration report. As a package, these reforms contribute to the Government’s wider aim of establishing a corporate governance system that supports long-term, sustainable growth. The regulations focus on the content of the company’s report on directors’ pay. They cover both the required disclosure of pay policy and the improved transparency of reporting on pay and I shall deal with those in turn.
First, on the remuneration policy, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act amended the Companies Act 2006 to give shareholders new voting powers to hold quoted companies to account on directors’ pay. Quoted companies must put their remuneration policy to shareholders at a minimum interval of every three years. These regulations give effect to those changes by setting out the details of the information that quoted companies must give to shareholders in their directors’ remuneration policy. The policy must include: first, a description of the elements that make up each director’s remuneration package, such as salary, pensions and bonus; secondly, the maximum that may be paid for each of those elements; thirdly, an explanation of how payments are linked to different levels of performance and how that performance is measured; and, finally, the company’s policy on recruitment and exit payments.
In addition to the directors’ remuneration policy, companies will be required, as they are now, to produce an annual remuneration report setting out what directors have been paid in the past financial year. Remuneration reports can currently be long and opaquely written, which is why we are proposing significant changes to those reports to make it much clearer to investors how much directors have been paid and how this links to performance. In the new annual remuneration report, companies will have to: first, report the amounts paid to each director in terms of their salary, pension, benefits, annual bonus and long-term incentive plans, and provide a single figure for total pay; secondly, explain clearly how the payments relate to performance by giving details of actual performance against the targets set and how that relates to the amount received; and, thirdly, provide contextual information, including details of the fees paid to remuneration consultants for advice to the company relating to directors’ pay, and a comparison of the change in pay for the chief executive and the wider company workforce.
Under the changes to the primary legislation, shareholders will continue to have an annual advisory vote on a remuneration report. However, where a company’s shareholders reject the annual remuneration report, the company will be required to resubmit its pay policy to a binding vote at the AGM the following year.
I would make it clear that these reports are not intended to be long legalistic documents but to provide clear and meaningful information to company shareholders which allow them to hold the company to account. These regulations replace the current 2008 regulations on reporting and will apply to the same group of companies as at present—in other words, the approximately 900 quoted companies registered in the UK whose shares are listed on the main market.
These regulations have been developed in close consultation with a wide range of interested parties, including companies, investors and unions, to ensure the reforms achieve the policy intentions in a workable and lasting manner. This has been a challenging task and we are satisfied that we have successfully found the right balance. Indeed, several major companies have already started to adopt some of the new disclosures in this year’s annual reports.
I recognise that these are big changes, but we expect these regulations to be accompanied by industry-led guidance to aid companies and investors in their implementation of the regulations. We welcome this guidance, which is being developed by companies and investors together and is scheduled to be available in September. The guidance will be of real benefit in ensuring that companies provide a meaningful level of detail to their shareholders. However, and arguably more importantly, it also demonstrates the impact of improved engagement between companies and investors, engagement which we are starting to see and which will be the final part of making sure that these reforms lead to real and lasting change. I commend these orders to the Committee.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his clear explanation of the three instruments. I want to focus my remarks on the last two—the strategic report regulation and the one that is concerned with directors’ remuneration. Before I go any further, I need to declare an interest, which is on the register. I am the senior independent director, or SID, of a FTSE 250 company, and the chairman of its remuneration committee. So these orders are far from being of academic interest to me. On Friday, the day after tomorrow, I will meet our remuneration consultants in Wolverhampton to discuss the implications of the instruments that we are talking about this afternoon. It is important that we should move sometimes from the rarefied atmosphere of this Committee Room and see what the things we discuss are going to mean on the ground and their real implications for British industry. With great respect to my noble friend and his officials, sometimes the reality of what is being proposed is some way distant from the undoubted good intentions with which the regulations are drafted. If this makes me sound a bit parochial, I am afraid that I am not going to apologise for that, because what we are considering and will no doubt pass today is going to affect 900 of Britain’s largest companies. I am concerned with the practical implications.
The business of which I am director is not a complex one. We brew beer in five breweries up and down the country and run just over 2,000 pubs across England, Wales and Scotland. We have no overseas operations and a pretty simple business model. I say that to my noble friend so that we can set in context the remarks that I am going to make about these two sets of regulations.
The Committee should be aware that, in 1995, our annual report was 25 pages long; by 2000, it was 41 pages long; and by 2005, it was 76 pages long. In spite of the observations in the Deloitte study included in the documents that have been circulated, which suggests that the size of annual reports is sloping off—I have yet to see a company whose annual report is shortening—last year it had gone up by a further 20 to 96 pages. So in 15 years, we have gone from 25 to 96 pages. I have to say that I do not think that that has helped the shareholders.
I looked through the objectives in the Explanatory Memorandum for the strategic report regulations, which says at paragraph 7.5:
“The suggested restructure and simplification of the reports aims at giving all stakeholders … the information they need in a clear and effective way so they can be active stewards of the companies they own”.
I thought, “Amen to that! Terrific!”. When my noble friend says, in his clear explanation, that we are going to simplify the framework, I say amen again. However, he went on to say that there is going to be a new section of the annual report. That does not sound like simplifying, it sounds like extending. It may have a simplified bit in it, but it does not sound to me as though we are going to shorten it, because he then went on to say that we are going to require the disclosure of other information.
I am particularly concerned about the growth in the annual report and, as I will explain as we go along, the effect that the growth in the size of annual reports has on individual shareholders. The fact is, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, institutional shareholders are fine. They will turn up at our door, knock and say that they want to know about this, that or the other, and we will say, “God bless you guv’nor” and tell them. I am much more concerned about the average small shareholder.
We have a big shareholders’ list, probably not unconnected with the fact that we offer free pints of beer to every shareholder who comes to our annual general meeting. For small shareholders, less can often be more: something shorter and better focused can be attractive and advantageous. We are talking about a strategic report, concerned with the essence of what drives a company, but when I look at new Section 414C that is to be added to the Companies Act 2006, headed “Contents of strategic report”, I see that it has 14 subsections and begin to think, “Hello, what is going on here?”.
New Section 414C(7)(b) states that a quoted company’s strategic report must include information about,
“environmental matters … the company’s employees, and … social, community and human rights issues, including information about any policies of the company in relation to those matters and the effectiveness of those policies”.
We have 2,000 pubs and five breweries. What are we going to write? It will be either a telephone book or the most anodyne and superficial stuff, because you cannot move between the two easily. What will happen is that the consultants will come along and say, “These are the words you need to use in your annual report. They will meet the requirements of the strategic report which we will approve this afternoon”.
New Section 414C(2)(b) says that the strategic report must contain,
“a description of the principal risks and uncertainties facing the company”.
That makes no distinction between risks that we can control and those we cannot. The major risk that we face is what happens to the UK economy. If it goes badly wrong, people do not go to the pub, they do not eat at the pub and they buy their beer more cheaply at the supermarket. However, saying that would give such a broad statement that it will be of little value to the company or the shareholders. Surely it would be much better if the regulations placed more emphasis on describing the key risks that were within the company’s control, rather than such broad generic statements, as I am sure we will get to.
At the other end of the spectrum, at the micro level, when we get to new Section 414C(8)(c)—and remember that we are discussing a strategic report—it states that it must include,
“a breakdown showing at the end of the financial year … the number of persons of each sex who were directors of the company … the number of persons of each sex who were senior managers of the company … and … the number of persons of each sex who were employees of the company”.
The employment of women is critical. Believe me, when my noble friend goes to the pub on the way home tonight he will find that a lot of the bar staff, the people who work there and a lot of the managers are women. However, do we have to have this in a strategic report? Is this going to add to the sum of human knowledge and put a shareholder in a better position to make a proper assessment of the company’s position going forward? Less is more.
My concern about these regulations, worthy though their purpose is, is that they do not provide enough specific focus for an individual company. We are going to get a series of bland statements. We are going to have a meat cleaver rather than a surgeon’s knife. The regulations continue to put far too great an emphasis on reporting the past, judge the ship by the shape of the wake and do not provide directors with sufficient safe-harbour provisions in respect of forward-looking statements. For noble Lords who are not familiar with the term “safe harbour”, it describes a means whereby you can say something about the future without being sued for doing so, provided that you do not say something that is utterly reckless.
We want directors to be encouraged to make more forward-looking statements, because that is what it is all about. To do that, they need proper safe-harbour provisions built into these regulations. I do not see them there and I hope that my noble friend can say something about this when he winds up. To be really helpful to shareholders, actual and potential company reports need to look forward and peer into the fog of the future, but directors will be reluctant to do so unless they have adequate protection.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I do not profess to be very expert in this area, but I declare an interest as vice chair of the Ethical Trading Initiative and somewhere in the comprehensive report from the noble Viscount there was a reference to environmental, social and human rights issues and supply chains.
I do not have a lot to say on the first set of regulations, which seem to be about tidying up and closing a loophole, although the question of whether there would be any tax consequences as a result of the changes occurred to me. I thought the point about narrative reporting was interesting and I could not help reflecting on the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the range of his comments. I suppose there is one side of me that inclines to what he says—that less is probably more. He is probably right. As a small shareholder myself in a number of companies, how many times do I bother to wade through the annual report? It is not very often, unless I am really desperate in my reading material. However, I think that the companies that we are talking about have a duty to report comprehensively and responsibly. We do not want any more of it than is necessary but we cannot honestly say that everything is right these days and that we are in a climate where nothing bad happens or where companies’ behaviour is always perfect. The Minister conveyed a lot of interesting information to us about narrative reporting.
Overall, I welcome the new strategic report section and the way that it will deal with environmental, social and human rights issues. The Minister mentioned Bangladesh, which is just one example of how this can impact on companies. What I did not hear in all his comments was any mention of ethics, which are important to the way that companies behave. If this points them in that direction, that is a good thing. Company policy on ethical behaviour is becoming more and more important. We see large companies behaving very irresponsibly and unethically, and then being required to make enormous payouts. The recent example of payment protection policies is one of a number of such cases. These regulations would certainly not do those companies any harm.
The Minister then talked about the action plan on business and human rights, and the requirement to report. I think I am right in recalling that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are supposed to be publishing a document soon on the UN Ruggie principles. Will this legislation encompass those principles?
I welcome the section on gender reporting, especially on board members, although not on that alone. It is important that we see how much progress has or has not been made. In the current climate, if we are serious about controlling greenhouse gas emissions, that is perfectly reasonable as well. An area that interests me, which I would not mind seeing in an annual report, is—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Lord talked about gender reporting on boards. I understand that and am in favour of it. However, he has only to look at the list of the directors at the front of the annual report to see who are men and who are women and to draw his own conclusion. We do not have to have a section on gender reporting. The information is all there and people can gather it together.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I am sure it will be there, but the report does not actually say what the company’s policy is on gender balance on its board. That is of interest to stakeholders and investors. I agree with the noble Lord that there is a balance to be struck but I am with the Government on this one.
As I was saying, one area that interests me and which I would not mind seeing in annual reports—it might be there already, buried away—is the amount of training that companies provide and the number of apprenticeships that they take on. That is another interesting signal of their attitudes towards their workforce and this is an area to which this Government, after all, say they are absolutely committed. We know we need a more skilled work force and more apprenticeships, so a requirement in relation to those areas in the regulations would not go amiss.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for their contributions to this rather short, succinct debate. I am very sorry to hear that my noble friend Lord Hodgson is so pessimistic about these proposals to make improvements to reporting. He made one or two good points, and I will pick them up, but he will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with all the points he made.
My noble friend made a good point about the size of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned concern about extending the report to include a strategic report given the history of reports and the example of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of a report that was 15 pages a few years ago and is now 70 pages. It will be up to companies to decide how long their reports will be and, no doubt, they will want to make them as succinct and readable as possible to include the extra requirements. I hope that will include cutting down on other areas so that the reports will be more readable.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson was concerned about the disclosure of risk. He raised an important point. The guidance on the strategic side of the report will provide guidance for businesses on deciding their key risks. He made the important point that it is quite challenging for a company to decide what risks are under its control and what risks are not, such as the economy. The guidance is designed to help with that approach but it will be up to the company to decide what it puts into its report on an annual basis. This guidance will be published for consultation and I encourage my noble friend to respond when it comes out.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the safe harbour provision. The answer to the question, “Is there a safe harbour provision for directors?” is yes. The detail is in paragraph 17 of the schedule. It extends the safe harbour provision in Section 463 to the strategic report. The Companies Act permits directors a defence that they were not reckless, and we have made a consequential change to the law to extend this safe harbour defence to the preparation of the strategic report. I hope that that gives some comfort to my noble friend Lord Hodgson.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson raised the issue of the numbers of women being included in the report. It is fair to say that he was somewhat exercised by this. However, I hope I can reassure him, and answer a question about this matter from the noble Lord, Lord Young, by saying that this is about ensuring that businesses are managing their boards better to understand their customers, investors and staff. Evidence suggests that diverse boards are better boards and help employees who may hope to move up into management. The whole objective is to be transparent and to provide full and purposeful figures and to allow stakeholders to look at the reports. The measure is designed to be helpful to them as opposed to simply not including them.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson did not agree that the single figure disclosure would provide accurate and useful information for shareholders. I think that he was referring to the new figures that will be required. He gave the example of a director’s pension. I totally understand his point about pensions being pretty complex and that to reduce them to a single figure is challenging. As regards the example that he gave, it would be fair to say that, just as in company reports and auditing reports, you would have a codicil saying, “This figure is particularly high because of a particular aspect”, which would make the issue clear. Perhaps my noble friend was making the broader point that if you put in single figures the whole time you may obscure the bigger picture. I hope I can reassure my noble friend that companies will have guidance on this and will have to make simplicity a byword when reporting these figures. The regulations will prescribe the minimum requirements but there is nothing to stop companies providing any other material that would help shareholders better understand the information or put it into context, which is the nub of the matter. My noble friend asked whether the Government would undertake to review the regulations and their effects. The noble Lord, Lord Young, also asked about reviewing. The Government have committed to review the regulations in 2017, which is not too far off, so I hope that gives some comfort.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked whether the strategic report would include a company’s ethics policy, which is an interesting point. The annual report will promote discussion at the annual general meeting on the ethics of the company’s business practice, so I hope that reassures the noble Lord. He also raised an interesting point about charitable donations and asked why we were planning to cut the figures relating to those donations. The format of the charitable donations disclosure required companies to disclose the name of the recipient, the amount and the true purpose. For those companies which make a lot of donations this was becoming a burdensome requirement. The total figure is still included in the accounts but the objective of this move is to leave out figures that are becoming somewhat meaningless and rather burdensome.
The noble Lord asked whether these measures had any tax consequences. There are no direct consequences and the tax transparent status of partnerships is unaffected. The changes that we are proposing do not amend the tax law. The noble Lord also asked about pay ratios and, specifically, why we did not require companies to report on the pay ratio between directors and the average worker, which is a fair point. Companies will have to say more about how the remuneration committee has taken into account employee pay and publish the percentage increase in the pay of the chief executive and that of the workforce. However, disclosure of pay ratios has its limitations and could provide misleading information. For example, a company with a large number of low-paid employees would have a big ratio but a company that had outsourced such employees, which might be less socially responsible, will none the less have a better ratio for entirely artificial reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked whether apprenticeships could be covered in the report. Indeed, the company can include in it additional useful material. Where a company has several apprentices, we hope that it will inform shareholders of that and shout it from the rafters.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I refer not only to apprenticeships but to training, given the importance of reskilling.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Training, I would argue, comes under human resources policy. Again, it would be up to companies to decide whether they want to include specific training aspects. There is no obligation to do so, but they are wise to do so if it is going to materially benefit shareholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked why payment to creditors was omitted. The disclosure required companies to make a statement as to how they paid their creditors. Most companies, even rogue traders, stated that they paid their creditors on time. So we feel that the work on the prompt payment code, to which I alluded in my speech, will provide a better response.
The noble Lord also asked why there was a request to state the principal risk, which was a point that I made earlier in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Hodgson. It implements the terms of the EU accounting directive. That was a separate and extra point that I wanted to make.
I hope that I have answered all questions raised. If not, I shall be more than happy to write to noble Lords.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I asked about the effect of the action plan and the requirement to report on business and human rights, and whether it had embraced or taken into account the UN Ruggie principles.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Indeed, the noble Lord did ask that question. The human rights reporting requirement is broadly worded deliberately. However, it was inspired by the words of Professor Ruggie, which may be of some comfort to him. The FRC will provide guidance on how this may work.
Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)
I beg to move that the order be considered by the Committee. Primary authority is a statutory scheme, which was launched in 2009. Under the scheme, businesses can form a partnership with a single local authority, the primary authority. This gives the business a single point of contact to help it to comply with regulation. There are currently 785 businesses and 104 local authorities in partnerships covering more than 64,000 premises. They provide support on complying with many regulations, including regulations on health and safety, age-restricted sales and trading standards. The purpose of the order is to extend the primary authority scheme to cover additional regulations not currently within it. It will enable businesses to benefit from primary authority in relation to three additional regulations: first, Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004; secondly, the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010; and, thirdly, the Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Wales) Regulations 2010.
Reducing regulatory burdens on business is important for growth. It is essential that businesses are able to comply with regulations efficiently. In their responses to the consultation on these proposals, businesses told us that they need reliable advice and confidence that their approach to compliance will be treated consistently. We know that businesses value primary authority. Not only have they told us so in consultation but recent evaluation showed that more than 90% of business respondents would recommend primary authority to others. That is why the Government are committed to ensuring that as many businesses as possible can share in the benefits of it and that the scheme covers a wide range of regulation.
The savings are not for business alone. By reducing duplication in the enforcement of these regulations, primary authority saves time for local authorities, too. It allows them to use their time better to target rogue traders and help businesses to deal with the most severe risks. Moreover, local authorities that choose to become primary authorities can recover the costs from the business.
Lastly, but very importantly, primary authority increases protection for consumers. The majority of UK businesses want to protect their customers and follow the law, but they need advice that they can rely on and need to know that the law will be applied consistently. This enables them to invest in compliance—for example, by putting policies in place or by training staff.
We have opened up eligibility for primary authority to many more businesses through the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. From October, this will enable businesses that share a “common approach to compliance”, such as trade associations and franchises, to enter primary authority partnerships. This order strengthens primary authority further. It will allow businesses to access primary authority for additional areas of regulation. I shall now discuss these extensions in more detail.
First, Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 is a crucially important piece of regulation for improving the standards of the private rental sector in this country. Let me provide an example of the benefits that primary authority can bring to this area. A landlord may have received conflicting advice from two local authorities on how best to fireproof his properties. By obtaining appropriate advice from a primary authority, he will have the confidence to spend money on installing new fire doors, knowing that they are suitable. The Government have considered the detailed consultation responses on the inclusion of Part 1 of the Housing Act. Lettings businesses and some local authorities were in favour of the extension but many local authorities had reservations. We have worked closely with housing authorities to ensure that there will be no unintended consequences. We are confident that the intention of the legislation to provide risk-based protections will be supported by primary authority but we will continue to monitor its application. The Government believe that the benefits of the primary authority scheme should be extended to the private rental sector. Primary authority will provide an avenue for advice that gives certainty to landlords, thereby giving them the confidence to invest in properties. As one local authority commented, the extension,
“would give better consistency and help with raising standards amongst private landlords”.
I turn to the second extension, which is to include the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010. Bringing this law within the scope of primary authority will mean that if a leisure company wants to offer sunbeds for use, it can receive advice about how best to ensure that these are not used by children. Moreover, a business unsure about the additional legislation in Wales, made under this Act, can gain assured advice about the health information that it needs to display. As a local authority in Wales commented:
“This would benefit businesses by fostering a consistent approach to the understanding of the proper implementation of the Act and Regulations”.
Thirdly, the final extension to primary authority which we are discussing today concerns adding Welsh regulations on single-use carrier bag charging to the scheme. This existing regulation requires businesses to charge customers in Wales for certain carrier bags. Primary authority will ensure that businesses, whether based in Wales or not, can access robust and reliable advice on complying with this Welsh legislation. For example, many businesses deliver products to customers in Wales from England. They will be able to gain advice on the requirements to keep records of the charges made to customers.
This extension is welcomed by national businesses such as Asda, which has stated that it wants,
“a common approach to such a straightforward issue that affects our sites across a number of local authorities”.
Its benefits will also be felt by smaller retailers. The Association of Convenience Stores has said:
“The ability to obtain assured advice in relation to the Welsh carrier bag levy would be beneficial for retailers and help to ensure a consistent approach to enforcement across Welsh local authorities”.
We have listened to businesses. They have told us that primary authority is valuable to them because it delivers consistency and reliable advice. They have told us that they would recommend primary authority to other businesses and that they would like these areas of legislation included within the primary authority. This order will extend the scope of primary authority, enabling businesses to access its benefits for these additional areas of legislation. It will give businesses a further tool to reduce the burden of complying with these regulations, allowing them to concentrate on growing their business. I commend this order to the Committee.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, we welcome this approach. If, as the Minister said, it reduces duplication and gives more consistency, what is not to like? I listened carefully as he went through the various areas where it would extend the application of a primary authority and I have a couple of questions. Is there any impact at all on local employment partnerships? While I welcome the fact that landlords will not get conflicting advice, I could not help thinking about the tenants. What impact will the measure have on them in terms of being assured that there will be consistent advice?
As regards bringing sunbeds into the scope of primary authority, not only children but adults often overindulge in that area. However if there is consistency, again that seems a good thing. Similarly, as regards carrier bags, anything that reduces their population—I am constantly picking them up as I walk my dog—is welcome. However, the impact will be felt mainly in Wales. The question is: when will we have this sensible legislation extended to England?
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I think that I had almost reached a conclusion. I think the Minister mentioned something about monitoring, and I was going to ask whether there was a fixed review period in relation to that.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, for his collegiate approach and for his general welcome for this statutory instrument. He raised a couple of questions. The first was whether LEPs would be impacted. I can confirm that there is no direct impact on LEPs as they operate independently from local authorities and the primary authority scheme. However, if a LEP decides that it wishes to address the issue of the burden of compliance within its area, it is free to encourage the uptake of the primary authority scheme among businesses.
The second question related to the effect on tenants of the changes that we are making to primary authority and to the landlord housing scheme. The Government believe that it is important that tenants are protected and that landlords in the private rented sector provide safe and healthy housing. Primary authority is consistent with this. By giving businesses certainty about their obligations, primary authority makes it simpler for lettings businesses to comply with any regulation. When businesses understand what is expected of them and know that it will be applied consistently, they are more likely to invest in compliance, which leads to raised protection for tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about the fixed review period, and I can confirm that there will be a review after three years.
Finally, just before we broke to vote, the noble Lord asked whether this will protect adults as well as children using sunbeds. Primary authority advice will be available to cover the full range of protections under the Act, which creates a duty on businesses in England and Wales to ensure that no person under 18 uses or is offered the use of a sunbed on their premises. The Act also gives powers to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to enact further secondary legislation in England and Wales. In 2011, Welsh Ministers introduced measures in Wales under this Act that further regulate the sale and hire of sunbeds and require the provision and display of health information and the provision of protective eyewear. This will protect both children and adults. The inclusion of the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010 within the scope of primary authority will therefore cover the enforcement of these areas. I hope that that answers all the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
There was one other thing. I was interested in carrier bag usage in Wales. Have the Government given any consideration to extending charges for carrier bag usage to England?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That is a fair question. We are not able to comment on it at present, so I will take note of the question. The UK Government have not yet reached a decision on mandatory charging for carrier bags in England. We are first monitoring the results in Wales and Northern Ireland and the outcome of the Scottish consultation on such a charge. We need clear, robust data before making any decisions. That way, we will be aware of any unintended consequences of the actions.
As the noble Lord will be aware, extending primary authority to Welsh regulations on single-use carrier bag charging affects only Wales. Therefore government policy regarding England is at present unaffected.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Afghanistan
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for British troops in Afghanistan after 2014.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, as part of the United Kingdom’s commitment to the Afghan National Army Officer Academy, the UK will initially contribute around 90 of the 120 mentors. This will diminish over time as the Afghans increasingly work independently. In addition, we will retain sufficient force numbers to ensure that we properly protect our adviser footprint after 2014. Until NATO planning has matured, it is premature to speculate what other residual military presence the UK will have after 2014.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Although I fully support the withdrawal of combat troops after 2014, I can understand the Government’s reluctance to be absolutely precise about the numbers remaining thereafter. However, does he accept that the new, large Afghan army will still be short of a number of military facilities, such as close air support, fuel and food delivery, and medevac? If we are to ensure that the sacrifices of our soldiers are not in vain, will the Government ensure that we help the new Afghan army in those areas in which it is short?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his support for our moves post-2014. We are fully aware of the issue of enabling support to the ANSF. Last year, this priority switched from growing the forces to professionalising and developing their ability to support themselves post-2014 as ISAF draws down. In addition to taking the coalition lead in supporting the officer academy, the UK will maintain its current development assistance of £178 million a year until 2017, and we will also contribute £70 million a year until at least 2017 towards sustaining the ANSF.
Lord Lee of Trafford
In terms of medical support, following on from the noble Lord’s question, are there any plans to leave any specialist medical equipment in theatre in Afghanistan, and are there any plans for our medical personnel—those with particular specialisms—to stay there to work alongside the Afghan medics?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, leaving medical equipment in Afghanistan is being discussed at the moment and no decision has been taken on that. By the end of 2013, the ANSF are due to have developed sufficient medical capabilities to take over responsibility for dealing with their own casualties with non-life-threatening injuries, known as category B casualties. By the end of 2014 they will take over responsibility for all their casualties, including the most serious types of injuries. ISAF continues to monitor ANSF progress towards an independent medical capability, and the UK is supporting it to deliver surgical capability in Helmand through the provision of medical advisors to Afghan medical personnel.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, will the Minister update the House on what plans there are for the locally employed interpreters, who are likely to be in greater danger following the withdrawal of British troops, particularly the interpreters who are based in Kabul and elsewhere who I understand are not currently eligible to apply for the resettlement package that is being offered by Her Majesty’s Government?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we want to support those local staff who will be made redundant so that they can go on contributing to a brighter future for them and their country. This support is based on a generous in-country package of training and financial support, available for all staff, or a financial severance payment. For those who are eligible—patrol interpreter Foreign Office equivalent staff—there is the opportunity to apply for relocation to the UK.
This is a redundancy scheme and is not to be confused with our existing provisions for staff safety and protection. Any staff member who is threatened and at genuine risk due to their employment with us will be supported. In extreme cases, via our intimidation policy, it may be appropriate to consider relocation to the United Kingdom.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, will the Minister say whether military equipment, including vehicles and containers that are needed in Europe, are being satisfactorily withdrawn and that the plans are proceeding as intended?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I understand it, the redeployment is progressing well. As of 30 June, we have redeployed 797 vehicles and pieces of major equipment, and 1,234 20-foot containers’ worth of materiel from Afghanistan.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I declare an interest: a close member of my family will be in Afghanistan until the withdrawal in 2014. Will the Minister give an assurance that the protection equipment that is available to protect our troops will be absolutely up to standard and adequate to protect them during what may be a difficult change period?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness on that point. While we remain part of the ISAF combat mission in Afghanistan, UK forces will continue to maintain the military means and legal authority to defend themselves in the event of an attack. We will retain sufficient force numbers to ensure that we can properly protect our adviser footprint up until 2014 and afterwards. We will also ensure that we have sufficient access to enable this, such as medical facilities and support helicopters. I assure the noble Baroness that the answer is yes.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, anyone who has had the privilege of visiting our troops in Helmand will have realised the great appreciation shown by the Afghan army for the British troops and the way that they are being trained. Currently, a Select Committee in this House is examining soft power, and soft power includes the military influence in training and spreading the British influence into other countries. I know that we are talking about the officers’ training academy, but are there intentions to carry on lower-level training, which does so much to increase our influence in Afghanistan after we have left?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right about how much the ANSF appreciate the work we are doing to mentor them. I saw that for myself when I was last in Afghanistan and talked to a number of Afghans who are hugely appreciative of what we are doing. As the Prime Minister has said, the UK has played a very big part in the ISAF military campaign but we have also paid a very high price. It is therefore right to focus on the officer academy, which is the one thing we have been asked to do by the Afghans, rather than looking for ways to go beyond that.
Forestry: Independent Panel Report
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further developments there have been since the publication of their response to the report of the Independent Panel on Forestry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)
My Lords, we have made good progress in implementing the commitment set out in our Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement, which was issued in January this year. An updated report was published on 3 July that highlighted progress in all areas, including establishing a new body to run the public forest estate, maintaining a core of forestry expertise in government and supporting the forestry sector to improve its economic performance. We are also giving greater priority to plant health.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. How will the Government ensure that the board of the proposed public forest estate management organisation will be inclusive, taking into account the views of users and community groups such as my own HOOF, which are instrumental in safeguarding our public forests and understand every aspect of our forests, including the commercial aspects? The Minister may say that they will be among the guardians, but I firmly believe that they must also have a voice and a vote on the board. I understand that the consultation on the new structure will end in October, so can we expect legislation to be announced in the next Queen’s Speech?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, there were quite a lot of questions in there. I can assure the noble Baroness that stakeholders will be comprehensively involved in the process. She refers to HOOF; to dispel some misunderstanding, it is worth saying that, far from reviving the spectre of privatisation, or placing Ministers in total control of our forests, as has been suggested, our proposals involve the legal transferral of ownership of the entire estate from Ministers to a new operationally independent public body. I say to the noble Baroness that there is some misunderstanding; if it would be helpful to her, I would be very pleased to have a meeting with her—and a representative of HOOF, if that would suit her—to see if we can get rid of the misunderstanding.
Baroness Fookes
Will my noble friend expand on the issue of plant health, given the very worrying plant diseases that are affecting ash, oak, chestnut and other trees?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, yes, this is a very important matter. We have a plant and tree health task force, which has reached the conclusion of its report. It has recommended that the Government develop a UK plant health risk register and provide strategic and tactical leadership for managing those risks. It has also recommended a number of other courses of action, including developing and implementing procedures for preparedness and contingency planning to predict, monitor and control the spread of pests and diseases. We have accepted both of these recommendations and are making progress on them. It has also recommended a number of other courses of action, which we are actively considering. I had a meeting last week with stakeholders from across the interested parties to discuss those recommendations.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I declare my interest as on the register. Do the Government have a policy for increasing manufacturing capacity for all kinds of wood products, not forgetting poplar in particular?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the noble Lord has reminded me that I should have declared an interest as a woodland owner. He essentially asks what we are doing to make the woodland industry more creative. There is a new concept called Grown in Britain, which is creating a new and stronger market pull for the array of products derived from our woodlands and forests. We are developing private sector funding that supports the planting and management of woodlands and forests through funding from corporates, as part of their corporate social responsibility, and we are connecting together and harnessing the positive energy and feelings towards our woodlands and forests that many in our society share to create a strong wood culture.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, in the Government’s response, the Secretary of State wrote on the subject of forest acquisition:
“We will focus particularly on woods close to our towns and cities where the greatest number of people can enjoy them”.
Can the Minister advise us whether there has been any success in this? If not, will he consult with the Forestry Commission England to help it bring forward some of its plans to achieve that laudable objective?
Lord De Mauley
I agree with the noble Lord that that is a laudable objective. It is early days, but we are making progress on those things. If I may, I will take the noble Lord’s suggestion back to the department.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
We will hear from the right reverend Prelate first.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government will keep faith with the recommendation to establish guardians of the public forest estate and, if so, tell us what their role will be in relation to the new management organisation that is being established?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, before I answer that perhaps I should reiterate my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and his independent panel for the work that they did for us on this.
We envisage that there will be a group of guardians who will draw on the interests and expertise of public forest users and will be able to advise and support the delivery of the new body’s remit. The guardians will be focused on the outcomes that the management body delivers, such as environmental biodiversity and social benefits, and any questions of significant land acquisitions and disposals.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful. Will the Minister, with me, step back a little, think about the situation two years ago and consider how different it is now? Two years ago we were talking about the Government wanting to flog off most of the forestry estate. How different it is now. The Minister has congratulated the right reverend Prelate and his independent panel. Will he also congratulate the ministerial team in Defra on the way that they responded to the views of people throughout the country, in particular to the fantastic campaigns that existed? Is it not a win-win situation all round, with my honourable friend David Heath, as the Agriculture Minister, absolutely at the forefront of it?
Territorial Army
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Seccombe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the planned expansion and reorganisation of the Territorial Army, whether they have plans to close any Territorial Army Centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, my noble friend will recall the Statement I made on 3 July, which stated that to maximise the potential for future recruitment, the Army will rationalise its presence by merging small, poorly recruited sub-units into larger sites, frequently in the same conurbation or in neighbouring communities. The overall number of Army Reserve bases will reduce from the current total of 334 to 308, a net reduction of 26 sites.
Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, the cadet movement, which one could say is the corn seed of our services, offers an exciting taste of service life and often provides a discipline that has not been part of young people’s lives. There are many alternative attractions on their doorstep. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that the cadet detachments are situated locally? Many of those detachments at present are situated within the existing territorial centres. Given the recently announced closure of some TA centres, can the Minister confirm that there will be no loss of cadet locations in the short and long term?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Defence has well established, challenging and vibrant cadet programmes with very high reputations, which will continue to be fully supported. Cadet units provide an important link with local communities. Where cadets are co-located on a site for which there is no longer a defence requirement, I can confirm that we will pursue reprovision of the facilities for the cadets to ensure that a local cadet presence is maintained.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, on two occasions recently the Minister has declined to give an undertaking that the size of the regular Army will not be reduced to 82,000, as intended, unless the size of the trained Army Reserve has been increased to 30,000, as intended. Since it would be a serious failure of government responsibility if the implications of this possibility had not been considered, will he spell out what the impact would be on the capability of our Army if the size of the regular Army were reduced to 82,000 but the size of the trained Army Reserve had increased to only 25,000 or even fewer, not to the 30,000 intended?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we intend to maintain an appropriate force level to meet our planning assumptions. We will continue closely to manage the growth in the reserves and the reduction in regular numbers. These numbers will be kept under continuous review as we move beyond the end of operations in Afghanistan. Mitigation strategies are in place to ensure that we can take early action to maintain an appropriate force level. These include innovative recruiting campaigns and measures to improve retention.
Lord Rogan
My Lords, if any TA centres currently owned and administered by regional RFCAs are closed and subsequently sold, can the Minister assure us that the proceeds of these sales will be retained by the local RFCAs, thus enabling them to improve their remaining stock?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, 38 sites are no longer required for defence forces, of which 35 have been vacated by the Army. This does not necessarily assume that every surplus site will eventually become a disposal. The future of each vacated site will be taken forward on a value-for-money basis in consultation with the interests of the local communities involved. If the site is owned by the MoD, once vacated it will be handed over to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and offered to other government departments. If no other use is found, it will be disposed of.
Lord Addington
My Lords, will the Minister give us a little more information about the nature of the local centres of recruitment for this new territorial reserve? Unless you can get to them easily, the idea that people will become a part of it voluntarily will be damaged.
Lord Astor of Hever
My noble friend makes a good point. Working with local communities is vital. We are very grateful for the support that reservists and, indeed, regulars receive from their local communities, and we hope that this will continue. While we are vacating a small number of sites, we will retain more than 300 locations across the UK where individuals can undertake service in the Army Reserve.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of the Territorial Army. I know that that surprises some people opposite. I may be a bit simple, but could the Minister explain the logic, when the Government are seeking to increase the number of members of the Territorial Army, of closing TA centres?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord was in the Territorial Army. He has that military demeanour, and cut a fine dash when he came into the Ministry of Defence the other day. We need to expand the Army Reserve to reflect the future liability of 30,000 trained reservists. To deliver that, the supporting structure needs to be changed. We are confident that the Army Reserve will continue to demonstrate its ability to adapt to new requirements.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, how many of the 35 sites that will no longer be used are in Scotland?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, there are seven sites in Scotland where there is no longer a requirement for Army Reserve basing as a result of structural change. These are Wick, Bothwell House in Dunfermline, Sandbank, Keith, Kirkcaldy, Carmunnock Road in Glasgow and McDonald Road in Edinburgh. One site, Redford cavalry barracks in Edinburgh, will be reopened.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, how are the Government to expand the provision of officer training courses in groups of universities?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am not briefed on officers at universities but I think that the answer is yes; we want to continue that and grow it because it is an important source of officers for the reserves.
Whole-life Sentences
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bamber and others v United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government are disappointed with the court’s ruling. We are making a full analysis of the judgment and will provide our considered response in due course.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently decided by 16 votes to one that the 49 prisoners currently serving whole-life sentences in the United Kingdom are entitled to a review after 25 years. A review does not mean that they will necessarily be released. Can he confirm that whole-life prisoners had always been entitled under our law to a review after 25 years until they lost that right in 2003, it seems almost as a result of an oversight? Will he therefore ensure that the right to a review after 25 years is restored to all our whole-life prisoners as soon as possible in accordance with the court’s decision?
Lord McNally
My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for setting out the chronology very accurately. The right to review was there until 2003. Whether its removal was by an oversight, I do not know, but removed it was. All that I can say about the court’s judgment I said in my Answer—we are analysing it and will provide a considered response in due course.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Are the Government aware that the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was part of the judgment of the British member of the court, Judge Mahoney, who unreservedly subscribed to the conclusions and reasoning of that judgment? Ought not the Government give extra weight to the views of the British judge in that regard?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am not sure whether in an international court one would take cognisance of one judge over another—I am not sure of the protocol of such courts. I do know that it was a considered judgment that merits careful study by the Government, which is exactly what we are doing.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, does not this judgment raise the very important legal principle of rehabilitation? It does not say that whole-life prisoners should be released or that the British Government should take any action, but it does suggest that they retain what the court called the right to hope, the possibility of atonement and the possibility of a review, as in many other countries. Is this not a very serious issue of penal philosophy that should be considered as such?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, and I think that both interventions have helped to clarify something that is not necessarily clear in coverage by the media. This judgment did not say that anybody should be released immediately or that whole-life tariffs may not be imposed, but it did say that we should look at such sentences in the light of what was described as penological purpose—punishment, rehabilitation and prevention. The court held that the system in England and Wales, which provides only for compassionate release, was not sufficient.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, it is this side. Then I am sure we will have time if we get a crack on.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, can my noble friend perhaps read out a list of the names, nationalities and legal qualifications of the judges who interfered in our affairs?
Lord McNally
I think the best thing that I can do is place a list in the Library. Over the years, the court has held against Britain in about 3% of cases. During that period, we have had the great benefit of being part of a continent-wide concept of upholding human rights, of which we should be proud.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Does the Minister accept that implementing faithfully a decision of the European court is not a peripheral luxury but something that binds us in law and in honour, and that the greatest architect of this institution was in fact Sir Winston Churchill?
Lord McNally
There are a number of architects; Sir David Maxwell Fife was a notable originator. However, what the noble Lord said is absolutely right. That is precisely why, given the importance of this judgment, we intend to give it a full analysis and will provide our considered response in due course.
Lord Tomlinson
Does the Minister agree that we do incredible damage to our international reputation for upholding the rule of law when, every time we get a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, there is a knee-jerk reaction from Members in another place, calling for us to abrogate our responsibilities under the European convention?
Lord McNally
My Lords, that is why my Answer to this House is that we are making a full analysis of the judgment and will provide our considered response in due course.
Hereditary Peers By-Election
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Draft Deregulation Bill Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That the Commons message of 11 July be considered and that a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on the draft Deregulation Bill presented to both Houses on 1 July (Cm 8642) and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 16 December 2013;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
B Andrews, L Mawson, L Naseby, L Rooker, L Selkirk of Douglas, L Sharkey;
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the reports of the Committee from time to time shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and
That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.
Armed Forces (Retrial for Serious Offences) Order 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
That the draft orders laid before the House on 17 June be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 8 July.
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13 June be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 8 July.
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:32 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 199 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
18:42 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 187 - Amendment 4 disagreed.
19:46 - Division on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 119 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 11 disagreed.
Lord Freud
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords once again for their commitment to this Bill and for their amendments. Before dealing with this group of government amendments, I will make some general remarks and explain some of the work that has gone on since we last met in Committee.
In Committee, many noble Lords expressed concern at the close working with the insurance industry that this Bill has necessitated. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, expressed particular concern that the appointment of a scheme administrator was already a done deal with insurers. I offer my assurance that this is not the case and that we intend to run an open competition for the contract of scheme administrator, which will be chosen through the open tender process according to our commercial criteria. I hope this reassures noble Lords.
Turning to the issue of poor record-keeping practice in the industry, I think we all agree that we must work not only to support those who have fallen foul of poor record-keeping and tracing in the insurance industry but to correct it and stop it happening in the future. The creation of the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office—ELTO—was a step in the right direction, but there are still insurers that are not tracing as they should be. Since we last met, I have had a very positive meeting with the Financial Conduct Authority. I have since received a very informative letter from the FCA. I found the following extract particularly positive:
“We are further strengthening our existing rules with new requirements for firms to have effective processes for conducting tracing searches for historical policies upon receipt of a request from a consumer or a consumer’s representative. These new rules will become effective from 4 December 2013. We therefore expect any firms that do not currently have adequate tracing mechanisms in place to develop them in advance of that date”.
In brief, if an insurer is expelled from ELTO for not tracing as it should or the FCA receives other intelligence suggesting poor or non-existent tracing, this will serve as an immediate red flag to the FCA. It will then put into place its enforcement action, which can include a supervision visit from the FCA.
One further step that the FCA is taking, which was detailed in the letter, gave me particular confidence that the appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance. The letter states:
“We also look to gather market intelligence to assist us in taking a risk-based view. We are exploring the possibility of a memorandum of understanding with ELTO that, subject to the legalities of this, would allow the FCA to access the data from ELTO’s own auditing process. This would allow us to concentrate our supervision resources on higher-risk categories of firms”.
I hope that noble Lords who have been following this so intently can agree that this represents very positive progress.
Another issue that we discussed in Committee was the establishment of an oversight committee. We welcome this proposal and have been exploring with stakeholders how it might operate. As ever, there is a range of options that we need to consider, and we continue to do so. We would prefer a non-legislative solution if possible but we are aware that noble Lords may wish to see something on a more statutory footing. I ask noble Lords to consider the issues associated with trying to establish a new non-departmental public body as we discuss oversight further.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
If your Lordships’ House will permit me to intervene, I do not intend to engage in debate with the Minister at this stage on any aspects of his commendable “pre-statement”, for which I thank him. It is consistent with the attitude that he has shown to this legislation and his handling of it in the course of our consideration. However, there is another matter which, as he knows, I have been discussing with the Bill team, which is not reflected in the proposed amendments on Report and which, therefore, will not be directly raised.
My concern is about the clarity of the drafting of Clause 2 and the interaction of parts of it. Without going into the detail of that, I have been in discussion and correspondence with the Bill team, and I am grateful to the Minister for allowing that to happen. We did not bottom-out our discussions about the fundamental issue but we revealed a number of things about the interaction between the draft rules and Clause 2. Before I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I got an e-mail saying that there was a recognised tension in relation to the issue of limitation between the draft rules and the current drafting of Clause 2. If the Minister is not in a position to say anything about this now, perhaps he will make time to say something on Report so that it will be on the record and will go to the other place to be considered.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord does not want me to go into detail, but I can commit to going on working with him on this issue, which is very technical. If we work out that something needs to be adjusted, we will have time to do it in the other place.
Lord Wigley
I express my appreciation for the increase from 70% to 75%, although a lot of us would have liked to see 100%. I would like clarification on the new matter that the noble Lord introduced with regard to the review. The mechanism for this might be introduced in another place. Will he shed some light on the means by which any changes could be implemented? Will order-making procedures be available, or will it be a matter of going back to primary legislation whenever such changes are needed in the light of developments?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I think that how we do this will go into secondary legislation. We are well covered. If we need to make an adjustment at primary level, clearly we will have an opportunity in the other place. However, my desire here, for reasons that noble Lords will understand, is not to have ping-pong between the two Houses, because I do not want to lose the extra weeks that could be taken up. If I am wrong in saying that this does not need primary legislation, I will write to the noble Lord. However, that is my view, without checking.
I turn to Amendments 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 31 and 33.
Lord Wills
I, too, thank the Minister for the work that he has done so far on the Bill. It represents an enormous step forward, for which the House is extremely grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised a very important point. It is infinitely preferable not to have to resort to primary legislation in future should changes be necessary under the review process. If the Minister feels that the Bill is not adequate in giving powers to the then Secretary of State to introduce any changes by secondary legislation, will such provisions be introduced at Third Reading or in the other place?
Lord Freud
Perhaps noble Lords will indulge me and allow me to reply to that question a little later this afternoon. It is a very technical question and I will double-check that my answer was reliable. I will come back to it. We will have another chance.
If there are no further interventions, I will turn to the rather drier amendments in this group. A number of noble Lords present today tabled amendments in Committee to require the rules establishing the payment scheme to be made by statutory instrument rather than having them simply published by the Secretary of State. The amendments in this group are aligned with a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Again, I acknowledged the concerns behind these approaches. Today I am pleased to announce that this set of amendments aims to establish the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme by statutory instrument rather than by publication by the Secretary of State.
Having made this change, a number of consequential amendments fall to be made to other clauses, so that previous references to “regulations” will now refer to “the scheme”. Before noble Lords suggest that I am taking a backward step by amending the Bill so that it refers to “the scheme” instead of “regulations”, I should add that the combined effect of the amendments will be that where “regulations” has been changed to “scheme”, it will mean the scheme as set up by regulations.
We have also removed the ability of the Secretary of State to amend, replace or abolish the scheme, or publish the scheme as amended from time to time, as these matters will now be dealt with in regulations—as will the definition of a “specified payment” in Clauses 2 and 3. In addition, provisions for the amount of a scheme payment, for payment amounts to be dependent on age, and for the division of scheme payments between dependants are all now to be determined in accordance with scheme regulations. The same applies to the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated as able to bring an action against the relevant employer or any relevant insurer for civil damages. These will now be dealt with in scheme regulations.
Amendment 31 provides for the first regulations setting up the scheme under Clause 1 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, where the regulations must be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament and for subsequent regulations to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. This approach follows a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I thank noble Lords for their well informed views when we addressed this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I thought it was best to defer my thanks until after the Minister had completed his remarks on this group of amendments. I express my warm appreciation for the considerable work that he has done on the Bill, resulting in his welcome announcement this afternoon that the payments will increase from 70% to 75% for civil compensation claims. Although that falls well short of what some of us had hoped for originally, I have to say it compares with the estimated £1 billion of cost that would have been paid by the insurance industry if the employers had not gone out of business and the employers’ liability insurance policies had not been lost or, in some cases, possibly deliberately destroyed. That £1 billion is estimated by the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK as the amount that has been forgone over the years by victims, who have not been able to formulate claims for the suffering that they endured. At this stage, however, we have to be grateful and I echo the thanks expressed by others to the Minister for achieving this improvement in his discussions that he had with the insurance industry.
I should also like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister about a discrepancy in the DWP’s July 2013 analysis, which has been circulated to noble Lords. Column 6 of table 5 relates to the total amount of the levy from the start of 2010 to 1 July this year. On the assumption that that is based on 100% of average civil compensation, the figure would have been £118.9 million. The amount that individuals would have received directly from the scheme over this period, according to column 5, is £98.5 million. Adding the £20,480 estimated cost per claimant—
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we are debating Amendment 1, which the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has moved. Would the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, care to address that?
Lord Avebury
I thought that this was the appropriate opportunity to raise a point about the document that has been circulated and, if nobody objects, I shall continue with my remarks, which I can assure the noble Countess will be very short. This is the only opportunity that I will have to ask this question about the discrepancy in the figures that have been circulated by DWP. As I was saying, adding the £20,480 estimated cost—
The Countess of Mar
I am sorry, but the noble Lord is not speaking appropriately to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has moved. Would he address that, or would he prefer to sit down and ask his questions when we have later amendments on the subject?
Lord Avebury
If the Minister is prepared to listen to my question, we shall come to an end in a few minutes.
The Countess of Mar
This is Report stage and we should be addressing the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Freud.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Perhaps I may clarify matters. The noble Countess is quite correct. This is Report and we should be addressing the amendment. I would ask my noble friend to make his point when we reach the relevant amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord for the amendments, which we support. Putting the scheme on a statutory basis responds to the debate that we had in Committee and to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. I thank him for that.
Perhaps I may be allowed the opportunity to pick up a few points from the noble Lord’s opening statement—again, the thrust of which we are very happy with and supportive of, particularly the open competition for the scheme administrator. That is a very positive move. In addition, the improvement to the record-keeping, the progress of ELTO and the engagement of the FCA are to be welcomed. We knew the Minister’s view on the oversight committee and hoped that it would be possible for him to table amendments for today. However, as that has not proved possible, we hope that there will be a commitment to do so when the Bill goes to the House of Commons.
We support the 75% as an improvement on the opening position. I hope that the noble Lord will not misinterpret subsequent amendments that we have tabled as being ungrateful for the efforts that he has made but I think that we have an obligation to pursue the matter further. The noble Lord put an important issue on the record concerning the scheme, its uprating and the review. The CPI uprating is to be welcomed, as is the review based on the practice and outcomes of the smoothing period. The key issue here, certainly after the initial—
The Countess of Mar
Again, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I wonder whether he will address Amendment 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freud.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I have addressed it and was simply taking the opportunity to pick up a few points from the Minister’s opening statement, with which I think he was trying to be helpful in setting the scene for this. I was also trying to be helpful by saying what our position is on that. It seems to me that that is my responsibility at this Dispatch Box on behalf of the Opposition. We have tabled an amendment, so we can pick that up in due course. The key thing for us is whether the levy rate will be reduced at the end of that four-year period or whether it can be maintained at its opening level. Obviously that will have beneficial implications for the rate of payments in due course, but perhaps we will come to that on some of our later amendments. However, I support the amendment moved by the Government.
Lord Freud
My Lords, perhaps I may quickly touch on some of those issues. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury will be dealt with in the third group of amendments, but, as he shrewdly spotted, the figure of 75% comes out at £75 million of costs.
The Countess of Mar
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but would he please address his amendments and not the bits between?
Lord Freud
I have very little to say because very few points have been raised about the amendments, but I do want to make one point. I was asked whether the review needed primary legislation and I said that it did not. I confirm that it can be done in regulations, as I was fairly sure it could.
I would not call any Member of this House ungrateful. I have genuinely always gained an awful lot from noble Lords when we go through these really complicated matters, whether in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill or the Mesothelioma Bill. In this case, in Committee I gained an awful lot from what people were telling me and I did my very best to act on that. That said, and with the intention of satisfying the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I hope that noble Lords will agree the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“( ) fund research into mesothelioma (through the research supplement under section (Research supplement))”
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, in moving Amendments 2, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, I join other noble Lords who have expressed their thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, the Minister, for doing an incredibly tough job over the last year or so. It has been very well done. I am very grateful for his remarks earlier.
The Minister said that if the Bill were delayed—none of us intended to do that—it could cause further problems in due course. Nevertheless, I just hope he accepts that that is no reason for curtailing due parliamentary process in any way. Of course, it is up to the Government to decide what to do in another place. If your Lordships decide to include amendments to the Bill here, it will not be Members of another place who precipitate the ping-pong; it will be the Government.
With those words, I refer the noble Lord to the all-party support for this group of amendments, and to the letter that was sent to him and other Members of your Lordships’ House, signed by some 22 Members. They include some of the leading authorities on medical research and the law and others with first-hand knowledge of a fatal disease that claims 2,400 lives annually and is predicted to kill a further 56,000 British citizens between 2014 and 2044. Dr Mick Peake, the clinical lead at the National Cancer Intelligence Network, is right when he says, “We must make every effort not to miss this opportunity to lead the world in this area and to finally make significant inroads into this dreadful disease for patients and their families”.
The amendments before your Lordships seek to impose a levy of no more than 1% to raise funds to support research into the causes and treatment of mesothelioma, and have the wholehearted support of the British Lung Foundation. I thank it, and especially my noble friends Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Pannick, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who are co-sponsors of the amendments, and noble Lords who spoke in Committee and who through constraints of time might be unable to do so again today.
At the conclusion of Committee, it was the Minister who encouragingly said:
“Well, my Lords, I feel like adding my name to the amendment”.
As recently as Monday, I met the Minister again—once again, I am grateful to him and his team of officials for the time and courtesy they have unfailingly given—to see whether we could find a way for him to translate that desire into a reality. I have offered to withdraw this amendment if the Government undertake to introduce their own at Third Reading, or indeed in the other place, and that offer still stands. Although I feel that the noble Lord has been a victim of the Whitehall curse, I want to put on the record that he has been deeply committed to ensuring more support for research. However, as he told us in Committee:
“I have hit a brick wall at every turn”.
It is Parliament’s job to demolish such brick walls.
Although new figures published yesterday show that the MRC has made a helpful increase in funding for mesothelioma research, the sums are still very modest and should be seen in the context of years and years of virtually no state funding. When viewed alongside the two cancers of closest mortality in the UK—myeloma and melanoma—the funds for mesothelioma still lag considerably behind. Unlike many other forms of cancer, rates of mesothelioma are still rising. The United Kingdom already has the highest mesothelioma mortality rates in the entire world, yet there is little by way of effective treatments and at present no chance of a cure.
This shocking situation was underlined by the Minister himself, who candidly told us in Committee:
“Something very odd is happening here when so little money has gone into research in this area”.
In Committee he agreed that,
“There needs to be a kick-start process to get research going”.—[Official Report, 5/6/13; col. GC250.]
That is precisely what this amendment does. It is a kick-start.
In a letter sent by his department to all Members of your Lordships’ House on Monday, the Minister reiterated his support for increased support for research, but said that, “unfortunately, the mechanism proposed is just not viable”.
With the assistance of the British Lung Foundation, I took the precaution of asking Daniel Greenberg QC to draft this amendment with me. I did so not simply because he is the editor of Craies on Legislation, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, Westlaw UK Annotated Statutes and editor-in-chief of the Statute Law Review, but perhaps most importantly because he was parliamentary counsel from 1991 to 2010. Clearly, he knows a thing or two about drafting legislation, and presumably the Government would not cast doubt on the viability of the reams of legislation that he drafted for them.
The Minister will forgive me but in the nearly 35 years since I entered Parliament, I have heard the phrases “not viable” or “technically defective” as the refuge of last resort whenever we run out of good arguments. If the argument for a levy lacked viability, it would cast doubt on the whole principle that underpins this Bill, which is based on the imposition of a levy.
The Minister will recall that before Committee he was briefed to oppose the amendment on the grounds that there was no precedent for hypothecation and to raise that other old bogey of “legal obstacles”, the Human Rights Act. To answer those objections, noble Lords gave the noble Lord the precedent of Section 123 of the Gambling Act 2005, Sections 24 and 27 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, the HGV Road User Levy Act 2013, and other industry levies, including the fossil fuel levy, the levy on the pig industry to eradicate Aujeszky’s disease and the Gas Levy Act 1981. As my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and my noble friend Lord Pannick made abundantly clear, the idea that such a levy was an infringement on the Human Rights Act is, frankly, risible. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Pannick said:
“It would be quite fanciful to suggest that there is a legal reason not to support an amendment”.—[Official Report, 5/6/13; col. GC 247.]
None of those shadow-boxing parliamentary arguments will do. They are simply not worthy of an issue that has lethal consequences for so many of our countrymen. Why has mesothelioma research had this Cinderella status? Why does it require Parliament to put it right? Why has it for so many years received little or no state funding? In Committee, the Minister provided clues. He said that mesothelioma,
“was an unfashionable area to go into and therefore the people who wanted to make their careers in research turned to other cancers. As a result, good-quality research proposals were not coming in and therefore the research council did not feel that it could supply funds. That is the reason and it has been the reason for decades”.—[Official Report, 5/6/13; col. GC 253.]
The advisers to the Minister at the DWP have written that there is no lack of necessary skills for research into asbestos-related diseases but that there are perverse incentives to tackle what are perceived as more tractable research questions or tumour types that are considered easier to study and, where possible, to build on past progress. They said that research bids that were seen as likely to fail were not being presented. Therefore, it is not a lack of capacity in the field that is the problem; as my noble friend Lord Kakkar outlined in Committee, many eminent researchers are interested in mesothelioma research. High-quality bids have been in short supply in the past decade precisely because leading academics knew that it was pointless putting time and effort into preparing a bid that was unlikely to succeed.
Dr Robert Rintoul, consultant respiratory physician at Papworth Hospital and chief investigator of the recently launched mesothelioma tissue bank, told me that if more funding is made available, big labs will suddenly get interested in mesothelioma, which will increase the quality of research grants. Dr John Maher, honorary consultant immunologist at King’s College Hospital, said, “As I write, we have a clinical-grade viral vector ready for use, an optimised and patentable manufacturing process and a recently licensed GNP manufacturing facility available to generate cell products. However, there are no realistic prospects of obtaining funds to undertake such work in mesothelioma in the near future”. There clearly is no question that further investment in mesothelioma research is urgently required.
We have heard from the Minister that this will peak in two years’ time, but listen to this stark warning from Dr Stefan Marciniak, the honorary consultant physician at Cambridge University’s Institute for Medical Research, who told me that there will be a continued increase in cases worldwide well into this century owing to the ever-increasing use of asbestos in the BRIC countries, and that carbon nanotubes share frightening similarities with asbestos-like minerals and could lead to a second wave of mesothelioma. That is why we need urgent research
I am delighted to see the Minister and his noble friend Lord Howe on the Front Bench today. The Minister will be sponsoring a reception later this month on mesothelioma research for an invited audience of some 40 people. I know that he will agree that such meetings, welcome though they are, are not enough and certainly not a substitute for statutory obligations. By themselves, such initiatives are unlikely to lead to the sea change in investment that is needed to ensure that the recent advances in mesothelioma research are sustained. If we do not seize this legislative moment, all the talk will vanish into the ether. It will be the informal approach that lacks viability, not this amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant suggested in Committee, the amendment proposes that the funds be administered by a competent third party, which would have no difficulty in investing in all the different types of research that are so urgently required. We need both a statutory levy on the insurance firms and a greater effort from our public research institutions in dealing with a disease that will kill more than 2,000 people every year in the United Kingdom. It is vital that we as legislators grapple with the source of so much misery and suffering, which is the reason, after all, for the millions of pounds of compensation payments for which the Bill provides.
The amendment proposes a commendably simple approach and, crucially, has not been opposed by the insurance industry, whose representatives I met last week. No letter has been received by Members of your Lordships’ House from the industry opposing this very modest amendment.
Having listened to suggestions made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and others, we explicitly provide in the amendment for the scheme—a levy of no more than 1%—to be proportionate. The supplement reflects insurers’ market share, as the main levy contained in the Bill already does.
In the face of a vicious disease that according to the Government’s figures will claim the lives of some 56,000 more British citizens and the lethal nature of which we have known about since the Merewether report of 1930, it would be nothing short of a national scandal if we did not seize this rare legislative chance to offer those who have faced the blight of this horrific disease something better than what has gone before. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I have been pleased to add my name to this amendment, so forcefully and ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Alton. This is an appalling and tragic disease. Although my specialty was never respiratory medicine, in the course of my professional career I saw many people suffering from mesothelioma and recognised to the full its utterly devastating effects. Indeed, one such person was a professional colleague of mine who was a consultant neurologist. One of the disease’s most unfortunate features is that, after exposure to asbestos, particularly blue asbestos, the incubation period is extraordinarily long. People sometimes do not develop the disease for many years after exposure. Indeed, I recently learnt of an 87 year-old man who had developed mesothelioma for the first time, having worked at the age of 40 as carpenter cutting up sheets of asbestos. That is one of its appalling features, and its effects are utterly distressing. It is not a localised cancer that grows in a single location where a surgeon can remove it; it is a diffuse involvement of cancerous tissue that grows over the surface of the lung, between the lung and the chest wall. It gradually begins to strangulate the lung and eventually causes respiratory failure. It is a devastating disease—I need say no more.
However, as my noble friend has said, research on this topic is extraordinarily limited. I speak as someone who had 14 years’ involvement with the Medical Research Council, ending up as a member of the council for four years. At that time, we received research grant applications from a huge number of notable doctors and scientists seeking to research particular conditions.
The MRC, as part of its policy, used to identify priority areas which it saw as requiring further research effort, but it did not identify single diseases such as mesothelioma. It talked about problems of mental health, and about problems of ageing. Even the notable Cancer Research UK campaign, which has been a massive contributor to research in cancer in the broadest sense, has not identified single-disease conditions as having a particularly high priority in its programmes.
It is interesting that the British Lung Foundation and four leading insurance firms three years ago reached an agreement under which they collectively granted £1 million a year for three years to invest predominantly in mesothelioma research. The results were impressive. New researchers from other fields who had never thought of working on mesothelioma started to take an interest. This led to the creation of Europe’s first mesothelioma tissue bank, storing biological tissue and funding work to identify the genetic architecture of the disease.
My experience as a doctor, having been involved with a huge number of different charities funding research over the years, is that the existence of charities that are established to support research on single diseases has been immensely valuable and important in attracting new scientists into the field for which they have provided funds. One has to think only of the British Heart Foundation, which has given a massive impetus to work on heart disease. Without the money which the Multiple Sclerosis Society has collected over all the years, we would never have had the same effect.
In my research field of neuromuscular disease, had it not been for the work of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign there is little doubt that we would not have reached the stage that we now have, where research on exon skipping has led to the introduction of a drug for the treatment of the most severe form of the disease. Those are massive developments, but they came about because funds had been raised by individual charities and groups specifically for research in that disease.
As my noble friend said, until this recent initiative by the British Lung Foundation, the funding for research on mesothelioma had been miniscule. Unfortunately, the funding by the BLF and others has now run out. The sole purpose of the amendment is to persuade the Government to accept that a tiny percentage of the levy which they already lay on insurance companies for the support of patients with this condition and their families should be specifically devoted to research. That could make a massive contribution to the future of patients with mesothelioma and to the development of an effective treatment in the foreseeable future.
The Government cannot protest on the grounds of hypothecation, because the levy under Clause 13 is already hypothecated. They cannot just say that people working on mesothelioma can apply to the Medical Research Council. Of course they can, but the crucial point about the levy is that it would provide funds that will attract scientists to work on that highly intractable problem. The fact that it is intractable is not an excuse. It deserves more attention, it deserves funding, and this group of amendments is one way to make certain that that funding will be made available and that scientists will be attracted to work in this field.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I thought that the death sentence was cancelled many years ago, but I almost seem to have heard my own death sentence now. I worked with asbestos for many years. I picked up Cape blue. Every now and then, when you get a cough in your throat, you think, “Oh, have I caught this disease”—I cannot even pronounce it—“Is there something wrong with me?”. That was during a period in industry. I came out of the Navy, where of course we had masses of asbestos protecting ships, in repairs and elsewhere. I worked with it. It was to some extent a mystical product because it was the only fire protection kit available.
I then went into industry because of the new developments. These were the new plastics, which were suddenly to replace the whole of the construction industry. I learnt about polyurethane, formaldehyde, polytetrafluoroethylene, poly this, poly that. I would work on the shop floor without a mask, because when you are young you do not have a mask, and when sent out to do roofing materials, lay asbestos cement, cutting and so on, of course we did not wear heavy boots with protective caps; one wanted to be flexible. We did not have safety ladders; we slid down the outside. When I was working on the Blyth Colliery project as a young rep up in the north, I learnt about mining diseases—silicosis and all those things that I could not pronounce.
However, that was another period of time. Now, quite suddenly—and, I think, correctly; I have been impressed by what I have heard today—out of this something has been identified. I have tremendous regard for what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does, but it is the right thing in the wrong place. This Bill is the right one to go through, and it could have gone through years ago. As I tried to look at the figures, I suddenly realised that I am even more grateful to your Lordships’ House because 50 years ago, when I first came here, I would not have left the asbestos and the plastics world without having to be in your Lordships’ House. I changed my job and went into building and industrial research and I have learnt, over many years, an enormous amount from noble Lords and have great respect for them.
I think that my noble friend Lord Freud and his colleagues have got it right. The question that I ask is: why was this not done a long, long time ago? What is being done about all those other historic diseases that may have come from chemicals of one sort or another? As we have new research developments, those who develop a particular product never think of the future. They do not understand what smells and other things can do. I never wore a mask and now I feel that I am starting to cough a bit, but I have learnt a trick. In your Lordships’ House, when you stand up to speak, many people need a glass of water or need to clear their throat. That may lead them to believe that they have one of these industrial diseases. However, it is strange but there is a little trick that you can do: wiggle your toes. That gets the circulation going and stops you having a dry throat and having to look to the Doorkeepers to ask for water.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I will help in any way that I can to raise money for a research fund and others. I think that the way to approach it is to look at those who may have had great success in property development or things of this sort. Located in their buildings—probably in almost every building in London—are likely to be unacceptable levels of asbestos. However, the levels are not unacceptable until you find it. It may be behind every board. We used to make a product called asbestolux, which was a fire-proofed, simple board used in all homes instead of plywood, which was too expensive at that particular time.
Throughout the land, from our colonies, asbestos, such as the Cape blue asbestos, is virtually everywhere. The danger is, once you try to move it and destroy it, you create dust and some of the research has not yet managed to identify how you screen it. Perhaps your Lordships have been in a block where someone is redeveloping a flat and before you know it, in comes an enormous team of people with large fans that suck and circulate. You wonder whether that is taking out some of the micro ingredients that come with asbestos.
Obviously, you will find that in the building trade, people do not necessarily follow what are called “building regs”. Therefore, many accidents have happened with saws and so on that could have been solved. Therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and to others, I say: let us just get on with this Bill and get it through. It can do a lot of good as it stands. Do not hold it up and I will see what we might be able to do to encourage some support anywhere else. I am grateful to your Lordships for listening to me and I feel that perhaps I will not fade away quite as early as I thought.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I have not wiggled my toes but I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In his compelling speech, the noble Lord referred to the letter that the Minister sent on Monday. In it the Minister expressed his support for increased research, but he added that,
“unfortunately, the mechanism proposed is just not viable”.
The letter does not provide what we lawyers call further and better particulars as to why the Minister believes that the proposal is not viable; nor did the Minister throw any light whatever on this matter in Grand Committee. Indeed, in his opening remarks this afternoon the Minister very helpfully referred to a number of other matters, but he did not give any explanation in relation to this issue.
In Grand Committee, the Minister focused on a concern that research funding was the responsibility of the Department of Health, while this was a DWP-sponsored Bill. I hope that we will not hear that argument again today. As a matter of law, of course the Government are indivisible, and, as a matter of efficiency, government departments talk to each other. I am encouraged to see the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his place today.
What other reasons, therefore, could there possibly be for the Minister to suggest that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not viable? The Government must be satisfied that Clause 13 of their own Bill is viable in providing a levy. These amendments simply provide for a research supplement on this levy, which would be clear as to those who are obliged to pay, the amount and the purpose. Nor can it be that the Minister thinks that these amendments do not reach their target. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the amendments have been drafted by Daniel Greenberg, a former parliamentary counsel of distinction, who is editor of the authoritative work Craies on Legislation.
Nor could it sensibly be suggested by the Minister that the amendments are not legally viable because they might be the subject of some legal challenge under the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill contains a levy and there are many other examples of statutory levies introduced by Parliament to advance good causes. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has given a number of examples; I mentioned in Grand Committee the levy on bookmakers under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 for the purpose of improving horse racing in this country. If, as Ministers must believe, the levy in Clause 13 is legally viable and those other levies are legally viable, I cannot understand why the amended levy of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not equally viable. Any legal action to challenge an amended clause—amended in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—would be a legal action, to coin a phrase, that is not legally viable.
There is a vital need for research and research funding to combat this awful disease. To include these amendments in the legislation would encourage research. I do not accept for a moment the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that for us to do our job and improve the Bill would somehow hold it up. There is ample time for debate on such matters if—I hope it will not be the case—the other place disagrees with us. When it comes to a choice between liability on the insurers and the Minister’s concerns about viability, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I, like all noble Lords, want to see more research into mesothelioma, above all into ways to prevent people developing this terrible and lethal disease. Noble Lords may be aware that quite recently Russia, leading a group of another six countries —Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, India and Vietnam—blocked a move to have white asbestos listed under the UN convention that requires member countries to decide whether or not they should risk importing that substance. I fear that asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, will long remain with us; we will need research for the long term.
I am entirely sympathetic to the purposes of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, his co-signatories to the amendment and the larger number of co-signatories to the letter that they were kind enough to send to us. I congratulate the noble Lord on his dedication in this matter. However, I have some difficulties in accepting the precise proposition of the noble Lord. I have no problem about hypothecating part of the levy for the purpose of research; I accept that precedents are there in the Gambling Act, the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act and other measures. I would not presume to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the question of viability as he has just expounded it. In Committee, I heard noble Lords who are eminent in the fields of medicine and academic research support the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I applaud them for that.
However, there is a problem. The insurance industry has told us that it is a willing funder on the basis that the Government will fund the major part of the costs of research. The employer’s liability insurers see themselves as very much the junior partner in that partnership with the state. It was probably not the case with the gambling legislation and the other measures that have been referred to that the Government were expected to more than match the funding that the relevant industry should supply.
These amendments omit to state the implication for government funding of what they would impose on the insurance industry. I wonder why that is so. I can imagine that there are good reasons why the amendments do not require the state to commit itself to fund mesothelioma research specifically.
At one time I was Minister for Higher Education and Science; that experience confirmed me in my very strong belief in the arm’s-length system. If we were to abandon that, it would be only a few steps to the relationship between Stalin and Lysenko. The arm’s-length principle is essential for the maintenance of academic freedom and for research quality. Of course, it is legitimate for the Government to take a strategic view and, indeed, for the Department of Health and the National Institute of Health Research to set priorities and make broad allocations. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, told us, when he was a member of the Medical Research Council, the council identified broad priority areas, although it did not think it appropriate to identify individual diseases for which it was determined to fund research. That was because the criterion for making specific awards must be, above all, that of quality. Peer review, not Parliament or the Government, should determine who receives publicly provided funding for research. It follows from that that funding from the state cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity in any particular field of research.
Ample funding has already been provided by the state for which mesothelioma researchers are eligible to bid. The employer’s liability insurers have already provided funds for research and have indicated that they are willing to continue to do so. Therefore, the problem of finding money for research into mesothelioma is not a lack of money on the part of the state or a lack of money forthcoming from the insurers. The problem must be that there has been a lack of high-quality proposals for research in this field. There may have been some quite good proposals; I think that some 80% of bids to the National Institute of Health Research are unsuccessful. Such is the competition for funding from that source that only the very best receive it, so it is not only people who care very strongly about mesothelioma who are disappointed about the lack of funding in any particular field.
Are we to legislate simply to compel the employer’s liability insurers to do what they are already doing and have stated that they are willing to do? If, for good reason, we are not specifying an obligation on the Government, is the Minister none the less proposing to legislate thorough these amendments to place a moral, if not a legal, obligation on the state to fund mesothelioma uniquely, notwithstanding how weak academically particular proposals might be, and notwithstanding the needs that there are for research funding in other fields?
I am left feeling that these amendments, although I completely sympathise with their intention, do not yet articulate a satisfactory position. I think that in a moment the Minister will report to us on his conversations with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who it is very good to see here listening to this debate, but I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, ought primarily to be addressing himself to the scientists rather than to the Government.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall address in a moment the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, but I want to signal my support for Amendment 2 and the associated amendments, which will allow a very small percentage, some 1%, of the levy on active insurers to go towards a supplement for further research into mesothelioma. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a few moments ago, any way of encouraging new people to come into this area of research must be worth while, and that is something that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, did not address in his remarks. At present the mechanisms are not generating enough research and the research that is currently being undertaken is in danger of being eroded, if not ended. I am also glad that Amendment 24 specifies that the Secretary of State must consult insurers, medical charities and research foundations before making regulations in this respect. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on his perseverance on the matter.
As has been mentioned, in 2011 the British Lung Foundation invested £850,000 in research into mesothelioma, and £400,000 was invested by other charities. In Committee the indications were that it did not appear that much money was coming from the Government. Now, if I understand it correctly, the Medical Research Council has found some rabbits to come out of the hat, and that is all to the good. However, more work clearly needs to be done. If we give due credence to the figures that have been quoted and requoted about the 56,000 people who are in danger of dying from this, if any progress can be made by way of research to reduce the likelihood of those people dying, that is something that we as a House have a duty to undertake. Whether or not this is the appropriate vehicle to do so, it is the vehicle that we have to hand at the moment and we should not lose this opportunity.
The agreement brokered by the British Lung Foundation has meant that over the past three years four large insurance firms have collectively invested £1 million a year into research in this area. I warmly welcome that initiative. It has seen concrete results, as has been mentioned, such as the creation of Europe’s first mesothelioma tissue bank. However, that funding will soon be coming to an end and we need to ensure that the research goes on. The firms that were involved in the initial agreement have indicated that the industry as a whole should be involved in funding future research—that idea comes from them—and that a voluntary agreement would be unworkable. If we are to secure the breakthrough that we need in this area, funding must be made available for research. If that needs legislative underpinning, so be it. Perhaps the Minister can indicate that if the amendment passes, or if he finds another way to reach the same objective when the debate goes on to another place, he will consider including the possibility of a short annual statement on the amount of funding going into mesothelioma research from all sources and the progress that is being made.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I greatly look forward to the Minister’s reply. I just want to say one sentence. The very first thing I had to do when I came to the Bar in 1964 was to act in relation to the Industrial Training Act 1964, which, as I recall, imposed a levy on the building industry in order to subsidise training within the industry, and it worked perfectly well.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I support this group of amendments and I thank the Minister for his work, which was well illustrated at the beginning of this debate. I knew very little about mesothelioma until I saw its debilitating effects on friends, including the former Bishop of Peterborough, Ian Cundy, who some Members may recall died in 2009. The knowledge that the cause of this cancer has been lurking in one’s body for 20 years or more of active life may suggest in itself that more research into detection and treatment may prove valuable. There is nothing that can be done to rewrite someone’s life history, which may include often unwitting exposure to asbestos while young, but much can be done to promote research into a disease that will kill 2,400 people in the UK this year—the equivalent of wiping out one of Norfolk’s smaller market towns within 12 months. If that sort of tragedy happened it would be front page news but this passes us by too easily.
I am not sure that even now I fully understand why mesothelioma is such a Cinderella of cancer research but this amendment provides a practical way of providing a corrective. The levy proposed is practical and proportionate and it might even stimulate more high-quality researchers to think that this is a worthwhile and reliable area in which to have a sustained work programme over many years. I recognise too that it may even stimulate more voluntary contributions to such research, quite apart from what the Government may give. I also understand that it has some support within the insurance industry. Although I have no expertise in this area, from all that I have read—I am very grateful for the way in which the proposers of this amendment have circulated material to the House—I hope the Minister will look on this proposal or something like it sympathetically.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his hard work on this Bill and I am pleased he understands what an awful condition mesothelioma is. It seems this condition has almost been written off as far as research is concerned. However, there are so many developments and advances in modern research that there should be research into all types of tragic conditions. There should always be hope. Research into one condition can often find a cure for another by chance. My noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool explained the need for research so well. I hope your Lordships will support these amendments. It is good to see Ministers from two departments coming together. This is very hopeful. I support these amendments.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I start by giving apologies from my noble friend Lord German who should be standing in my place today but is at a family funeral. I join in the praise for the two Front-Bench spokesmen for the dedication and commitment they have given to this legislation.
The amendment is worthy and I have admiration for the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. However, this is quite an easy target to win support for medical research and we have to question whether it is an effective amendment. All the evidence we have heard today suggests that it is not necessarily the lack of funding that is the problem but the lack of effective research proposals. That is what we should be addressing. If the insurance companies thought there was effective research to be supported, they would be the first to support it because it would reduce their liability. That is what we need to address. The Minister in his response should help us.
The other important thing is that this levy has been arrived at by negotiation and agreement. It is not a statutory levy that we are putting in place because we think that it is appropriate. It has been arrived at through agreement and negotiation. Are we saying that we have to start these negotiations again as we will be putting a supplementary payment on the people who have agreed to this levy? We need to know whether this will mean a serious delay to the legislation and its implementation. The Minister should give us answers to the complications that these amendments could cause. We are interested in getting the benefits into the hands of the families who have suffered from this disease.
We also have to ask what we are arguing over. What are the sums of money that we are arguing over? They do not seem to me to be very large. The Minister should therefore tell us—I am sure that he will in his closing remarks—what efforts the Government are going to make to meet some of the requirements for funding if we can find effective research.
This issue seems worthy and worth support and it is very easy to argue for it. But what is the reality and effect of the amendment and what sort of delay will it cause to this legislation? Those are the key issues that the House should be looking at this afternoon.
Lord Deben
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made an important contribution to this discussion. As a former Minister, I understand precisely the difficulties in which Ministers find themselves, particularly in the medical area, because there are many diseases that are extremely distressing and which, when specifically singled out, can cause all of us to feel that we ought to do something about it. There are few as distressing as this, but there are others in parallel.
It may be that what the Minister has said so far is the right answer, distressing and difficult though it is, particularly in terms of the danger that arises if we start deciding politically which diseases are properly sought after and which are not; this is a dangerous area to be in. My problem is slightly different. I hope that, in his response, my noble friend the Minister will not rely on the Treasury argument of hypothecation. One of the disastrous themes in this country’s legislation is the refusal of the Treasury to accept that hypothecation is an essential part of sensible financial arrangements. Many things would be much better done if there was a clear connection between what people pay through tax and what happens.
I speak with an interest in mind, as a passionate believer in the environment. We will not get people to understand why they should pay congestion charges, for example, if the money is not clearly spent on reducing congestion. In other words, there needs to be hypothecation. I remember when I fought hard for and got the first hypothecated tax, the landfill tax, which few would now deny was very important. My noble friend the Health Minister remembers that as well as I do. It was a battle against a theology. I hope that, when the Minister comes to speak, he will do so in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and not in the terms of those who deny this kind of response—not on the basis of ensuring objective decisions by independent judgment, but on the basis that there is something inherently unacceptable about hypothecation.
If this country moved to greater hypothecation, it would be signally more democratic—although it might mean that the Treasury would have less opportunity to get its fingers on the money on its way to that for which it was needed. That is a wholly admirable aim: the effort to ensure that there is a link in the public’s mind between what they pay and what they get is an essential part of our democracy. I hope that, of all the arguments my noble friend uses, he will eschew that one. I would not like to be pushed over the edge to not support him because of the importance of upholding the fine principle of hypothecation.
Lord Empey
My Lords, the debate has been very interesting and, at many times, very moving. There is a general consensus that this is a terrible disease on which no proper research has been carried out. We all want to see that fixed. These amendments represent one attempt to achieve that; perhaps the Minister can direct us towards another mechanism.
The right reverend Prelate said that it was a Cinderella of a disease, and I think the arithmetic explains why. Some 56,000 people in this country are expected to die with it over the next number of years, but it is deemed by many drug companies—I suspect, and perhaps some academics—as a disease of the past. Therefore, what is the point of researching it and spending money when it is dying out, literally? Wrong—this is a disease of the future, not of the past. If somebody takes a moment to search the internet for ship-breaking in Bangladesh, Chittagong and all those places, there are whole generations who have yet to develop this disease because the exposure of those people began only in the mid-1980s. They probably would not even have got to the stage of actually developing the disease.
However, we have a dilemma. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, rightly said—I have had some responsibility for this area myself—research is a unique area. It is built up around individual institutions, where academics, particularly postgraduate students, are attracted to pursue research, and there are just not enough of them around. We are delighted to see the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the Front Bench—I have to say that the concept of a brick wall, the term that the Minister used in Committee, and the noble Earl do not go together. Can the Minister and his colleague advise us whether there is any administrative mechanism that either department could use to encourage people to come forward, such as offering specific sums of money for a particular type of research—in other words, offer a carrot—so that there would be something for academics to aim for? Is that one solution? I do not care whether it is through legislation or an administrative mechanism—I do not think any of us do—but there is a general feeling that this has to be fixed.
I come from a city that must be close to being the UK capital—maybe after Liverpool—of this disease because of its industrial past. I do not want to delay the Bill because we have made great progress, the Minister has done a good job and we have had a very welcome announcement today. We want to keep the momentum going but the issue remains unresolved. Something must be done, be it through legislation, administrative mechanisms or all government departments working together to encourage the research councils. Has the Minister had a negative response from the insurance companies or any other source to this proposal? Are they threatening that if this were to happen, it may cast a shadow on the whole scheme? I think the House would very much welcome his response. Perhaps, in his winding-up remarks, the Minister could tell us. None of us wants to delay things. I do not think that there is an appetite for any particular scheme, but we want a solution. If the Government can bring it about by another mechanism, I think we would all be pleased.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I had not intended to speak but I am moved to do so by the austere and Robespierre-like logic of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who I strongly agree with in his advice to the Minister to eschew the hypothecation arguments. My advice would be to also eschew the Robespierre argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. The Minister is actually in such a good mood today that I rather hope he is going to accept this amendment.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is right. From my passing experience of being involved with and watching the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, who I see is in his place, playing a principal part in a university medical research programme, medical research does not seem to have any difficulty in accommodating well placed money from foundations, trusts, charities or private philanthropy. I do not see why a levy should be any different and I reject the reference to Stalin. It seems that this levy could go direct, but if the research councils need to be involved in this at all, it does not follow that the awards displaced would necessarily have been of higher quality.
I do not accept that the purity of the system is affected if money comes in from other streams. Universities seem to have managed to cope with that very well over the years, so we do not need to follow such an austere argument as that of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. Although I accept that there is a worrying logic to it, in practice it does not work like that.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate. I do not think I will be drawn into issues of hypothecation, although it is a tempting subject for debate. Throughout our deliberations on the Bill and before, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been passionate and convincing about the case for funding mesothelioma research. He has been supported in this by many noble Lords, including those who have added their names to his amendments, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Pannick.
The case that the noble Lord makes is thorough and incontestable. Despite knowledge of this terrible disease and its long latency over many decades, research spending by Governments has been derisory. The noble Lord contrasted the levels of research on diffuse mesothelioma with other cancers to reinforce his point but he acknowledges, as does the noble Lord, Lord Walton—and as indeed do we—that the insurance industry has funded such research in the past. The ABI has made it clear to us in discussion that it stands ready to do so again in the future, if the Government are prepared to play their part. They had said that they would match-fund. I hope that we will hear from the Minister in a moment that the Government will play their part, and how they will do so.
We all recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has made his case about the need for a national research effort, so the issue is not whether but how this outcome is to be achieved. His approach is focused on the insurance industry’s contribution, which, as he explained, is set down by Amendment 24 as a “Research supplement” raised under regulations under the levy provisions. That supplement could not exceed 1% of that required for payments under the scheme. The proposed regulations must cover how such amounts are to be applied and the role of the scheme administrator. Of itself, the amendment makes no reference to the Government’s obligations. I think that we will hear a different approach from the Minister about the plans that he would wish to develop to attract quality research funding for mesothelioma. If this is right, we need to understand the parameters of this: how much is involved and what is expected of the insurance industry. We also need to understand whether the approach is inconsistent with that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which is to raise a levy on insurers.
We have thought long and hard about this and which is the best way forward. Our shared objective is, I believe, to get properly funded research under way as quickly as possible and on a sustainable basis. We all acknowledge the commitment and integrity of the Minister and his desire to fulfil this objective. After hearing the Minister again, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, may consider that he has sufficient reassurance that his objectives will be met, albeit by the administrative route rather than the legislative one. Perhaps he has already concluded that from the extensive discussions he has had to date. If the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not reassured, and presses his amendment, we are minded to support him in the Lobby.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, it may be a slight surprise to see a Minister from another Department of State responding to this amendment. However, my noble friend Lord Freud has asked me to speak to it as a reflection of the importance that he and I place on promoting research into mesothelioma. We are both sympathetic to the view that more money should be put into research on this disease. Indeed, before this amendment was tabled, my noble friend and I spent some time exploring possible routes for funding. It is the fruits of those discussions that I shall now cover. However, the mechanism proposed in this amendment is not the best way to achieve the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is aiming at.
There are a number of reasons for this. In Committee, my noble friend set out some technical but none the less important arguments as to why the Government are resistant to the idea of a supplementary levy for mesothelioma research. I will not rehearse those arguments again and my noble friend Lord Deben need not worry as I am not going to rely on them at all. I need to stress that any additional research charge of the kind proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would, like all taxation, have to be paid into the Consolidated Fund and, if hypothecated, would then have to be paid out by the Treasury for a specific purpose. The Treasury does not normally handle tax income in this way, and there would need to be more convincing arguments before it could consider doing so for mesothelioma research.
The more substantive problem with the amendment is to do with research policy. As noble Lords will be aware—and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, pointed to this—there is a fundamental, widely accepted principle that the use of medical research funds should be determined not just by the importance of the topic but by the quality of the research and its value for money. There is a good reason for this. There will always be more proposals for high-quality medical research overall than there are resources available for funding, and it is arguably unethical to support second-rate work in a particular area at the expense of higher-quality work in another equally important one. Noble Lords will understand that this is why, as a rule, public sector funders of research do not ring-fence funds for particular diseases. It was the same principle that prompted Dame Sally Davies to restructure the research funding that the Department of Health was putting into the NHS over many years, so that funds would flow, as they now do, to the most important, highest-quality research.
In the case of mesothelioma, the real issue is not just the money; it is the quality of the research being proposed. How can we try to ensure that the research proposals in this field reach the quality threshold required to secure funding? If that threshold is reached, funding is much less of a difficulty; indeed there is no need to think about the forcible gathering of funds from insurers. If noble Lords agree, the goal is how we stimulate high-quality research proposals without undermining the country’s strategic research mechanisms.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
We have heard from Robespierre. I hope we are not now hearing from Danton. Will the Minister accept that most foundation, trust, charity or philanthropic money for medical research is earmarked for particular diseases or research topics? What is the difference between that and a levy from the industry for this disease?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I accept that fully and I will come to that point in a second.
Certainly there was a blockage in the research process, but it was not total. There is good news. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, informed us, spending on mesothelioma research is not as low as noble Lords might believe from the discussions in Committee. The latest figures from the Medical Research Council show that its annual spend on mesothelioma research rose from £0.8 million in 2009-10 to £2.4 million in 2011-12. We should not belittle those figures. That is in addition to the research supported by the £1 million a year donated by insurance companies to the British Lung Foundation, and research supported by the National Institute for Health Research. Therefore, on the ability of the system to support publicly funded mesothelioma research, we are not knocking at a closed door.
My noble friend Lord Stoneham is right that the issue that is holding back progress on research into mesothelioma is not lack of funding but the lack of sufficient high-quality research applications. This is an issue that we in the Department of Health, working with the National Institute for Health Research, have been seeking to address. I will now set out what we propose. There are four elements to it.
First, the National Institute for Health Research will ask the James Lind Alliance to establish one of its priority-setting partnerships. This will bring together patients, carers and clinicians to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about treatment for mesothelioma and related diseases. It will help target future research, and, incidentally, will be another good example of where patients, the public and professionals are brought into the decision-making process on health.
Secondly, the National Institute for Health Research will issue what is called a highlight notice to the research community, indicating its interest in encouraging applications for research funding into mesothelioma and related diseases. This would do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, wants, and what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, suggested. It would make mesothelioma a priority area.
Thirdly, the highlight notice would be accompanied by an offer to potential applicants to make use of the NIHR’s research design service, which helps prospective applicants to develop competitive research proposals. Good applications will succeed.
Finally, the NIHR is currently in discussion with the MRC and Cancer Research UK about convening a meeting to bring together researchers to develop new research proposals in this area. The aim is for the event to act as a catalyst for new ideas that will further boost research into mesothelioma. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, told us about the offer of matched funding from the ABI. I look forward to hearing more about that.
As my noble friend Lord Freud mentioned, on 25 July in the Palace of Westminster precincts, he and I will co-host an event run by the British Lung Foundation that will focus on mesothelioma. I will take this opportunity to invite noble Lords to join us to hear about current research and to get a family perspective on the disease.
The four steps that I have set out offer a better and much more realistic way of achieving what we all want to see happen. The problem with the remedy that the noble Lord proposed is that it will not of itself deliver that objective. I could sum up the issue by saying that the availability of funds does not guarantee the spending of funds. Nor does it guarantee the quality of research on which such funds would be spent. It is also worth making the point that it would create a precedent that might encourage other and perhaps less deserving interest groups to seek special treatment for a disease about which they care passionately.
I hope the noble Lord will recognise that his amendment has galvanised the Government into action. He can credit himself with having achieved a valuable outcome by tabling it. I hope that he will consider not pressing it. I have given undertakings today that I will be keen to take forward with him and with all relevant stakeholders.
Lord Wigley
May I ask the noble Earl to respond to my earlier question on whether, in the context of the four proposals that he has brought forward, there might be a mechanism for some form of annual report on the progress of mesothelioma research so that we do not lose focus on this important issue?
Lord Walton of Detchant
Before the Minister sits down and before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. Let us suppose that, in the light of the developments and proposals that he has outlined, the insurance industry—the ABI—decides, in the goodness of its heart and bearing in mind the importance of this problem, that it wishes to make an ongoing and regular contribution to research in this field. Would the National Institute for Health Research be precluded from accepting non-government funds or would such funding have to be channelled, for example, through the cancer research campaign?
Earl Howe
A very great deal of the research conducted in this country is funded by different sources. It is funded by the Government, charities, universities, and industry. Nothing in the arrangements that I have outlined precludes a joint arrangement for funding mesothelioma research, which is why I welcomed the indication that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, gave about the ABI and the possibility of augmenting whatever funds are forthcoming from the MRC or the NIHR. That is an important point to make. I think I have said enough. The ball is in the noble Lord’s court.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Earl and I know that the House will appreciate what he has said about the four steps that he intends to take. I think he would agree, though, that there is nothing incompatible in taking those very welcome steps and supporting the spirit of this amendment. I made it clear when I spoke at Second Reading, in Committee and again today that if the Government—during the many discussions that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and I have had about this—had been willing to accept the principle and come forward with their own amendment, I would have been happy to withdraw my own. The principle that I have been trying to underline is the need for a statutory requirement to step up to the plate to deal with this killer disease, which we all agree will take any number of lives—an estimated 56,000 before the disease completes its first wave. We heard in the quotations I presented to the House earlier today that there is a possibility that, in the BRIC countries and with new forms of asbestos being used worldwide, it will not be 56,000 who die, but many more.
The noble Earl has suggested that if such a levy were imposed, it would be swallowed up into Treasury funds and there would be no guarantee that it would then be used for its intended purpose. I do not think that any of us really believe that that would be possible. If Parliament has legislated that a levy of up to 1% should be imposed—that is all; it is a levy inside a levy and what this entire Bill is about—there is no reason why that money should not then be used for this specific purpose. The noble Lord has already said that this should be a priority area.
The noble Earl has said that there should be competitive research proposals; very good research proposals have been put forward but, unfortunately, have not gained traction because the funding has not been available for them. It has been a Catch-22 situation. It was also said that it would be unethical to support second-rate work. Nobody in your Lordships’ House would suggest otherwise—of course we accept that there should be no second-rate work and, through the Medical Research Council and specified outside bodies, an evaluation would be made of the quality of that work and of the proposals that have been put forward.
The noble Earl said that around £2 million will now be made available, and that is welcome. However, the House should just bear in mind, for example, the £22 million being made available this year for bowel cancer, the £41 million for breast cancer, the £11.5 million for lung cancer and the £32 million for leukaemia. Those comparisons show the position in which mesothelioma still appears in this terrible league table.
The noble Earl also said, quite rightly—and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, touched on this, too—that we should protect the purity of the system, but my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard dealt admirably with that argument and I can add nothing more to what he said. No one wishes to pollute the process but the Bill before the House is about one specific disease, and that is why this amendment is before your Lordships. It is not that we are being asked to set a precedent for any number of other things. Mesothelioma has a unique characteristic. The reason that the noble Lord has been able to negotiate with the ABI and the industry is that, for instance, smoking cigarettes cannot lead to mesothelioma. This disease is specific and that is why the industry has accepted its responsibilities in this regard. Therefore, it is different from other diseases, and that is why we were able not only to have this Bill but to exclude from it even other asbestos-related diseases, which cannot be said to be specific, as mesothelioma is. I think that that is a perfectly good reason for attaching to the Bill an amendment that deals specifically with this disease.
I am extremely grateful to everyone who has participated in this debate. I am sure that we listened with great care to my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant, who said that this could make a massive contribution and that it could pave the way for a cure. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, was right when he asked why it was not done a long time ago. As long ago as 1965, the Sunday Times reported on work that had been done by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. In cities such as Belfast, Liverpool, Glasgow and other epicentres of the disease, it had identified the nature of mesothelioma, as well as its very long hibernation period, alluded to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, before it had its terrible impact.
I doubt that there are many of your Lordships who have not come across people who have contracted this disease and died within the two years—that is all it takes—from the time that it is diagnosed until death. The right reverend Prelate referred to the late Bishop of Peterborough. When we dealt with the LASPO legislation last year, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, told a deeply moving story at the Dispatch Box about his sister, who had died as a result of washing the dungarees and overalls of her husband, who had worked in the industry. This is something that can affect us all and we need to do something about it urgently.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that it might be claimed that the amendment is not viable. That has not been said in the debate today, yet it was said in the letter that was distributed on Monday. The amendment deliberately mimics Clause 13 of the Bill so that it does nothing that the Bill itself is not doing. It cannot possibly be challenged under the Human Rights Act, but perhaps we could be challenged under that Act by victims of mesothelioma if we fail to do enough or take the opportunity to provide for proper research to deal with this disease.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that the mechanisms that we have at the moment are not generating the research but he said that this vehicle is at hand. There is no reason at all why this should delay the legislation. As I told your Lordships in my opening remarks, I met with the ABI. The industry had expressed no opposition; indeed, it has been generous in providing what funds there have been in the past towards dealing with this disease. Therefore, there is already a precedent here. I am certain that if the Government were to say that they would make available matching money, even more funds would be made available by the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, touched on that point, and rightly so. Yes, there is a moral obligation. Because of the privileges issue, it would not be appropriate to include that here, but there is no reason why it could not be attended to in another place and there is no reason at all why this should become a matter for ping-pong.
The mortality rate for most cancers is falling while it continues to rise for mesothelioma. There are humane and altruistic reasons for supporting funding for mesothelioma research, but for the Government and the insurance industry there are straightforward financial considerations, too. It would be impossible to eradicate all asbestos from our homes, schools, hospitals, factories and offices.
The Bill represents a genuine desire to act justly to those who have been afflicted with mesothelioma, which is why I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Freud, throughout in placing the Bill before the House. However, the one certain way to prevent deaths from mesothelioma will be to find a cure. That will not happen without adequate resources and that in turn requires political will. That is why I thank all those who have spoken today in the debate and who have supported the amendment. I would like to test the will of the House.
Earl Howe
Before the noble Lord finally decides what to do with his amendment, may I just explain why the Government have not brought forward their own amendment, which was one of his criticisms? We do not believe that a legislative route is necessary. We believe—as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, indicated—that we can do this in other ways. We can give the process exactly the kind of kick-start that was referred to in the debate much more effectively than can this amendment. Funders for research build areas for research by bringing researchers and clinicians together, not by throwing money at a problem, which is, I am afraid, what this amendment would do.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, this is not about throwing money at problems. That is certainly something that I have always eschewed throughout the whole of my time in politics. You have to demonstrate the case and there is a case here. If 56,000 of our countrymen are going to die of this disease over the next 30 years or so, we have to find adequate resources to tackle mesothelioma. That is not being done by this Bill. We have a rare opportunity to do something about it.
Lord Walton of Detchant
Before my noble friend sits down and eventually decides what action he proposes to take, I wish to ask him whether he feels that the important developments referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, relating to forthcoming meetings between the Medical Research Council, the NIHR and other organisations, might not—at the moment—be a useful way forward?
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to my noble friend and yes, of course I am delighted that those meetings are going to happen. The noble Earl was kind enough to say that perhaps the debates that have been precipitated on this issue in Committee, at Second Reading and again today have helped to bring that about. However, the moment will pass and all of us who sit in this House know that once the legislative vehicle has moved on, the opportunity to make something happen disappears into the ether. That is why I intend to press this to a vote and to test the will of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Freud
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. I shall also speak to Amendment 8. The two amendments are linked, and we see Amendment 8 as being consequential.
The amendment addresses one of the major bones of contention with the legislation: its start date. The payment scheme, which we all applaud, is applicable only to those first diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma on or after 25 July 2012. This is, as we know, the date when the Government responded to the consultation published by the previous Government. It was more than two years after the consultation closed. Over that period, some 600 individuals will have died from diffuse mesothelioma without them or their dependants receiving proper compensation.
We were told in Committee that it took so long to move from consultation to response because of the complexity of the issues and the intense work with stakeholders, including the insurance industry. We accept this, but it can hardly then be argued that the insurance industry did not know what was coming. It would surely have been on notice as to the likely parameters of the scheme, because it was a key participant in the negotiation, which in effect required some degree of agreement. It is not as though the scheme was somehow sprung on the industry from out of the blue.
We had some debate in Committee about the date on which insurers could reserve against liabilities. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock exposed in her usual forensic analysis, it is not a matter of reserving against liabilities. The levy is apparently a tax and should be provided for in the usual way when it arises.
It has been suggested that the February 2010 date, the date on which the consultation document was issued, was insufficient notice to create the expectation of the introduction of a scheme that would have to be funded by the insurance industry. We disagree. It is an entirely appropriate start date. Paragraph 60 of the document states clearly:
“Having considered this carefully, the Government are persuaded that an ELIB”—
an employer liability insurance bureau—
“should form part of the package of measures to improve the lives of those who, for whatever reason and through no fault of their own, have been injured or made ill”,
by work.
That was clearly putting people on notice that the then Government were intent on introducing an ELIB broadly on the terms of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. Moreover, this intent was not limited to a scheme to cover diffuse mesothelioma; it was a broader intent to cover those more generally who were missing out on justifiable compensation. Although a very valuable scheme, what is now provided for in the capital is a smaller, less costly scheme than was signalled in the February 2010 consultation. It should have been no surprise for insurers. The arguments in favour of a July 2012 commencement are flimsy to say the least. In its briefing for today, the Law Society states: “There is little justification for disqualifying cases diagnosed between the announcement of the consultation in February 2010 and July 2012”.
Of course, the Minister will tell us that there is greater cost, that it could tip all this finely balanced negotiation over the edge, and that co-operation from insurers would recede, but the cost originally presented to us for a February 2010 start date was an extra £190 million. It is now transpired that that assumes payment at 100% and presumably took no account of any additional compensation recovery that might ensue and assist with smoothing. It would be dependants rather than sufferers who would mostly benefit from this, because many of the latter would, sadly, not have survived, but that is no reason to deny justice. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the common theme of the amendments in this group is that they increase eligibility with a view to increasing justice. I add my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for all his personal commitment to achieving just outcomes through the legislation, and I hope that he will be willing to contemplate the amendments that I have added to this group.
First, I entirely support my noble friends Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lady Sherlock in their amendments which would bring forward the start date for eligibility to 10 February 2010. Amendment 5 in my name would extend eligibility to a person diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who was self-employed at the time of exposure to asbestos. Amendment 6 would extend eligibility to a person who is a member of the same household as a person exposed to asbestos in the course of their work.
The employers’ liability insurers have bluntly and, I feel, rather brutally, expressed their view that the self- employed should not be eligible. As they have explained to us:
“As employers’ liability insurers will be funding the untraced scheme, payments from the scheme will only be made to those who would have been covered by employers’ liability insurance”.
The ABI has, however, made one small, decent concession, saying that under the untraced scheme, if someone has been negligently exposed during employment and self-employment but is unable to find an employer or insurer to claim against, they will be able to receive a payment from the untraced scheme without a deduction for the period they were self-employed.
In Committee, my noble friends Lord Browne, Lord Wigley and Lord McKenzie explained that on the kind of industrial and construction sites where people were negligently exposed to mesothelioma, there was frequently no real distinction between employed and self-employed status. In many cases, it may have suited employers to classify people as self-employed who were, to all intents and purposes, employed. Indeed, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Freud, himself accepted that,
“some people will appear to be self-employed where the reality is that that was an artificial, tax-driven construct. In that case, if they can demonstrate that in practice they were acting like an employee, they would be eligible for a payment under the scheme.”.—[Official Report, 5/6/13; col. GC 220-221.]
I am very grateful for what the noble Lord said then, but we need to go a bit further. We need to ensure that everyone, whether they were nominally, technically or otherwise self-employed, is covered and is eligible to receive payments from the scheme.
What is the position of those who were genuinely self-employed, did insure, but whose documentation has gone missing? Should they not be included? The ABI itself admits:
“There will only be a very small category of people who have been solely self-employed and therefore not eligible for a payment from the untraced scheme”.
The Minister undertook to ask the ABI for its figures, but unfortunately, he then had to write to us to say that it did not have any reliable figures. What is clear, by the ABI’s own admittance, is that the numbers are very small.
The suffering of self-employed people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma, and the suffering of their dependants, is no less than the suffering of people who were employed in the technical sense. I believe that it would be wrong for us to abandon them, and I believe that it would cost very little by way of an addition to the levy, to embrace them in the scheme.
In Committee there was extensive concern expressed by noble Lords on all sides about the predicament of members of the household of someone who had been exposed to asbestos in the workplace, who were diagnosed with mesothelioma, when the person who was actually employed had not been diagnosed. Indeed, a household member might have predeceased an employee who has not, or not yet, been diagnosed. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us of one particular instance, movingly described to us in our proceedings on other legislation, of the sister of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Other noble Lords in Committee were aware of individual cases where this had happened. In particular, the most frequent instances were when a wife, or perhaps a daughter, was regularly doing the laundry and washing the contaminated overalls.
In writing to us, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, gave us an estimate that an average of 214 cases of mesothelioma would be caused by environmental exposure in the years 2014-24. I take it that that is a wider category that would include household members; indeed, the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, the consultant neurologist who died, might have been included. We are talking of a significant, though not a huge, group of people. Is it right to abandon them on the technicality that they were not themselves employees?
The term “secondary exposure” was used in Committee, but I think we are really talking about the direct effect of employers’ negligence. It is the same lethal fibres in the same workplace that will have caused the disease to hit a person, whether self-employed or a household member in the circumstances I have described. Surely it was through employers’ negligence that employees were allowed to come home wearing their contaminated workwear; they should not have done so. On this, the ABI has been silent. Perhaps even it cannot contrive presentable reasons as to why it should not pay out of a scheme which, after all, is not based on precise legal liability.
This scheme deals with the situation of claimants who, by definition, cannot avail themselves of their legal rights. I do not think that the employers’ liability insurers ought to hide behind legal technicalities. If, however, the employers’ liability insurers are adamant, and if the Minister remains reluctant to compel them, then I hope that he will consider levying the public liability insurers. He was as good as his word; he discussed the question of public liability insurance in this context with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and with the ABI. He wrote to us following that discussion to say that, in the main, it would be the public liability policy that would apply when the affected person was not directly employed by the liable employer. In many cases, I think it is the same insurer.
I have not tabled an amendment relating to public liability insurance because, as I take it, this is already covered by Clause 13(1), which states:
“The Secretary of State must make regulations requiring active insurers to pay a levy”.
It does not specify active employers’ liability insurers, and in Clause 13(7) I do not see that the definition of the term “active insurer” excludes the public liability insurers. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the legislation as drafted does give him the power to levy the public liability insurers. If that is not the case, I am sure that there will be no difficulty in tabling an amendment for Third Reading.
The Government’s 2008 scheme does not worry about who in particular was responsible for cover; it simply compensates people who have contracted mesothelioma. This new scheme should do the same, and in particular, should embrace mesothelioma victims who are self-employed or household members. The scheme is intended belatedly to make amends, and it should do so fully and generously. If the employers’ liability insurers would accept that, then that would be gracious on their part. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support these amendments and I will pick up the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. I entirely support his emphasis on the need to ensure that those who suffered at second hand—whether it was the wives, daughters, or sometimes mothers of people in the industry who have been infected by the particles from washing clothes—should most certainly be covered if they have suffered a loss of health as a result.
The implication is that the insurance policies that were provided for the employees in case of negligence by the employer only relate to the employee in a very narrow sense. That needs to be explored in depth because there is a category of people who have undoubtedly suffered ill health and some who have died, and there may well be many more that come through from that avenue.
However, I return to the generality of these amendments. It has been noted in this debate that the scheme proposed by the Bill has its roots in the consultation announced by the previous Labour Government in February 2010, which is the date in these amendments. However, the scope of the assistance proposed in that consultation was, of course, significantly wider than what we have ended up with in the Bill.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. In the interest of the efficient use of our time I shall do so principally by adopting the arguments that have already been advanced by my noble friends in support of them, and will seek only to reinforce one point and augment another in relation to Amendments 5 and 6.
The quotations which my noble friend Lord Howarth deployed from the ABI’s brief come from the brief that the ABI provided to some of us—in a discriminating fashion, I recollect—in anticipation of the Committee stage on 5 June. On that occasion I deployed these very same quotations; I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, had them at that stage. I made this point then, and I wish to repeat it: the ABI’s argument in relation to self-employed people seems to be, “This was a very small number of people”. I felt that that argument read that since we were leaving behind only a small number of people, we could be justified in doing so. I deployed the argument that that increased the injustice substantially and that extending the scheme to this very small number of people would have a very limited effect on the total cost of the scheme and on its administration. I also argued that it would be a deep and disproportionate injustice to leave those people behind because they were probably victims of the same negligence; they probably picked up the fibres that caused this dreadful disease in exactly the same workplaces as employed people did, but just happened to be working in them at the time. I repeat that point as there is some significant merit in it.
In relation to the group of people who are referred to in the Minister’s letter of 4 July as those who are infected by environmental or secondary exposure, there is a more compelling argument as to why these persons should be included in this scheme. It relates to the way in which public liability insurance and compulsory employers’ liability insurance—or employers’ liability compulsory insurance, which I think is its proper title—was sold historically. It may still be sold this way, but I know that it was sold in this fashion. I explored this argument in Committee—I am grateful to the Minister, who, in his characteristic fashion, addressed comprehensively in his letter those issues that he did not have a briefing to address in Committee—and I have now had it confirmed, from the information in the Minister’s letter, that it is right.
Almost invariably, employers’ liability compulsory insurance was sold in a package, with, among other things, public liability insurance. Consequently, it is invariably the case that the insurers, who carry the employers’ liability risk, also carry the public liability risk. It is the behaviour of exactly the same insurers, in either destroying their records or failing to be available to those who identified them as the insurers who carried these risks, that has caused this deep failure in the insurance market. Therefore, there is no difference in relation to the mechanism of insurance and its failure to provide compensation for people who have been exposed to environmental or secondary exposure, compared with those who were employed in the first instance.
It is almost incontrovertibly the case that were an employer to have been sued by the person who was exposed at the secondary level, that person would have been able to establish that they were owed a duty of care and that there was a direct causal connection between the exposure of their relative or loved one and their contracting the disease. Had they had somebody to sue, they would have been able to get compensation. If the employer does not exist and the insurer cannot now be found, they are in exactly the same position as the relative who was exposed to the fibres and carried them home. I made that argument, and from the way I read the very carefully worded letter from the Minister, that appears to be what his researchers have revealed: that this group of people would have been covered by public liability insurance and that almost invariably the same insurers would have carried that risk.
There is no argument, therefore, that has any merit, that those people who were in the category of secondary exposure should be excluded from this scheme. The opposite is the case. Given that exactly the same players would have been involved in the processes that caused their contracting this disease and dying from it, we should honour the experience they have had by including them in the scheme.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I will comment on a number of issues to which these amendments give rise—and they are very sensitive issues. Any start date is arbitrary, and there will always be people who are caught by a start date, so whether it is 2010 or 2012, there will inevitably be feelings of unfairness. However, the earlier the start date, whatever the cost—perhaps the Minister will clarify the cost, but we were told it was £119 million, and if it is 70% of that it will come to £80 million—agreeing to that concession would cause a 25% increase in the cost of this scheme. Where is the money going to come from? Will it come from a new negotiation, or from reduced benefits and compensation for those who will receive money from the scheme? That question has to be answered by the movers of the amendment.
On the issue of coverage, there are obviously concerns about the self-employed and people from the same household, but are we saying that we are going to complicate this legislation and hold it up while we have an argument about public liability insurance versus employee insurance? That would be a recipe for severe delay. The great advantage of this legislation is that we have kept it simple and we have an agreement. It is a balancing act to get to that agreement and to get the legislation through so that it benefits the people who were in employment. Once this settles down, we could consider coming back to this—I hope the Minister will do so at some stage—and look again at how we might cover the self-employed and people from the same household, but if we start that discussion now we will be here until 2015 or 2016 before we have legislation to benefit the families for whom it is intended.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments, in particular to support what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, argued in Committee and what these amendments call for today. We had a long debate on 5 June, in which I spoke at some length. The point I made then, which partly answers what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, has just said about the arbitrariness of dates, was that the original consultation period is surely the point from which this scheme should kick in, not the date of July 25 last year, the last day of the Session, when a welcome announcement was made that there would be a Bill along these lines and a scheme of this kind.
The consultation date of February 2010 is, for me, a seminal date. For those affected it represented a promise waiting to be fulfilled. The eligibility date should be at the commencement of the consultation. After all, the Association of British Insurers began the discussions at that time. It can hardly have woken up on 25 July last year, shocked at having failed to make contingency plans or reserves. Therefore, applying the date of February 2010 is the right and fair way to go about this. It is the date that people anticipated and expected. In law, as well, it is far more consistent. After all, there will be people who were diagnosed with mesothelioma during that period and it is important that they are accepted as part of this scheme.
I know that the Minister will not be in a position to share the legal advice that he has been given within the department, but we might well leave ourselves open to claims because of the consultation document that was issued and the clear indication that this scheme would probably begin from as long ago as February 2010, rather than 25 July last year. For those reasons alone, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I, too, support these amendments and endorse everything that has been said. On Amendment 4, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, little credence should be attached to arguments that insurers could not reasonably have expected in February 2010 that a scheme such as this could not have been brought forward in the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is highly likely that the only reason for the selection of that date is that it reduces costs. That is not a negligible consideration, but, as we have heard, those costs are likely to be relatively small. We have heard that they represent a considerable percentage increase, but with all respect that is not the concern here. The issue is the absolute sums that are involved, which are relatively small. They ought to be easily affordable by insurers, particularly in light of the long period in which insurers have got away without paying sums that they should have been paying. In my view, those costs are unlikely to have to be passed on to employers.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend was making the point that for many years insurers got away with not paying compensation. I believe that the figure is that some 6,000 mesothelioma sufferers died uncompensated in the years since 1968. That would have saved the employer’s liability insurers £1 billion. They are very well able to do a little more for mesothelioma sufferers now.
Lord Wills
My noble friend makes an extremely important point. In Committee, he made some very telling points about all the ways, not just the direct financial ways that he has just calculated, in which insurers have benefited during the very long period when legislation such as this was not in place.
We then have to ask whether these increased costs can be justified. We should be looking at the expectations not of insurers but of victims. Victims certainly expected that the start date of a scheme such as this would be in February 2010. I hope that the Government will now satisfy the expectations of victims, not insurers.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 6, to which my noble friend Lord Howarth spoke very powerfully. We have heard all sorts of moving stories in this House, in Committee and elsewhere, of tragedies that have happened in precisely the way that he has described. I heard them in my own constituency surgeries when I was the Member of Parliament for North Swindon. My noble friend said—I hope I am quoting him correctly—that this amendment is necessary because the exposure of these people is a direct result of negligence by employers. I agree with him. It is a matter of common decency that these people should be covered by the scheme, and I hope that the Government will agree with this amendment.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for these amendments, which all share the same broad aim: to widen the scope of the scheme to get more people into it. I will take the amendments in turn and address first those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, regarding the start date for eligibility. I will then address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the self-employed and household members.
We discussed the start date of the scheme at some length in Grand Committee. Clearly, it has received a lot of focus and continues to do so today. Under Amendments 4 and 8, once the scheme comes into force all living people who were diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma on or after 10 February 2010 would be eligible for a payment from the scheme. They would also provide that any living dependant of a person with diffuse mesothelioma who had died on or after 10 February 2010 would be eligible for that payment.
Although it hurts to do this, I have to reject these amendments and ask that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness do not press them. I say that in the knowledge of the strength of feeling among all of us in this Chamber that the Bill should go as far as possible to help as many people as possible. The core issue is that this Bill was the subject of intensive negotiation. On top of that, it has been shaped by what I have felt to be innumerable obstacles that we have had to work around, and I need to restate why we cannot move the date as the amendments propose.
The start date of 25 July 2012 has been criticised for being arbitrary, but it is the date on which we announced that a scheme would be set up and it is the most legitimate date on which to commence eligibility. It is from that date that eligible people and insurers alike could expect that the scheme would be set up.
The proposed date of 10 February 2010 relates to the date when the previous Government published their consultation paper, Accessing Compensation: Supporting People Who Need to Trace Employers’ Liability Insurance. If noble Lords will allow me to correct myself, in Committee I said that that was published on 11 February, but other noble Lords were correct and it was in fact published on the 10th of that month. This was a consultation, not a decision in any particular direction, and did not create any expectation that people would be likely to get any sort of payment over and above what the Government provide for people with diffuse mesothelioma. I therefore cannot see that it is an appropriate start date for eligibility, and I fear that, were we to use it as such, it could be more reasonably criticised for being arbitrary than the existing start date.
We touched on the reasons why it took so long from the consultation being published to the scheme being announced to Parliament, so I will revisit them only briefly. I would have liked to have announced the scheme much sooner than 25 July 2012, but the issues involved were complex. We worked closely with stakeholders, including the insurance industry, claimant groups and solicitors, and all in all the process took longer to deal with than I had hoped. In addition to creating an expectation among people with mesothelioma, the announcement gave insurers notice that we intended to bring forward the scheme. From that date, those insurers will have had to factor the cost of the levy into their financial forecasts and plans.
There is one more point to mention that supports using the date of the announcement. Given that the insurers who are paying the levy to fund the scheme are not necessarily the same ones who took the premiums that paid for the historical insurance policies, we have to be able to demonstrate that the costs to them are fair and proportionate. Simply put, the earlier the start date, the higher the costs. If the scheme started on 10 February 2010, the extra costs, as I said earlier in response to the question from my noble friend Lord Avebury, would be £75 million.
Again, I need to take noble Lords from the figure of £119 million that I used in Committee. That figure was based on paying 100% of average civil damages to all claims, regardless of age. The £75 million figure that I am providing now is based on a tariff of 75% of average civil damages, which I have already talked about today, and takes the age of those making a claim into account. I think I owe noble Lords an apology to the extent that I have created any confusion.
I have spoken before about the risk that we take in raising the costs of the scheme. A litigious industry such as the insurance industry could easily delay the scheme with legal challenge if the costs were perceived as unfair. The other risk is that higher costs would be passed on to employers. I know that noble Lords would like us to do more, and indeed the Government would like to do more, but we cannot ignore these risks.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The Minister is worried that the employer’s liability insurers will default to the position of litigious opposition to the scheme if we attempt to improve it in these modest ways. Given that insurers have accepted the principle that they should fund a scheme, surely they would have no strong legal case to make in objection. Should he not simply say, “See you in court”?
Lord Freud
I have tried desperately hard not to end up in that position, because the “See you in court” line would just end up by tying us up for years with uncertain outcomes and would stop us getting payment to the people who need it from next July, which is when I want the payments to go out. I want this scheme up and running and working in April next year so that we can start making the first payments. I have tried in every way to ensure that we do not run into that kind of problem. The noble Lord may accuse me of not being robust enough, but I assure him that even to get to where we are it could be said that we have had to be as robust as possible.
The real problem is the technical difficulty with the four-year smoothing period that we have to use. We are going to have much higher costs in the first year as it in effect bundles up two years already and one year of running costs, so we are going to have substantially elevated costs in the first year that we have to find a way of smoothing, and we are doing that over a four-year period. If we extended that smoothing back even further to work in another two years’ worth of money—that £75 million—into the scheme, that would open up the whole agreement not just with the insurers but within the Government. On our assumptions, that would in effect push the levy rate up to approximately 4% in that period. That in itself would undermine what we are trying to achieve, which is to ensure as much as we can that these costs are not just passed on to British industry through higher current employer liability rates. That is the core reason. This is always about how much money you can get safely to people, and the adjustment in the amendment would undermine that.
Of course, any start date that we choose will exclude some people. The best possible way forward is to pin eligibility to the date when people with diffuse mesothelioma had a reasonable expectation of a payment and insurers knew that they would need to start factoring in the cost of the levy as an additional business cost.
I need to remind noble Lords again that the existing provision for sufferers of mesothelioma will remain in place for those who are not eligible to come to the scheme. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness again for these amendments. I understand the reason behind them, but I have given the reasons why I would like them not to press them.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. These seek to be helpful to a wider group of sufferers, but we cannot extend the legislation to people who are self-employed or who were secondary-exposure cases. The Bill addresses a specific failure of insurers and employers to retain adequate records of employer’s liability insurance, and would provide payments to those affected by this failure who cannot trace a liable employer or employer’s liability insurer against which to bring a civil claim.
Following our discussion in Grand Committee, we talked with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which advised us that an employer would have had to have specifically added elements to their employer liability policy to cover families of their employees. The association was not able to identify any specific cases where this has happened, which leads me to suggest that this is not a common occurrence. Family members who contract mesothelioma through coming into contact with asbestos as a result of someone working with it may have recourse to civil damages through public liability insurance, but our scheme is funded by the companies currently selling employer’s liability insurance and not by insurers more widely.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My more fundamental point is that the insurers that sold employer’s liability compulsory insurance were the same insurers that sold public liability insurance to individual employers, because they were sold in a package. That was my experience when I was the Minister for employment between 2003 and 2004 when, the noble Lord will remember, there was a significant failure of the employer’s liability compulsory insurance market that had to be resolved. His letter of 5 July to me and others confirms that that is still the case, according to his research. These insurers are not separate insurers, they are the same insurers, and I suggest that the requirement to carry cover in relation to the specific risk of asbestos would have been irrelevant to public liability.
Lord Freud
I have just made the point that the public liability may have been bundled up with employee liability but it did not necessarily cover asbestos risk. That is the issue. If we start going into this, we are just blasting open and widening the position in a way that is very complicated and difficult to deal with under the timelines we are dealing with.
Moving to the second group about the self-employed, here the matter is not so clear-cut. Some people may appear to have been self-employed but if they are able to demonstrate when making their application that in fact they were employees, they may be eligible for a payment under the scheme. There is considerable case law amassed on this and we will ensure—I can commit to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—that the scheme will reflect this when assessing applications.
I know it is not fashionable but I should point out that there is a technical problem with the amendment, which is cumulative, but I will not go through it. As drafted, this amendment does not work because you have to be an employee and self-employed. In our spirit of co-operation, if we wanted to take it we would adjust it, but there are good reasons in both cases why we do not want to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, what happens to the wife who has been contaminated by her husband’s dungarees? Will she get anything?
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords. That specifically is what the state provision is there for. In particular, the 2008 mesothelioma scheme was set up to make payments to people, such as wives, who worked with asbestos. It is a smaller payment but that is what it was designed to do. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for his response, and all noble Lords who spoke in favour of Amendments 4 and 8. I also thank my noble friends Lord Howarth and Lord Browne for addressing the issues in Amendments 5 and 6.
To pick up the Minister’s reply, if the response to everything we have discussed tonight is basically that the scheme is locked down and there have been negotiations—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham; as well—we might as well go to the bar because I am not sure that we are going to shift anything tonight. We pay tribute to the Minister—
Lord Freud
I must come in on that. The group—huddle?—of noble Lords who have been working on this Bill have made enormous changes to what we are doing. Noble Lords’ concerns have fed straight in and we have made a series of changes. I do not want any Peer to feel that their views and the work they have done has not been taken, absorbed, acted on and gone right to the edge of what is possible. I assure the noble Lord that the bar is not the place for him.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation although it is a pity about not being allowed to go to the bar. I want to make it clear that we have acknowledged, I hope fulsomely, the work the Minister has done on this. I acknowledge also the acceptance that what we have deliberated on in Committee and in meetings has influenced the Bill but if we are now saying that in a sense we have come to a full stop, I wonder what progress we can make. However, I will carry on with the argument.
As far as the start date is concerned, I simply do not accept the point that the insurers did not know until July 2012 that there was the expectation that a scheme would be set up. From what the Minister has told us, there have been two years of intense negotiations, generally with the ABI, which has had to discuss matters and negotiate with a range of insurers. There was an intense process under way, as we understand it, and therefore it must have been very clear to insurers that something was very likely to come from this and that was going to be the sort of scheme that has now emerged. I do not accept that the first insurers knew about it was the point when we said: “Here is the document. This is what we are going do”.
Lord Freud
I just want to clarify the point about the expectations or otherwise of the insurance industry. From our negotiations, which went on for a long time —more than a year; I cannot remember exactly—it would have been anticipating that the specific insurers with historic liability would have been pinned down in a completely different way from this levy. We spent an enormous amount of time working on that. As I have already told the House, my first instinct was to try to get the actual insurers that wrote the liability to find the money out of their balance sheets. I judged that the legal risks to that approach were high—not impossible, but high—and we therefore switched to this other approach. Actually, the expectations that the industry might have had would not have been set anything like as early as noble Lords might think.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but it seems to me that the expectations were not set only at the point of July 2012. On the cost that the Minister has outlined, I understand that it has reduced from the original figure of £119 million. I do not think that the figures that the Minister has given reflect any additional benefit recovery potential that would come from having two more years in the scheme, or know whether that was fed in to any analysis of how it might impact on the spreading that would arise from that. Maybe we will have to have that discussion on another occasion. I do not think that we are going to see eye to eye on this.
On Amendments 5 and 6, the noble Lord prayed in aid a technical deficiency of the drafting. I have done it myself; I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who advised generally against that. The thrust of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was that, whether it is the employer liability route or the public liability route, you are basically coming back to the same insurers. Obviously, the Minister’s point about there being some hope for the self-employed —being able to argue that in certain circumstances they were de facto employees—is helpful.
We do not accept the proposition that the start date should be the 2012 date. February 2010 is a better date. That was when the expectation was effectively created. In fact, when you look at it, the insurers ended up with a lesser scheme than was proposed in February, so their expectation should have been of a higher obligation arising from that. A broader bureau was consulted on at that time. Having said all that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 13. Amendment 11 requires that those diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma and eligible under the scheme should receive payment of an amount no less than 100% of the average actual damages recovered in mesothelioma cases. Because the scheme under consideration is a payment scheme rather than a strict compensation scheme, it has been agreed that a tariff based on average compensation levels taken over recent periods should be taken as a reasonable proxy for compensation amounts. The tariff, which we will discuss in subsequent amendments, is comprised of bands depending on age at date of diagnosis. It is understood that the starting tariff is accepted by the Government, the insurance industry and the Asbestos Victims Support Groups. What is not agreed is the percentage of the tariff that should be paid.
The amendment proposes that it should be 100%, a full compensation equivalent. Hitherto, the Minister has referred to payment levels of 70% of the tariff and today we heard the good news that he has been able to negotiate this a little higher with the ABI, with the proposition that it now be 75%. These amounts are of course separate from the payments towards legal costs and any research supplement, should that re-emerge. We should make clear again that we consider that the Minister has done a first-rate job in bringing the scheme thus far. We have no doubt that he has had to endure many painful engagements with the insurance sector, whose failure—or market failure in his terms—is at the root of the problem that this Bill seeks to address. I wish him to go further. I do not wish to seem ungrateful for these efforts but we have an obligation to speak to the victims to see it from their point of view.
The payment scheme provided for in this Bill operates when somebody has been negligently exposed to asbestos and has consequently contracted diffuse mesothelioma. This is, as we have heard, a terrible disease, invariably fatal, which inflicts untold suffering on those who contract it and on their families. In Committee, a number of noble Lords spoke of their own harrowing experience of witnessing the awful pain that mesothelioma causes. The only thing that prevents individuals in these circumstances getting proper compensation—the government schemes fall far short—is the inability to trace the employer that caused negligent exposure to asbestos or the insurance company which provided employer liability insurance cover. No blame can be attached to mesothelioma sufferers for this. It is not their fault that, because of the passage of time, records have been lost or destroyed. Many can trace those responsible and the new tracing office will help more in the future. That is good news. That is as it should be. However, for those who cannot, why should they not be treated in an equivalent manner? They are the victims. If I may, I will quote from an e-mail received from Tony Whitston, who, as many will know, has been a tireless campaigner for asbestos victims. Tony said:
“For mesothelioma sufferers and their families, compensation isn’t about money per se. For mesothelioma sufferers, compensation provides solace that their loved ones will have some financial security when they die. For their families, compensation is about justice. No one will stand in the dock and answer for the terrible suffering and loss of life, past, present and to come. Compensation stands in for justice. To diminish compensation is to demean the pain and suffering families have witnessed and cheapens the justice they thought they had obtained”.
If we are encouraged to look at this through the eyes of the insurance industry, we will be told, as we have been, that a discounted payment is necessary to encourage individuals to trace an employer or insurer. We will be told that not all employers in the employer liability market will have been in the market or on risk over the years when people were exposed. That is notwithstanding that tracing or accessing the scheme has to follow the same routes. References to public liability policies not being traced are, by and large, a red herring. Collectively, over the years, the industry would have had premiums for liability that it has not had to meet, and it still has the benefit of premiums for other exposures that remain outside this scheme. If there has to be some rough justice at the edges of these arrangements, clearly the justice should go to the sufferers. The insurance industry should make amends for its failures of the past.
Our Amendment 13 seeks to take the insurance industry at its word. It has expressed concern that a levy rate of more than 3% could tip matters over to a situation where the levy costs would have to be passed on to industry. The noble Lord referred to that in his opening remarks. We are sceptical about whether pricing of employer liability policies would work collectively for all 150 or so market players in this way. However, accepting that 3% is a tipping point for the sector, Amendment 13 requires that the levy is a minimum of 3% or such lower sum as would provide for 100% of the tariff.
For the initial four years of the scheme, the industry would doubtless claim that at 75% of the tariff it is already at 3%, or perhaps above it, in which case the amendment should not cause it a problem. On the Government’s figures, the levy would be close to 3% for a 75% payout over the initial four years of the scheme but below 3% for the latter six years if the tariff is to be paid in full. Given that no one, we hope, is arguing that the percentage levy will reduce in future, except to the extent of avoiding paying more than 100% of the tariff, the amendment should be readily acceptable.
If the Minister is unable to accept the amendment as it stands, could he at least confirm that it is not the intention to reduce the levy rate in real terms after the smoothing period unless that produces more than 100% of the tariff? Amendment 13 sits perfectly well with that in the name of my noble friend Lord Browne and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, Amendment 16 is in my name. Again, the common theme is that the amendments in this group seek to maximise the amount that will be paid to mesothelioma victims and their dependants. I will come in a moment to my own amendment but I would like to say a few words in strong support of the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lady Sherlock. It was certainly not the fault of the claimants that the documentation went missing and it is very hard to see why they should bear the burden. The Minister has spoken of the dangers of a disproportionate burden on the employer’s liability insurers, but is it not a disproportionate burden on the mesothelioma victims?
The ABI has put forward various arguments as to why payments under the scheme should not be at the same level as the average of court awards. The first is that an incentive must be provided for claimants to go to court. If they could just as easily get 100% by going to the scheme, why would they bother to go to court? With respect to the ABI, this argument is nonsense. This will not be a matter of choice for the claimants. The Minister’s letter to us of 4 July made it clear that the scheme is designed as a,
“last resort where all routes to civil action against the relevant employer or insurer are closed to the individual”.
The procedures under the scheme will make that a compelling reality. There will be the single portal and the identical search for documentation. Whether someone is on their way to having their case heard in court or considered by the administrators of the scheme, they will have recourse to the scheme only if they are unable to have recourse to the court, so the incentive argument is nonsense.
The ABI has also said that it is important to ensure that the overall cost to insurers is sustainable in the long term. I believe that the overall cost of a somewhat improved scheme—we have been debating today a variety of ways in which that scheme might be improved —would indeed be affordable. Apart from the fact that the insurers did very well for decades in being able to invest the premiums of mesothelioma sufferers whose documentation could not be found and who therefore could not bring a case, we have to remember in addition that between 1979 and 2008 the employer’s liability insurers were effectively subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, as they were allowed to keep the amounts paid out under the Government’s pneumoconiosis scheme to offset against the cost of the liabilities of the insurers.
Even now, because the Minister declined in Committee to incorporate in the Bill the possibility of creating parallel and comparable schemes for other diseases such as asbestosis, asbestos-related lung cancer or pleural disease, only some 50% of sufferers from asbestos-related diseases stand a possibility of being compensated under this scheme. Those other 50% will in effect be subsidising the insurers. Those are a handful of reasons why I take with deep scepticism the proposition that the insurers could not afford to improve the scheme. We know, indeed, that their case load will fall, so even if it was a little pricey for them in the early years it would rapidly become more affordable. The Government are also going to smooth the way over the early years.
It is unlikely that the cost of these improvements would cause the cost of the scheme to creep above the 3% of gross written premiums. I prefer the DWP’s calculations on this to the ABI’s. However, if that were to happen it would not be a disaster and is not terribly relevant, because it is other factors that move premiums. The Minister’s fear that any improvements to the scheme would lead to the point at which additional burdens were placed, by way of higher premiums, on employers and industry is misplaced. The premiums that are charged in this market are the product of multiple factors and paying the beneficiaries-to-be somewhat more generously would not have an effect on the premiums. I do not believe that the percentage of gross written premiums has any bearing on what premiums are sought in the marketplace. The employer’s liability insurers pitch their premiums at the maximum that competitive market conditions allow. They will always do that, so the Minister’s fear is misplaced and he should call their bluff on that.
Finally, the third reason that the ABI gives is to stop people getting more than the courts would award. In its briefing, it said to us:
“As the payments will be made … on a straightforward tariff, some people will receive more compensation under the scheme than they would have received in civil compensation, and the aim is to set the tariff at a level that means this will only happen in a small number of cases”.
Elsewhere, it told us that the intention is for the tariff to be set “a little below” the average of awards made in civil cases. A little below? The proposition is that 30% should be docked from the average of court awards in the payments provided under the scheme. Seventy per cent was not enough and while we are very grateful to the Minister for easing the level of payments up to 75% of the average of court awards, that is still not enough. Nor would 80%, as in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Browne and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, be sufficient in my view. Ninety per cent is the very minimum with which we could be satisfied. As the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has pointed out, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which provides compensation where insurers have become insolvent, pays at the 90% level.
I turn for a moment to my own Amendment 16, which would prevent what I regard as excessive demands for repayment by the DWP through its agency, the Compensation Recovery Unit. The rationale for the figure of £110,000 is that if we expect the average of payments over the next 10 years to be £87,000—it may be fractionally more, now that the Minister has moved it up to 75%—and if, as the Minister has advised us, the average recovery required from claimants will be £20,480, add those two figures and you get to £107,500. Round that up a little and you get to £110,000. That is appropriate because payments under the scheme, unamended, will be meagre. At the same time, the DWP —and no doubt the Treasury, lurking behind it— aggressively intends to reclaim 100% in recovery of benefits and lump-sum payments from people who will have received only 70% of what they might have received in court.
Moreover, the department intends no abatement in its reclaiming to take account of pain and suffering, which they would do in the case of an award by the courts. So we risk the £87,000 typical award by the scheme being reduced by around a further £20,000 as a result of the DWP’s reclaims. According to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the best estimate of what mesothelioma victims and their dependants will receive from the scheme will, therefore, be only 60% of what the courts might have awarded. It cannot be right that these people should receive only 60% of their legal entitlement when they have suffered a double negligence: negligence on the part of their employer and negligence on the part of their insurer.
The Minister has said that his intention, in this legislation, is to remedy a market failure. To be frank, that is a euphemism. We are talking about a gross and scandalous dereliction of their proper responsibility on the part of a number of insurers, affecting a significant number of people who should have had cover. This has been a great evil and we should make amends as fully and generously as we possibly can. Is that double negligence on the part of employers and insurers, from which they have already suffered, to be compounded by a double meanness on the part of the Government, insisting on taking 100% of 70% and taking no account of pain and suffering? The Government are being too greedy here.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I shall speak primarily to the lead amendment, to which I have added my name, and return to Amendment 12, which stands in my name, at the close of my remarks.
The scheme proposed by the Bill will provide neither the full amount of compensation to which the sufferer would usually be entitled, nor full protection for those suffering from asbestos-related diseases. It is utterly unjust that those who have already suffered a wrong, due both to their injury and to the negligence of their employers in losing their insurance records, should now face losing a significant percentage of their damages.
The Government have offered the justification that mesothelioma claimants should be encouraged to seek out “all other avenues” before coming to this scheme. As I said during earlier stages of the Bill, this attitude shows a flagrant disregard for the harsh realities of this disease, not to mention the fact that the sufferers usually die very soon after diagnosis, so leaving their families with less compensation than they would otherwise have been entitled to. Of course, I welcome the move to increase the compensation payable from 70% to 75%, and I thank the Minister for securing that improvement. However, whether the Government propose that claimants should receive 30% or 25% less than the average worth of a claim, it is essentially unfair that any reduction is happening at all. By point of comparison, the Pneumoconiosis Act 1979 was designed to award full compensation to claimants and is reviewed annually.
The difference between 100% and 70% compensation for these claims is not to be balked at. On 25 June, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked the Government what assessment had been made of the likely impact on the insurance industry if it was made to pay the full 100% of compensation to sufferers under the proposed scheme. In his response, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that over the first 10 years of the scheme, if the tariff were 100%, the amount of compensation paid would total £451 million. Under the 70% tariff originally proposed, the insurance industry was, by comparison, forecast to pay £322 million. However, the money that the insurance industry saves by getting away with 70% or 75% is a cost suffered by the victims’ families.
The Minister also said that the Government,
“are getting an average of £87,000 a head to people who suffer from this terrible disease”.—[Official Report, 25/6/13; col. 654.]
It is presumably now nearer to £94,000 at the 75% level. According to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, if the tariff was set at 100% and based on the figure proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, the amount of compensation awarded would be around £124,000. That is a £30,000 shortfall in what the victims and their families can expect and it is a big difference. It is a difference of millions of pounds for the insurance companies but, my goodness, that £30,000 difference for the victims will be even harder to bear.
Finally, I want to share with the House two of the many comments that I have been sent by families of asbestos victims. Sandra Emery wrote:
“It took Parliament … a hundred years to ban asbestos. As a result, I have lost my mother and brother to mesothelioma. Please do not compound the error by passing such inequitable legislation”.
As Kerry Jackson says:
“All victims and their families deserve 100% of what they are entitled to … this is a disease that has come through pure neglect”.
I ask the Government for an undertaking that they will continue to seek other ways to increase the compensation to around 100%. I plead with them to reconsider. I will not be pressing my amendment for the 80% level, which I would have done had the Minister not come forward with an increase. However, in order to register my support for the principle, if the 100% amendment is pressed to a vote I shall support it.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wigley. When he and I put our names to the amendment, we were unaware of what the Minister would be able to achieve without the benefit that our amendment being carried by your Lordships’ House might give in strengthening his negotiating hand. I have immense respect for my noble friend and his decision not to press his amendment and I will not seek to do otherwise. However, I want to add to what has already been said in relation to this group of amendments and the principle of justice.
In one of the early sentences of his introductory speech at Second Reading, the Minister enunciated a principle that, if a person is damaged by the negligent actions of another, that person should be entitled to compensation and, therefore, justice. I paraphrase him and I am sure that I do not do justice to the eloquence of his words at the time, but I remember pointing out that there was an inconsistency between that and other recent actions of his Government in relation to health and safety law.
We all agree with that principle and, with all due respect to the arguments that can be made, I suspect that the Minister does not equate the payments from the scheme with justice. He will be comfortable at the Dispatch Box and probably will, in his characteristic style, say that he is not presenting this as justice. Justice for these people would be for an employer who is insured to sue, and 100% compensation. So we are not going to do justice. I regret that we are not going to do justice to the victims of this dreadful behaviour and of the dreadful history that followed it, not necessarily on the part of employers—which went out of business for lots of reasons—but certainly on the part of the insurance industry.
However, we have a duty to strive for justice. The Minister eloquently expressed, as he has done on a number of occasions, that this is basically a negotiation. He has negotiated on behalf of the victims in a situation where hitherto they had only statutory schemes to look to, and he is to be congratulated on his achievement. I have experience of the responsibilities he holds and know just how difficult the job is. I have congratulated him on it in the past and he gets a significant amount of deserved credit in this House for what he has achieved.
He says that his ability to improve the scheme is a function of a number of practical and realistic things: what is negotiable in the circumstances of what the market will bear; and the point at which he judges, and the insurance industry tells him, that it will be compelled to transfer the marginal cost of the scheme to British industry and thus affect competitiveness. It is also a function of the fact that he is operating in a situation where he is seeking to have the scheme funded by what he calls active insurers, which are not necessarily the insurers that historically wrote the policies that carried the risk in the first place.
I accept all that. In the debate on the previous group of amendments, my noble friend Lord McKenzie made a point that prompts my own, which is different from any that have been made in the debate. We do not doubt the Minister’s bona fides, but whether we are at the limit of his negotiating ability, or whether we can help him go a bit further towards the sort of figure that is more like justice, it would be helpful if we knew how many of the insurers with which he is negotiating are those that carried this risk in the first place and behaved in the way they did.
Until now, the Minister has deployed very adroitly the point about active insurers as opposed to those who carried the risk. However, he has done it in a very generalised way. I was not moved to interrogate him in detail until he explained, probably for the second time —I did not pay enough attention the first time—to my noble friend Lord McKenzie that when he first approached the issue, his desire was to place the burden on those insurers that underwrote the policies and risk in the first place. That implies that he must have thought that there were enough of them to carry the burden. Therefore, this cannot be an insignificant number of insurers. The inference I drew from the argument that he put forward in his contribution—which he may now regret—was that a disproportionate burden was being placed on people who were not about when the problem was being created. However, my knowledge of the Minister and of his abilities, which is growing, suggests that the opposite is the case, and that more of these insurers than we think will have to pay up.
If I had thought about this before, I might have argued for a differential levy in order to get a significantly increased amount of money, so that we could all do what we wanted to do, which was get much beyond 70%. Is the Minister in a position to help us? It may not be of any great assistance to us, although there is still Third Reading, but at some stage—I am not asking him to name and shame, although I would quite like him to—it would be interesting to know the number of insurers involved. Perhaps we could go a bit further. Could he describe the scale of this market in monetary terms, and the proportion of the market that is controlled by those companies that let this insurance market fail? We would then all have a better sense of justice and of where we should apply the burden.
I will say two more things. Unfortunately I had to leave the Grand Committee before we came to debate this issue. When I read the Official Report, I was extremely impressed by the amendment of my noble friend Lady Donaghy, which proposed adopting the idea of the incentive that the ABI deployed—which my noble friend Lord Howarth demolished and which the Minister has now abandoned—and reversing it to fix the compensation at 130% of the average, in order to incentivise the insurance companies to get their colleagues to find the policies, and to get the people who wrote them to carry the risk and burden. That is where the incentive should be in this situation.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, is in his place. I am glad that, thus far in the debate, he has not deployed the argument of delay in relation to this legislation. I do not resent—but I do not like—the idea that those of us who have been trying to improve the legislation somehow have to step back because we may delay the point at which very deserving people can get some form of payment. I do not like it for a simple reason. The Bill was introduced in your Lordships’ House and went into Grand Committee. We are now on Report and this is the first and earliest point at which we can vote on anything in it. If the argument of delay in these circumstances is to have any merit, it means that we have to accept whatever is presented to us by the Government if it is broadly in a good area of public policy. If in future we ever have to face an argument for reform of the House of Lords, we had better not do that.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments in this group and endorse everything that my noble friend on the Front Bench said in support of them. In doing so, I express my appreciation for the achievement of the Minister in nudging the percentage up to 75%. It is a significant advance and I appreciate all the effort that must have gone into achieving it. However, I am afraid that it is still not enough.
I will say a few additional words in support of Amendment 13, to which I added my name. It sets out a mechanism to try to ensure that the Bill can be a final settlement of the issue. It does so by setting out to ensure a continuing equitable balance between the various interests at play. We have heard at all stages of the Bill that there is strong support in your Lordships’ House for the percentage paid to be not less than 100% of the average damages recovered by claimants in mesothelioma cases, and for the start of the scheme to be 10 February 2010. However, at the same time, I think that your Lordships’ House recognises the strenuous efforts made by the Minister to achieve a settlement with insurers that could be delivered rapidly.
With respect to my noble friend Lord Browne, the issue is not so much the processes of Parliament as how obstructive the insurers are going to be. I appreciate that there is a risk of unpicking what the Minister has achieved and encouraging insurers to dig their heels in and be obstructive. We have seen too much evidence of the obstructive approach that they adopted in the past for that not to be a risk. Nevertheless, we can improve the Bill further, and this amendment seeks to do that.
As I understand it, the basis of the settlement, which can be achieved rapidly, is that costs should not exceed 3% of the levy. That is the point at which insurers estimate that they would have to pass on costs to employers. It is the actuarial assumptions made by insurers on this basis that have reduced the figure to less than 100% for payments under the scheme, and set the start date at 25 July 2012. Those actuarial assumptions are just assumptions. They could be questioned, and, as we have already heard, the Government’s assumptions are different. However, it may turn out that they are accurate. All assumptions at this stage can be only a best guess.
If it does turn out that these actuarial assumptions by the insurers have overestimated the cost of the scheme, the amendment will address that eventuality. If, over time, once the smoothing period is over, the cost of the scheme amounts to less than the 3% of the levy that insurers are currently willing to contribute, the end result will be that insurers will up paying less than they are currently prepared to pay—in effect, they will save money—while victims of mesothelioma will continue to receive less than many, and perhaps most, in your Lordships’ House and outside it believe that they should receive. Such an outcome would be manifestly unjust, and would lead to considerable pressure in Parliament for new legislation to put right such injustice.
The amendment seeks to avoid that situation, and all the further delays and uncertainty for victims of this disease that would result, by ensuring that such an injustice will not occur. It places no new burdens on insurers at all; it merely seeks to ensure that, whatever the outcome of the actuarial assumptions that underpin the current provisions of the Bill, insurers will pay what they are currently prepared to pay. It offers the victims of this dreadful disease the comfort that, if there is more money available as a result of those assumptions turning out to be inaccurate, it is those victims that will get it and not the insurers. This avoids the prospect of future wrangling and disputes, which I would have thought the insurers would certainly welcome. It would be in nobody’s interest to reopen the matter in this way, and this amendment offers a continuing equitable outcome. I hope that it will find favour with the Government.
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to return to a point that came up in Committee and to try to set the industry context in which these misunderstandings, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, are occurring. I should declare my interests. I was an elected member of the Council of Lloyd’s throughout the whole six years of its rescue; I was in the somewhat unhappy position of being chairman of its audit committee for those six years; and, finally, I was chairman of the committee that created Equitas. I have twice stood trial in America for the fraudulent signing of the audit certificate of Lloyd’s, of which I was fortunately acquitted each time, as it was a 25-year mandatory sentence. I therefore have some perspective on these affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has a fundamental misunderstanding. There is no such thing as an insurance industry in the context in which all these liabilities were first conceived. Insurance companies do not exist. They have morphed into what is now, effectively, a vast international reinsurance market, where all these liabilities have been swept up and eventually reinsured with each other until they are all divided up against the entire global insurance market. Lloyd’s itself is now wholly owned by Berkshire Hathaway and the negotiations will, therefore, have to be entirely with Berkshire Hathaway and its chairman—good luck in getting charity from him.
The context, therefore, is not that there are a lot of companies waiting to have separate negotiations. You have to hold negotiations with something like Swiss Re, as it will represent the entire financial community which has come together to provide a collective bond to underwrite, first of all, Lloyd’s, and then everywhere else. The negotiation is very difficult for the Minister to undertake and it is in that context that I know he will now answer us.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will start with those relating to the rate of payment and then I will turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the recovery of payments over £110,000. The amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, seek to ensure a minimum level of scheme payment at either 100% or 80% of the value of an average mesothelioma civil damages claim. I completely understand and appreciate that noble Lords would like to see payment levels that are closer to, if not equal to or above, those of average civil damages. Equally, I take from our debates that I have noble Lords’ full support in wanting to guarantee that we get the maximum possible payment for people who, through no fault of their own, clearly cannot bring a case against an employer or their employer’s insurers. As we have often discussed, the funds to provide these payments are to be raised through a levy imposed on the active insurance market. The amount of levy to be imposed, and consequently the amount we can pay eligible people, has been determined following considerable work and negotiation.
Perhaps I may pick up the point about incentives made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. We have not made that argument. To the extent that it has appeared in some of the earlier texts on this Bill, I think it reflects a shape that was somewhat different when that argument might have applied. We have not made it. It is not relevant to this particular scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, made the point in reverse. I actually give the credit for the 130% to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who proposed it originally. I have taken that point in a somewhat different way. That is what has driven the discussions with the FCA and led to its much tighter determination to have an effective incentive for insurance companies to do the tracing that they should do and to ramp up the tracing effect.
We have a duty here to do our best to ensure that costs are not passed on willy-nilly to British industry and that the levy works in that way. At that time, many of the insurers were not necessarily in the business on the same scale that they are today. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has asked for a full analysis. My noble friend Lord James gave him a picture of the kind of capital pools we are talking about. That is what insurance essentially is, with companies acting as agents. It is extraordinarily hard, but there is already a big split—I do not have reliable figures: I thought I had, but they are not reliable enough to quote in public—between a large number of run-off companies that are not active anymore, many of which are in run-off, which is the polite way of saying they have given up administration, because of some of the liabilities that they took. That needs to be monitored, which is difficult to do. There is also the matter of the market share of these companies. They may have been active for 50 years, but their market share may have changed dramatically. There is also the fact that some may have kept very good records while others have not, leading to a double whammy effect. Those that have paid up, because they have really good records, are probably those from which we are trying to take more money through this levy. I do not have a market analysis of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, wants, but I am confident in saying that nobody else has either.
Let us move on to where we have got to. Thanks to the combined and consistent pressure on the insurance industry from both the Government and noble Lords, we have secured what I could call a reluctant agreement from insurers that the scheme payments will now be set at 75% of average civil compensation. I emphasise again the important role played by noble Lords in getting that outcome. I am grateful for that. I have already talked about the different assumptions of the Government and the industry regarding the volume of applications. The insurers have based their calculations on their own figures, which they think will require a levy of close to 3% of their gross written premium.
This has been a tough negotiation and even those with whom the Government were negotiating have had a tough job persuading others in that industry that there is an affordable package here. We want more, but this is a significant move from the insurance industry. If we could pay people more, we would, but this is a balancing act. If we were to go up to 80% or 100%, we would be very concerned about the costs being passed straight on to British industry. Indeed, a key concern that I have had about the structure of the scheme is that that should not happen, or that the risks of it happening should be minimised, and that is what the smoothing mechanism for the first four years is about. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, will not like me saying this but there could be delay and delay and a full renegotiation is quite a painful process, as I know he will understand better than virtually anyone else.
On the point about the 3% made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I have been fully on the record since the beginning of the afternoon about the two points relating to the CPI and, more importantly, about our intention to review the matter at the end of the smoothing period. I hope that he appreciates how far that goes towards meeting his concerns.
Your Lordships have been very generous in what they have said about this matter but I think that a real expression of gratitude here would be if the noble Lord did not call a vote on this. That is the kind of gratitude that I understand and appreciate.
Before I close, I shall turn quickly to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, which would allow the scheme to recover a scheme payment already paid only if the amount of the payment was above £110,000. Clause 4 is intended to allow the scheme to recover any payment, or part payment, in specified circumstances. Those specified circumstances will form part of the regulations setting up the scheme and will be debated in due course. However, the intention is that a payment that has been made in error will be subject to repayment. This amendment would allow the scheme to recover a payment made in error only if that payment was above £110,000. Payments of £110,000 or less could never be recovered.
If someone receives a payment and it is subsequently established that the payment was made in error or obtained as a result of some fraud or misrepresentation—it does not happen very often but there are one or two examples—it is right that the person who received that sort of payment should be asked to repay it, regardless of the level of the payment. It would not be appropriate to allow someone to keep any payment if it had been established that they were not eligible for it. It would clearly be unfair to allow one person to keep a payment of £110,000 but to recover a payment of £110,000 and a penny paid to someone else.
It may be that the noble Lord’s amendment is intended to address the recovery of social security benefits and government lump sums from scheme payments, but the amendment as drafted does not achieve that. Provision for compensation recovery is dealt with in Clause 11 and Part 1 of Schedule 1, although I acknowledge that, like one or two other bits of the Bill, they are somewhat impenetrable.
The noble Lord’s intention may be to prevent the scheme administrator reducing scheme payments in order to offset the cost of repaying recoverable benefits and lump sums to the Secretary of State of £110,000 or less. Recovery of benefits legislation applies where a person makes any payment to or in respect of another person in consequence of an accident, injury or disease and specified social security benefits or lump-sum payments have been paid in respect of the same incident. This is the basic principle of not receiving money or being compensated twice—the use of the word “compensation” here is more casual than legal—and we believe that that principle should apply here.
The other effect is that a person could receive a scheme payment plus benefits and a lump sum. That would mean that some people could well end up in a more advantageous position than someone receiving the full amount of compensation directly from an employer or traced insurer, which clearly cannot be right. I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to maximise the amount that people with mesothelioma can receive but this is simply not the way to achieve that end. Therefore, I urge him not to press the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of Amendments 11 and 13. Perhaps I may deal briefly with the Minister’s reply. We agree that we want to get the maximum possible out of this. We acknowledge the improvement in the incentive for tracing that the noble Lord announced earlier, and I think that all noble Lords accept the increase from 70% to 75% in the level of recovery. However, we always come back to analysing this from a justice point of view: what is fair to insurers and what is fair to people who have contracted diffuse mesothelioma because of employers’ negligence. We cannot get away from the fact that justice for them has to be 100% of the compensation that they would otherwise receive if there were formal compensation arrangements rather than the tariff. One hundred per cent of the tariff is justice; anything less is not.
I am not sure that we heard a compelling argument as to why the 3% minimum was not appropriate, particularly if it is where insurers are at the moment, certainly over the initial period. That would seem to be an easy one for the Minister to accept. However, given the hour and given the business that we have left to do, I should like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 11.
Lord Freud
Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
That this House regrets that the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013, laid before the House on 7 March, will result in a substantial number of vulnerable people not being eligible for legal aid because of the capital in their house. (SI 2013/480)
Lord Bach
My Lords, one way of cutting legal aid is to take areas of law out of scope, which is something that this Government have done with a vengeance. As this House knows very well, social welfare law has been potentially destroyed by Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. However, there is another way to do the same thing, and that is to cut the number of people who can obtain legal aid in those areas of civil law—and there are precious few of them—which are still in scope; for example, mortgage possession and eviction cases, community care cases, mental capacity cases and some domestic violence cases as well. By these regulations that we are debating tonight, which my regret Motion deals with, Her Majesty’s Government have excluded many who could claim legal aid previously. Is that a fair or just thing to do, particularly at a time of hardship and austerity for so many people? That is my point.
Before 1 April, any person in receipt of means-tested welfare benefits—for example, income support or guaranteed state pension credit—would qualify for legal aid on both income and capital. They were described as being passported. A quick decision could be made, which was easy to administer for the Legal Services Commission as was, the providers of that legal advice and the clients themselves.
Now the Government have put into place radical changes. The regulations require a capital test as well as an income means test: if a person has more than £8,000 capital, they are denied legal aid. Interestingly, under welfare benefit law, that sum is £16,000 and if they have anything less than £16,000, they would still qualify. My first question to the Minister is: why the difference? The welfare benefit system also ignores the value of a person’s main dwelling but in these regulations the value of their main dwelling is taken into account. Therefore, my second question is: why is it taken into account under these regulations but not under welfare benefit regulations?
Of course, there is a disregard of £100,000 for any equity and £100,000 for any mortgage. Do the Government deny that many people who own homes with mortgages and some equity will not qualify for legal aid? The state has recognised in the benefits system that these people cannot easily, or at all, access their capital because it is tied up in the property that they have. Why will that not apply in these cases too? My case is that this will affect a large number of people’s access to some sort of justice. Her Majesty’s Government estimate 4,000 people will be affected. The belief of many outside is that that is an unbelievably small figure and that there will be many more in practice. This is simply unfair.
There is also a need for a general discretion to disregard income and/or capital where it was or is equitable in all the circumstances. In the 2000 regulations, there was a general discretion to disregard where it was equitable in all the circumstances. There has been no evidence of abuse of those regulations in that way. Why is it not in these regulations? We all know cases, perhaps involving mental capacity or disability, where justice demands legal help by way of legal aid. But because of the inflexibility of these regulations there is, to coin a phrase, no way out. There is certainly no way out with the exceptional funding scheme, which perhaps now should be called the very rarely exceptional funding scheme because it is not relevant to cases that are still in scope. Section 10 of LASPO is there for areas of law now out of scope. I fear the fact that there is no flexibility, and that the £8,000 capital is such a ridiculously low figure, shows that the purpose of these regulations is not to advance justice but to restrict it—not to help people sort out their legal problems but to make absolutely certain that they cannot.
In 2009, when austerity had already begun, the Labour Government did not reduce eligibility for legal aid in social welfare law; they increased it by 5%. We recognised that at a time of economic difficulties, it is crucial to ensure that people get quality and inexpensive legal advice to sort out their legal problems rather than go without any access, with the consequences that everyone knows; namely, that problems multiply and magnify until often in the end the state has to pick up the pieces arising out of problems with debt, welfare benefit mistakes and loss of employment. That decision by that Government was not a soft-hearted decision: it was based on a realisation that not only is access to justice right in principle; in this instance it saves the state money. It is not rocket science; it is just something that this Government do not get.
I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords in this debate and to the Minister’s reply. I ask him on this occasion please to address the debate itself. When I was a Minister, like him, I had to undergo from time to time debates where the government policies that I was trying to defend were attacked from start to finish by practically everyone who spoke. It is not a comfortable position but I would argue that there is still a duty on Ministers to answer the debate being heard at that time. I do not think that the Minister did himself justice last Thursday in the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, began, but I know that he can. Anyone who heard him at Question Time today dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and others will know that he is an experienced and skilful performer in this House. Therefore, I ask him to deal with the issues that are raised in this debate and not just read out his speech.
There are already cases of people not getting legal aid when they should. That is a consequence of so much social welfare law being taken out of scope. There are also cases of people who have legal problems in areas that are still in scope but as a result of the regulations that we are debating tonight they are not able to access justice. That is a bit of a scandal. The Government should think again about these regulations and I hope that the House will agree with me that they are, at the very least, to be regretted. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for moving this Motion. Over the past three years he has played an essential role in identifying with forensic skill and great eloquence the defects in the series of measures that this Government have brought forward to limit legal aid in our society. The noble Lord has repeatedly pointed out, accurately and with some degree of force, that legal aid is a vital cement in our civil society. There is no point whatever in this place conferring rights unless people have the opportunity to vindicate them. It would be a great shame if there were further reductions in the ability of persons other than the wealthy to vindicate their rights by legal process.
The essential defect in these regulations is their treatment of the capital sums owned by persons who are otherwise eligible for legal aid. I cannot understand why the regulations apply different criteria to capital from the criteria that are applicable in welfare law. Regulation 8(2) provides that any person with more than £8,000 in capital will be denied legal aid, even though welfare benefits law provides that persons qualify for means-tested benefits even though they have up to £16,000 of capital.
There is a further discrepancy in that the welfare benefits system ignores the value of a person’s home. These legal aid regulations will disregard only £100,000 of equity in property, under Regulation 39; and £100,000 of any mortgage, under Regulation 37. The inevitable result is that many people who own their own homes will be excluded from legal aid, even though they cannot in practice access the capital.
All this is very unfortunate, given that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act has already reduced the scope of legal aid so that it is now skeletal. I am very concerned that even within the much reduced scope of legal aid under that Act, people who have no income and who are therefore eligible for welfare benefits will be unable to obtain legal advice and assistance. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, there is a vital need in the regulations for more flexibility.
The Minister will no doubt tell us, as he usually does, that funds are limited and that economies are needed, but to adopt criteria, as the regulations do, which are more onerous than the criteria applied to welfare benefits is simply irrational and fails to understand the vital function of legal aid itself as a welfare benefit for the needy in our society. My essential question for the Minister is this: why are the criteria for capital in these regulations different from, and more onerous than, the criteria for welfare benefit law?
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I shall speak in support of my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who is also my friend but not technically my noble friend. I want to put the regulations in perspective and to inquire whether the Government realise the pressure that these calculations will place on other parts of our society. I will mention just two issues.
This Government and their predecessors have pushed very hard to widen house ownership in the past 20 or 30 years. It has been successful. Ownership, of modest homes, has spread to all corners of society. To include their value in the assessment of legal aid places an unfair burden on a modest number of the population who have striven to own their own home. Not only that, but having owned one’s own home one now finds that it has to be sold to pay for one’s care in old age. It may have to be sold to raise money if one has the misfortune to be involved in expensive litigation. Not only that but, heaven forbid, it might even come to a mansion tax. In other words, one is putting much too much pressure on that wide swathe of population that owns a home of relatively modest value. They might have bought it for a five-figure sum years ago, but they will now find their house in that more than £100,000, and then £8,000, asset rank, depriving them of legal aid. The assessment costs will bite into the limited funds that are available for legal aid, because given the way in which the legislation is drafted, assessing whether someone is eligible for legal aid will involve quite a complicated process.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, a key reference in this Motion of Regret is to “vulnerable people”, which is why this non-lawyer dares to stand amid such legal luminaries and feels a bit vulnerable himself.
A civilised country is one where we are all free under the law and where vulnerable people are not left defenceless against unjust treatment by another person, organisation or even an agent of government. Vulnerability is relative, of course, but the calculations that inform the regulations under discussion concern people who may be a very long way, as we have heard, from financial comfort and security, and may have multiple other needs.
The level at which permitted disposable capital is set is likely to render some older people in particular less capable of securing legal aid when faced by serious problems requiring legal redress. The levels seem to be set deliberately low. An older person with a capital value in their house of, let us say, £150,000 and an income that is modest yet sufficient to take them over the limits here might have to sell up to pay for legal services in a case, for example, involving mental capacity or criminal negligence. If they do not sell, they will have no access to the law, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has just illustrated, they would have to represent themselves.
Do we think that such a person should move away from the support structure of family and friends just when they might need them most, when suffering from an injustice, if they are to realise any capital? Perhaps I am painting too gloomy a picture, but these seem to me to be the likely consequence of the regulations. I should be grateful if the Minister would address such dilemmas and what someone in such a dilemma is expected to do.
Last week, the Justice Secretary’s statement that he was ideologically opposed to legal aid for prisoners in almost all situations, however disabled or disadvantaged they were, caused comment. I know that this is not the focus of this Motion of Regret, but the use of the word “ideological” was worrying. Ideology has too often trumped humanity in the history of the 20th century. Of course, the term emerged from the French Revolution, so its pedigree is argued over.
Although I am sure the Minister will robustly defend the regulations, I hope he will recognise that if they damage access to legal representation for vulnerable people, the Government will have to change course on humanitarian grounds and not defend themselves on the basis of a flawed ideology.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bach on raising this issue by means of the Regret Motion. To prepare for this debate, I did of course read the regulations and the Explanatory Note. It occurred to me that it would be helpful to look at the impact assessment. However, that posed a certain challenge. It took about three-quarters of an hour for the Printed Paper Office and me to track down the appropriate documentation, because the reference in the Explanatory Note is not very helpful, and apparently nobody in the Ministry of Justice was able to respond to a telephone call from the Printed Paper Office.
However, I was eventually able to access the impact assessment, which was revised on Royal Assent. It certainly makes interesting reading. It discloses that a majority of respondents to the initial consultation,
“did not support the Government’s proposals for reform”,
although some did. It would be interesting to know what proportion of respondents supported the proposal out of the 5,000 who responded. “Some” could mean as few as two but conceivably a few more. It would be interesting to know what the balance was.
There has been no specific consultation on these regulations. However, the impact assessment made it clear that the changes have the potential to have a disproportionate effect on women, BME citizens and those between the ages of 25 and 64. Nevertheless, it stated that the Government’s conclusion was that clients should have a financial stake wherever possible. That financial stake could be as much as 30% of disposable income. Disposable income is not generously calculated. Roughly speaking, a contribution of that size would pay for an evening out for the Chancellor and whoever he chose to entertain—Lynton Crosby seems to be quite a popular accompaniment to any Minister.
There is also a serious point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to, about the question of the capital value of property to be taken into account. Given the current level of house prices, certainly in this part of the country, just over £100,000 of capital represents very little in the way of property. Values are substantially higher than would be reflected in other parts of the country. A pensioner on pension credit whose mortgage has been paid off and whose home is worth £110,000, who could be living in a very modest property in London to exceed that figure, will be ineligible for legal aid. A recently unemployed father on jobseeker’s allowance in negative equity with a home worth £240,000 and a mortgage of £250,000—so not in possession of any equity at all—will also be disqualified from receiving legal aid. A disabled man receiving employment and support allowance with a mortgage of £150,000 on a home worth £210,000—again, in London, that will not get you very far—will also be ineligible for legal aid. There is a real question of hardship here. It is certainly undesirable that people in that position should be compelled to have, to use that rather ugly phrase, “skin in the game” to access justice.
There is a particular question on which perhaps the Minister can help me. Regulation 40 states that,
“payment made out of the social fund under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act”,
must be disregarded. Does that apply to the Social Fund in its new incarnation, because it is of course no longer a national Social Fund; it has now been passed to local authorities? I do not necessarily ask for an answer tonight, but it is unclear to me whether that disregard will apply to payments made under the new regime.
Another issue, mediation, has been raised by the Law Society, among others, and is something that the Government are very keen to push. I have my reservations about the degree to which it will actually help to resolve cases. Nevertheless, it is available, it has been used, and the Government want to encourage it. The same eligibility criteria will apply. Have the Government taken that into consideration? There is also the issue of the cost of administration of the system. Clearly administering the new regime will involve greater costs than the previous regime.
Then there is the question of how many people will be affected. As my noble friend said, the Government’s original estimate was 4,000. As he said, that is widely viewed as an underestimate. Admittedly the scheme has been going for only a few months, but have the Government made any attempt to ascertain the likely numbers, and can they project them? If they have not done that yet, will the Minister undertake to do so after, say, six months, nine months or a year, so that we can assess the impact on those affected?
It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position of considering significant changes to a scheme whose scope is in any case being substantially narrowed. Clearly, the likelihood of people being deterred from pursuing a remedy will be borne out in the event. It is difficult to argue with those who believe that deterring claims is part of the Government’s objective, at least as much as the potential savings that will accrue, at the expense, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, of many vulnerable people.
I entirely endorse the terms of the Motion and look forward with interest to hearing from the Minister. I join my noble friend in congratulating the Minister on the line that he took this afternoon in questions about human rights. If I may say so, he distinguished himself from some of those around and behind him this afternoon in a very effective way. A little more of that from him would win him even more plaudits around the House. I congratulate him, and I hope that in that spirit he will respond a little more constructively to my noble friend’s Motion than might otherwise be the case.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
I think there is a line in TS Eliot that says, “Woe unto me when all men praise me”.
This debate gives me the opportunity to clarify the position in the regulations laid before the House on 7 March concerning the issue of capital in relation to financial eligibility for civil legal aid. I will certainly respond to the debate, as I did last Thursday. In fact, I reread the debate and my reply. I think that I covered most of the points raised by the 14 lawyers and two others who contributed to that debate.
The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013 set out the rules that the director must apply to determine whether an applicant’s financial resources are such that the applicant is financially eligible for civil legal services under Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. These regulations broadly replicate the effects of Parts 1 and 2 of the Community Legal Service (Financial) Regulations, which were made under the Access to Justice Act 1999. Indeed, a number of the points that were raised tonight were in complaint of parts that replicated that Act.
However, as part of the Government’s consultation in 2010, entitled Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales, the Government proposed several changes to the rules concerning financial eligibility and contributions for civil legal aid. One of these changes was the removal of capital passporting. Two others were to cap the subject matter of the dispute disregard at £100,000 for all forms of civil legal services, and to increase the levels of income-based contributions to a maximum of 30% of monthly disposable income. Before 1 April, someone receiving certain income-based benefits, such as income support, could have up to £16,000 disposable capital but be automatically passported through the means test and be deemed eligible for legal aid. However, a person not receiving a passporting benefit, and who had more than £8,000 in disposable capital, would be ineligible for legal aid.
It is inequitable that applicants with similar levels of capital may or may not be eligible for legal aid depending on the source of their income. To achieve greater internal alignment and fairness to all applicants for legal aid, the Government proposed that in future people in receipt of passporting benefits should have their capital assessed in the same way as it is assessed for others, although they would still be passported through the income side of the test.
The Government’s response to that consultation in June 2011 confirmed that they would take forward the proposal, and this is reflected in these new regulations. Therefore, under the new rules, all applicants for civil legal aid are subject to the same capital eligibility test. This means that any applicant with disposable capital above £8,000 will be ineligible for civil legal aid, regardless of whether they are in receipt of benefits. If the applicant’s disposable capital is more than £3,000 but does not exceed £8,000, they will be required to make a contribution from that capital towards the costs of the legally aided services.
Ensuring that the capital assets of all applicants are subject to the same eligibility test helps to focus limited public legal aid funds on the most financially vulnerable clients and means that those who can afford to pay, or can contribute towards the costs, do so. It is estimated that assessing all applicants’ disposable capital will result in approximately £10 million a year of savings in steady state. This is not insignificant against a backdrop of continuing pressure on public finances, where we need to continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer. Disposable capital comprises all capital assets, including equity in land and buildings, money held in a bank, investments, stocks, shares and the monetary value of valuable items. However, there are certain disregards in calculating the amount of an individual’s disposable capital, including for mortgages and for equity in an individual’s home.
It may be helpful if I explain what these are. If an applicant is contesting property with their partner, their share of capital is assessed individually. Any outstanding mortgage, up to the value of £100,000, is subtracted from the value of the property. Where assets are in joint names, they will generally be treated as owned in equal shares. Thus the remaining equity is divided equally between the parties. The first £100,000 of the applicant’s equity is then disregarded under the subject matter of the dispute rule. The applicant then receives a further £100,000 equity disregard if the property is their main dwelling. If the remaining equity exceeds the £8,000 capital limit, the applicant will be financially ineligible for legal aid.
In practice, this means that only those applicants who are contesting large amounts of capital, or homes registered in joint names that are valued in excess of £500,000, and where there is a mortgage of at least £100,000, are excluded on capital grounds. We do not think it unfair or unreasonable that people who are disputing substantial assets fall outside eligibility for civil legal aid.
Where a property is not the subject matter of the dispute, is in an applicant’s sole name and worth more than £208,000, that applicant would not normally be eligible for legal aid. However, a further disregard of up to £100,000 would apply if the applicant was aged 60 or over and had monthly disposable income of less than £315. The financial eligibility criteria for civil legal aid are designed to focus our limited resources on those of moderate means and with moderate amounts of capital. This helps to ensure that we can continue to provide services for vulnerable persons, such as victims of domestic violence, children at risk and those with mental health problems.
For domestic violence and forced marriage cases where the applicant seeks an injunction or other order for protection from harm to the person, or seeks committal for breach of any such order, there is a power to disregard the eligibility limits. In this way, we extend eligibility to legal aid for victims of domestic violence irrespective of the value of any property that the individual may own. A contribution may be required from income or capital.
The eligibility waiver for victims of domestic violence seeking protection from harm is a significant concession. This measure improves access to legal aid for domestic violence victims by extending eligibility beyond the original limit. It means that immediate legal advice and representation is available for those who need it and who otherwise would not qualify under the normal eligibility regulations. For those applicants required to pay a contribution, as legally aided clients they will benefit from the reduced cost of representation under legal aid rates as opposed to private rates.
There is a concession for pensioners who are in receipt of an income of £315 a month or below. Disregards of between £10,000 and £100,000 can be applied to any capital assets that they hold, including both property and savings, depending on the level of their income. For example, a monthly income of £76 to £100 attracts a capital disregard of £70,000. This is in addition to the allowances that normally apply, such as the equity disregard. Pensioners who receive a passporting benefit are entitled to the maximum disregard of £100,000.
The financial eligibility criteria for civil legal aid are designed to focus our limited resources on the poorest people. Bringing the capital rules for those receiving benefit into line with the rules for those who are not will help to do that, and will improve the fairness of the system. The substantial provision for disregards that I have outlined will ensure that an appropriate degree of sensitivity to individual circumstances is maintained, in particular as regards capital in the form of equity in the home. This is a sensible and reasonable measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, made a number of points about the difference in the capital tests. Legal aid is not a welfare benefit and should not necessarily be treated in exactly the same way as universal credit, which is a working-age benefit. This is reflected in the different functions of income support and legal aid. The former is intended to lift people out of poverty over the long term while not penalising people for saving, while the latter is for people required to deal with a short-term legal issue and the associated expense.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that our LASPO reforms have reduced legal aid to skeletal proportions. I remind the House that we are talking about an exercise that has brought legal aid down from £2.1 billion to £1.5 billion. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Bach, nor the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, do their case any good by pretending that a system that will still spend something like £50 million on welfare legal aid and £1.5 billion in total can be described as “skeletal”. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said how generous the Labour Government were in 2009. In 2010, we had to take some very tough decisions. Again, I question whether the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has any authority to encourage us to believe that in 2015 a Labour Government would try to restore any of these changes to legal aid.
I hear what was said by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. However, they do not do the cause that they espouse—desiring to help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society—any good by arguing that these changes, which will affect people with quite substantial assets behind them, are not the right priority in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned litigants in person. We are monitoring the impact of litigants in person. However, as I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in a more recent exchange we had, LASPO has been in practice for just over 100 days. He has been forecasting perfect storms and disaster for at least a year. We are keeping a close eye on these things and will monitor these various issues. However, the constant argument of disaster does not serve anybody. The very first Statement I made from this Dispatch Box was to the effect that if a part of your spending is directed at the vulnerable and the needy and you cut it, of course you will affect the vulnerable and needy. In those circumstances we have tried to make sure that we concentrate the money we have available where it is most needed. I will have a look at the Social Fund disregard and will write to the noble Lord—unless it was in that bit of paper that was passed to me. Even if it was, I will write to him.
This has been an interesting debate. The modest changes that we have made to the financial eligibility rules for civil legal aid are consistent with the fundamental objective of our reforms. We need to continue to think carefully about how taxpayer-funded money is spent and focus legal aid on the highest-priority cases and those most in need, while delivering the savings needed to address the national financial deficit. I hope that I have covered most of the questions raised in the debate, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will agree to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in particular the Minister for the trouble he has taken to respond to the debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his extraordinarily flattering remarks, which were somewhat exaggerated. However, it was very good also to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich; the Government should listen with some care to the remarks that he made. I am grateful, too, as always, to my noble friend Lord Beecham for summing up the Opposition’s view so clearly and crisply.
We should remember that we are discussing areas of law where the Government decided that legal aid should continue, not those areas of law where they thought that legal aid was completely meaningless or was not legal or appropriate. These are areas where people’s need for legal aid is acute: for instance, housing repossession, domestic violence or community care. With these regulations the Government have said on the one hand, “These are the areas where legal aid is appropriate”, but on the other, “Those of you who may be poor in income terms but have a small amount of capital cannot take advantage of where we are keeping legal aid in scope”.
That is not a satisfactory position for the Government to take. To say that what has been taken out of legal aid—particularly out of social welfare law—is skeletal seems to be an overstatement rather than an understatement when we look at what is left in scope compared with what has been taken out, which includes all welfare benefit social welfare law, all employment social welfare law, the vast majority of housing social welfare law and nearly all debt social welfare law. The word “skeletal” is not wrong at all.
Legal aid is part of our welfare system and should be so. It is part of our social security system and a protection for all our citizens, or so it ought to be. That was the idea when it was first formulated—an idea that has grown up with Governments of all persuasions over the past 60 years. It is a great shame to hear the Minister say that it can be completely divorced, as it were, from the rest of the social security system. It cannot be: it remains a protection for all of us.
These regulations make the position more complicated, more costly, more unfair and more inflexible. That is not satisfactory. Of course, I am tempted—as I always am—to divide the House on the issue. Noble Lords have spoken in pretty clear terms of what is felt around the House. However, the House has probably voted quite sufficiently in the early part of this evening. We have had the debate and will be able to read it in Hansard. I have no doubt—I know that the Minister will look forward to this—that we will come back to these issues in due course, but probably after the summer rather than before. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Mesothelioma Bill [HL]
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(2A) The average damages recovered by claimants in mesothelioma cases shall be determined by reference to the gross tariff, as set out in Schedule (Tariff).
(2B) The gross tariff will be up-rated annually by the general level of prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index and reviewed at least every five years.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 15 I shall speak also to Amendment 19. These address aspects of the levy. That subject was covered in large measure by the noble Lord in his introductory statement, so I hope that I can be brief. However, given that we have not yet seen a draft of the levy regulations, nor will we by the time the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House, we need as much clarity as possible on what they will contain.
Amendment 15 sets out a gross tariff as a schedule to the Bill. It is based on the national institute analysis that sought to determine average civil compensation awards for mesothelioma cases based on recent experience. It is set out in yearly age bands and stretches from age 40—that is, at date of diagnosis—to age 94. The tariff is intended to be a proxy for levels of compensation that would have been awarded had individual compensation assessments been made. It is expressed in gross amounts, so if payments are made at less than 100%, the relevant percentage would apply. The tariff excludes the legal cost of reimbursement. I understand that the amounts included in that gross tariff, reflected in the proposed new schedule, are not contentious and are accepted by the Government, the ABI and the Asbestos Victims Support Group campaigners and its professional advisers. However, it would be good to have the Minister’s specific confirmation of that.
The Government may resist the tariff going in a schedule to the Bill, although we would contend that that is where it belongs. An alternative approach is acceptable to us, as long as there is certainty on the gross starting tariff. The amendment also calls for the tariff to be uprated annually by reference to inflation. We have adopted the CPI measure and the Minister has already said that that is the intent. However, again, it is important to have that on the record.
The amendment further calls for the tariff to be reviewed at least every five years. Not only is this reasonable in terms of generally ensuring that the tariff is aligned with reality, but it implicitly recognises the changes that might ensue following the uprating of civil compensation claims following LASPO deliberations. It would be helpful to have confirmation from the Minister that it would be the intent to align the tariff with the outcome of any such review. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their amendments. As I understand it, their purpose is to set out the exact tariff to be used by the scheme and to require that the growth tariff would be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index. I support the intention of the amendments, although I do not think that they are necessary. I shall explain why.
I put on the record that it is our intention to uprate the scheme payments annually in line with the CPI. If we were to put that in the Bill, we would have no flexibility to uprate by any other amount in future. For instance, we have given an undertaking to review the scheme’s operation and the rates of payment at the end of the smoothing period. Obviously I cannot pre-empt the findings of the future review, but were any review to show that a gap had developed between average civil damages and scheme payments, we would want to address that. If we were required by the Bill to uprate only in line with the CPI, we would be unable to do so.
Regarding the proposed tariff to be included in the Bill, I confirm that we have published an ad hoc analytical publication that sets out the same figures that are included in the table attached to the amendment. These are the figures that we will be using as a baseline when we calculate the percentage level of damages. If we included the table as a schedule, as the amendment proposes, we would need either annual primary legislation or a regulation-making power to make any change to the schedule. As I say, I am happy to go on record to say that the figures contained in the report that we have published will be used when we calculate the amounts that individuals will receive. We will publish in regulations the amounts that people will receive from the scheme.
I hope that I have covered these issues in adequate detail and have put the position on the record without the need for these amendments, which I understand were intended to tease out these issues. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for his reply. It dealt satisfactorily with the purpose of the amendment, which I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Howarth of Newport
“( ) must ensure as far as possible that the scheme administrator is unbiased as between the interests of the insurance industry and the interests of applicants to the scheme,”
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, this amendment is intended to highlight the important issue of conflict of interest, which we have not sufficiently considered so far in our proceedings. The Government are proposing that a scheme intended for the benefit of mesothelioma sufferers should be run by the same insurance industry whose negligence deprived mesothelioma victims of legal redress and which for years held out against fair and decent treatment. As envisaged by the ABI, the industry would create an incorporated body, accountable to its funders in the industry through its board.
In its briefing to us, the ABI has made no mention of the possibility of competition that the Minister informed the House about earlier today. I applaud his intention to ensure that there is a competitive tender of the administration of the scheme; that is right in principle. However, it may be difficult for the noble Lord to find other tenderers that are competent to run the scheme. Let us see.
Meanwhile, the difficulty we need to keep clearly in sight is that it is in the insurers’ interest to pay 75% or even less of the average civil court settlements. It is in their interest to avoid costly procedures and negotiations of the kind the court route requires of them. Indeed, it is in their interest to determine that applicants for awards from the scheme are found to be ineligible. It is in their interest, after all, to reduce the levy.
The Bill, as drafted, and the scheme, as proposed, create an administrator and a technical committee that have pretty well plenipotentiary powers to assess eligibility, the validity of documentation and the significance of evidence. Under Clause 4(3)(b), the scheme may,
“in particular, give the scheme administrator power to decide when to impose conditions or what conditions to impose”.
That is a fairly blank cheque. In the scheme contents that we have been shown, which are to be brought in by regulation, the scheme administrator has powers to refuse altogether to make payment. We need to be well aware that there is a bias built into this system. It may be unavoidable but it is there.
The ABI has informed us that, of 4,051 ELTO searches in the year from May 2011 to April 2012, 2,354 were successful in tracing the documentation; it follows that 1,697 were unsuccessful. Yet the ABI is predicting that only 200 to 300 claimants will be found to be eligible each year. What is to happen to the other five-sixths of those whose documents could not be traced?
The powers of the administrator and technical committee are, as I have suggested, almost total. Admittedly, there is provision for reviews and appeals and, if this is to be a body created under legislation, there may be scope for judicial review, but that of course is not a desirable way to resolve these cases.
The insurance industry is going to be judge and jury in what is in its own interest. The case for using the insurance industry to administer the scheme is that it understands the business. However, I hope that the Minister will describe to the House how he intends to ensure fair play. The history of employer’s liability insurers does not inspire confidence and it is not satisfactory to design into the scheme a blatant conflict of interest. Therefore, the question is: will the oversight committee proposed in the amendment from my noble friends on the Front Bench be sufficient to ensure fair play?
My Amendment 30 would require the Secretary of State to report on the performance of the scheme and the administrator to Parliament each year. This amendment is modelled on a provision that the Government have written into the Intellectual Property Bill. It is an admirable provision. If the Minister is willing to agree that there should be an oversight committee, should it report to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State then report to Parliament on an annual basis? I hope that that will be the case. The matters on which we should look to the Secretary to State to report to Parliament include: the performance of the administrator; all the relevant data and statistics to enable us to know the performance of the scheme in detail; the number and variety of cases; the speed at which cases are processed; the pattern of tariff payments; the evolving relationship between payments under the scheme and awards made by the courts; and the scale and nature of compensation recovery unit recoveries from payments. We should also be told about what is happening in the field of research, which we debated at length this afternoon.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 25 and 29 in this group and we support Amendments 17 and 30 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howarth, although there is some overlap between the two sets of amendments. I will be brief as I believe we are pushing at an open door from what the Minister told us earlier today. Amendment 25 calls for the establishment of an oversight committee to monitor, review and report to the Secretary of State on the overall arrangements touched on by this legislation. It would undertake this task in relation not only to the scheme and the technical committee but to the tracing office and the electronic information gateway. They fit together, and we know that the insurance industry sees them as an integrated package.
The idea of an oversight committee was originally prompted by concerns over the extent to which the insurance industry may be engaged in all of this, possibly as a scheme administrator—although we welcome the news announced earlier today about the open competition—and certainly on the technical committee, running the tracing office and devising the portal. An oversight committee properly constituted would provide a level of reassurance for those whom the scheme should benefit and would be a counterweight to the level of engagement of a powerful industry with clear financial interests in how it all works, as my noble friend Lord Howarth so powerfully demonstrated. That is why we believe that the oversight committee should include representatives of asbestos victims support groups and the trade unions which have supported them, with an independent chair. Effective oversight would, we suggest, help the hard-pressed DWP resources, and an annual report from the committee could be incorporated with an annual report to Parliament by the Minister.
In Committee and in meetings thereafter, the Minister has expressed support for an oversight committee. We heard it again today and I know that he has considered various options. While disappointed not to see a specific amendment from the Government today, we hope for an assurance that they will introduce an amendment when the Bill passes to the House of Commons. I was not quite sure that it was clear enough in the noble Lord’s opening statement, so I hope he will clarify matters. It would be good if that assurance spelt out at least the bare bones of what is intended.
Amendment 29 is a return to the issue of support for sufferers of other asbestos and long-latency diseases. The payment scheme in this Bill relates to those diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. It therefore excludes other asbestos-related diseases such as asbestos-related lung cancer and asbestosis. It also includes other work-related, non-asbestos diseases such as pneumoconiosis. The DWP’s June 2013 analysis quotes the Health and Safety Executive data on industrial diseases, which has an annual estimate of sufferers of asbestos-related diseases of some 3,500—that excludes those suffering from mesothelioma—and of non-asbestos-related industrial diseases of some 4,200. Many of these will face the same problem in identifying a negligent employer or an employer liability insurer. The DWP’s June note acknowledges that many of the diseases covered do not share the same characteristics as mesothelioma, and that their severity and progression may vary, depending on the heaviness of exposure to asbestos.
It also highlights the fact that, for example, only a small proportion of asbestos-related lung cancers are compensated through government schemes, because of the range of different causes of lung cancer that mask an asbestos cause. Notwithstanding this, and perhaps somewhat strangely, in computing the effect of extending the scheme, it has been assumed in the data that the same proportion of those with diffuse mesothelioma who can access the scheme proposed by the Bill will be able to access an extended scheme, that the same level of scheme payment will be received, and that the same amount of benefit will be recovered. These are fairly broad-brush assumptions, to say the least. In resisting this amendment, the Minister will doubtless point to the costs of bringing forward an extension of the scheme. On the basis of their estimates over a 10-year period, they suggest that there will be 5,100 successful applicants for other asbestos-related diseases and 6,100 with non-asbestos work-related diseases. There will be additional levy on insurers of £478 million and £564 million respectively.
At face value, these figures are shocking. It is not so much the amounts as the suggestion that over the 10-year period some 11,200 people will miss out. By how much will depend on benefit recovery arrangements, but they could miss out to the tune of £1 billion. If the concentration were just on the other asbestos-related diseases, not expanding the scheme will deny 5,100 people, who will miss out just because an employer has gone out of business or cannot be located and a relevant insurer cannot be established.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals within a year to establish other schemes to cover these other diseases. We have been clear that we do not want the pursuit of broader coverage to hold up the scheme for diffuse mesothelioma, and there is no reason why acceptance of the amendment should cause this to happen. It is accepted that it will be difficult to graft onto the mesothelioma scheme the tariff approach, given the varying degrees of suffering that some of the other diseases entail, and that there may be convoluted issues around causation. Therefore, while continuing to acknowledge the merits of the mesothelioma scheme, we should no longer look aside from those people—many thousands on the Government’s own figures—who face terrible suffering because of the negligence or breach of statutory duty of an employer. This is all the more important where access to the state lump sum and social security support is more difficult, as it is for some.
The Minister has come thus far and we have supported and congratulated him on doing so. Indeed, he has expressed sympathy for a broader scheme. Accepting the thrust of these amendments would add to that journey, which I beg him to undertake. If he cannot, he will of course be aware that the campaigns will go on.
Lord Freud
My Lords, it would be most convenient to deal with these amendments in their original order. If I may, I will start with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the scheme administrator, and then turn to the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, which relate to an oversight committee and future reports on further schemes. I will then turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on annual performance.
Amendment 17 is intended to make certain that the body chosen to administer the scheme is able to operate in a wholly objective and unbiased manner. I know that there has been concern among noble Lords about the insurance industry’s involvement with this scheme, especially its administration. I agree that it is paramount that the administrators of a scheme that is intended to help its applicants must be able to do so in a fair way. I am confident that the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure this without the need for an amendment on the matter.
First, I remind noble Lords of the commercial procurement strategy that I spoke about earlier. The scheme administrator will be chosen through an open procurement competition that will be launched in time to meet our aim of taking the first applications in April 2014 and making payments next July. Members of the insurance industry will be allowed to tender, as will the shadow body created by the ABI. Legal specialists may also tender. The body will be chosen through this exercise according to our commercial criteria, which include being able to administer the scheme as set out by the scheme rules.
Secondly, I refer noble Lords to the scheme rules, which set out clearly every aspect of the scheme administration and specify how the administrator may or may not act. Compliance with the scheme rules will form an integral part of scheme arrangements.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full response to each amendment in this group. He tells us that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure the objectivity and unbiased behaviour of the scheme administrator, and asks us to accept that the open procurement competition will be a contributor to guaranteeing that impartiality. However, it may be difficult for him to find anybody competent to run the scheme who is not in the industry, so the problem of conflict is likely to persist. I do not wish continuously to impugn the motives of people in the insurance industry, and would like to think that those who are appointed to work as administrators of the scheme will set out with the best of honourable intentions.
We are always being warned, however, that we should avoid situations of conflict of interest and, from time to time, people are vulnerable to the temptations that conflicts of interest present to them. There is a whole institutional temptation here because the insurance industry stands to gain significantly from cases not going to court and from cases not being handled generously by administrators, who will have such absolute powers of determination. I therefore remain concerned about this, although the Minister offered a little reassurance about Clause 4(3)(b) when he said that it was harmless. Certainly, on the face of it, the wording of it seems to give enormously large powers to the administrator, but I accept what he said about the purpose of that particular piece of drafting.
Moving on to the oversight committee, it is good that the Minister agrees that there should be such a committee; he made his points about getting stakeholders on to the board of ELTO and the technical committee being within ELTO, so that stakeholders would be in a position to keep an eye on the performance of those parts of the whole apparatus. He said, understandably enough, that he wants a non-legislative solution, but we will probably want to know a good deal more about the provision that he intends to propose before we can agree that it is right in principle that there should be a non-legislative solution. My noble friends may want to reserve the right to return to that, whether that is here or in another place.
As to the report on future schemes, the Minister again rejected the proposal from my noble friends, as he does not want to divert scarce resources—no doubt of time and energy, as well as money—to preparing that. He suggested that the complexities of the other asbestos-related conditions are such that they would not fit well into the mould of the scheme that we are legislating for in this Bill. I hope, however, that the Minister will continue to reflect on the fact that there are—as my noble friends explained compellingly, and rather movingly—large numbers of people who are suffering from these other conditions. At the moment they have all too little support; we know that there is a vast disparity between the lump sums that are paid under government schemes and the awards that the courts provide and the lesser payments that the scheme will provide. These people continue to be seriously disadvantaged and we cannot be happy with that.
I was pleased that the Minister was able to tell us that the success rate in tracing has been improving spectacularly, which suggests that it could always have happened if there had been the will on the part of the industry to do this. We must be pleased that it is now doing better but, equally, we must have means to keep the pressure up and to ensure that, in the future, there is not again any deterioration in the success rate of tracing and, above all, that elements of the industry do not resume the practice of conveniently losing or shredding documentation, which is the great scandal. They are getting off all too lightly in that regard.
On the annual report, the subject of Amendment 30, the Minister wanted us to accept that scrutiny and reviews are already planned and that we do not need to worry because everybody will keep an eye on it and Parliament does not need to be too bothered by it. I do not think that the annual Written Ministerial Statement that the noble Lord has promised is good enough for Parliament, even when combined with the online information that he said will be made available. He will have seen already the intensity of interest in your Lordships’ House and he will certainly see both greater intensity of interest in the House of Commons when it comes to scrutinise this Bill and a wide and deep concern across the country. I think that it is a proper responsibility of Parliament to invigilate this process, and an annual report is a convenient and practical means for Parliament to do so. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Minister has resisted that. This is a subject that I think we will wish to return to but, in the mean time, I beg leave—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may clarify one point with the Minister. I was slightly less reassured about the oversight committee than I expected to be, partly because it looks as though it might be a fragmented effort, given the ELTO structure. The noble Lord said that his preference was for a non-legislative solution, and we do not have a problem with that. However, will a conclusion be reached as to whether the non-legislative solution will be found by the time the alternative of a legislative solution passes in the Commons? It would be a pity if we had not concluded on this and decided in due course that we needed a legislative solution and the Bill had completed its passage.
Lord Freud
My Lords, my aim is to know where we are with the structure over this Recess. I think that I owe the noble Lord a letter at the end of the Recess setting out where we have got to on that so that he will be able to talk to his colleagues in the other place. If he thinks that a gap is developing, that is a way for me to handle that uncertainty.
Lord Howarth of Newport
In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
This is a minor amendment which removes an erroneous reference to Section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appropriate transitional provision which relates to the offence in Clause 9 of this Bill is Section 154(1) of that Act.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
The amendments in this group concern the technical committee that will be established to make decisions regarding disputes about whether an insurer provided employer’s liability insurance to a particular employer at a particular time. The amendments do two things: first, they make clearer the definition of “potential insurance claimant”—in other words, those who could be in dispute with an insurer about cover and whose disputes might come to the technical committee for a decision—and, secondly, they remove the power of the Secretary of State to expand that definition in the future.
Currently, the definition of a potential insurance claimant includes those who allege that an employer is liable for damages and an employer or anyone else who is alleged to be liable for damages. Amendment 26 removes the phrase “or anyone else”. This phrase is not deemed necessary because we are not able to identify any further parties that could come to the committee, other than those already listed.
Amendment 27 removes Clause 15(10), which gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to amend the definition of potential insurance claimant. This could include extending the scope of the technical committee to cases concerning other diseases or bodily injury. Amendment 32 makes a consequential amendment to Clause 17 to reflect the fact that, with the removal of Clause 15(10), there will be no regulations under Clause 15.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report, recommended the removal of the power to amend the definition of “potential insurance claimant” unless its purposes could be more precisely specified. Having considered the points made by the DPRRC about this power, we are persuaded that these amendments are necessary. Clause 15 as it stands potentially broadens the scope of the Bill in a way that is not consistent with the focused nature of the rest of the Bill. Furthermore, as we are not able to specify the exact circumstances in which the Secretary of State might choose to expand the classes of people about to bring disputes before the technical committee, we agree that such a broad regulation-making power is inappropriate.
I hope that noble Lords can support the wish to make the Bill as robust as possible, and support the removal of unnecessary regulation-making powers. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have no difficulty in accepting these amendments. As far as Amendment 27 is concerned, we are a little unhappy to see this disappear but accept that, without broader schemes evolved and being brought forward, it does not make particular sense.
So far as Amendment 26 is concerned and the deletion of “or anyone else”, can the Minister just remind us who that was intended to cover or who the drafters originally thought ought to be covered?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I think that is the most difficult question I have had in the past three years. I simply do not know what was in the draftsman’s mind. I think it was a standard reflex to capture anything that may not have been in the list. When we had the chance to go over it in more detail, we really could not think of anything else so it became redundant. I think that is the explanation and I am deeply impressed by the question.
Lord Freud
Lord James of Blackheath
“Establishing additional schemes
The Secretary of State shall by regulation establish another scheme in relation to long-latency asbestos-related diseases in current and retired members of the Armed Forces.”
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, the sole purpose of this amendment is to make sure that we do not lose track of the very important but parallel issue of asbestosis that affects members of the fighting services. I remind noble Lords of the amendments made some six years ago by the former Government that were very much against the interests of former officers and servicemen, particularly in the Royal Navy. There was a very bad record of asbestos-related illness, particularly on ships such as HMS “Furious”, HMS “Albion” and, above all, the Royal Yacht “Britannia”, which was a floating death-trap.
The unfortunate consequences of the amendments made six years ago were that the amount of compensation one was entitled to was reduced very drastically; in addition, the period of claim was limited so severely that it could not possibly allow for the inevitable eventual development of the disease and the justification for a claim. Armed Forces people have been very poorly treated in this and although we are talking here of a different branch of asbestosis, I remind your Lordships that in the insurance world they would not make that distinction. Nobody ever wrote a policy for mesothelioma on its own any more than they wrote one for asbestosis without embracing the generality of it. This is an important factor that has sometimes been forgotten in this debate.
In the matter of the Armed Forces, these people have been left exposed—to a greater or lesser degree—to all the consequences we have been talking about that are associated with this disease. They are going to be somewhat perplexed when they find out that the Government have gone out of their way to pass this splendid Bill to help sufferers of a different form of asbestosis while doing nothing whatever to amend the drastic reductions made six years ago to the terms available to servicemen.
I was very grateful for a joint meeting between the Minister’s department and the MoD, from which I came away with the great expectation that there would be a thorough analysis of data of the actual exposure and the number of cases concerned, and that this would open the way for some sort of parallel accommodation to be agreed. There was no question of dipping into this Bill’s pot to pass money over but there was the suggestion of perhaps a separate pot being arrived at by the Ministry of Defence, which could help to close the gap between the have-nots of the Armed Forces and the haves who will benefit from this Bill.
The reason for this amendment is that, unfortunately, the MoD has not provided the expected data. I talked to the noble Lord, Lord West, about this matter earlier and he showed a keen interest. He was an officer on one of the ships that was greatly affected and had the responsibility of overseeing the engine room replenishment of one. He therefore regards himself as a prime candidate for the condition in time. We have not had those data and it looks as if it is the Navy that has been remiss; yet it is the Navy about which we are most concerned.
May I please send a message via the Minister to ask the Navy to stir its stumps a bit and do something about getting those data to us? We need them. The idea would then be to see what can be done to put together a programme that will not result in a Daily Mail headline such as, “Callous Government plan for the many and abandon their heroes of the seas”. We do not want that, and it would be unfair anyway. We need a commitment to do something for Armed Forces people who have had a very bad deal for the past six years. We need to do something to put it right.
I have tabled this amendment in order to keep people interested in the possibility of having that debate, which we cannot do until we know the data and what can be done. I do not wish to press this amendment tonight but I certainly wish to roll it over to Third Reading, in exactly the same wording, in the hope that by then we will have a more positive approach to how we can arrive at a solution to give some parallel improvement to the terms available to former members of the fighting services. On that basis, I urge the Minister to do whatever he can to stimulate that dialogue. I would be happy to participate in any stage of it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord James, raised this issue with passion and commitment in Committee and, doubtless, previously. I am not sure that I understand all the detail of the proposition he is advancing and the background case but I certainly encourage him to continue with his campaign. I think that the noble Lord was seeking to advance the argument that some people are being dealt with under this Bill but that there are members of our Armed Forces who are not being dealt with on an equivalent basis. He keeps referring to asbestosis. This Bill relates to diffuse mesothelioma, which is different from asbestosis. In fact, we have just set our face against developing a scheme that has broader implications for people with asbestosis.
Lord James of Blackheath
I thank the noble Lord for that. I hope I made clear the distinction that I am looking at this matter from an insurance industry point of view; namely, that asbestosis covered everything and that six years ago we inadvertently disadvantaged the Armed Forces so severely that we have put them way below the benchmark that we are seeking in this Bill for sufferers of mesothelioma. A comparison is bound to be struck. Veterans’ groups are bound to pick it up and there will be people who are very unhappy to see this deficiency on their part.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification, and I accept the point. If he is comparing people with diffuse mesothelioma who are not being treated on an equivalent basis, it seems that there is a case. I think that I would hang on to my point that asbestosis is different and that we have not sought to address that in this Bill.
Lord James of Blackheath
I am talking about the sufferers and the industry.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment and assure him that I am sympathetic to his desire to provide support for current and retired members of the Armed Forces. As he would expect, however, I must reject the amendment.
This Bill’s remit is strictly mesothelioma, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Nevertheless, I hope that it will continue to draw into the spotlight the issues highlighted by the amendment and that the momentum from this Bill will assist my noble friend as he continues to advocate on behalf of service personnel.
I remind my noble friend of the distinctive characteristics of mesothelioma that allow for a relatively straightforward and quick scheme to be established, such as its undeniable link to asbestos exposure, the lack of co-causality with other factors such as smoking, and the very short time between diagnosis of the symptoms and death. These unique elements of diffuse mesothelioma allow us to establish a scheme that will make payments quickly and efficiently.
It is important to note, too, that the mesothelioma payment scheme proposed in the Bill addresses a market failure related to employer’s liability insurance. Armed Forces personnel are not normally covered by employer’s liability insurance due to the Government self-indemnifying. It is therefore not appropriate for insurers to be required to fund payments for individuals for whom they have never received premiums. My noble friend has already indicated that he will withdraw the amendment, and I urge him to do so.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) This section ceases to have effect after 30 April 2016.”
Lord Tope
My Lords, I have no wish to reopen, especially at this time of night, the debate on Clause 39 which was so rudely interrupted on Monday evening when we might well have concluded it. In moving the amendment, which is of course a sunset clause, I am following the wisdom of the current Secretary of State, who described sunset clauses as being:
“In line with best practice on public policy”,
because they limit,
“changes to three years and a review of the benefits from the policy at that point”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/13; col. 17WS.]
I am sure that those of us who worked so assiduously on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill will remember those wise words from the Secretary of State, and that is the effect of this amendment.
The LGA would like to see the removal of the clause altogether because it believes that it is,
“a significant threat to both local government’s financial stability and infrastructure investment”.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, when he spoke earlier on Report, wanted the clause removed, or at least not implemented, because he thought that the Government had overreacted to what he described as,
“a pretty small problem in terms of the number of authorities and the cash affected”.—[Official Report, 15/7/13; col. 607.]
Time will tell who is right, and that is the purpose of the amendment. The Government are clearly unwilling to remove the clause altogether, so if it has the unforeseen and negative consequences that some fear, it could be removed without the need for primary legislation. As the Secretary of State has said, that accords with best practice on public policy, so I am sure that the Minister will be keen to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the sun has already set; none of us wants to be here when it rises in the morning. I concur with the amendment moved by the noble Lord and I trust that the Minister will accept it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I can be very brief. The Government cannot accept the amendment. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that council tax payers should have the final say on excessive increases and that the case for the inclusion of levies in the referendum legislation is compelling. The Government intend that, once made, the change to the legislation should remain on the statute book and that council tax payers should be protected from excessive increases permanently—not just for a few years. Local authorities and levying bodies would not appreciate the prospect of further change to legislation in three years’ time.
It may be helpful to the noble Lord if I also mention a major practical issue raised by the amendment. In 2016, as in all years, local authorities must set their council tax by 11 March. Any authority triggering a referendum must begin preparations almost immediately, so the referendum will be scheduled for the first Thursday in May 2016. The sunset clause would take effect on 30 April 2016, right in the middle of local authorities’ preparations to hold a referendum. Furthermore, if the amendment is accepted, by that time, the provision would have disappeared from the statute book and rendered regulations relating to the conduct of the referendum and its effect in direct conflict with the legislation on which they are based. That is because they would be based on the definition of the relevant basic amount of council tax, including rather than excluding levies. That would be a recipe for confusion and would not be fair on local authorities or council tax payers. So, for reasons of principle and practicality, the Government are unable to support the amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw it.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I confess to a little disappointment about that reply, although I wonder whether I should see some encouragement. If the only defect in the amendment is a technical one on timing, perhaps the principle could be accepted. I look forward to that being pursued in another place at another time. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Local authority publicity requirements
(1) Any requirement for a local authority to publish a notice in a newspaper shall cease to have effect.
(2) Instead, the local authority shall publish the notice in question in such way as the local authority thinks is likely to bring it to the attention of the greatest number of people in the area most concerned.”
Lord Tope
My Lords, I will take a little longer on this amendment as we return to the subject of statutory notices. The amendment is simple, clear and straightforward. It would remove the requirement to publish statutory notices in local newspapers, but it would require local authorities still to publish those notices in such a way as is likely to bring them to the attention of the greatest number of people in the area most concerned.
The arguments for the amendment were well rehearsed at Second Reading and in Grand Committee. We know that the legislation dates from 40 years ago, in 1972, which was a very different world. I think that there is common agreement that the publication of a statutory notice, often in small print and in an impenetrable form, in the middle or back pages of a local paper is, arguably, the least effective means of communication. Those arguments were well rehearsed in Grand Committee and I shall not repeat them all today. What were much less well rehearsed were any arguments against the actual amendment. Instead, noble Lords made perfectly valid points with which I agreed but which had nothing to do with the purpose of the amendment. Let me begin by being clear what the amendment does not do. It does not remove or weaken in any way the requirement on local authorities to publish statutory notices. Indeed, I would argue that it strengthens that requirement, because it requires them to publish them in a way most likely to reach the greatest number of people in an area, which a statutory notice in a local newspaper certainly does not do. Nor does it make any changes to the 163 enactments, which I listed in another amendment, that require publication of a statutory notice. I happen to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, when he said that a cull of those enactments is probably overdue, but that is not part of the amendment. It can, and I hope will, happen anyway.
I agree with noble Lords who said that not everyone looks at the local authority website or even uses the web at all. The amendment deliberately does not specify how statutory publication should be done, only that it should be done in the best way. In some areas, and in some circumstances, that may well be through the local newspaper.
All speakers in Grand Committee agreed that the requirement to publish in a local newspaper came from a very different age. Communication methods have changed hugely in the intervening 40 years. So have local newspapers themselves. There are fewer of them, they are generally less well-read and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, graphically illustrated in a previous debate earlier on Report, the coverage of local government by local newspapers has also changed. It is a fast-changing world, not least in the field of mass communication. It would be wrong now for government to specify how statutory notices should be published. That would be likely to be out of date even before it was enacted, let alone in 40 years’ time. It would also not be in keeping with the spirit of localism. There are very different circumstances in different areas. Some are fortunate enough to have a well-read daily local newspaper; some still have widely read and paid for weekly newspapers; and some have weekly free sheets that may reach a greater proportion of the local population. But many areas now have none of those things. Not all statutory notices are appropriate to a whole council area. Publication of some can be much better targeted at the particular area to which they relate. These are all reasons why I believe that, while the statutory requirement to publish these public notices must remain, the decision on the most effective way to communicate them should be with the local authority and not enshrined in statute.
The LGA estimates that last year local authorities spent £26 million on the publication of statutory notices in local newspapers as well as a further £17 million voluntarily on general advertising. This was really the only argument put forward against the purpose of the amendment; that local newspapers are in difficulty because of the changes in communication and that therefore local authorities should continue to be required by law, not by choice, to subsidise them through the publication of statutory notices. I do not think anyone regards that as a tenable argument at any time, but it is certainly not one in the face of the severe budget pressures on all local authorities now. Many local authorities, including my own, have good and positive partnerships with the local press that are of mutual benefit and that is surely the route down which we should all be encouraged to go.
Although the Minister gave no indication of this in her reply in Grand Committee, the Government seem to be persuaded by these arguments. The Local Government Chronicle reported last week that the Secretary of State told Conservative councillors that he,
“pledged to let councils publish statutory notices online in the next two years”.
It then reported that the DCLG issued a statement that did not confirm or deny Mr Pickles’ comments. Instead it quoted the Minister, Brandon Lewis, as saying that,
“commercial newspapers should expect over time less state advertising as more information is syndicated online by local authorities for free. The flipside is the free press should not face state unfair competition from town hall newspapers and municipal propaganda dressed up as local reporting”.
This Bill legislates for one side of the quid pro quo. My amendment deals with the flip-side, to use the Minister’s expression. It needs to be in the Bill before it is enacted. Will the Minister tells us in her reply whether it is the Government's intention that the current requirement to publish all statutory notices in newspapers should be ended? If that is the Government’s intention, what is the timescale? Is it the two years that the Secretary of State has referred to? If that is not the intention, how do they intend to give effect to Brandon Lewis’s statement? Assuming that it is the Government’s intention, as I hope and believe it is, will the Minister tell us how and when the Government expect to remove or at least change the current legislative requirement?
Within two years clearly means in the lifetime of this Government. Surely the Government are not intending to legislate separately for this in the last few months before a general election. While it would be wonderful if this amendment was accepted today, I expect to be neither surprised nor disappointed if it is not. I made clear in Grand Committee that what I am seeking is a clear commitment from the Government that they will use this Bill to give legislative effect to whatever change they propose to take effect within the next two years.
Given the reported comments of the Secretary of State since Grand Committee and the renewed interest in and speculation about the Government’s intentions, I hope that the Minister will make the position clear beyond any doubt in her reply today. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I will add a brief comment about this, because from the perspective of the general public it is a very important issue. I understand that the Secretary of State has made a statement, published in the Local Government Chronicle, that a change will be effected in two years’ time. However, we need to be a bit clearer about what this might mean because of the rights of people to know what statutory notices are being placed that they might be interested in.
As I understand it, newspapers can still be used, which I welcome because newspapers in many parts of the country still have a role in publishing statutory notices. However, that will become a matter for a local council to decide. Let us also note that in the second part of this amendment my noble friend Lord Tope is saying that a local authority has to use a means of publicity that will bring it to the attention of the greatest number of people in the area. I hope no local authority thinks that that means it need not advertise on local lampposts and notice boards. If you are going to get to the greatest number of people, using local lampposts is a very effective means of achieving that.
I think the Secretary of State was quoted as saying that he prefers websites to be used in future. However, I will make three proposals to the Minister that might be thought about when the time comes to issue guidance. It is very easy for information to be lost on websites. There has to be a link to statutory notices from a council’s main page, and the website has to be easy to navigate to get the information off it. I also ask the Government to introduce an automatic postcode search facility so that someone who wants to inquire, as they do on a planning matter, can input a postcode, as they can in most local authorities, and get a straightforward list of current planning applications in that area. I propose that the same thing should happen for statutory notices.
Other than that, the world is changing around us. While I quite like to read statutory notices in newspapers, I understand the need to move with the times as long as the interests of the general public are protected and information is not hidden from them when lampposts, newspapers and the web could all be used in relevant ways as decided by local authorities.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, far be it from me to seek to mediate between the coalition parties on this matter, although of course I cannot resist the temptation to do so.
The noble Lord’s proposition is in many ways sensible. Even under the present law, councils certainly have the right to advertise in ways additional to publication in newspapers if they choose. Eventually, no doubt, that will become pretty much par for the course. The Government could facilitate the process by at least reviewing now rather than at some definite point in the future the list of items that have to be publicised, because frankly it is ridiculous. Planning matters are clearly important. However, when it comes to dog control orders or their revocation, the licensing of buskers, charges for street trading licences, abandoned shopping trolleys and charges for public baths and wash-houses, one wonders whether a formal statutory notice of any kind is desired. It is certainly not required, and certainly not in paid publications.
If the Minister were to indicate that the Government will address this matter—it is not that complicated; after all, there are only eight or nine pages of these things to work through—a sensible accommodation could be achieved that still leaves a statutory requirement for publication in newspapers. That should remain as part of a new framework, given that not everyone can look at the website, and there will at least be the opportunity to read a printed version. I hope that that would alleviate some of the concerns of the Local Government Association and, indeed, of the noble Lords who have already spoken. It would not be acceptable for the Government simply to reject the Motion and do nothing about this ridiculous list of notices that have to be published in a paid-for publication at the present time. A gesture from the Government in that respect, other than the normal gesture that one tends to get metaphorically across the Dispatch Box, would be helpful.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those rather contrary views. Only three people have spoken, and their views were all different, so that is a pretty good start and leaves me with a fine path through.
The purpose of a statutory notice, as everybody clearly knows, is to inform the public about decisions that affect their lives, their property and their amenity. That is especially the case for issues where the public have a limited period in which to respond.
The Committee was in broad agreement that notices should be easily available for local people and that they are vital for local transparency and accountability. The noble Lord has highlighted the cost of statutory notices and suggested that local newspapers are one of the least effective ways to convey information to people. We do not agree. Research by GfK for the Newspaper Society found that the reach of local newspapers was much greater than council websites: 67% of the respondents to that survey had read or looked at their local newspaper for at least a couple of minutes within the past seven days, compared with 9% who had viewed their council website. Some 34% of adults questioned had not accessed the internet at all in the last 12 months.
The most recent internet access quarterly update from the Office for National Statistics, published in May, shows that 7.1 million adults in the United Kingdom—14% of the population—have never used the internet. Two-thirds of over-75s, a third of 65 to 74 year-olds and 32% of disabled people, as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act, have never used the internet. There are quite a lot of people, therefore, who do not, would not and could not use the internet for these notices.
The GfK research for the Newspaper Society showed that local papers are spontaneously cited as the way in which most people—that is, 39%—expect to be informed about traffic changes, for example. My noble friend Lord Shipley will be interested to know that the next placed source of information is street signs, at 26%—they come immediately to notice. When prompted, 79% of all adults responding said that they expect to be made aware of traffic changes in their printed local paper, second only to street signs and ahead of any other communication channels.
Undoubtedly, the requirement to publish some notices in newspapers comes from an age when there was no access to other means of communication. Under present conditions it could perhaps be removed, but the requirement to ensure that these notices are available easily remains as valid today as it always has.
As I said in Committee, the last Administration consulted in 2009 on removing the statutory requirements to publish planning notices in newspapers and found that that was not well received, as noble Lords opposite will remember. Some 40% of respondents to that survey were against the proposals, with a further 20% giving only qualified support. I acknowledge, of course, that that was four years ago. Things have moved on a bit. However, the party opposite concluded that some members of the public and community groups relied on the statutory notices in newspapers, and was not convinced that good alternative arrangements could readily be rolled out. A recent debate in the other place on alcohol licensing notices showed the strength of cross-party feeling against repealing the requirement to publish the notices in newspapers.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said that statutory advertising should not go altogether—I think he repeated that today—and that it was more a question of which statutory notices should be reformed and which should continue to be advertised in newspapers. That can already be done, because departments can put forward particular statutory notices for consideration under the Red Tape Challenge, and that provides opportunities to review a statutory notice. The amendment gives little consideration to which statutory notices are important to local people or where there is a case for retaining publication in a newspaper, and that of course would have to be looked into.
In the internet age, it is clear that commercial newspapers should expect less state advertising over time, as my honourable friend Brandon Lewis has made clear, as more information is syndicated for free online. We accept that newspapers need to develop new business models rather than relying on revenue from statutory notices. However, the newspaper industry is very clear that competition with local authority newspapers, for example, can be damaging.
It would be unfair to remove statutory notices in the blanket way that is being proposed while independent newspapers still face unfair competition from local authority newspapers. We must stop this first before looking at other issues. We acknowledge that the DCLG Select Committee’s recommendations a couple of years ago for a review of publication requirements of statutory notices cannot be ignored in the long term.
I hope that with those explanations the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope
Before the Minister sits down, I ask her to comment, as she seems to have forgotten to do so, on the reported comments of the Secretary of State that this requirement will be phased out within two years. He was quoted as saying this by I think three or four Conservative councillors separately, while Brandon Lewis, the Minister, has similarly indicated that the Government intend to change the statutory requirement as a quid pro quo for the legislation that we are in the process of passing. Can the Minister not end this uncertainty now and give us some certainty on what the Government’s intentions are and when they are going to be implemented?
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. An issue that concerns me about statutory notices being advertised in newspapers is that in some of our larger cities there are large communities that have no language to read a local newspaper. It can be very helpful when the council passes out information in appropriate languages, and I do not think that any of the debate we have had so far has given any indication of how this is to be communicated to very large sections of larger cities’ communities.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her intervention. It is perfectly clear that in most cities, where there are large groups of ethnic minorities, they often have their own publications, and anyway I know that most councils are happy to ensure that information is available.
With regard to the review, as I have said, we accept the Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s recommendation that a review must be undertaken. I have no knowledge of the Local Government Chronicle’s information or where it got it from. I have pointed out that it is possible to have statutory notices considered under the Red Tape Challenge at the present time.
Lord Tope
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shipley for supporting my amendment. I remain not entirely clear whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was supporting it because once again he avoided the issue. He indicates that he does not support it. He called for a cull of the requirements; I said in my introduction that I have much sympathy with that, but, again, it is not the purpose or the point of this amendment.
The Minister answered—I think speaking on behalf of the Newspaper Society—in terms of more people getting their information from the news reporting in local newspapers. The issue is not about whether local newspapers report the news and provide information more adequately or more fully than council websites. It is not about local newspapers, it is about statutory notices published in them. That is very different from news stories that appear on the news pages of a local newspaper. Again, we are avoiding the issue.
I understand and accept that the Minister is not in a position tonight to make the definitive statement that I think everybody now wants. Whatever side of the argument they are on, everybody wants that definitive statement. I accept that the Minister cannot make it but the Government cannot go on simply avoiding the question. They cannot go on as they have done for several years—almost since they were elected—saying that this is under review; at some point that decision has to be made.
The Local Government Chronicle reported a number of Conservative councillors saying separately that the Secretary of State had said this. The DCLG in its statement neither confirmed nor denied it—most of us would accept that that is as near to a confirmation as you are ever going to get. Before long, and certainly before this Bill finishes its passage through the other place, the Government are going to have to state their intention. They are going to have to give a timescale and say how and when they will legislate to amend the 1972 provision. That is clearly not going to happen tonight. I am sad and sorry about that but I have no choice but to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
“Parish polls
(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 to make revised provision for parish polls with implications for parish finance.
(2) An order under this section may make provision for—
(a) the number of persons on whose vote may give rise to a parish poll;(b) the purposes for which a parish poll is sought;(c) its application to smaller authorities or authorities with electorates below a threshold to be specified in the order;(d) safeguarding an authority against frivolous or vexatious use of the right to call for a parish poll and disproportionate costs of a parish poll, including circumstances in which an authority conducting the poll may require reimbursement of the cost of a poll from a parish; and(e) the circumstances in which a demand for a poll gives rise to a mandatory or discretionary requirement to conduct a poll including the discretion of the chairman of a meeting at which there is a demand for a parish poll.”
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, this amendment is a further attempt to remedy an issue concerning parish polls. I declare my interest as president of the National Association of Local Councils, which has a particular interest in this. The background to this is already recorded in the Official Report of 26 June. On that occasion I was very gratified to receive not only the general support of the Committee but recognition from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that there is a problem that needs addressing.
Since then, accompanied by the chief executive of NALC, I have had an extremely useful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and her departmental officials, and I am extremely grateful to her for that opportunity. I was encouraged by her very positive stance on this, as well as the great care with which her officials had obviously looked into the whole matter.
To summarise, parish polls are a very important way in which matters of interest can be aired and views sought, but they are governed by some fairly archaic legislation, which is more than 40 years old and contained in Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972, and they are open to abuse. The issues are fourfold. First, incredibly minimal requirements are necessary to trigger a parish poll, which I have referred to in the past. Secondly, although it has to be on a parish matter, “parish matter” as a term of art is nowhere defined. Thirdly, once triggered, the costs incurred by the principal authority in conducting the poll are recoverable from the parish. While these may not be great in the overall score of things, in proportionate terms for a parish budget, they are pretty significant. Fourthly, there is no obligation to act on the poll, regardless of its outcome. Indeed, a number of polls have had very poor turnouts and inconclusive or even contradictory outcomes, as was outlined in the report by Action with Communities in Rural England.
This problem can only get worse. In Grand Committee, it was made clear that the Bill might not be the place for such an amendment. I understand that and the reasons for it. Yet it does affect parish finance and has a clear bearing on the way in which a parish is held to account. Equally clearly, there is a dimension of audit, although usually long after the event, as a check that the expense has been properly incurred.
The effect of the amendment would simply be to give the Secretary of State the power to amend by order the provisions of the 1972 Act. It does not of itself change anything in the Bill. The main change in this amendment compared with the previous version is in the five words at the end of proposed new subsection (1),
“with implications for parish finance”.
That was my way of trying to get round the issues to do with the scope of the Bill in terms of financial accountability and audit, which I explained in more detail in Grand Committee.
I am not hopeful that the amendment will prove acceptable. My purpose is to get on the record a firmer commitment to do something about this. The questions really are, if not here and now in the Bill, by this amendment, can something not be done at Third Reading, perhaps with—dare I say it?—a tweak to the Long Title of the Bill; I say that in the knowledge that we will shortly be dealing with a tweak to the Long Title. The best solution would be to accept something along the lines of this amendment in the context of the Bill, because it will be the quickest way of actually achieving something rather than expending powder and shot on trying to find some other parliamentary workaround to deal with what is, after all, not really the biggest of nuts to crack and which should not require a huge hammer to deal with.
Public money is at stake. If my amendment is not acceptable, and there is no tinkering with words that will make it so, perhaps the Minister could undertake to use reasonable endeavours to see if the Commons, with its wider powers over the scope of Bills, could be persuaded to do something. I believe, and have to accept, that the regulatory reform procedure is of no help here. The fall-back position, as I understand it from Grand Committee, would be for a Private Member’s Bill to be brought forward in a future Session, but at the cost of a further delay. If that is the only way forward, although it seems an awfully long-winded way of achieving something that really should be fairly uncontroversial, so be it. I would be happy to offer any assistance or activity on my part that could bring that forward. Perhaps the Minister could give an indication of whether, in that fall-back event, such a single-issue Bill would, in principle, receive government support and, more crucially, time to see it through. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we are sympathetic to the position adopted by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, As my noble friend Lord Beecham said in Committee, the noble Earl has explained the archaic regime that exists at the moment for parish polls, the small numbers involved in calling a poll, the fact that the poll is not binding and the financial cost being recoverable for the parish. I would have thought an effort to address that would be well worth while. Indeed, the noble Earl’s amendment suggests that there should be an order-making power inserted into the Bill. Obviously, once the amendment itself has been accepted, it is presumably within the scope of the Bill; otherwise it would not be on the Marshalled List.
I do not see why it cannot be done. Maybe the wording needs to be changed. If the Government are reluctant to pick this issue up because they think that there are broader issues involved and it needs to be dealt with in some different way, perhaps we could hear that. However, if there is sympathy for the noble Earl’s proposition, and we are just looking for a parliamentary process to facilitate that, why not an order-making power?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we, too, are sympathetic to this amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having brought it to the attention of the House. We all recognise that parish polls are a way for local people to achieve something they want that is relevant and appropriate to the area over which they have authority. The noble Earl made it clear in Committee that sometimes that area extends to the European Union, which seems rather beyond the competence. We accept that there are concerns about the threshold for polls being called. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for coming to spend a bit of time with us, and we have had an opportunity to talk about it.
The way in which the noble Earl has constructed this amendment just about puts it within the scope of this Bill, but it is not wide enough for all that needs to be done. We believe that the scope can be made wider in the other place. We need to look at that carefully and will come back to it. I hope very much that we will be able to say that we will take that up and see it dealt with in the other place. If we cannot, then we are in the sort of territory that the noble Earl has talked about—a Private Member’s Bill or a hand-out Bill. I assure him that the Government are supportive of what he has said, and I give an undertaking to the House to take this away and look at how we can get it implemented in the best and quickest way. I hope that the noble Earl will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, in the light of that undertaking by the noble Baroness, it would be entirely churlish of me, especially at this time of night, to seek to do anything other than to withdraw this amendment. I do so with my enormous thanks to her and her officials for the input that they have had on this. I have my fingers crossed for a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
““(1A) The Chief Inspector may do anything the Chief Inspector thinks appropriate to facilitate the carrying out of an inspection under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 (inspection of best value authorities).”, and”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, these amendments refine the provisions in the Bill that enable existing inspectorates to co-operate with an inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, to inspect a best-value authority under Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999, as amended by this Bill. Clause 33 and Schedule 10 to the Bill give a similar power to the Secretary of State’s existing power to ask for an inspection of a best-value authority. This is intended for use as a last resort in very serious cases, such as the ongoing intervention in Doncaster.
Paragraphs 2, 25, 36, 38, 54 and 72 of Schedule 12 amend existing legislation to enable existing inspectorates to co-operate with such a corporate governance inspection, as they sometimes do at present. The relevant bodies and inspectors are Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Probation, and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service. The amendments to each of these paragraphs of Schedule 12, which take the same approach in each case, achieve this policy intention more cleanly. They remove the provision suggesting that a chief inspector may be appointed under new Section 10 as an inspector by the Secretary of State to inspect a local authority. This is because it is unlikely that it would be the chief inspector himself or herself who would undertake the inspection. Instead, it simply states that the chief inspector—or the commission, in the case of the Care Quality Commission —may do anything they think appropriate to “facilitate” such an inspection. This could include releasing staff to form part of an inspection team. All these amendments allow bodies to co-operate; they do not compel them to do so. We believe that these amendments simplify and clarify our approach without significantly affecting the impact of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I was puzzled by what the substantive difference was between some of the clauses in the Bill and those that replaced them, but I believe the noble Lord’s explanation has helped me in that regard and I am happy to support his amendments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“(1) Section 22 (other local authority capital controls in England and Wales) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (5) substitute—
“(5) In a case where the controlling authority of a public airport company are—
(a) a county council or county borough council in Wales, or(b) a composite authority of which both or all the constituent councils are county councils or county borough councils in Wales,it shall be the duty of the controlling authority to exercise their control over the public airport company so as to ensure that the company appoints as auditors of the company only persons who, in addition to meeting the requirements of Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 (statutory auditors), are approved for appointment as such auditors by the Auditor General for Wales.(5A) In any other case, it shall be the duty of the controlling authority of a public airport company to exercise their control over the company so as to ensure that the company appoints as auditors of the company only persons who meet the requirements of Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 (statutory auditors).”
(3) In subsection (6), after “(5)” insert “or (as the case may be) (5A)”.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this is another group of government amendments. It includes Amendments 49, 50, 54 and 55, 57 to 62 and 64, which remove redundant references to the Audit Commission and make clarifications to related provisions in existing legislation.
Amendment 49 is a consequential amendment to the Airports Act 1986. Amendment 50 makes a similar amendment to the Education Reform Act 1988. Amendment 54 repeals sections of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004, which place duties on the Auditor-General for Wales and the Audit Commission to co-operate with each other when necessary in undertaking value-for-money studies, et cetera.
Amendment 55 amends the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 to remove provisions which enable a transfer scheme of property, assets and liabilities from the Audit Commission to the Auditor-General for Wales.
Amendments 57 to 61 deal with the National Health Service Act 2006. Amendments 57 and 60 are tidying-up amendments, which simply clarify how an auditor may be appointed to a clinical commissioning group and other NHS bodies under the Bill. These bodies may not always appoint their own auditors; the appointment may be made on their behalf in certain circumstances by the commissioning body or the Secretary of State.
Amendments 58 and 61 replace the references to the Audit Commission Act in Schedule 4 to the National Health Service Act 2006 with the relevant provisions from this Bill which relate to reports and other information in respect of NHS trusts in England. Amendment 59 amends paragraph 23 of Schedule 7 to the National Health Service Act 2006 so that an NHS foundation trust can appoint an auditor who is eligible under this Bill, thus replacing the reference to the Audit Commission Act 1998.
Amendment 62 inserts an amendment to the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 to remove the reference to the Audit Commission Act 1998. The audit of Welsh health service bodies is now within the remit of the Auditor-General for Wales. Amendment 64 removes provisions in the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 which amend other legislation but which are now superfluous, given other amendments to those Acts made by this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Education Reform Act 1988 (c. 40)The Education Reform Act 1988 is amended as follows.
In section 124B, omit subsection (5) (duty of certain higher education corporations to consult Audit Commission before appointing auditor in respect of first financial year).
In paragraph 18 of Schedule 7 (higher education corporations)—
(a) omit sub-paragraph (4) (duty of certain higher education corporations to consult Audit Commission before appointing auditor in respect of first financial year),(b) in sub-paragraph (5) for “that sub-paragraph” substitute “sub-paragraph (3) above”, and(c) in sub-paragraph (6) omit the definition of “the first financial year” and the “and” which follows it.”
““(1A) The chief inspector of constabulary may do anything the chief inspector thinks appropriate to facilitate the carrying out of an inspection under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 (inspection of best value authorities).”, and”
““ (1A) The Chief Inspector may do anything the Chief Inspector thinks appropriate to facilitate the carrying out of an inspection under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 (inspection of best value authorities).”, and”
““(1A) The chief inspector may do anything the chief inspector thinks appropriate to facilitate the carrying out of an inspection under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 (inspection of best value authorities).”, and”
“Omit section 43 (co-operation with Audit Commission).
Omit section 57 (provision of information to Audit Commission).
In section 62, omit paragraph (b) (co-operation with Audit Commission).”
“52A (1) Schedule 3 (transfer schemes) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(1), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.
(3) In paragraph 2—
(a) in paragraph (a) after “Wales,” insert “and”, and(b) omit paragraph (c) and the “and” preceding it.52B (1) The amendments of Schedule 3 to the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 by paragraph 52A do not affect—
(a) the transfers of property, rights and liabilities of the Audit Commission to the Auditor General for Wales by a scheme under that Schedule, or(b) the operation of that Schedule or of such a scheme in relation to those transfers.”(2) In this paragraph “the Audit Commission” means the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England.”
““(1A) The Chief Inspector may do anything the Chief Inspector thinks appropriate to facilitate the carrying out of an inspection under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 (inspection of best value authorities).”, and”
(c) in paragraph (c) for “any other” substitute “a”.”
“(1) Until the repeal of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the National Health Service Act 2006 by section 179 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is fully in force, Schedule 4 to the National Health Service Act 2006 (NHS trusts) has effect with the following modifications.
(2) In paragraph 12 (reports and other information)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(b) for “section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) or paragraph 19 of Schedule 8 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32)” substitute “paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2013”, and (b) in sub-paragraph (2A) for “section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998” substitute “paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2013”.”
“National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (c. 42)In paragraph 12(2)(b) of Schedule 3 to the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (NHS trusts established under section 18 of that Act: reports and other information) omit “section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) or”.”
““(1A) The Commission may do anything it thinks appropriate to facilitate the carrying out of an inspection under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 (inspection of best value authorities).”, and”
“( ) paragraphs 9(2) and 20(b) of Schedule 2 to the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004;”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Section 20(2A) (general duties of auditors of accounts of health service bodies) is to be read as if—
(a) for “accounts of special trustees for a hospital” there were substituted “accounts of a health service body other than a clinical commissioning group”, and(b) in paragraph (c)— (i) for “the special trustees have” there were substituted “the body has”, and(ii) for “their” there were substituted “its”.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on the Bill, we have amended Clause 38. Provisions for compliance with the code now include the power for the Secretary of State to make a direction requiring individual authorities to comply with some or all of the code, and that the exercise of the power to ensure compliance with the publicity code in relation to classes of, or to all, local authorities should be made by an affirmative statutory instrument. As a consequence of this, we are required to amend the Long Title of the Bill to accurately reflect that a requirement to comply may not be the result solely of a direction. Our amendment makes this clear in the Long Title of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we have spent some time debating the requirements on local authorities to comply with the code of practice. I suppose this is our last opportunity to comment before Third Reading and the eventual passage of the Bill to the House of Commons. It is an opportunity to reiterate the problems that many of us envisage in the Government’s approach.
I suppose we ought to be grateful to the Government for clarifying the Title of the Bill, but the Title is almost irrelevant to the substance with which councils will have to contend. The further accretion to the Secretary of State of powers to direct individual councils is not a concession from the original proposition that a direction can be given to all councils. In replying to this short debate, will the Minister indicate exactly how the Secretary of State intends to go about giving his directions, whether to individual local authorities or to categories of local authorities? Would he envisage doing so after consultation and, if so, with whom: individual authorities or the Local Government Association?
Who else might the Secretary of State involve in the consultation process? For example, before making any direction, would he consult the local print media, which he purports to be most concerned about? How would he do that, particularly if he is issuing a general direction? Has the Secretary of State consulted at all, with anybody, about this proposal, thus far? It would be interesting to know whether he has had meetings with, for example, the Newspaper Society, if that is the correct name of the outfit in question, assuming that it has time to indulge in such consultations while the Leveson report remains undetermined.
There is a fundamental problem with the Government’s approach, which largely depends on what I have described —accurately, I think—as an obsession of the Secretary of State and has very little to do with the reality on the ground. I had the opportunity today of a brief conversation with representatives of the National Union of Journalists who were ensconced in Portcullis House. I do not know whether any other Members of your Lordships’ House were invited to meet them, but they stressed again their opposition, as members of a union that represents journalists both in local government and in the print media—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I wonder whether my noble friend can help me before he leaves this subject. I refer to the change in the Title of the Bill, for the reasons that were outlined. By tweaking the Title further, as we have just discussed, might there be a way of facilitating the desire of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in respect of parish polls? Does my noble friend think that that could that be accommodated by changing the Title of the Bill?
Lord Beecham
I certainly do, but it would be more relevant to know whether the Minister will accept that point. In a moment or two, I shall give him the opportunity to make his position clear.
As I said, the National Union of Journalists, representing journalists across the piece, feels very strongly that the Government’s stance on this is entirely unjustified. Having said that, it would be remiss of me not to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the NUJ has great reservations about the amendment that he moved. However, I will be interested to hear what the Minister says in reply before the debate ends.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those points. Many of them deserve further conversation in the Corridors and elsewhere. The Bill is part of a long process by which we hope to devolve more power to the cities and local authorities of England—an objective that I know the noble Lord shares. There are many difficulties in doing so, particularly during a recession when there are insufficient funds to do everything that one would like to. However, that is the objective, which I hope is shared across the House, and which I hope we will have the opportunity to explore further in future debates.