House of Commons
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 7 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, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s economic policies on Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
Our economic strategy is designed to equip Wales and the United Kingdom with the tools they need to succeed in the global race, and to secure a stronger economy and a fairer society.
Karen Lumley
With the deficit down by a third and employment at record levels, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for the Labour party to admit that our economic policy is working, not only in Redditch, but in Wales?
Mr Jones
Indeed, it is working in Wales and in Redditch. There are clear signs that the economy is turning the corner. I am sure that all Members were pleased with yesterday’s forecast by the International Monetary Fund, which revised UK growth for next year up from 1.5% to 1.9%.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
I put it to the Secretary of State that all economies recover from all recessions at some point, but that our recovery has come three years after those of Germany and the United States because his Government’s savage cuts turned Labour’s growth and recovery from the banking crisis in 2010 into three years of austerity. The current recovery is made in the south-east for the south-east. In Wales, there is no housing bubble, long-term unemployment is dire, as is under-employment, and personal debt is high. We need investment in Wales. His Government should be supporting the Labour Welsh Government, not hindering them with budget cuts the whole time.
Mr Jones
It is rather rich for the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Government who presided over the economic crash in 2008, to criticise this Government for the steps that we are taking to turn the economy around. Wales, as much as every other part of the country, is benefiting from the measures that we have taken. There are 67,000 more people in work than at the time of the last election. He should welcome that.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that our excellent national economic policies are being held back by the Welsh Assembly’s inward investment policies, which have led to a fall in inward investment in Wales? Wales has gone from being one of the top creators of inward investment to one of the lowest as a result of those policies.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Wales urgently needs job creation levers to boost our economy, as the Council for Economic Renewal said today. Last week, in an interview with Adrian Masters of ITV Cymru Wales, the Prime Minister refused to commit to a response from the UK Government to part 1 of the Silk commission before next year’s Scottish referendum. Why are the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister holding back the Welsh economy?
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
13. Housing construction is an important element of economic renewal and regeneration, and the Help to Buy scheme in England will make a significant impact in encouraging home ownership and new build. The situation in Wales is more confused. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Welsh Government to follow the English model as closely as possible? Otherwise, we will run the risk that lenders will not be available to lend in Wales.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Government’s economic policies are leaving people in Wales struggling to make ends meet. With average energy bills up £300 since 2010, does the Secretary of State support Labour’s plans to freeze energy prices?
Mr Jones
I am not entirely sure what those plans are, and I would be interested to hear about them from the hon. Lady. In fact, they unravelled less than 24 hours after the announcement. Under the previous Government we had 10 years of incoherence in energy policy, and as a consequence this Government have to take the necessary steps to keep the lights on.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the value of exports to the economy in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The Government recognise the importance of exports to the economy. I was pleased to welcome the chief executive of UK Trade & Investment, Nick Baird, to Cardiff last month to underline the support that UKTI can offer to businesses in Wales.
Neil Carmichael
That is further proof that the Government are taking action to increase exports, but what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that Britain and Wales continue to benefit from opportunities in Europe by trading through and to Europe?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is right. Wales is largely a country of small and medium-sized enterprises, and if more SMEs were to export at the European rate, that would wipe out the trade deficit altogether. I strongly encourage Welsh companies to engage closely with UKTI, as it has global reach and is able to maximise opportunities throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
What impact does the Secretary of State think that uncertainty over the UK’s role in the European Union—uncertainty created by his Government—will have on exports from Wales?
Mr Jones
I am sure the hon. Gentleman engages closely with his constituents and will know there is general dissatisfaction with the current settlement in Europe. We think our position in Europe should be renegotiated, and it is right to take sufficient time over that negotiation. At the end of that period, by 2017, we will put the issue of whether Britain should be a member of the European Union to the people of this country in an in/out referendum.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
All constituent parts of the UK ran trade surpluses in 2012—all except England. That puts paid to the caricature of Welsh business as failing in some way, and the surplus from Wales was £5 billion in 2012. What can be done to encourage micro-businesses such as those in my constituency to understand the value of exports and the opportunities they offer in the face of austerity from this Government, and indifference and incompetence from the Government in Cardiff?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Welsh businesses have been successful, but we want them to be even more successful. I therefore encourage Welsh businesses of whatever size to engage closely with UKTI, which as I said has global reach and is in the best position to maximise opportunities throughout the world.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of wage levels in Wales since 2010.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
11. What steps the Government are taking to tackle low pay in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
Since this Government took office, wages and salaries growth have revived, and nominal growth in 2012 of 2.8% was the strongest since 2007.
Stephen Crabb
What I support is creating the right conditions for the private sector to create new jobs in Wales. In the right hon. Gentleman’s area in north Wales we anticipate that 40,000 new jobs will be created in the next five years. He should get out and back the support for balanced recovery that will bring benefits to his constituency and across north Wales.
Chris Ruane
Real wages have gone down in 38 of the 39 months since this Government came to power. Zero-hours contracts, payday loans and flouting of minimum wage law, on top of rising energy, food, and transport bills, have left my constituents feeling vulnerable. Has the Minister any plans to deal with falling living standards?
Stephen Crabb
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is another Labour Member who does not welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen in his constituency since the general election. We recognise that wage levels are not where we want them to be, but most of the deterioration in wage levels happened in the last three years of the previous Labour Government. We are helping people in Wales on low incomes by taking 130,000 people out of income tax altogether, and by freezing fuel duty. Because we have taken the responsible decision to cut the deficit, we are able to keep interest rates low, which means that low earners in his constituency, and mine, can hang on to their homes.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
12. Does the Minister agree that the Labour party should be celebrating the fact that unemployment in a constituency such as mine is lower now than it was in 2010, and that we have 69,000 new private sector jobs in Wales, compared with 2010? The Labour party should celebrate success, not play down the economy of Wales.
Stephen Crabb
I totally agree with my hon. Friend—Labour Members should celebrate the progress we are making in Wales. There is a lot more work to be done, but unemployment is lower. Rather than criticising the private sector in Wales, which they do time and time again, they should be championing business growth in Wales.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend, as part of his assessment, carried out a full review of Welsh employment and unemployment since 2010? Perhaps he could share that with the House.
Stephen Crabb
We see a lot of positive things happening in the Welsh economy—businesses are growing. I am particularly excited when I go to north Wales and see some of the dynamic things happening in the private sector there, but we believe that this is a recovery for the whole of Wales.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
15. Wages are down by 10% in my constituency, unemployment is stubbornly high and energy prices are soaring, yet the Government do not have a plan to freeze energy prices. VAT has taken money out of the economy in constituencies such as mine. What plans do the Government have to restore pride and confidence in businesses in Ynys Môn?
Stephen Crabb
I am surprised to hear that question from the hon. Gentleman. His constituency is set to benefit from a huge level of private sector investment. We talk about the exciting things happening in north Wales and his constituency is one of the places that will benefit the most. He should back that.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential costs and benefits of High Speed 2 to Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The Wales Office is committed to ensuring Wales derives the maximum possible benefit from HS2. In addition to improved journey times and extra rail capacity that passengers across the nation will experience, my Department will be working closely with Lord Deighton’s HS2 growth task force to identify further benefits to Wales.
Mr Llwyd
With some spending projections for this vanity project topping £80 billion, will the Secretary of State commit to fighting for a Barnett consequential equivalent for Wales, which could be between £3 billion and £4 billion and make a huge difference to the Welsh rail network? Will he join his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), in pleading this case, as reported today in the Western Mail?
Mr Jones
I think the right hon. Gentleman knows what my answer will be: HS2 is a UK-wide project from which every part of the United Kingdom will benefit. He is a north Wales MP. He knows that north Wales will benefit from improved journey times to London via the hub at Crewe, he knows that mid-Wales will benefit from travel times via Birmingham, and he knows that south Wales will benefit from connections at Old Oak Common. Of course it will be of national benefit.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Last week, the Welsh Government announced the reopening of the second line between Wrexham and Chester. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such investment in rail infrastructure, including HS2, has a massive role to play in encouraging economic growth in north-east Wales and west Cheshire?
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
14. The £44 million of Labour investment in the Wrexham-Chester line is not a reversal of the decision; it is part of continued investment to improve the network in north-east Wales. I know the right hon. Gentleman is interested in this issue. Will he meet me to explore specifically how HS2 will link to the new development in the rail network in north-east Wales to benefit the area?
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Is there not a real danger that the economies of north Wales and northern England could be left behind if we rely solely on the existing north-south rail lines, which, by all predictions, will be full to capacity by the mid-2020s?
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the effects in Wales of changes to housing benefit.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the effects in Wales of changes to housing benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
The Government remain committed to reforming housing benefit to create a fairer and more affordable system.
Mark Tami
Will the Minister advise me where he thinks Flintshire county council and other local authorities are supposed to find these mythical one and two-bedroom properties? While he is at it, why does he think it is a good idea to force disabled people out of homes that have been adapted by councils at high cost?
Stephen Crabb
We are not forcing disabled people out of their homes. On the hon. Gentleman’s question about Flintshire, we are making available to his local authority more than £240,000 this year in discretionary housing benefit. I ask him to ask his local authority why it has more than 275 empty properties in the social rented sector. That is part of the answer to the local housing problems in Flintshire.
Geraint Davies
Is the Minister aware that in Swansea two thirds of the thousands of people affected by the bedroom tax are now in arrears and that those arrears have doubled since April? Will he and the Secretary of State have an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister to make the case for Wales, which is the worst affected area in the whole of Britain, with fewer smaller units and the poor being thrust into dire poverty and the arms of loan sharks?
Stephen Crabb
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about housing issues in Swansea, but he should be aware that there are about 300 empty properties in the social rented sector in Swansea. That should be part of the answer to the problems he is talking about. I am concerned to hear about the large increase in the number of people he says are suffering from rent arrears. We are making available substantial resource to Swansea borough council, and we should be asking how it is using those discretionary housing payments to assist people through the difficult transition.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
One of the best ways to help those affected by changes in housing benefit is through the provision of new single-person housing, but that has not been helped by the reduction in social housing built by the Welsh Government or by the extra Welsh-specific building regulations, which have impacted on the private sector and driven it out of Wales altogether.
Stephen Crabb
We have seen the comments by Redrow Homes and Persimmon Homes. These are important Welsh builders who need to be building new homes in Wales, but who are not building as many as they should be. The Welsh Government are responsible for the supply of new housing in Wales, and I think that serious questions need to be put to Welsh Ministers in Cardiff about that.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is truly extraordinary that the Minister continues to defend the bedroom tax. Will he confirm for the record whether, according to the Government’s own figures, Wales is hit harder than anywhere else in the UK? As he mentioned the disabled, will he tell us how many disabled households in Wales are hit by the bedroom tax?
Stephen Crabb
We have had this question before. Wales is not hit harder—to use the hon. Gentleman’s terminology—than other parts of the United Kingdom. What is remarkable is that he still clings to the mythical economics of plan B. More than anybody else in the Opposition, he argues for more spending, more borrowing and more debt, all of which is a road to poverty for people in Wales.
Owen Smith
The Government’s own impact assessment states that 46% of households in social housing in Wales have been hit by the bedroom tax, which is a higher proportion than anywhere else in Britain. Those are the Government’s own numbers. The bedroom tax will also hit 25,000 disabled families. The Minister should confer with his colleague the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who said only yesterday that the bedroom tax was not working in Wales. It is not working for those 25,000 people—25,000 reasons why we need a Labour Government to scrap the bedroom tax and deliver justice for those people in Wales.
Stephen Crabb
I did not see the specific remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), but we are making available to Wales more than £7 million in extra money for discretionary housing payments. On top of that, we are making money available for rural borough councils in Wales to assist with the transition. We recognise that it is a challenge and a difficult period for people going through our changes to housing benefit, but we are supporting local authorities in Wales to help Welsh people through that transition.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport about capital investment in the Cardiff to Manchester railway line.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
I regularly meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to discuss rail infrastructure priorities for Wales, and I am meeting him again soon. I will raise the important link that my hon. Friend mentions as part of that discussion.
Jesse Norman
The new enterprise zone at Rotherwas in Herefordshire offers a superb opportunity to reopen the rail link to Hereford and establish a parkway station, which would assist local people and the many Welsh people who work in my county. Will the Secretary of State support those plans?
Mr Jones
The Herefordshire enterprise zone is extremely important, and my hon. Friend will know that the important thing with rail infrastructure improvement is to build up a coherent business case. I will certainly raise this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport when I meet him, and my hon. Friend’s question will form an important part of that business case.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to support the suggestion from the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and to ask the Secretary of State to ensure that he reiterates the importance of the electrification of the railway line to south Wales from London and of the valley lines? Will he take the opportunity to do that now?
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many persistent and very noisy conversations taking place in the Chamber. I know that colleagues will want to listen to Susan Elan Jones.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on charities in Wales of the provisions of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The Government have published impact assessments to accompany the three parts of the Bill. The assessment for part 2, which covers non-party campaigning, evaluates the potential effects of the proposals on third parties in the United Kingdom.
Susan Elan Jones
With respect, is not that answer a complete load of nonsense? The Wales Council for Voluntary Action has said that the Government’s proposals are entirely unworkable and undemocratic. Is there any serious charitable or faith group that agrees with the Government on this mess of a Bill?
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady is making a point that has already been made, and that argument has now been discounted. She will know that the Government have tabled amendments to the Bill and have now reverted to the wording of the existing legislation, which defines controlled expenditure as expenditure that can
“reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate”.
That is precisely the same wording as applied in 2005 and 2010, so her fears are entirely unfounded.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
10. What assessment he has made of the effects of the under-occupancy penalty in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
The removal of the spare room subsidy, which already applies in the private rented sector, has brought fairness back into the system. This Government are prepared to tackle this long-standing inequality and are taking the tough decisions to deliver a recovery that works for all.
Jessica Morden
I have contacted many housing associations in Wales in recent weeks, and the information so far points to the fact that—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but I want to hear her question from start to finish, and to hear the answer. The House deserves to hear her question from start to finish.
Jessica Morden
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I have contacted many housing associations in Wales in recent weeks, and the information collected so far points to the fact that about 45% of those who were previously able to meet their rent payments are now in arrears. Given that the discretionary housing payments are clearly not enough, what message does the Minister have for those who are falling into arrears?
Stephen Crabb
I have not seen the information that the hon. Lady has brought to the House today, but I will gladly sit down and go through it with her. I would be concerned if, as she says, there has been such an increase in the number of people suffering rent arrears. That is not what we are planning for, and we are making available to Welsh local authorities the resources to ease families through this difficult transition.
Mr Speaker
An extraordinary thing has happened. The appetite for interrogation of hon. and right hon. Members seems to have dried up. We have completed all the questions and we have had the answers. The principals are here, and we are ready to go.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 October.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Before I list my engagements, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in offering our condolences to the families and friends of those people who lost their lives in the appalling terrorist attack in Nairobi, and in particular the six British nationals who lost their lives. This was a despicable attack, and it demonstrates how we must continue to do all we can to defeat international terrorism.
I am sure the House will also want to join me in paying tribute to PC Andrew Duncan, who died on 21 September while on duty—a reminder of the sacrifices that police officers make on our behalf every day of every year.
On a happier note, I am sure the House will wish to congratulate Professor Peter Higgs, who is sharing this year’s Nobel prize for physics. This is a richly deserved recognition of his lifetime of research and a tribute to the UK’s world-leading universities, where this research was carried out.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Harris
May I associate myself and my constituents entirely with the tribute that the Prime Minister made to the victims of terrorism in Nairobi and to PC Andrew Duncan and, of course, offer our congratulations to Professor Higgs?
Can the Prime Minister confirm that less than a third of families in Britain will benefit from his marriage tax break?
The Prime Minister
What I can confirm is that all married couples paying basic rate tax will benefit from this move. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why I think this is important: it is not about the money; it is about the message. I think marriage is a great institution and I think we should support it, including through the income tax system.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)
With the disappearance of the minimum practice income guarantee, many doctors’ surgeries serving remote rural areas such as the one in Slaidburn in my constituency face death not by a thousand cuts, but perhaps by one cut. They serve many elderly residents and a number of children who do not have access to great public transport to go into neighbouring Clitheroe. Will the Prime Minister investigate this issue and ensure that my constituents will not be isolated and will continue to receive the excellent service that they do now from their doctors’ surgery?
The Prime Minister
I will look carefully at the case the hon. Gentleman makes. I, too, represent a large rural constituency where there are still small practices. It is the case, however, that many more doctors’ surgeries are offering many more services with practice nurses and other assistance given to patients. We want to see that growing, not least to make sure that people can go to GP surgeries rather than accident and emergency units if it is a GP that they need, but I will look at the specific point that he makes.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in sending my condolences to the friends and families of the British nationals murdered in Nairobi and of all those killed in that cowardly act. It was a heinous act of terrorism and reminds us of the importance of combating terrorism at home and around the world.
I also join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to PC Andrew Duncan, whose death is a terrible tragedy and a reminder of the bravery shown by our brave policemen and women day in, day out, on our behalf. I send my condolences to his family and friends.
On a completely different note, I join the Prime Minister in celebrating the tremendous achievement of Peter Higgs in winning the Nobel prize for physics. He is a great British scientist. And while we are about it, Mr Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister happy birthday.
On Monday, the Prime Minister said:
“There’s a certain amount you can do freezing prices”
of energy, while the Chancellor said in his conference speech that it was something out of “Das Kapital”. Can the Prime Minister tell us: is freezing energy prices a good idea or a communist plot?
The Prime Minister
I will leave the communist plots to him.
First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; of course, there is nothing I would rather do on my birthday than this. What this Government are doing is legislating to put people on to the lowest energy tariffs; I think that that is a real step forward. I have to say on this issue, however, that just promising a freeze is a classic case of him saying one thing and doing another. Month after month, he stood at this Dispatch Box as Energy Secretary, producing policy after policy, regulation after regulation and target after target, all of which put energy prices up.
Edward Miliband
What is clear from that answer is that the Prime Minister has no answer on Labour’s energy price freeze, and what is clear is that it will not happen under him, but would happen under a Labour Government.
The Prime Minister mentioned his policy on tariffs. He said that it would put everyone on the cheapest energy tariff. Can he explain why at least 90% of the country will gain no benefit from his policy?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let us deal with Labour’s new energy policy. Let us spend a little bit of time on it. First of all, let us examine the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to a new decarbonisation target that would add £125 to the bills of everyone in the country. Perhaps he would like to mention that when he next gets to his feet.
The right hon. Gentleman also did not mention the fact that, just 12 hours after making his pledge, he said that he might not be able to fulfil it because of international wholesale gas prices. Is it not the case that what he is promising is a price increase before a promise, a broken promise, and then a price increase after a promise? One price increase, one broken promise and another price increase: that sounds like every Labour Government since the war.
Edward Miliband
What is clear is that the Prime Minister is floundering around, and has no answer to Labour’s energy price freeze. He did not even defend his own policy, which will not benefit 90% of the country. He has no idea. He says that he wants to bring energy prices down; can he confirm that energy prices have gone up by £300 since he became Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman first of all that energy prices doubled under Labour. Electricity prices went up by 50%. And let me make this point to him: there is one thing that Governments cannot control, and that is the international wholesale price of gas.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman would like to live in some sort of Marxist universe in which it is possible to control all these things, but he needs a basic lesson in economics. Perhaps he should remember what Labour’s own industry Minister said. This is what was said by a Labour Minister who sat with him in the last Government:
“in an effort to appeal to tribal socialism and a minority in the country, he has put at risk millions of jobs. He has put a sign up over the country, don’t invest here”.
That is the new left-wing Labour party.
Edward Miliband
I suggest that the Prime Minister should go away after Prime Minister’s Question Time and try to work out his position on the energy price freeze. Initially, he said that the policy was “nuts”. Then, on Monday, he said that it “struck a chord”, and that freezing energy prices could make a difference. He has no idea what he thinks about this policy.
Why are energy prices so high? Once again, the Prime Minister did not answer the question. Let me remind him of the words of a previous Leader of the Opposition, who said that when the gas prices go up, they will rush to pass the costs on to us, and yet when the gas prices are coming down, we wait a very long time before we see anything coming through on our bills. It was the Prime Minister who said that. Why has he changed his mind?
The Prime Minister
What we need is a more competitive energy market so that consumers benefit. What the right hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering from is complete amnesia over the fact that he used to be the Energy Secretary. Let me remind him of one of the first actions that this Government took. We inherited from him an energy policy that would have added £179 to every single bill because of his renewable heat initiative, and we cancelled it.
While we are dealing with quotations, let us have a guess at who said this:
“to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.”
Who said that? Does anyone know? It was the last Energy Secretary, who stood here and pushed up prices again and again and again. Everyone wants low prices. We will get them by dealing with the causes of the high prices, rather than by means of a gimmick that collapsed after 12 hours.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister says that he wants low prices, but prices are going up on his watch. That is the reality.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that while his energy policy, his so-called cheapest tariff policy, benefits almost no one—a fact that he did not deny—a 20-month freeze in bills would save money for 27 million households and 2.4 million businesses across the country?
The Prime Minister
The problem is that 12 hours later the right hon. Gentleman said that he might not be able to keep his promise. This is not a policy; it is a gimmick, and the reason it is a gimmick is that he is in favour of a decarbonisation target that would add £125 to everyone’s bills. It is obvious why he wants to talk about the cost of living: it is because he does not have an economic policy any more. He told us over and over again that if we cut spending we damage public services. Now even the BBC disagrees with that. And he told us over and over again that if we cut spending the economy will not grow. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says keep going. Let me tell the House the best birthday present I could have: the shadow Chancellor staying in the shadow Cabinet.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister said something very interesting: he said he does not want to talk about an economic policy; he wants to talk about the cost of living. Doesn’t that say it all? He does not realise that an economic policy is about the cost of living and what hundreds of thousands—millions—of families are facing in this country. Whatever we may say about him, he is true to form. We have a cost of living crisis in this country, and energy bills are rising, and he supports the energy companies, not the consumer. We have a Prime Minister who always stands up for the wrong people.
The Prime Minister
We know what the right hon. Gentleman’s cost of living policy is: more spending, more borrowing and more debt, which would lead to higher taxes and higher mortgage rates. That is the double whammy that would hit every family in this country. Not only have I got the birthday present of the shadow Chancellor staying in post—and, incidentally, also the birthday present of the shadow Health Secretary staying in post—but I also have this special birthday treat. The shadow Chancellor yesterday revealed the Opposition’s election campaign: he said it all depended on the two of them together as—I am not making this quote up—they would win because of their “experience”, their “track record” and their “credibility”. That is like the captain of the Titanic running on his safety record.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Millions of people have chosen to collect their pensions and benefits at the post office using a Post Office card account. That contract is due to expire in 18 months’ time. It is vital for these people and the future of rural post offices that either the Post Office card account or a similar Post Office product continues after 2015. I hope the Government will ensure that it does.
The Prime Minister
The Post Office card account has been a great bonus for many people. I think it has really helped not only our post offices, but particularly elderly people who have access to those sorts of accounts, and I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Q2. Why is market intervention by the state in mortgages okay, but market intervention in the energy market is not?
The Prime Minister
We are intervening in the mortgage market because banks are failing to provide mortgages so young people can get on to the housing ladder. We are also intervening by putting everyone on the lowest energy tariff, but what the Leader of the Opposition cannot control, although he would like to, is international gas prices. He needs a basic lesson in economics, and it sounds like the hon. Gentleman does, too.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Industrial chemicals, herbicides and plant food are used in a variety of diet pills that are banned for human use but are widely advertised on the internet for such use. Does my right hon. Friend agree that action needs urgently to be taken to prevent the importation of these substances in capsule form, which can only be planned for human consumption?
The Prime Minister
There have been some extremely serious cases of young people in particular suffering from such medications that can be ordered on the internet. I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend says about whether further legislative or regulatory action can be taken in order to protect people from substances that may be safe in other circumstances, but should not be marketed in this way.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q3. Why is the Prime Minister taking away £7 billion a year in support to children up to 2015?
The Prime Minister
We are putting in more support for children. We are providing the child care offer now not just for four-year-olds and three-year-olds, but for two-year-olds. We have introduced for the first time a pupil premium, so children from the poorest homes are going to get more money following them into schools. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Frankly, he should be sitting there in shame at the OECD report that came out yesterday that showed that after a lifetime in education under Labour our young people are bottom of the league in terms of results. That is what he should be focused on.
Mr John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the recent report by Imperial college about the detrimental effects on health of aircraft noise? Will he make sure that when the Government look at and decide on the Davies commission’s report on aviation in the south-east, health and environmental considerations are paramount?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has not had the chance to speak from the Back Benches in the way that he just has, and I look forward to hearing many other contributions from him—he brings a huge amount to this House. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of environmental noise, and I can tell him that it will be included in the report by Howard Davies and he will be making a speech about the issue soon.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Q4. Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable that since he came to office the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than two years has increased by 390%?
The Prime Minister
What has happened since I became Prime Minister is that the number of workless households has gone down to its lowest level and the number of households claiming benefit has gone down. While we are at it, if the hon. Lady looks at what is actually happening in the north-west, she will see that since the election 18,000 more people are in employment; 45,000 more people are employed in the private sector; unemployment has fallen in the north-west by 7,000 since the election; and, as I said, the number of workless households has gone down by 26,000. She should be talking up her region instead of talking it down.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Has the Prime Minister seen today’s BBC ICM report showing that despite reductions in spending, a majority of people think that services provided by local government, such as bin collections, parks, libraries and recycling, have got better? Does he agree that that shows we can get more for less?
The Prime Minister
When I woke up this morning and heard that the BBC was reporting that you can cut public spending and make public services better, I thought I had died and gone to heaven for a moment. This is worth looking at and it is one of the many pillars of Labour’s policy that has collapsed today. The Opposition thought that public spending cuts would lead to a lack of economic growth, but the International Monetary Fund has shown them that that is wrong. They thought that public spending cuts would lead to worse services, but the BBC—let us praise the BBC for once—has told them that that is wrong. That is what has happened today.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Q5. Labour’s child care guarantee will be great for working parents, so says Boris Johnson. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
We are helping working parents with child care, and that is what the tax relief on child care that this Government will be introducing will be all about.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q6. In January, my constituents Ross and Clare Simons were tragically killed when they were hit by a driver who had more than 10 previous convictions for dangerous driving and was disqualified from driving at the time. He received a sentence of just over 10 years for his crime. More than 8,000 people in Kingswood have signed a petition, “Justice for Ross and Clare”, calling for the law to be changed so that drivers convicted of dangerous driving while disqualified should receive tougher sentences. Will the Prime Minister receive the petition at Downing street? Does he agree that the law in this area should be looked at?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look at the petition that my hon. Friend talks about, and I would like to join him by offering my condolences to the friends and families of Ross and Clare.
This is the most appalling crime: someone with 10 previous convictions, as my hon. Friend says, and who was disqualified at the time driving dangerously and killing two people, snuffing out their lives. The sentence was 10 years. As I understand it, the maximum sentence available for a crime like this is 14 years. The Government have introduced a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, so we are looking at this whole area. I can also tell him that the Justice Secretary has asked the Sentencing Council to review the sentencing guidelines for serious driving offences, and we should look at this specific case in the light of that.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q7. A family in my constituency earning £18,000 a year are paying a massive £3,276 in energy bills, so why is the Prime Minister siding with energy bosses charging inflated prices, rather than with hard-pressed families?
The Prime Minister
I want to see people’s energy bills come down. That is why we are legislating to put people on the lowest tariff; that is why we will go through to see what regulations and rules, put in place by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Energy Secretary, we can change to keep bills down; and that is why we need a competitive market. But simply making promises that you admit the next day you cannot meet is not proper politics.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree with the director general of the CBI that whether a business is small, medium or large it must grow as a business and invest and that high taxes do not allow that?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. What we heard at Labour’s conference is that Labour will put up taxes on some of Britain’s biggest and most successful businesses. Labour’s message to business is, “Don’t invest here, don’t bring the jobs here, don’t expand here—go somewhere else. We want to fight some petty socialist campaign against successful big business.” That is absolutely wrong for our economy.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
Q8. When he plans to give a substantive reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East, sent on 3 July 2013.
The Prime Minister
Local growth is a priority across Government. The regional growth fund is helping to create some 66,000 jobs with specific investment in the north-east of £330 million. We do not want to go back to the previous Administration’s system, but obviously the Local Growth Committee in the Cabinet brings together the Secretaries of State from all the key Departments.
Mr Brown
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Department of Health is now consulting on changing the funding formula for health care in the north-east and Cumbria? That will have the effect of taking some £230 million out of the health care budget for the region. Who in his Government stands up for the north of England?
The Prime Minister
The whole Government stand up for the north-east of England. If the right hon. Gentleman wants some news about the north-east of England, you have Hitachi building the new train plant, Nissan expanding in Sunderland and the new Tyne tunnel. There is plenty of good news in the north-east.
Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman’s specific question about NHS funding. This year’s funding for the north-east clinical commissioning group is going up by £170 million, a 2.3% increase. That is what is happening under this Government. Of course, under Labour’s plans health spending would be cut. The shadow Health Secretary, the man who they have decided—inexplicably—to keep in the shadow Cabinet has said that increasing health spending is “irresponsible.” That is the Labour view. We do not agree with that and that is why we are spending more money, including in the north-east.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I congratulate the Government on ending the unfairness in free school meals for 16 to 18-year-olds. Will the Prime Minister look to end the similar unfairness whereby sixth-form colleges have to pay VAT whereas schools or academies with sixth forms do not?
The Prime Minister
I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend says. It is good that we will now have the same system for free school meals for sixth-form colleges and for secondary schools and I also think that it is very welcome that children in infant school will not have to pay for school meals. I will look carefully at his point about VAT.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Q9. The Prime Minister will know from his script that I am an extremely proud member of the trade union movement, which seeks to stand up for millions of workers in the public and private sectors and whose living standards have been drastically reduced under his watch. What personal sacrifices have he and his family had to make during these austere times, given that we are all in this together?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman stands up as a proud trade unionist and, just as I welcome the reshuffle, I am sure that Len McCluskey is delighted with it. Len McCluskey and the Leader of the Opposition probably would not call it a reshuffle—they would call it a purge, because Len McCluskey asked for the Blairites to be purged and they have all gone. The fact is that it has been tough and difficult in our country because of the appalling deficit and debt that the hon. Gentleman’s party left from when it was in government.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
In my constituency, a school called Skerton is under threat of being closed down by the county council. I spoke to the Education Secretary about that and it has been generic over four years. Will the Prime Minister assure me that his office will look into the fair play on this subject, given that the county council education portfolio holder has said that in his opinion the school should close, even though the first part of the consultation has only just been completed? That was a few months ago.
The Prime Minister
I shall certainly look at the case my hon. Friend makes, but under our education reforms there are greater opportunities for schools to gain their independence and for new schools to establish themselves. I hope that he will consider all the structural changes we have made to education, because they might help in the specific case of this school.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Q10. Under this Government the cost of child care is rocketing, while wages have stagnated. Families are facing nursery costs that have risen six times faster than wages last year. When is the Prime Minister going to take action and adopt Labour’s plan to extend free nursery provision to 25 hours?
The Prime Minister
We have extended the hours that people get for four-year-olds, extended the hours for people who have three-year-olds, and for the first time introduced child care assistance for people who have two-year-olds. That has changed under this Government. We are also introducing for the first time proper tax relief on child care, so that people who work hard and do the right thing can get help with their child care. I hope that when there is a vote on it, the Opposition will support us.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Q11. One month ago I installed call-blocking technology in a partially deaf constituent’s home. This has shown that in the past month 65% of the calls that Mrs Moffat has received have been nuisance calls. Will my right hon. Friend commit the Government to do all they can to remove this menace, including looking at whether telephone providers should be profiteering by charging to provide information vital to trace these calls?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure he has advised his constituent about the Telephone Preference Service—TPS—through which one can stop some of the calls that come through, but it is a real bane in some people’s lives so I am sure we can look further at what else can be done.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On reflection, does the Prime Minister agree that allowing more time for further diplomatic discussions to take place over Syria was preferable to rushing in and bombing the country?
The Prime Minister
I think the fact that America was so clear that it would take action is what brought about a change of heart on the part of the Syrian Government. That is the real lesson that we should learn.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Q12. One of the biggest factors for many young people’s budgets is the cost of their mortgage. Will the Prime Minister tell us what would be the effect on mortgage rates if the Government were to increase borrowing by £27.9 billion, as the Opposition have called for, since promising iron discipline?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most important aspects of people’s bills is the mortgage payments that they have to make. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is shouting that it is not true, but he is committed to increasing borrowing. If you borrow more, you risk interest rates and mortgage rates going up. Families across the country understand that and they understand that you only get to grips with the cost of living and living standards if you have a proper economic plan for getting the deficit down, for getting growth, for creating jobs and for cutting people’s taxes—four things this Government are doing; four things the Opposition would never do.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
My constituent Khuram Shaikh was brutally murdered and his girlfriend gang-raped while on holiday in Sri Lanka nearly two years ago. Justice continues to be denied and the key suspect is a close ally of the Sri Lankan President. Is the Prime Minister comfortable meeting this President at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit next month, and what will he say to him?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I think it is right for the British Prime Minister to go to the Commonwealth conference because we are big believers in the Commonwealth and in making that organisation work well and, indeed, work for us. But I think it is right that in going to the Commonwealth conference, we should not hold back from being very clear about those aspects of the human rights record in Sri Lanka that we are not happy with. If the hon. Gentleman gives me the details of that case, I will make sure that, along with other cases and along with other arguments, those points are properly made. Of course, those are points that we cannot make if we do not go.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
Q13. Will the Prime Minister welcome the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, which came into force last week? It has the support of the Church, extra taxes will boost the Treasury revenues, and it will make the trains run on time. Can he say that about any other piece of legislation?
The Prime Minister
First, may I say what pleasure it gives me to refer to the hon. Gentleman as my right hon. Friend—an honour he fully deserves? I welcome the effect of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, which has helped to bring revenue into the Treasury. It is also helping to deal with this scourge, which is a crime that we have seen grow in recent years, particularly because of the growth in the price of metals. The lead off the Witney church roof was stolen recently, and I know that the Act will help to make sure that that does not happen again.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Q14. Eighty-three per cent. of the beneficiaries of the Government’s proposed marriage tax break will be men; just 17% will be women. Why does the Prime Minister have such a blind spot when it comes to women?
The Prime Minister
I think that it is worth supporting marriage through the income tax system. Let me make this challenge to the Labour party: in government it gave a married tax break through the inheritance tax system; it gave a married tax break to the rich. I want to give a married tax break to everybody.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister believe that when the European Union forces my constituents to buy 20 cigarettes at a time, rather than their current 10, it will reduce the number they smoke?
The Prime Minister
It does not, on the face of it, sound a very sensible approach. I was not aware of the specific issue, so let me have a look at it and get back to my hon. Friend.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Q15. Why has the Prime Minister told members of his party behind closed doors that forcing through same-sex marriage legislation was a terrible mistake?
The Prime Minister
I have not. I am very proud of the fact that we passed same-sex marriage in this Parliament and very proud of the role I played in bringing it forward. As I have just been saying, I think that marriage is a wonderful thing, and that goes for a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It is a great reform that makes our country fairer. I hope that is clear.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
With even Boris now admitting that his Thames estuary airport plan has no support, does the Prime Minister welcome Sir Howard Davies’s statement that some plans will not even pass first base environmentally?
The Prime Minister
I do not want in any way to interfere with what Howard Davies is doing. I think that he is the right person to carry out this report. I think that it is very important that we try to build cross-party consensus on the basis that it is a good report and a thorough process so that all parties will be able to endorse it when the report’s conclusions come out.
Points of Order
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I just go back to the Prime Minister’s answer to the Leader of the Opposition on the marriage tax break? When asked whether it was true that a third of married couples would benefit, the Prime Minister said that all married couples who are basic rate taxpayers would benefit. Would he like to correct the record, because that is just not true?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. I allowed it as a point of order. If the Prime Minister wants to respond, he is perfectly welcome to do so. [Interruption.] Order. Question Time is—
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The point is that the married couples allowance is available to every basic rate taxpayer. I think that is something to celebrate in our country. I stand up for marriage, even if the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk it down. I thank him, once again, for his tenacity, because even though he has been proved wrong on every major economic question, he is still in his place. He is the great election winner for us.
Mr Speaker
I trust that the appetite has been satisfied. Question Time is definitively over. In a moment we will move on to the next business, but I am happy to take other points of order.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady is in a state of high excitement in anticipation of her point of order, which I am keen to hear, but I would like some order in the House first. Members leaving the Chamber should do so quickly and quietly, demonstrating the same courtesy towards other Members that they would want to be extended to them in comparable circumstances. We will take the hon. Lady’s point of order first, because I am saving the hon. Gentleman up.
Kerry McCarthy
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I spent this morning trying to keep up with the obfuscations and excuses emanating from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the application to extend the badger cull in Somerset, and I understand that an application will soon be made to extend the cull in Gloucestershire. I know that we will have DEFRA questions tomorrow, but do you agree that we really need the Environment Secretary to come to the House and make a full statement so that we can have the opportunity to question him, because there are so many unanswered questions about why the Department has agreed to go down that path?
Mr Speaker
A variety of mechanisms are open to the hon. Lady and other Members to ensure that such rigorous and detailed scrutiny takes place. In the meantime, however, the hon. Lady can satisfy herself with the thought that tomorrow will indeed be the occasion for DEFRA questions; I confidently predict that she will be in her place. Thereafter, all sorts of things can happen. To judge by the experience of the House, they probably will.
Jim Sheridan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is becoming increasingly clear at Prime Minister’s questions that the Prime Minister refuses to answer the simplest questions. Instead, he answers questions that have not been asked. May I ask you to use your influence to remind the Prime Minister that he is there to answer the questions asked, not those he thinks should be asked?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that attempted point of order. He has put his concerns on the record. I say in all seriousness that I listen intently to everything that is said in this Chamber because that is my duty. From time to time, I will intervene if I think that we are off piste or that exchanges are taking too long. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Members will feel confident that I am attending closely. I am aware that the session is entitled “Questions to the Prime Minister”. We all accept and everybody understands that the clue is in the title. We will leave it there for today.
Coroners and Justice (Amendment)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 so as to apply additionally to the possession of pornographic written material about children; to make consequential amendments to the Act; and for connected purposes.
Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is entitled “Possession of prohibited images of children”. The prohibited images in question are obviously pornographic. They may be in various forms—photographs, pseudo-photographs, cartoons, computer generated images and so on. They may be moving or still. The link between the possession and viewing of such images and actual action taken against children is generally accepted.
The ludicrous situation is that an individual will be liable for prosecution for possession of photographs, pseudo-photographs, computer generated images or cartoons of graphic child sex abuse, but cannot be prosecuted for written words describing child sex abuse in pornographic and often lurid detail. All such things, including the written word in this form, are designed for sexual stimulation resulting from the sexual abuse of children. An individual could write from his or her imagination a graphic description of child sexual abuse, which could be more emotive and more graphic than any picture of any form, but they could not be prosecuted.
For many, the written word is more powerful; I shall give a simple example, which the police have given me. A gentleman from Kent wrote describing his wish to kidnap an early-teenage girl, strip her naked, sexually abuse her and then in an appalling way, which I will not detail, murder her. Horrifically, having written and stimulated his imagination, he did exactly that. Fortunately, he has been caught and is in prison—hopefully, for a very long time. However, the teenager is dead. In theory, the police could have found those writings, but if they had they could have done nothing about them because they would not have been illegal. I understand that the distribution of such stuff is illegal, but its possession is not.
Some years ago, I went through one of the early parliamentary police programmes with the London Metropolitan police; I highly recommend the course. I spent one of the days with the Metropolitan police paedophile unit. I was shocked; I could not believe that people could do such appalling things to children, including babies. I found the police estimate of the number of active paedophiles in the UK way beyond any level I could have imagined and I was stunned at the estimate that approximately 20% of them were female.
Following the course, I had a meeting with the full Metropolitan police team and it was apparent that some major and some minor legal changes were required. I became a member of the then Home Office taskforce which led to the introduction of parts of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 relating to child sex abuse. The Act introduced the offence of child grooming. At that time we led the world in such legislation. Additionally, either on my own or with others, and with the co-operation of the Government of the day, I have helped to introduce about a dozen changes in this area. As a Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) was particularly sympathetic and helpful. That explains why he is my only backer, although I would expect considerable support throughout the House.
This small Bill would close a loophole—an anomaly. Last year the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre published a research document on paedophile cases. The report mentions, but almost as a sideline, that some offenders possess graphic notes or writings on child abuse for their own benefit. I have been shown some examples of these by then Detective Chief Inspector David Marshall, who was head of the Metropolitan police paedophile unit. He is an expert in this area and has drawn this loophole to my attention. Following that, I have had the support of the current head of the Metropolitan police paedophile unit and of CEOP. They have seen volumes of this material, but they have seen it coincidentally, while looking through material for illegal child abuse photographs or images. As possession of such written material is not illegal, the officers generally disregarded it because they were looking only for images.
In referring to child abuse I am not referring to writings such as “Lolita”, and the Bill would make that quite clear. The written material that I am targeting is absolutely vile. It can be as shocking as images described as level 5 based on the classification used by the courts. Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act, in referring to prohibited images, describes it as
“pornographic…grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise…obscene”
and
“of such a nature that it must be reasonably assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.”
This could apply to the written-word material that I am targeting. The distribution of such material is prohibited but its possession is not. It has been expressed to me that such a change would contravene EU legislation. I understand, however, that a number of our EU partner countries have such legislation now. If it works for them, it could and should work for us.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Paul Beresford and Paul Goggins present the Bill.
Sir Paul Beresford accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October and to be printed (Bill 107).
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has tabled a motion for debate on a matter of privilege which I have agreed should take precedence today.
Privilege
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That the Police Information Notice from Sussex Police addressed to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, dated 4 September 2013, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a matter relating to a breach of parliamentary privilege by Sussex police and briefly to provide the context to this motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
You will recall, Mr Speaker, my Adjournment debate on 13 March when you kindly sat in the Chair to hear the extraordinary story of the six-month investigation into me by Sussex police on account of a single e-mail I had sent to a constituent in which I had endorsed the right of my local council, Adur council, to refer to a particularly troublesome resident as “unkempt”. Subsequently the constituent complained that as he claimed to be of Romany Gypsy origin, unbeknown to me or anybody else, this was in some way racist. When the case was rightly thrown out six months later, I questioned the bizarre behaviour of Sussex police in wasting so much time and taxpayers’ resources on an obviously vexatious complaint from a serial complainer. I also raised the implications this had for the right of other hon. Members to correspond with their constituents without fear of the police knocking on their constituency doors.
The account I gave during the debate raised, unsurprisingly, disbelief and indignation in equal proportions. However, what has transpired since will, I am sure, top that and, again, has implications for the way in which all hon. Members go about their business. I believe it represents a clear breach of parliamentary privilege by Sussex police, and in the full knowledge of the Chief Constable Martin Richards.
In the debate, I stated that such was the vile abuse that had been aimed at me and my staff by the constituent and his attempts to have me prosecuted that it was no longer tenable for me to act as his MP. I said, therefore, that I would no longer be responding to his correspondence or abusive phone calls, which had left my staff in tears. I proposed to write to him to that effect but, given the spurious grounds on which he had previously referred my correspondence to the police, I first sought the assurance of the chief constable that such a straightforward and innocuous letter would not again lead to their involvement. In a singularly obstructive meeting, in which he repeatedly stated that he had complete confidence that the police had handled the case perfectly correctly, Chief Constable Martin Richards refused to comment on my proposed letter.
Subsequently I sought guidance from the Clerk, who in contrast has been singularly helpful. He advised me that I should send a complete copy of the Hansard record of 13 March, including the report of the debate, to the constituent, with a compliment slip and without any need for a covering letter, and that that would be protected by parliamentary privilege. That is exactly what I did. Subsequently I have had no communications with my ex-constituent, have made no public statement and have not responded to or initiated any social media to do with him.
In contrast, the constituent has stepped up an onslaught of vile abuse since 13 March, primarily against me as well as the leader and the chairman of Adur district council, his ward councillor and assorted others who cross his path. Yesterday he abused the organisers of Worthing mental health awareness week, which I launched, and to date he has posted on his blog and sent tweets to or about me and my councillor colleagues on well over 200 occasions.
Many come under the heading of political abuse, which, however offensive it may be, we all know is part of our job. However, what is not part of our job is that they have included doctored photographs of my children, taken from their social media sites. What a man in his 40s is doing trawling the social media sites of teenage girls, I do not know. They were eventually taken down, but he then attempted to blackmail me, saying he would put them up again unless I complied with his demands. He has posted doctored pictures of the council leader’s young children regaled with Nazi insignia. He has posted vile, contorted accounts of my parents’ divorce, forged tweets, posted references to my neighbours and photographs of my home, and most recently a direct tweet urging me to commit suicide, along with assorted lies, made up stories and pure fantasy. He has also recently sought to disrupt our regular street surgeries and pour his abuse on anyone who happens to be in the vicinity, and to menace guests at the chairman’s charity dance. I guess we all sometimes have to deal with very nasty people, but this one wins all the awards.
Despite my complaints—which have led to the man’s arrest on just one occasion—the police have failed to secure any charges and he carries on harassing, bullying, stalking, trolling and abusing me, my family and colleagues. However, on 4 September, out of the blue I had a formal police information notice served on me by Sussex police for harassment. Other hon. Members will probably have come across these notices when used on constituents in anti-social behaviour cases. The notice stated that the police had received an allegation of harassment against me by the aforementioned constituent, making me aware that if the kind of behaviour described were to continue I would be liable to arrest and prosecution. The specific single incident of behaviour that gave rise to this PIN was the act of sending a copy of Hansard to my ex-constituent. Apparently this had caused him alarm and distress. That came as a surprise to me and various others, particularly given that on his blog on 14 March that ex-constituent had described how he had watched my Adjournment debate on television with “great amusement.” Therefore, apparently, Hansard is a cause of alarm and distress, and Sussex police believe that our deliberations are a potent weapon of abuse.
Tim Loughton
I will not give way, if I may.
For good measure, the leader of Adur council, the chairman of the council and my constituent’s ward councillor were also issued with PINs for supposed harassment, as was my constituent. Clearly, that has only fuelled his vile crusade.
Apparently, a gold group led by Assistant Chief Constable Robin Merrett met on 3 July to approve those PINs at the highest level. Two months later, they were served on me and my councillor colleagues without my knowing that a complaint of harassment had even been made against me, or that I was under any investigation, in clear breach of the police guidance, which states that I should be given the opportunity to be interviewed to account for my actions and show that they were reasonable and lawful. No such interview took place. There is no appeal against the PIN, which remains on file for at least one year.
The increasingly hapless Detective Chief Inspector Wardley-Wilkins, who has led the investigations, having failed to secure vital evidence, having misled me about the earlier investigation and the current one and having failed to explain why he has breached police guidance, has offered me instructions on how I should correspond with constituents without risking a PIN. That is the police telling us how to do our job.
The chief constable, who has been copied in on all the events, has been content to waste taxpayers’ resources on this nonsense while the senior management of his force is brought into disrepute. He has clearly lost the plot when it comes to distinguishing between the victim and the perpetrator. I know that my local police officers, whom I rate highly, are as embarrassed and gobsmacked as I am at this action by their bosses.
Such a sequence of events would offend against natural justice were it suffered by any of our constituents, and we would rightly raise the matter in the House. However, in this case, the events are an intolerable affront to the rights of the House and hon. Members to go about their business of representing their constituents without fear or favour. If it goes unchecked, any constituent with a grudge against his or her Member of Parliament could claim harassment. Any hon. Member exposing any dodgy organisation in Parliament could find themselves being questioned by the police, or, with reference to DCI Wardley-Wilkins, being given advice on how to do their jobs. Indeed, Abu Hamza could well have a case against the Home Secretary for being rightly beastly about him in Parliament and she could find herself on the receiving end of a police information notice.
Therefore, for all hon. Members, I propose that we pass the motion and refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
Question put and agreed to.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 261 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 261 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:56 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
New clause 3—Cost and impact of Part 2—
‘Within one month of Royal Assent, the Electoral Commission must lay before Parliament—
(a) full cost projections of the impact of Part 2 on their running costs;
(b) their assessment of the administrative impact on third parties.’.
Amendment 65, in clause 41, page 47, line 40, at end insert—
‘(A1) None of Part 2 shall come into force until the report of any inquiry undertaken by a Committee of either House of Parliament during the passage of the Act into the impact of the Act has been published.’.
Amendment 66, page 48,line 2, leave out subsection (1)(b).
Amendment 4, page 48, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Amendment 5, page 48, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (iii).
Amendment 6, page 48, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (iv).
Amendment 67, page 48, line 17, leave out subsection (3)(b).
Amendment 10, in clause 42, page 48, line 37, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
Amendment 11, page 49, line 18, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
Amendment 12, page 49, line 29, leave out subsection (9).
Wayne David
It gives me no great pleasure to move new clause 2, because, essentially, the Opposition are concerned about the lack of prior thought to, or prior serious consultation on, the Bill’s impact on the devolved institutions. When I mentioned the devolved institutions in Committee, there was a blank look on the Minister’s face. Some people believe that the legislation applies only to preparations for UK general elections, but it has an impact on devolved elections, too. New clause 2 seeks to focus on devolved institutions and the referendum, so that proper consideration is given to the Bill’s impact and so that there is proper planning for the legislation’s implementation phase.
I mentioned the lack of prior consultation. My understanding from the Office of the First Minister of the Welsh Government is that there was no prior consultation at all—the Assembly Government were asked for their comments on the day that the Bill was published in the House. I expect that there was the same lack of consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. That is very worrying. One of the Opposition’s concerns from the beginning is the hurried way in which the legislation was put together.
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
I can underline my hon. Friend’s point. All Welsh Assembly Members received a letter from the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, which would have been involved in any consultation with the Welsh Government. What he says is absolutely right and confirmed by wider civil society in Wales.
Wayne David
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, for that accurate comment, which strongly reinforces my point. He suggests that, if there had been prior consultation, the Welsh Government would have wanted properly to consult civil society in Wales. In a sense, that underlines a wider point. The Electoral Commission’s comments on Second Reading, which were circulated to all hon. Members, state:
“It has been suggested to us that”
the effects of the legislation would
“be particularly significant in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where civil society has often had a prominent role in the development and discussion of new policy and legislation in recent years.”
We are therefore not talking about mechanical consultation; there was a desire for meaningful prior consultation with civil society in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend refers to Wales, but the Government generally lack realisation of how important civil society engagement is in Northern Ireland. In fact, civil society engagement is a cornerstone of the peace process. That is one reason why great progress has been made in Northern Ireland. It is extremely worrying that the Bill undermines that process. It does so not deliberately, but unintentionally. However, that is indicative of a lack of any real understanding or desire to ensure that there is a holistic, consensual approach to such legislation.
I stress the word “consensual” because Labour Members hold very firmly the view—we adhered to this in government—that we need not only cross-party consultation and discussion, but agreement, so that we can proceed consensually, in the interests not of any political party, but of democracy as a whole. That concept of democracy is not confined to the House; it also involves consultation with the devolved institutions and civil society throughout the UK. That is my first point—the lack of engagement.
My second point relates to the technical impact of the legislation. The following changes will apply to all the devolved institutions: clause 26 and schedule 3 on the wider scope of regulated spending; clause 27 on the reduced registration thresholds; and clause 31 on the new notification requirements for relevant participators when registering with the Electoral Commission. Those three crucial aspects of the Bill will apply to the devolved institutions.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government propose to postpone the Northern Ireland Assembly elections from 2015 to 2016. If the House supported the new clause, would part 2 of the Act not come into force until after the Assembly elections in 2016 or have I misunderstood him?
Wayne David
The fact that the elections in Northern Ireland are being postponed will provide a greater opportunity for these matters to be considered carefully. The hon. Lady’s question is essentially one for the Government. How they respond to this situation is up to them. What is clear is that this work has to be done in preparation for all the elections to the devolved institutions. We want to be satisfied that the Government have considered carefully all the Bill’s implications before it is approved.
Lady Hermon
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did not want to throw cold water over the new clause. I want to reinforce his opening remarks about Northern Ireland. Since the Good Friday agreement 15 years ago, civil society in Northern Ireland has been able to participate willingly and openly in responding to Government proposals. A lot of that activity has been done by groups from different denominations and all communities in Northern Ireland working together. Those groups are extremely worried about the impact of part 2 on that activity because of the reductions and limitations on expenditure and because of the span of activities that will be caught by the Bill. I did not want to deter the hon. Gentleman from pursuing the new clause, but wanted clarification on the date until he wanted part 2 to be postponed.
Wayne David
I thank the hon. Lady for her question about the delayed election in Northern Ireland and for her extremely important comments from first-hand experience about the important role that civil society plays in Northern Ireland. That role is sometimes not fully appreciated by politicians in Great Britain.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) mentioned, the participation of civil society in Wales has been increasing. The same is true of Scotland. However, the participation of civil society in those countries is not nearly as important as in Northern Ireland. It is not to put it too strongly to say that the engagement of civil society is one of the anchors of the peace agreement. It is a key reason why so much progress has been made in Northern Ireland over the past few years. I reiterate that that has been accepted by the Electoral Commission and by many politicians of all political affiliations in the north of Ireland. This is not a party political issue, but a question of how democracy can best flourish and function.
I am involved in civil society in Wales in a modest way. My background is in the youth service, and I am the president of the Council for Wales of Voluntary Youth Services, which, through the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action, has made representations on the Bill. Its concern is first that the stipulations are onerous—I will come to that in a moment—but also that there has been no prior consultation with the devolved institutions or civil society. That sends out a negative message about the lack of thought and, as some might say, the less than benign intentions behind the Bill. All those points have been well made, and I thank those who have reinforced them.
I will now move on to consider new clause 3 if I may—[Interruption.] I was just making sure that you were hanging on my every word, Mr Speaker, and I am pleased to say that you are. New clause 3 is short but important:
“Within one month of Royal Assent, the Electoral Commission must lay before Parliament—
(a) full cost projections of the impact of Part 2 on their running costs;
(b) their assessment of the administrative impact on third parties.”.
The new clause is straightforward but underlines that, frankly, not enough work has gone into the Bill, much of which gives the impression that it was written on the back of an envelope in a rush, and there has been no proper consultation, drafting or consideration.
As many have noted, the Electoral Commission is extremely critical of the proposed legislation for a number of good reasons. One of its concerns is the lack of consideration given to the technical implementation of the Bill, and how much it will cost to be implemented properly in practice. The Electoral Commission is not a party political body; it is truly and genuinely impartial, and considers the technical implementation of a piece of legislation with regard to regulation and elections. Its responsibility is to ensure that elections are conducted properly and fairly, according to the law.
There have been various estimates of how much the proposed legislation will cost the Electoral Commission to implement. A conservative figure is £390,000, although others have said it will cost a heck of a lot more. It has even been suggested that the legislation would be so complex, and the burden on third sector organisations so great, that it is unlikely it could be implemented properly in practice, and certainly not to the extremely short time scale envisaged. This is not about all elections being delayed, as in Northern Ireland, but about the first impact and the general election in May 2015. To get this complex Bill up and running, not just here in the centre of the process but to have a proper understanding of all the things that voluntary and campaigning organisations must do to comply, will be extremely difficult. In essence, the new clause asks the Government to pause and realise that it is all well and good to enact the Bill and say that this or that will happen, but they must also have cognisance of what it will mean on the ground, both for the Electoral Commission and for third parties.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman’s last point is precisely not dealt with by the new clause. The new clause asks for an assessment to be made within one month of Royal Assent, and then lets the matter stand on its own. It does not require the Government to take any action as a result of that assessment. Does that not make the new clause rather nugatory?
Wayne David
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but this is a modest new clause and we are not attempting to solve all problems not of our making. We hope that in all common sense, if it is clearly shown that the implementation of the Bill is far more complicated than the Government appear to recognise, they will hold back and perhaps delay its implementation, or provide massive increased resources so that it is effectively implemented by the Electoral Commission. Above all, the new clause flags up the issue in a big, simple and straightforward way.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman imply that perhaps the Bill will not be ready by May 2015 and should, if necessary, be pushed beyond that date?
Wayne David
If necessary, yes. In all fairness I cannot believe that the Government would seek to soldier on with a piece of legislation when all objective evidence shows that the time scale is so tight, and the difficulties to be faced so enormous, that it cannot be introduced effectively in time for the run-up to the next election. I stress the run-up because we must not talk only about the general election but the period before it. If the new clause is accepted by the Government—I genuinely hope it will be—it would be part of the legislative base. As a consequence, if the objective information is provided, the Government will do what is necessary to prevent a ridiculous and farcical situation from developing. Such a situation would harm not the Conservative or Labour parties but democracy itself, and it would further undermine people’s support, involvement and engagement in our democratic process.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman argues in favour of new clause 3, and he has—rightly—mentioned the excellent work done by the Electoral Commission. Whatever problem he has defined, however, the solution proposed in the new clause is one the Electoral Commission does not support. Is it the case that whatever argument he is making, the solution he proposes is not the right one?
Wayne David
I am not here to answer for the Electoral Commission. Its emphasis has been on identifying the problem, and it is up to us as politicians to identify the solution.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I hope my hon. Friend does not dispense with that point too quickly. If we are in the business of accepting the views of the Electoral Commission—in light of comments made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), I feel we could accept one or two of its views—perhaps we should accept its views on virtually every other paragraph in the Bill, which, almost to a clause, have been disparaged in the most polite civil service language by the Electoral Commission. If the hon. Gentleman is in the position to make such an offer, I think my hon. Friend should negotiate and get a good deal.
Wayne David
That is a telling intervention from the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and to return to a point I made earlier, it is sad and unfortunate that the Electoral Commission, like everyone else, was not consulted about the Bill. That makes for bad legislation and poor electoral administration, which is worrying.
Lady Hermon
Does the hon. Gentleman have the benefit of knowing how many people in the Electoral Commission are engaged in looking after controlled expenditure relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and how many would have to be recruited to deal with the extended range of activities by the extended group of people and campaigners who will be caught by the Bill if it is passed unamended?
Wayne David
The honest answer is that I do not know. I asked the Electoral Commission if it would like to elaborate on its submission, and perhaps the Chair of the Select Committee can help in that respect.
Mr Allen
Just by chance, the Electoral Commission came to the House yesterday and offered its services, knowledge and advice to all Members. I am delighted to say that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was present. I believe that the EC said it had 12 people—I will stand corrected if I am wrong. Although they have not been consulted, they will be required to police the provisions in the clauses that relate to freedom of speech. They may be required to act between contending parties. Let us imagine that there is a bit of a bust-up between the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance in the constituency of the Leader of the House—if he were to get wind of such a thing he would of course report it to the Electoral Commission. Presumably, the EC would have to get some big lads—I do not know if they have any—to take down the bunting, intervene in the debate and stop the bad things, as defined in the Bill, being done. If that happens, 12 people will not be enough to police even one constituency, so a recruitment campaign might be necessary.
Wayne David
I thank my hon. Friend for his informed comments. I am sure Members will appreciate that in the past few days my mind has been elsewhere, but he makes a valid point.
I refer Members to the Electoral Commission’s written evidence:
“The regulatory burden created by the Bill is likely to be significant. The Impact Assessment states that the estimated cost of compliance with the Bill changes for registered campaigners will be in the range from zero to £800. This assumes among other things that campaigners will need two hours to become familiar with the new definition of regulated activity since it is ‘a relatively clear and simple requirement’—
the Government are tabling an amendment on this, which might change things slightly—
“and that a day of additional information recording will suffice to deal with the new requirement. On the basis of our experience of the effort that campaigners need to make to comply with the current rules, and of our discussions with organisations that may be affected by the new rules, we do not think these estimates are credible.”
That is strong language. The Electoral Commission recognises that it will have a huge new burden, and that there will be a huge new burden on voluntary organisations, charities and campaigning organisations. To say that the estimates are not credible is a strong use of language: it does not say that they are underestimates or not correctly thought through, but that they are not credible. It worries me that the governmental body, the impartial organisation charged with the implementation of the Bill, says that the Government’s estimates of the costs and burdens on voluntary organisations are not credible. In the interests of democracy, the Government need to swallow their pride and recognise that more work needs to be done. That is what new clause 3 seeks to do.
The Electoral Commission’s written evidence goes on to state:
“The Impact Assessment also estimates that the changes to registration thresholds will lead to between zero and 30 additional campaigners needing to register in 2015 compared to 2010. It is difficult to estimate the likely level of additional registration…but again this appears likely to be a severe under-estimate on the basis of our recent discussions with campaigners.”
Not only is there a lack of credibility, there is now a severe underestimate.
The uncertainty and the burdens the Bill will place on campaigners could be mitigated by recasting the definitions of what is covered, and the Government are making some—only some—attempts to do that. That is not a straightforward process, however, and the complexity of the situation is, if anything, being made worse and the legal uncertainty greater. It will require careful testing for those potentially affected by the definitions.
The shame of the Bill is this: many of us suspect that the level of burden and complexity will be such a disincentive for campaigning organisations that they simply will not bother. If campaigning organisations absent themselves from the democratic process, democracy will be the loser. In the run-up to all elections—in devolved elections, as well as general elections—civil society increasingly plays a positive role in asking candidates where they stand, putting political parties on the spot, asking the difficult questions that us politicians sometimes do not want to answer and raising issues that the general public might not have thought of.
Dr Francis
My hon. Friend is making an important and non-partisan point. The campaigning by the Royal British Legion was welcomed by all political parties, because so many Members—probably all of them—endorsed the military covenant.
Wayne David
My hon. Friend makes a truly excellent point. Sadly, the criticism levelled at those of us who have strong reservations about the Bill is that we somehow want to promote extremists or those in our political camp. The truth is a long way from that—it could not be further away.
The example of the Royal British Legion is a very good one. I think, largely due to its excellent work in support of the covenant, that there is consensus in the House on how we need to give the greatest possible support to former members of the armed forces who have given so much to defend this country. That consensus was in large part achieved due to the work of the Royal British Legion in the run-up to the general election. All of us received representations, and long may it be able to do that kind of work. The Royal British Legion is one of the organisations that has made representations to MPs to express concerns about the Bill, even though the Government have made some concessions. I welcome those concessions, but even the Royal British Legion thinks that there is a heck of a long way to go.
John Thurso
It is my understanding that if the House accepts the Government amendments, which reflect those I tabled in Committee, the Royal British Legion’s concern will have been met. If that is the case, is there not a danger that we are looking at the wrong point in the Bill? What we do not want, and what part 2 is designed to deal with, is something like the National Rifle Association in America or the Tea party movement. That is the danger we need to guard against far more than a potential unintended consequence that the Government are trying to mitigate.
Wayne David
There has not been broad agreement—in fact, there has been very little agreement—that the Government’s amendments are anywhere near enough. I said in Committee that I welcomed the fact that the Leader of the House had had discussions with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and given certain verbal commitments. Since then, however, the NCVO has said, “Hang on, we’ll see what is actually proposed,” and now it has considered the proposals in detail and, more importantly, taken legal advice, there is a consensus among most voluntary organisations that the proposals are not sufficient and arguably create further complications, which underlines the point that we have made consistently: this is the wrong way to approach this kind of Bill. We should not be in this position, but unfortunately we cannot turn the clock back, which is why it is important to focus on new clause 3 and at least recognise the need for the Government to take stock of the implications, many of which they have not given proper consideration to.
Dr Francis
Had there been a general election in November or December 1913, would the South Wales Miners Federation, on this day 100 years ago, have been prevented from campaigning for a health and safety at work Act following the explosion in Senghenydd, when 439 miners were killed?
Wayne David
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and refers to the Senghenydd disaster, in my constituency, of October 1913. I will not speak at length about it, but the point is that historically all civil society organisations have been able to campaign on issues of concern to them and their members, and today’s health and safety legislation came about through the active campaigning by men and women in places of work. As a direct consequence of what happened in Senghenydd in 1901, when 81 men lost their lives, legislation was introduced, but unfortunately it was not implemented by the coalers and so there was another horrific explosion in the same colliery a few years later, when 439 men and boys lost their lives. Of course, things have improved enormously since those days, but the point is that many great social advances come about not because politicians decide in an ivory tower that something is good for people, but because in a democracy people have the ability and wherewithal to campaign for measures that will improve their and their communities’ lives. Our fundamental concern about part 2 is that the encumbrances created are so great that a raft of civil society organisations might think that things are far too complicated and onerous for them to bother to engage in the democratic process.
Mr Allen
It is arguable that the Labour party itself would not have been created had these measures been in place. It is the only party created outside Parliament, rather than as the product of splits among those already in Parliament. It was created by people who we might say today were part of the big society. The Labour Representation Committee—a joint committee of the kind covered by the Bill—created a new political party in order to do certain things in Parliament, and I would speculate that while legislation in the 1900s made the birth, funding and advancement of the Labour party incredibly difficult, even with the help of our good friends in the Liberal party—perhaps we could reinvent that pact in the near future—this Bill would have made its creation impossible. We should take that into account, in view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis).
Wayne David
I am sure that my hon. Friend makes a good point—and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, who is a professional historian, is smiling and probably agrees. It is not just about the Labour party, however; other parties have been formed recently as well, and who knows what the future holds? The point is that society has changed. The Labour party might have been the precursor to a new kind of politics in this country, but increasingly we are seeing politics from the bottom up, rather than the top down, which is to be encouraged in society.
I do not want to stray from the point, Mr Speaker, and talk about the nature of democracy. [Interruption.] You are nodding that I should, Mr Speaker. In this day and age, it is of fundamental importance that democracy should not be seen as something involving just the highest echelons of society or handed down on a plate for consumers to accept or reject. Politics is about the creation of a healthy democratic society, which is why the involvement of the third sector is fundamental to the health of modern Britain. We hope—we have seen it in Northern Ireland—that this can be a permanent, developing and organic future for British democracy.
I am about to resume my seat, but I will first refer to human rights. It is my understanding that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon is the Chair, is considering the human rights implications of the Bill, and its report will be concluded in time to be properly considered when the Bill goes to the other place. When talking about democratic engagement, we are talking about human rights in the broader sense of the term. A number of people have drawn my attention to the severe reservations of people who rightly believe in the importance of human rights and who think that the Bill might infringe the human rights of many people in the third sector, which is another reason we are making our case so strongly. For goodness’ sake, let us pause and properly assess all the Bill’s ramifications and implications, and let us do it before it is implemented.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Many of us in this place are privileged to spend time in developing countries, and when we do so, we often meet civil society and third sector organisations, and recognise, particularly in parts of Asia, Latin and South America and Africa, the importance they play and sometimes how undemocratic Governments seek to assert control over civil society. We have quite rightly spent endless hours in this House debating press freedom. In that context, it is important that we should take the time to give due consideration to the brakes that the Government are strongly perceived to be putting on the third sector and civil society in our own country, and to the handicap that Ministers will receive in the months ahead if we proceed in this way.
Wayne David
Indeed. We are coming to the end of the rather truncated process of deliberation on the Bill in this House, but my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point in underlining our concerns about this part of the legislation. We are concerned about democracy. We like to say that this is the mother of Parliaments and to regard Britain as a beacon of democracy in the world, and it concerns me enormously that so many people—ourselves included—believe that the Bill will take us backwards rather than forwards by undermining the principles and relationships that are fundamental to our concept of modern society.
John Thurso
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question about this point of principle. His party, when in government, passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That Act accepts that the regulation of third parties is desirable and necessary. Is he now saying that his party got it wrong, or does he accept the principle and are we now arguing only about the detail?
Wayne David
That is a good question, and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has asked it. He is right to say that we introduced that legislation in 2000. We are not saying for a moment that it is perfect, however, or that it does not need to be modified in the light of subsequent practice. In fact, the Electoral Commission has been conducting a review and has produced more than 50 recommendations for improving the legislation. We strongly believe that it needs to be improved; we are on record as saying that we need to find a way of taking the big money out of politics. We are not defending the status quo. We want change, but we want it to be introduced properly, systematically and on the basis of dialogue and consensus, not on the basis of this Bill, whose rushed, back-of-an-envelope proposals have been pursued—some would say—on a partisan basis. We have to be careful and say yes to change, but for goodness’ sake let us work together. What is wrong with working together to ensure that we achieve a proper consensus? That would work not to our own political advantage but to the political advantage of society and democracy as a whole.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
We know that those who are fundamentally concerned about part 2 of the Bill do not have any running anxieties about the existing legislation. They are concerned about the imposition of reduced caps, the wider scope of the controlled expenditure and the absolute minefield of difficulties—the veritable twilight zone—that is being created in and around the devolved regions, in relation not only to the conduct of elections there but potentially to the conduct of Assembly business in Northern Ireland. For example, people could well say that the Assembly should not be in the business of legislating on same-sex marriage in the same year as a run-up to a Westminster election, as that could be deemed to be a re-run of the debate here, which could influence the election. None of this has been properly considered by the Government.
Wayne David
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He has referred succinctly to a large number of issues, which serves to crystallise the multitude of concerns that people have about the Bill.
We have had a useful exchange of views, but we should not be in this position now if we want to consider these issues properly. We are in this position, however, and in new clauses 2 and 3, we are saying that we should for goodness’ sake allow the Electoral Commission and others fully and properly to assess the Bill’s implications before it reaches the statute book. Let us do that now, before it is too late. It is much better to take such action in a measured, systematic way than to rush into something and repent at leisure. I ask the Government please to give sympathetic consideration to new clauses 2 and 3.
Mr Chope
I should like to address my remarks to amendments 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12, which have been included in this group with the new clauses. I am grateful that they have been so included, because they were tabled in Committee but were not reached because we ran out of time. It is therefore an agreeable surprise that I have this opportunity to speak to them today.
My concern has always been that the House should introduce legislation that is clear and precise. That is particularly true of legislation relating to electoral law, which is becoming increasingly complex in this country. It could almost be argued that it now presents a barrier to entry to new people who want to start a political party, to engage in the political process or to contribute to an established party.
Before I address the amendments, I should like to put on record my appreciation of the work of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, whose Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), is here today. I have had the privilege of serving on the Committee since it was first set up at the beginning of this Parliament. It is frustrating at the best of times to serve on a Select Committee, but it is doubly frustrating when a Committee produces reports to which the Government say they will respond but never do so, and merely bring forward their own legislation, ex cathedra, as they have done with this Bill.
The Committee met in early September to try to deal with these issues, as well as at the end of July, soon after the Bill had been published. We raised a lot of questions with the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), some of which have resulted in the welcome tabling of Government amendments in Committee and now, on Report. It would have been far better, however, if this had been done the other way round. We should have had proper pre-legislative scrutiny, consultations and exchanges of views with bodies such as the Electoral Commission, which were established specifically to advise Parliament and the Government on issues of electoral law.
My concern about new clauses 2 and 3 is that, although they recognise the reality of the situation, they would not provide an effective remedy. It is no good saying that there should be a report on the implications of the legislation within a month of its receiving Royal Assent. Nothing would happen as a result of that, because it would be too late to change the law. Regulatory impact assessments should be produced while legislation is being considered by this House, so that we can respond to them by tabling appropriate amendments.
My amendments—modest as they are, as always—were designed to bring clarity to the question of commencement. At the moment, clause 41 provides for the Bill’s provisions to come into effect on the day in which the Act is passed, but with a whole lot of exceptions, some of which are set out. I am seeking to remove those exceptions through my amendments 4, 5 and 6, which would leave out sub-paragraphs (i), (iii) and (iv). Thus clauses 30, 34 and 35 would come into effect on the day the Act is passed rather than on some subsequent day when a Minister might decide to bring forward a commencement order.
Obviously, if a Bill that becomes an Act of Parliament makes certain provisions, which are not implemented immediately but might be implemented at some stage in the future, that in itself creates doubt. Clause 30, for example, to which my amendment 4 refers, deals with
“Extension of power to vary specified sums”
under section 155 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, enabling the Secretary of State, “by order”, to
“vary any percentage for the time being specified”
in that Act’s provisions. That amounts to an order-making power. Why does the order-making power itself need to be made subject to another order-making power? If clause 30 came into effect and into law on the day the Bill received Royal Assent, its provisions would still be subject to the Secretary of State’s having the power to make a variation. If we want to give the Secretary of State that power, why do we need to cover it by saying, “Well, we won’t give him the power to make an order until he has brought forward an order giving himself the power to make the order”? By including sub-paragraph (i) in clause 41, we are making the provisions less direct and more confusing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why he thinks clause 41 is so vital.
Similar arguments relate to my amendments 5 and 6, which would ensure that clauses 30, 34 and 35 came into effect directly on the date of Royal Assent. Looking at those clauses, one again wonders why the Government are nervous about allowing these provisions to take legal effect from the day of Royal Assent. Clause 34 deals with
“Third party expenditure in respect of candidates”,
changing the limit from £500 to £700. If that is a good idea—I am not disputing that it might be—why not include it and implement it from the day of Royal Assent? Why leave everybody guessing about whether the provisions might be brought forward at some subsequent stage through an order-making power? Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.
Similarly, clause 35, dealing with
“Functions of Electoral Commission with respect to compliance”,
changes the general function and substitutes the expression “duties”. It deals with legislation relating to the Electoral Commission. If that is a good thing—obviously, the Government think it is—why is it not such a good thing that it cannot be brought into effect on the day of Royal Assent?
The way in which the Government do legislation nowadays seems to me to be about leaving as many opportunities as possible for further order-making, when the statute book and our democracy would be enhanced if we were able to have greater clarity so that the provisions enacted were actually implemented from the commencement of the Act, alongside all the other provisions. Again, I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks about that.
My second group of amendments—10, 11 and 12 —relate to clause 42. Amendment 10 would leave out subsections (3) to (6); amendment 11 would leave out subsections (7) and (8); and amendment 12 would leave out subsection (9). Clause 42 is quite important, because it deals with “Transitional provision”. It is quite complex. The explanatory notes state that because of the interaction of the European Parliament elections in the latter part of May next year and the fixed-term Parliament provisions that assure us of a general election in May 2015, we need special provisions to cover that scenario. As explained therein:
“Clause 42 makes provision to deal with this situation by creating”
what is described as
“a bespoke regulated period…that will apply only in relation to the next UK general parliamentary election.”
I am instinctively suspicious of “bespoke” regulated periods or of anything brought into statute in order to deal with a particular scenario; I am much more in favour of general principles that can be applied whatever the circumstances. We are getting into dangerous territory whereby the Government are taking transitional powers, interfering with existing law, and doing so on the grounds that the situation is complicated by the European parliamentary elections next May, while at the same time not dealing with the situation of the Scottish referendum in September next year. I do not understand why there are no transitional provisions for that Scottish referendum; perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. If we are to have strict limits on spending by registered political parties during a period that includes what amounts to a national referendum in Scotland on whether or not Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom, surely we need some special provision to deal with related expenditure.
I do not understand what these provisions are all about, but the Bill would be better if these specific provisions were excluded from it. In a sense, my amendments could properly be described as probing amendments. As I say, I cannot really understand all the detail of clause 42, but I think the Bill would be better without the provisions which my amendments would remove. I would certainly be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about why we have a bespoke regulated period for one particular scenario, while such a bespoke period will not be necessary in the future. Why has no provision been made for the interaction of the general election and the proposed Scottish referendum?
Mr Allen
I thank the hon. Gentleman and would like to put on record my thanks to other colleagues who sit on the Select Committee, some of whom are in the Chamber today. We faced incredibly difficult conditions, providing a report for this House at very short notice, which meant being called back during the recess. I compliment the hon. Gentleman and the rest of my Select Committee for doing that and for giving the House half a chance to debate this issue seriously.
The hon. Gentleman seems surprised that stuff that we are meant to have in front of us—on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—is not in front of us, while we are halfway through the Bill’s proceedings. However, he answered his own question in his opening remarks when he referred to the Government’s failure to provide the proper amount of time, consideration and consultation that we should expect in the House. Let me quote, very briefly, what has been said by the Electoral Commission:
“We await confirmation of the Government’s view of the impact of the Bill on the referendum on independence for Scotland.”
I am perfectly sure that had that impact been known, even today, a great many more Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have been present. This is an outrageous attempt to push a measure through with great speed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to emphasise that in his speech.
Mr Speaker
I was wondering whether at some point the hon. Gentleman might wish to make a speech on the matter, but then I realised that he had in fact just done so. We are grateful to him, and I remind those who are attending to our proceedings beyond the Chamber that his celebrity status should now be universally known. He is, of course, the Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, and it is, I know, in that capacity that he seeks to advise the House. Even so, he will want to ensure that the subsequent interventions that he will make from time to time are moderately briefer.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his succinct intervention, and also for his generous comments. The points that he has made are exactly the points that caused me to vote against the programme motion yesterday. I think the least that can be done if a Bill has not been given sufficient pre-legislative scrutiny is to ensure that there is sufficient time for it to be scrutinised properly in the House. I may be wrong, but I doubt very much whether we shall have time even to debate all the groups of amendments and new clauses that have been tabled for debate today. As I said earlier, we were not able to reach some of the amendments that were tabled in Committee, although fortunately some of them were tabled again on Report, and are being debated now.
I do not think that I need to make a meal of this, and I am sure that the House will wish to hear further from the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but I will say that I do not think that new clause 2 really cuts the mustard. All that it says is:
“Part 2 of this Act shall not come into force until the Electoral Commission and the Minister have laid a report before both Houses of Parliament”.
That in itself introduces a concept of indecision. People looking at the legislation will want to know when part 2 will come into force. If things are found to be wrong with part 2 as a result of
“an assessment of the separate and specific impacts of Part 2…on third-party engagement”,
and so on, that will need to be put right before Royal Assent, rather than being left to a post-legislative assessment on a time scale that is imprecise and unspecified. I understand why the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is frustrated by this whole process, but I beg to differ with him on whether his proposed solution is the right one.
Similarly, as I said earlier in an intervention on the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I do not think that the requirement in new clause 3 for
“Within one month of Royal Assent…full cost projections of the impact of Part 2 on their running costs”
from the Electoral Commission, along with an
“assessment of the administrative impact”
is any good. It would, at best, be closing the stable door after the horse had bolted, and it would not be a helpful substitute for dealing effectively with the substance of the Bill before we give it final approval and it receives Royal Assent. The time to do that is now, and we are doing it. Obviously we hope that those in the other place will do even more of it, and that when the Bill returns to the Commons, it will be much better than it was before.
I end as I began, by regretting that this process has caused us to deal too much with the form and the process rather than with the substance, which is what we should be dealing with in this House.
Mr Allen
Before the hon. Gentleman—who is a distinguished member of the Select Committee—ends his speech, may I return, very briefly, to the question of the controlling of expenditure of non-party campaigners? Will he underline the fact that the Electoral Commission does not know what impact the Bill will have on the referendums in Scotland? Are we not in danger of jumping straight into a hornets’ nest if we do not consider that before the Bill is passed, rather than saying “Let us see what happens”?
Mr Chope
If I were a member of the Government faced with such advice from a body on which the Government rely to give them advice, I would say “We will withdraw the Bill, or at least delay further consideration of it until we have received a proper response.” That, I think, would have been the mature way in which to deal with the matter, if I may put in it in a somewhat patronising way.
There are many examples of Bills that have been held up between their Committee and Report stages. Normally they have been held up for a good reason, namely that the Government have been having a rethink, discussing with third parties and other interests what is the best solution. Here we have a glaring example of something else. Effectively, the statutory adviser on these issues has said to the Government “We do not know what the implications are. Please help us. We can help you, but we need a bit of time if we are to do so.”
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always an optimist. I hope that, before the end of this evening’s proceedings, we shall have heard the Government say that they wish not to press the matter to the end, but to give the House a chance to engage in further debates, and that they will table further amendments.
Wayne David
As the hon. Gentleman implies, there is nothing to stop the Government from saying, at any stage, “We have listened to the concerns of Members on both sides of the House, and we have listened to what people outside the Chamber are saying. We will withdraw the legislation, and will engage in full consultation.” Labour Members can give a cast-iron commitment that if that were to happen, we should be only too happy to engage with the Government, the Electoral Commission and others in an attempt to achieve a consensus on how our electoral law can be modified and made appropriate for the modern age. That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and I only hope that the Government will feel able to respond to it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it represents a good way forward?
Mr Chope
Obviously I do. I am often suspicious of the word “consensus”, but I think that when we are dealing with changes in electoral law, consensus is very important.
In my capacity as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I go off and monitor a fair number of elections, and the most difficult cases with which to deal are those in which a Government have used their majority to introduce changes in the electoral law, and, in some cases, have used a politically motivated electoral commission to support their actions. That brings democracy into disrepute, especially in some of the emerging democracies in eastern Europe. I think that this is an instance in which we should be aiming for consensus, and if consensus could be achieved by the Government’s withdrawing the Bill, or not continuing with it at the current pace, I should be all in favour of it.
Dr Francis
The hon. Gentleman’s approach is precisely the approach adopted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We said as much in our meeting this morning, and I was delegated to convey that sentiment to the House this afternoon.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is invidious to make comparisons, and I know that his is a Joint Committee of both Houses, but I think it a pity that the Committee has not been able to present a report to the House by this stage. If our Committee could do it, I am sure that his Committee would, or should, have been able to do it as well. It is very sad that his Committee’s no doubt excellent report will be available to their lordships, but is not available to Members of this House. This is not a criticism of the hon. Gentleman, but I hope in future he will cancel all leave when necessary and bring his troops back.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I note the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the word consensus, but is it not sad that there is broadly common agreement which could be arrived at if the will were there?
Mr Chope
I am not going to get into the semantics of the difference between consensus and common agreement, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
I am pleased the Government have done quite a lot of listening. They have brought forward a number of amendments and put forward various propositions. Some people are claiming what the Government are saying will not work in practice in the way they say it would, but that is a reason for having further discussions, instead of forcing inadequate law through this House.
Mark Durkan
I share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) around the muddle and clutter in the Bill in relation to variable commencement dates and the transitional provisions. The Government may well say that the clauses are framed in a way that allows for slippage if that is needed, but slippage at the hands of a Minister in relation to commencement will give rise to suspicions of slipperiness and the possibility of partisan motivations. The variable commencement provisions that apply to different parts of part 2 are evidence of just how scrappy the thinking has been, and provide an argument for there being a longer pause for thought.
I wish to speak particularly in support of new clauses 2 and 3. Some Members have said that neither of the clauses on their own goes far enough. That may be so, but they do recognise gross deficiencies in the Bill. They may not meet them in full, but at least if this Chamber agrees to these amendments it will be creating a basis on which there will be further amendments and further consideration to meet those gross deficiencies. It is a derelict argument to say that, because they do not completely meet the deficiencies, we should not adopt them. There are even more inadequacies in the Bill that we would leave unamended, so saying that they do not go far enough and would need to be supplemented by other changes should not be used as a justification for voting against them.
New clause 2 refers to the very confusing impact this legislation would have in the context of the devolved areas. I have a particular interest in Northern Ireland, of course. I have no wish to bungee jump in and out of the debate about the Scottish referendum, but I take on board the point that has been made on a number of occasions by the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and we need to hear it answered as it seems to be a pretty basic and fundamental one.
I want again to inform the House that many Members have referred to the vast numbers of third sector groups—charities, Churches, policy advocacy groups—that have expressed concern throughout England, Scotland and Wales, and they have also done so in Northern Ireland. In many ways their concerns are even more vexed because, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has said, civil society in Northern Ireland has been playing a significant, telling and growing role in helping to move politics on and improving the content and climate of political debate in Northern Ireland.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I am still hoping to get to Derry/Londonderry, the great city of culture for 2013, before the end of the year, but I am conscious that time is running out—[Interruption.] My speech will not take us to that date.
I want to make a couple of comments on these new clauses and amendments on timetabling and scope. I thank the Leader of the House for the letter that he sent and the amendments that the Government have tabled, which we shall reach later, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House for his conversations, briefings and help in dealing with the Bill.
I assume that those on the Front Bench accept the spirit of amendment 65, although I do not assume that they will accept the amendment itself. It states that the Bill will not be enacted until all Committees of both Houses that are reporting on it have reported. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—our Chair is also in the Chamber now—and it is common knowledge that we are considering the Bill. It is no secret that we hope to complete our work this month—we are doing it as quickly as we can—and to publish our report. The amendment is effectively asking the Government to take into account the deliberations of the cross-party Committee of both Houses and any other Committees before there is further detailed consideration of the Bill. I hope that there will be general acceptance of that.
I am not competent to speak about the details of new clause 2, but the Electoral Commission, to which we are grateful for its up-to-date briefing, has an open mind on it—at least, that is how it expresses it. The commission’s summary states that
“we expect that as far as possible Parliament will wish the Government to set out a thorough assessment of the likely impact of the provisions in Part 2 before the Bill is passed.”
I assume that the Government will do that and that the new clause seeks to deal with elections and campaigns other than the general election in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They are clearly relevant and we must consider them. My reading is clear: the Electoral Commission has not come down specifically in favour of or against the new clause in its briefing, although it has a clear view on other parts of the work before us today.
Wayne David
The right hon. Gentleman has accurately referred to the Electoral Commission’s commentary on new clause 2. The commission expresses the hope that the Government will set out a thorough assessment of the likely impact of the provisions, but as things stand, I am not aware of a firm commitment that the Government intend to do that.
Simon Hughes
That is why my assumption is that, although the Government might not respond directly by accepting the new clause, colleagues on the Front Bench will be able to answer the point made by the Electoral Commission, as there is obviously regular engagement between the Government and the commission. I hope those on the Front Bench will be positive about that point.
It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said earlier, that new clause 3 is not supported by the Electoral Commission. For want of other guidance, the Electoral Commission is always the best place to go to for a steer on the appropriate response, so I will not support the new clause.
My concern is that the Government should give time for Committees to report and for their deliberations to be considered and that, when the Electoral Commission expressly supports the Government’s proposals or proposed changes, the Government should be responsive.
Let me make a general point about the timetable. Obviously, the Bill took a huge amount of time in gestation and was then born very quickly—it shot out of the cot, or cradle, or wherever it had been kept—
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
That is often the way.
Simon Hughes
Yes, it is. The Bill was held in dock for a long time, but then somebody suddenly pressed the button and out it came. I do not think that anyone can complain that there has not been enough time in Committee or on Report; the complaint is that, as people know, we have not had the pre-legislative scrutiny that all Bills ideally should have. I know that the Leader of the House would accept that in principle.
We are in the second day on Report and we must have Third Reading, so we cannot now do all the revision and careful scrutiny that we would like to. That is probably true across the House. I am in favour of many of the Bill’s principles, so I do not have issues with some of the changes, but I hope that the Government will ensure that there is the time for that careful consideration and to listen to the voices before the Bill goes from this place to the House of Lords.
A commission has been set up, prompted by the voluntary sector, to be chaired by the Lord Bishop of Oxford, who is a Member of the House of Lords. It is considering these issues and will have a valuable contribution to make, provided it can report soon. I hope, too, that the Government will take seriously what it says.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman outline to the House how he thinks we can have further scrutiny of the Bill between the completion of business today and its progress to the House of Lords?
Simon Hughes
I made it clear that because this is the second and last day on Report and because we must have Third Reading, at this round of our deliberations we cannot do that in this building. Other work is taking place, however, not least in the Joint Committee on which I serve with colleagues from both Houses. We want to report in time for our work to be taken into account up the corridor in the House of Lords. Any amendments made in the Lords must still come back to this place, so I ask the Government to give time for the Committees that are working and have not reported to report and for those reports to be considered by the Government in good time to be seen by colleagues in the Lords and for the independent commission to report and to be seen, provided it gets on with the job quickly.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
Before I tackle new clauses 2 and 3 and the amendments, I welcome the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) to his place. I am not sure whether this is his last appearance in his current position—
Tom Brake
Okay. I also welcome the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who is making his first appearance in this capacity, as well as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is staying put, I believe. This is also perhaps the first opportunity for me to welcome the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). He might be familiar with a quote from Christopher Hitchens:
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
He might have found during the debate that a lot is being asserted by Opposition Members without evidence. Clearly, the Government dismiss that with evidence rather than without it.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly made an enticing offer that we should pause the Bill, but I am afraid that I shall have to decline. I can only imagine the hue and cry from Labour were we to do nothing with the Bill only for someone to spend just under £1 million in one constituency or another during the run-up to the next general election to try to unseat a candidate they did not want to support. Would the hon. Gentleman then accuse us of failing to take action?
We have also heard some examples of Opposition Members’ belief that the Bill would have stopped updated health and safety provisions in relation to mining disasters. We heard from the Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform that the Labour party would not have existed had the Bill been in place. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will become familiar with such arguments, which are completely outwith anything the Government propose in the Bill.
New clause 2 would require the Government and the Electoral Commission to undertake a post-legislative assessment of the impact of part 2 on third parties campaigning in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly and on third parties campaigning in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies for the UK parliamentary elections. That assessment would also have to consider the impact of part 2 on referendums in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Part 2 would not come into force until a report of the assessment was laid before Parliament.
Only some of the part 2 provisions apply to third parties campaigning in elections to the devolved Administrations. At the time of the Bill’s introduction, the Government published an impact assessment to accompany it. The analysis has been thorough. To require the Government to undertake another analysis at a later date serves no purpose. In addition, the Electoral Commission already has a statutory function of reporting on the conduct of elections under current legislation. As part of that function, the Government would expect the commission to examine the impact of changes to rules on third-party campaigning at future elections. It would not be for the Government to duplicate the role of the independent regulator.
The main thrust of the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly was about the potential risk of impact on the Scottish referendum. I want to make it clear that the Bill does not have an impact on referendums. Although the regulated period for the 2015 UK parliamentary election will overlap with the regulated period for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, spending in the Scottish referendum is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Such expenditure could not, in our view, reasonably be regarded as intended to promote electoral success and would therefore not be controlled under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 or regulated by the Bill. We believe that expenditure incurred during the regulated period for the referendum would be treated as referendum expenditure and not controlled expenditure for the election, unless there was a clear or direct link to a campaign in the election. We do not think that the commencement of part 2 should be delayed as the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr Allen
Up until yesterday, the Electoral Commission, which is charged by Government and the House in these matters, was still stating:
“We await confirmation of the Government’s view of the impact of the Bill on the referendum on independence for Scotland.”
So even yesterday, the Electoral Commission was unclear. The Minister is stating unequivocally that there will be no impact whatsoever on the contending parties—those that support voting yes, voting no or whatever—and there will be no impact whatsoever on the independence campaign by any of the players or third parties. This was not made clear to the Electoral Commission even yesterday, when the question arose.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which gives me an opportunity to restate the fact that the Bill has no impact on the Scottish referendum. The Electoral Commission wanted that clarified, and I have today very publicly done so. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had clarified that point in discussions with the Electoral Commission yesterday.
Wayne David
Surely, the comment from the Deputy Leader of the House depends on clearly differentiating expenditure for election campaigning and referendum campaigning. We might find that sums of money are used for identical purposes at the same time. Common sense dictates that that is bound to lead to complications.
Tom Brake
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House in 1999 when PPERA was being debated and when it became an Act in 2000. That Act seeks to address that sort of issue. Our position is clear. I do not think that I need to restate it a third time, but I will: the Scottish referendum is not affected in any way by what we are debating here.
I shall move on to new clause 3, which would require the Electoral Commission to identify the Bill’s impact on both its own resources and on third parties. It would require the commission to lay a full cost projection before Parliament within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. As I have just explained, the Government have already published an impact assessment to accompany the Bill. That assessment considers the impact on both the Electoral Commission and third parties. The assessment estimates that the lowered registration thresholds will bring 30 more third parties into the regime administered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—that is, third parties that campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate.
The assessment also estimates that only 10% of third-party organisations will see their expenditure affected by the reduced spending limits proposed in the Bill. At the 2010 UK general election, only two organisations even passed the lower limits proposed in the Bill. There will be a relatively small administrative cost to each registered third party as a result of the new reporting provisions that the Bill introduces. The impact assessment considers that the enforcement cost to the Electoral Commission will rise by a maximum of £390,000 annually. Let me say again that this analysis is comprehensive, and I see no need to repeat it after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
The Electoral Commission states in its parliamentary briefing:
“We do not support this amendment since there are more appropriate vehicles for consideration of these issues.”
The Electoral Commission is already required, under PPERA, to submit an estimate of its income and expenditure to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission each financial year. That estimate must indicate what the commission considers its requirements for resources for the next five-year period might be. There is therefore already provision in legislation for the commission to provide the information that the amendment seeks.
Wayne David
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is very generous. Before we move on from new clauses 2 and 3, may I ask whether he is categorically rejecting the Electoral Commission’s request for a thorough assessment of the likely impact of these provisions? Let us be clear that he is rejecting that Electoral Commission advice.
Tom Brake
I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by restating what I have said. We have already carried out an impact assessment and the Electoral Commission will no doubt want to conduct one on the impact of third parties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) referred to amendment 65. I can assure him that the Government will listen to the Committee’s views, although we are working to a timetable that requires the Bill to be in place to address the next general election, and the regulated period for that starts 12 months before. We will of course listen to the Committee’s views and to the views expressed by others, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Electoral Commission or anyone else who has views on the subject. We are not closed to other views.
Angela Smith
Is the Deputy Leader of the House therefore saying that he and the Government will listen to the views of the Committee and the independent commission before the Bill goes to the House of Lords?
Tom Brake
No. The hon. Lady paraphrases me incorrectly. That is not what I said. I said that we would listen to the views, but at the same time we are working to a timetable. The sooner those views are available the better, and the sooner there will be an opportunity for them to be considered.
Amendment 65 would amend clause 41 in order to prevent part 2 from coming into force until a Committee of either House has undertaken an inquiry and published a report on the impact of the Bill. As drafted, however, the amendment does not in fact require an inquiry to take place—it merely assumes that one might. The amendment’s effectiveness is therefore limited, as in the absence of any inquiry part 2 will come into force regardless. I once more reiterate my earlier comments: the Government have already published an impact assessment to accompany the Bill. That assessment considers the impact on both the Electoral Commission and third parties, and is thorough.
Amendments 66, 4, 5 and 6, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) spoke, would amend clause 41 so that the entire provisions of part 2 came into force on Royal Assent, subject of course to the transitional provision in clause 42. It is more appropriate—this is the response to the query he raised—for certain provisions, namely clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35, to be commenced at a date appointed by the Secretary of State, rather than on Royal Assent. That is normal practice. The purpose is to allow preparations to take place and the people involved to be brought up to speed on those aspects of the law, rather than forcing adoption on the day of Royal Assent.
Mr Chope
The right hon. Gentleman says that it is important that people should be able to get up to speed, but many of the Bill’s provisions will take effect on the day of Royal Assent. How is it that people will be able to get up to speed on those provisions in time but not on this provision?
Tom Brake
Clearly the Government have made an assessment of the areas where it is possible to prepare in time for Royal Assent and those where it is not, which I think is reflected in the clauses to which I have just referred.
Clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35 do not have a direct effect on the regulated period of the other provisions in part 2, which are affected by the transitional provision. It is more appropriate for clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35 to be subject to commencement by order in the usual way. Amendment 67 takes the opposite approach and appears to intend that, subject to amendment 66, which we have just discussed, all of part 2 but clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35 would not come into force on Royal Assent. However, its effect would in fact be the contrary. In the absence of any considered commencement and transitional provision, all of part 2 would come into force on Royal Assent. I suspect that that is not the intention, but it would be the effect.
In relation to amendments 10, 11 and 12, tabled and spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, it appears that he is seeking to delay the Act’s measures, rather than to have them swiftly implemented. He has already tabled amendments 4, 5 and 6 to clause 41 so that all of part 2 would come into force at the same time and then become subject to the transitional provisions of clause 42. I know that he was seeking to bring clarity, but the effect of amendments 10, 11 and 12, together with amendments 4, 5 and 6, is that the measures in part 2 would not come into effect before the 2015 general election. Amendments 10, 11 and 12 would remove the transitional provision of clause 42 altogether, with the result that the part 2 provisions would come into effect only at the commencement of the next regulated period after Royal Assent, which is unlikely to be the regulated period for the 2015 general election. The Government are committed to enhancing the transparency of spending by third parties, and that includes enacting the measures within part 2 in time for the regulated period of the 2015 general election. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to delay their implementation until after the 2015 general election.
Mr Chope
Going back to the point about people needing to be given time to get up to speed, if clause 30 was brought in immediately on Royal Assent, it would state:
“The Secretary of State may by order vary any percentage for the time being specified”.
What is the point of not bringing that into effect on Royal Assent, because the only impact of doing so would be to give the Secretary of State the power to bring it in? Does the Secretary of State need to be brought up to speed?
Tom Brake
That is a challenging question, so I might need to get back to my hon. Friend shortly on it. I think that the whole issue of percentages is one that might require a response from others and measures to address it. I have heard his query and will ensure that he gets a specific response.
Mr Allen
I will make a small contribution in order to make a request on behalf of those of us who have considerable respect for the opinions expressed about Northern Ireland and concern about the impact of the Bill there. I think that the Deputy Leader of the House inadvertently passed over that without responding to the pertinent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). This takes the whole question of people intervening when there are questions of free speech to a rather more delicate and, indeed, darker level. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House has some response to the points made by my hon. Friend.
Tom Brake
I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will agree that I tend to take many interventions and make a point of trying to respond to them. To respond to his point on the impact in Northern Ireland, clearly the new definition of controlled expenditure will have an impact on the devolved Administrations. The lowered registration thresholds will also have an impact in Northern Ireland. With regard to Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the amount that a third-party organisation can spend campaigning against a named candidate is being increased from £500 to £700 through this legislation.
Mark Durkan
Will the Deputy Leader of the House clarify something? If there is a non-party campaign on a legislative proposal in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh National Assembly in the same calendar year as a Westminster election, will that count as being within the regulated period, and will that campaign about devolved legislative proposals count as part of controlled expenditure?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman asks a very specific and detailed question. The difficulty in answering it is the extent to which any local community campaign organised at any level would have an impact on Westminster elections. Rather than giving him an off-the-cuff response, I will ensure that he gets a detailed reply. On that point, I will conclude my remarks.
Wayne David
It is not the Opposition’s intention to press new clauses 2 and 3, on the basis of the commitment the Deputy Leader of the House has given to have further discussions, particularly in the House of Lords, which we hope will lead to substantive change. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26
Meaning of “controlled expenditure”
Tom Brake
I beg to move amendment 32, page 12, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert ‘“where—
(a) the expenses fall within Part 1 of Schedule 8A, and
‘(b) the expenditure can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties,
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties, or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.”’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 33
Amendment 101, page 12, leave out line 37 to line 9 on page 13 and insert—
‘“For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose of—
(a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties;
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.’.
Government amendments 34 to 45.
Tom Brake
Clause 26 sets out the test that third parties need to meet in order to incur controlled expenditure. There has been extensive comment from a number of bodies, such as charities and voluntary organisations, that the Bill will capture their ordinary campaigning activities. That was not the case. However, the Government gave an undertaking in Committee to revert to a test based on the wording of the existing legislation, which provides that controlled expenditure is only that
“which can reasonably be regarded as intended”
to promote or procure the electoral success of parties or candidates. The Government’s amendments meet that commitment.
I would like to thank the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Electoral Commission and others for the constructive discussion we have had in relation to the amendments. I accept that there is not total agreement on our amendments, but I know that the NCVO, for instance, is at least partially happy about the proposals we have come forward with.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Leader of the House will have seen the letter today from Sir Stuart Etherington of NCVO, which states:
“Simply returning to the previous form of words does not solve the problem… In our view, the assurances given by ministers on the floor of the house that charities campaigning on policy issues will not be affected have not been met”.
Tom Brake
I am aware of that, but I am equally aware that Karl Wilding, the NCVO’s director of public policy, said yesterday that it is partially happy about what the Government have done and that we have made some progress. [Interruption.] Yes, I accept that it is partially happy, but it is worth remembering that one of the NCVO’s other concerns, as highlighted in its letter, is the PPERA legislation, which goes back to 2000, under the previous Government. It may be pertinent to remind the Labour party what the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), said:
“In terms of the day-to-day non-campaigning part of their activity, third parties will not be caught by the provision but, if they seek to influence an election, which is the expenditure in question, our proposed arrangements are reasonable.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 41.]
That is very much our view. We are in the same place.
I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is new to his position, but I am sure that he will have been told in his briefing that, in response to a request from one of my right hon. Friends, the Government undertook to ensure that we reverted to the definition applied in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is precisely what we have done.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
If the statutory arrangements put in place by the previous Government in the 2000 Act were satisfactory, why does the Minister wish to change them now? Can he list even one example of behaviour by third parties that has led him to believe that new legislation is needed?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman may not have understood. The fact is that we had no intention of changing the test of what constituted promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. By reverting to the PPERA legislation, we have put charities and other organisations back to where they were in the run-up to the 2005 and 2010 general elections in relation to what constituted procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. I accept that in other ways we have changed things in response to the Electoral Commission’s request about the definition of controlled expenditure.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
In his letter, Sir Stuart Etherington says:
“A health charity could publish a leaflet highlighting the dangers of smoking. If smoking legislation became a party political issue in an election this activity could be deemed to have the effect of supporting a party’s campaign”.
Has he simply misunderstood the legislation?
Tom Brake
If an anti-smoking organisation ran a campaign subsequently adopted by a party, that would not count as controlled expenditure unless that organisation subsequently said, “Oh, by the way, party X is supporting our campaign, so vote for party X.” The mere fact of running a campaign supported by a party would not incur controlled expenditure. That is clear.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
There is another point. Back in 2010, the Royal British Legion ran a campaign called “Time to do your bit”. There seems to be an illusion that that would not be possible under the new legislation. Can the Minister assure me that such a campaign would be possible?
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. That campaign was clearly run on the basis of PPERA, which is what we are reverting to. If the Royal British Legion said, “We are endorsing a candidate who has supported our position and encourage people to vote for them,” it would be caught. [Interruption.] Of course it would be caught, because it would be procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. If it intended doing such a thing in the 2015 general election, it could choose to register as a non-party organisation and spend £390,000 across the country running that campaign. However, I question whether the Royal British Legion would want to be in such a position.
Stephen Twigg
Will the Minister respond to the specific point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the Royal British Legion campaign? In that case, what might apply in England, Wales and Scotland would for obvious reasons not apply in Northern Ireland.
Tom Brake
What applies in Northern Ireland could equally apply in Scotland, England or Wales. It would all depend on whether the Royal British Legion in Northern Ireland was in some way or other promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. If it was doing that, it could be caught. If, for instance, it was promoting or procuring the electoral support of a number of candidates because a number had endorsed its message, that would also be deducted from its spend as a third-party organisation if it was promoting the electoral success of a party or candidate. As I said, I doubt whether the Royal British Legion would want to be in the position of promoting a party or candidate. That is not what it does.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Is not the point that all the organisations that we describe in these case studies do not seek the support of one political party, but set out to win a consensus across the political divide for their cause? Therefore they should have nothing to fear.
Tom Brake
That is absolutely the point. I would make a stronger point. In all the conversations that I have had with charities, they have gone to great extremes to underline the fact that as charities they do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate because the Charity Commission would stop their charitable status if they were seen to be campaigning politically. They do not do that, so the argument that the threshold or total national cap is being dropped or will in some way inhibit charities is not true.
Charities do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate so the threshold would not apply and they would not need to keep details of controlled expenditure. [Interruption.] I find it hard to believe that the question is still being asked. Charities are not affected by the Bill because they do not campaign for electoral success.
The Government amendments meet the commitment we made in Committee, and I thank the organisations that we have worked with on the issue. We believe our amendments provide clarification and reassurance to charities, voluntary organisations, community groups and other campaigners that their normal engagement with public policy will not be subject to regulation as long as it cannot reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate.
By reverting to the existing terminology, amendment 32 achieves the aim of making the test for controlled expenditure one that has been in existence since 2000. I have seen continued comment from some organisations that the rules will prevent charities and other campaigners from making their views known. Those objections are based not on what is being done in the Bill but on the rules already set out in PPERA. Those rules have been in place for a number of elections, including the 2005 and 2010 general elections. I am sure that everyone on both sides would agree that, during those elections, charities and other campaigners were not prevented from engaging and influencing public policy.
Tom Brake
I will come to that. Others in the House will know from experience that campaigners make their views abundantly clear at election time, as they should.
In answer to the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, I should say that we are changing the controlled expenditure provisions because the Electoral Commission asked us to bring in line the controlled expenditure that applies to third- party organisations to that which applies to political parties. Do the Opposition believe that the current ability for an individual or group of organisations to spend a large amount in one parliamentary constituency is acceptable, or do they think that it should be controlled, as we do?
Mr Harris
The Minister made a good point in stating that the Royal British Legion would not want to be associated with any particular party or candidate. That charity is a good example of one that tries to generate consensus across the electorate.
May I ask the Minister about a different kind of campaign? The RSPCA has a well known objection to the badger cull. It is possible that, in the run-up to the 2015 election, it will run information campaigns opposing the cull. They would not be national campaigns, because they would focus on areas where the cull was happening. Such campaigns would not be for or against any particular party, but we all know what conclusion voters would draw. Would such a campaign be included in this legislation?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to judge whether that campaign would fall foul of the rules without sufficient detail about what it might constitute. It is not my position to do that; it is for the Electoral Commission. If the RSPCA ran a campaign in a number of constituencies saying, “We are against the badger cull”, and subsequently a candidate announced that they were also against it, provided that the RSPCA did not say, “Candidate A is backing our campaign—vote for candidate A”, it would be able to proceed with campaigning. [Interruption.] Someone is saying that I am not able to give a detailed answer. In fact, I am sure that in the run-up to the 2005 and 2010 elections the Electoral Commission had discussions with a number of different organisations to clarify where the boundaries lie on these issues, and it is right for it to do so.
Angela Smith
The Electoral Commission has made clear its view that it should enforce the rules already laid down by Parliament, not determine the rules. The Deputy Leader of the House said that it is up to the commission to decide what is permissible and what is not; surely that is not right.
Tom Brake
The Electoral Commission has produced guidance that the different organisations have to work within, and it will investigate any issues that are believed to have arisen. It clearly has an important role. The Government are not in a position to set out in legislation each and every possible type of campaign that the commission might have to account for. That is why it produces guidance and why—we will support it in this—it will sit down with campaigning organisations to ensure that that guidance is available for them so that they can work effectively.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I recognise that some progress has been made on the precise wording of the clause, but there remains a huge amount of uncertainty among the charities and, indeed, the Electoral Commission as to how this will work. Does the Minister recognise that that makes it very difficult for people not only to understand it but to support it?
Tom Brake
I do. It would be foolish of me to say that some charities are not concerned about this issue. Clearly they are, and the NCVO and others have expressed their concerns. Our role is to restate as many times as is required that, as my hon. Friend will know, charities overwhelmingly do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate and therefore are not caught by our proposals. We can restate that in as much contact with charities as possible. Of course, as I think she would agree, other organisations that are clearly campaigning for the electoral success of a party or candidate should be caught by this legislation, as they are caught by the current legislation. Nothing that we are proposing changes that, apart from the things that I mentioned earlier as regards, for instance, the level of controlled expenditure that we allow.
Dr Francis
The theme of the Deputy Leader of the House’s remarks is that there is considerable misunderstanding out there among voluntary organisations. Would it not be reasonable and decent to provide more time for his proposals to be better understood?
Tom Brake
What is reasonable and appropriate is for us, as a Government, to set out very clearly our intention, which is not to stop charities campaigning on policy issues, and to restate that intention as often as is required so that charities can see what it is. That is what we will carry on doing, and I am confident that we will get the message across.
Government amendment 33 removes the additional test that expenditure might otherwise enhance the standing of a party or candidate. I hope that charities and campaigning organisations will see this as a positive step in providing them with greater clarity. Although we do not consider it to be a significant change, we recognise that this additional limb of the existing PPERA test was perhaps less clear and might have suggested a more remote connection from promoting electoral success, and we want to be clear that that is not our aim. This should provide further clarity and reassurance to campaigners as to the test they have to meet in order to incur controlled expenditure.
Simon Hughes
My right hon. Friend has set out all the things that should be of reassurance, which is very helpful to those in the House and, I hope, outside it. Will he repeat the assurance that he and the Leader of the House are willing, if necessary, to have a further conversation with Stuart Etherington or the commission to make sure, face to face, that what has been said is understood? A great deal of heat and noise has been generated, and at the beginning there might have been some justification for that. The Government are trying to deal with it, but it might be better dealt with by also having some further conversation to make sure that there is dialogue as opposed to just two separate statements in different places.
Tom Brake
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the doors of the Leader of the House’s office and mine are permanently open to that sort of approach. In fact, the dialogue with the NCVO has been very active and constant, and I am keen to pursue that. The NCVO is, as I stated earlier, at least partially happy and has in the past said that the amendments significantly meet its concerns. There is common ground and we want to ensure that it is developed further.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Although the Deputy Leader of the House has said that this issue is clearly to do with candidates or parties, there is a slight problem with the wording of lines 1 to 4 on page 13, which note that “for election purposes” means
“for the purpose of or in connection with…candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies”.
Although this is a valuable Bill which has been widely misrepresented by 38 Degrees and others, I think that wording presents a potential risk to charities such as the one for which I used to work and campaign, in that it might restrict what they perceive to be their political activity.
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My issue with his concern is that that terminology is used in PPERA, which has been around for 13 years. One would therefore have expected such concerns to have emerged in the past 13 years, and seeing as they have not, I am reasonably confident that they will not emerge by 2015 either.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the Government are in listening mode on these issues. Given that Government Members often accuse Labour Members of listening too much to trade unions, I was particularly interested to hear that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Department have been listening to the TUC with regard to the annual conference, so perhaps they are not exempt from lobbying by the unions. The issue of the annual conference is obviously one for the main political parties and some of the minor political parties plus the TUC. Is there a list of defined organisations for these annual conferences?
Tom Brake
I am not aware of a list of defined organisations. If hon. Members look at the list of third-party organisations that registered in 2010 and 2005 they might be able to draw some conclusions about which annual conferences I have in mind.
As I have said, the Government believe that the amendments provide the clarity and reassurance that charities, voluntary organisations and the Electoral Commission have sought. We are aware that campaigners will want to understand how to comply with the provisions of the regulatory regime as amended by the Bill. Just as it has for previous elections, the independent regulator, the Electoral Commission, will develop and produce guidance to inform campaigners what expenditure it is likely to consider to be regulated or not regulated. The Government stand ready to support this work.
Amendment 101, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), seeks, along broadly similar lines to Government amendment 32, to revise the definition of “for election purposes” to be activity which can reasonably be regarded as promoting or procuring the success of a party or candidate. However, the amendment would also introduce a new primary purpose test, which the Government cannot support. Such a test would be likely to create greater regulatory uncertainty and an obvious avenue for avoidance activity that could fatally undermine these rules, which are supported in principle by the hon. Gentleman’s party.
The concerns of campaigners and the Electoral Commission on the introduction of the draft Bill was that the revised language was untested and caused uncertainty. Our purpose in reverting to the original PPERA test is to address those concerns by reintroducing a test with which the commission and campaigners are familiar, and on which the commission has existing guidance and experience. Introducing a new and untested primary purpose test would completely undermine those benefits. Rather than having the clear test of whether the expenditure can be reasonably regarded as intended to promote electoral success there would be two tests: can it be so regarded and is it also the primary purpose? The opportunity for uncertainty and legal challenge would only be increased by the following questions. What is the primary purpose of your campaign? Is it to promote the issue or to promote those who support your issue? That is an additional test which does nothing to provide the clarity that campaigners say they want.
Perhaps more damaging is the opportunity for avoidance. The primary purpose of an environmental organisation’s advertising campaign might be claimed to be to recruit new members and encourage donations, but it might also urge support for its preferred party. It may be said that the primary purpose is to protect animal welfare, but that may be done only by encouraging support for particular candidates. Those are activities that are and ought to be regulated. The primary purpose test would drive a coach and horses through the legislation. Groups carrying out these activities have previously undertaken campaigning as recognised third parties, which is perfectly appropriate: they can campaign without restrictions. Under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, however, all could be potentially excluded from registration. The Government have responded to concerns from the Electoral Commission and other groups that the test for controlled expenditure needs to be clear. The amendment would introduce unwanted uncertainty for campaigners.
The amendment would also create a loophole in the law that third parties could use as an avenue for avoidance and that would undermine the regulatory regime. That is not just my or the Government’s view. The Electoral Commission has expressed concerns that the amendment would introduce a new subjective element test which could lead to significant regulatory difficulty. It has also stated that it does not support an exemption for charities from these rules. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.
Stephen Twigg
May I first put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), have led on the Bill until now? I also welcome to his post the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), whom I will be shadowing in my new role.
I have heard very little today to change the view I held before the debate started that part 2 of the Bill is little more than a gag on charities and campaigners which, as hon. Members of all parties have said, both today and during the Bill’s earlier stages, will have a chilling effect on our national political debate. Earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly reminded the House that the Bill underwent no pre-legislative scrutiny, and doesn’t it show? Given that it was published just before the summer recess, it is to the particular credit of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), that it was able to give the Bill a degree of scrutiny and table a number of constructive amendments in September and today. What we are left with from the Government is a half-baked set of proposals that pose a real danger of causing more harm than good. It is clear from the widespread concerns raised by charities and campaigning organisations that the lack of consultation and full scrutiny will limit their activities in practice—not in furthering political objectives, but simply in meeting their own charitable objectives.
I listened very carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s speeches on this and the previous group of amendments. Nothing that he said has changed the sense I had in preparing for today’s debate that part 2 is a solution in search of a problem.
As the Minister has rightly reminded us, the previous Labour Government introduced a cap on third-party spending, because we do not want to go down the American route of unaccountable organisations spending vast sums of money. We introduced the cap and have no objection to a tough cap on third-party spending. However, the big money in British politics is not third-party spending but spending by the political parties. At the last election, political parties spent 10 times more than third parties. If the Government were serious—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House heckles me from a sedentary position—I cannot quite hear what he is saying—but if he and the Conservative party in particular are serious, why do they not confront their reliance on a tiny number of wealthy donors from the City of London? There is nothing on that in the Bill, which is supposedly about getting the big money out of politics.
In the 2010 general election, political parties nationally spent £31 million; third-party campaigners spent £3 million. The biggest third-party expenditure was 4% of the £17 million spent by the Conservative party, which spent the same as all the other parties and all the third parties added together. Let us be clear: if the Government were serious about taking big money out of politics, they would consider ideas such as a reduction in the overall expenditure cap for political parties during election years and the introduction of a £5,000 cap on donations to political parties.
Stephen Twigg
I will give way when I have made this point. This Government—[Interruption.] Do I get a permanent commentary on my speeches from the Leader of the House? I will get used to it. The Government have wasted an opportunity to tackle the real problem of big money in politics, and thereby ripped up a cross-party approach to party political funding.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman will know that no agreement has been reached on party funding, but the Liberal Democrats would clearly welcome one. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has said that the overall controlled expenditure cap is generous, but does the Labour party believe that it should be reduced or that it is set at the right level?
Stephen Twigg
I will come to that, but I am not aware of a problem. When an hon. Friend intervened, we did not get an answer from the Minister on whether there is an example in practice of the limit being too high. However, the Opposition do not have a closed mind on a proper cross-party, evidence-based debate on the matter. We do not believe the Government have done that.
John Pugh
One thing that puzzles me is that, during previous debates on electoral legislation in the House, Labour Backbenchers pleaded time and again with the then Labour Government to do something about expenditure in marginal constituencies—Ashcroft money. Some of them are no longer Members of the House. Why did the Labour Government not do anything?
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman moves the debate to party political spending, which is not addressed in the Bill. I would happily work with him and his colleagues to address party political funding—I would be delighted to do so. Perhaps we can pursue that beyond today’s debate.
In Committee, the Minister, who has led for the Government today, promised
“to ensure that, on Report, the fundamental concern of charities over the confusion that they say the Government have introduced into the definition of election materials and election purposes will be addressed.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 862.]
In reality, the Government amendments simply fail to fulfil his promise.
I refer the House to the legal opinion of Ros Baston, who has been working with a number of third sector organisations. Her legal opinion, which is one of a number of which the Minister will be aware, demonstrates why we need far more scrutiny and consideration of part 2. It states:
“Issues-based campaigning will continue to be covered by regulation. It appears that the government considers that removing the previous reference to ‘enhancing the standing’ of parties or candidates has a significant effect on the scope of what is covered…In my view, it does not…The natural meaning of ‘promote’ is to enhance the standing of, or make people think better of, something or someone…The natural construction, therefore, is that issues-based campaigning will be covered where it can be reasonably regarded as intended to encourage voters to look more favourably at candidates or parties who do or don’t support particular policies, as well as support for a specific party or candidates. This is primarily an objective test, and, in simple terms, looks at the likely effect of the activity.”
The Minister spoke of intent, but Ros Baston asks us to look at the likely effect of the activity. If an activity is likely to make people think better of parties or candidates who support something, it might be covered by the Bill, even if there are reasons for it such as awareness-raising—the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has made that point.
Ros Baston also states:
“Campaigns could fall within regulation if they…promote policies which, for whatever reason, are associated with one or more political parties or candidates”
and not others
“such as housing, welfare, a referendum on EU membership, wind farms or HS2”
and
“use MPs or candidates as active advocates of their cause”.
She continues:
“I do not consider it sustainable to argue that the campaign is not hoping that people or parties sympathetic to its cause are elected. Therefore, when it undertakes public awareness activity in the run-up to elections, it may well at some level intend to improve the chances of election for those who support their cause as well as to encourage others to join the campaign. There is, after all, no requirement in the Bill or the proposed amendments for the activity to be directly or obviously partisan, or for candidates to be named.”
The opinion goes on:
“The effect of the Bill remains that more charities and low spending campaigners will be subject to the enhanced and much more onerous restrictions. This is because the range of activities covered will increase”—
that is why it is not simply the same as the current legislation—
“and the thresholds for registration will decrease to just £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
We will discuss those thresholds under the next group. Furthermore, it states that the additional
“limit on spending in individual constituencies could mean that a single joint campaign on a specific issue in one area could result in further spending—local or national—being unlawful.”
Ros Baston’s final point is that the
“amendments make two changes which are of concern to campaigning organisations.”
Those relate to “market research and advertising” and to
“the definition of a ‘section of the public’, and the removal of the exclusion for material sent to ‘relevant supporters’”.
She states:
“It remains unclear as to whether the costs for research which is used in publications are included, and the government has not excluded staff costs (which are excluded for political parties). It also remains very probable that many political blogs will be covered notwithstanding the amendments. This could lead to a bizarre situation where political parties would not have to account for spending on certain types of market research, but that non-party campaigners would have to do so.”
I do not want my entire speech to be made up of the opinion of Ros Baston, but I will give one final quotation because it is an interesting and forceful opinion:
“The drafting is so vague that campaigns will have to consider whether market research will be caught, regardless of whether the results are used to produce material available to the public or to target particular members of the public. Further, there is no requirement for the research to actually be used in practice at all.”
John Thurso
I listened to the whole of the hon. Gentleman’s point about the legal advice because I wanted to hear exactly where it was going. Leaving aside the issues that do not relate to this group of amendments, does he agree that the amendments will take the definition back to that in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000, which is largely what I sought to do in Committee? The opinion of Ros Baston, which is full of conditionals such as coulds, mights and subjunctives, is a commentary on the wording of the 2000 Act. Should we not take into account what happened in 2005 and 2010, because that would show what is actually happening?
Stephen Twigg
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who attempted to improve this appalling Bill in Committee. However, as is made clear in the extensive quotation that I gave from Ros Baston’s opinion, she does not accept his point that the amendments simply restore the status quo because of the other changes that we will discuss later. We are merely scratching the surface of the changes that the Government are proposing.
Mr Lammy
Is not the point that if senior counsel extensively examines legislation and suggests that big gaps and vacuums exist within it, there will be litigation? For the third sector, that means that money that people have raised will go to lawyers and not towards the causes. That is serious. The purpose of the legislation must therefore be agreed across the House. If senior barristers are arguing against the proposals, it suggests that much litigation will follow.
Stephen Twigg
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that one risk is that the Bill will result in litigation and a shift in the use of moneys that charities would otherwise use to fulfil their charitable objectives. However, I think that the situation might be worse. As I have said, nothing that I have heard today has changed my view, which has been expressed by other Labour Front Benchers, that many organisations will be gagged because they will simply stop their campaigning work owing to their fears about the legislation. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House can shake their heads, but that is what organisations fear. That is deeply unhealthy for our democracy.
In conclusion, will the Government amendments mean that issue-based campaigning will be excluded from the regulations? From Ros Baston and other lawyers it is an unequivocal “no”. Secondly, and crucial to today’s discussion, will the amendments make any significant changes to the categories of activities to be covered by regulation? Ros Baston finds that the changes will not improve the clarity of proposed regulation, and indeed are likely to result in new uncertainties. In other words, instead of making progress, the Government amendments risk making a bad situation even worse.
We have already heard about the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which the Deputy Leader of the House said was partially happy. I invite colleagues to read the letter, dated today, from Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the NCVO. He states:
“The Leader of the House suggests that at both the 2005 and 2010 election this wording has not prevented charities and voluntary organisations from campaigning and influencing policy…The Leader misses an important point. At previous elections the definition of controlled expenditure only applied to ‘election material’ (a much narrower category of activity) and expenditure thresholds were set at reasonable and workable levels. The Bill in its current form has significantly expanded the list of activities, and considerably lowered the threshold. The overall effect will therefore be that more charities and voluntary organisations will be subject to the enhanced and much more onerous rules.”
Tom Brake
I am afraid that the phrase I have repeated many times will get repeated again. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that charities and voluntary organisations do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidates, and therefore will not be caught by controlled expenditure?
Stephen Twigg
If that is the case, why are we having this conversation and debate? If there is no issue, why have the Government brought this Bill before the House, unless there is something about which they are concerned?
As others have said, there is a real risk of a chilling effect on our national debate given the timing and rush of this Bill. The Minister has acknowledged that the Government are in a rush to get the legislation in place for the 2015 general election, and inevitably people will think that they are trying to insulate their own record, MPs and candidates from legitimate democratic criticism. A number of high-profile campaigns could have been stymied by the legislation, such as that run by the National Union of Students in 2010 on tuition fees, the equal marriage campaign by Stonewall, or, as many Members have said, the Royal British Legion military covenant campaign.
At a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low, why are the Government bringing forward a measure that could restrict the one part of our politics that is doing a good job of engaging people? As well as having a chilling effect on debate, the Bill could also allow this Government, and future Governments, to escape scrutiny on their record and policies. To pluck an example of interest to the Liberal Democrats, might it stop the National Union of Students from holding them to account for how they voted on tuition fees, stop organisations such as the excellent Family and Childcare Trust from highlighting how the Government have driven up the cost of child care for working families, or stop the Royal College of Nursing from warning the public about the impact of Government health policies?
The Royal British Legion was mentioned earlier in the debate, and its circular makes an incredibly powerful case about the weakness of the Government amendment. The Royal British Legion remains
“unconvinced that legitimate awareness-raising activities won’t be captured by the revised definition”.
The Electoral Commission’s own briefing confirms those concerns:
“activity does not have to be ‘party political’ for its costs to be regulated.”
Is it really the Government’s intention for the excellent work of organisations such as the Royal British Legion to be curtailed because of this hastily thrown together Bill? Surely it is not. Had they undertaken proper pre-legislative scrutiny—a case made powerfully by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—they would have discovered the problems that this clause and this part of the Bill will create.
Mr Tom Harris
Each member of the EC having to monitor 50 constituencies is a breathtaking statistic. I hope my hon. Friend will also mention that that is not just for a four-week period, but for a year. In one year out of every five, those 12 people will have to do a job that cannot be done.
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My recollection is that it was not 12 people, but six, so they would actually have to monitor more than 100 constituencies each for a year.
A joint statement from the NCVO and the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations states that the Government’s commitment to address the legitimate concerns of many charities remains welcome, but that the proposed amendments do not go far enough:
“Legal advice provided to NCVO indicates that the proposed amendments put forward by the government will mean that much campaigning activity by charities and other voluntary groups will still be covered by this excessively bureaucratic and burdensome regime.”
Sir Stephen Bubb—[Interruption.] There seems to be some dissent toward Sir Stephen on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of ACEVO, said:
“The government is clearly keen to show it is listening to civil society, but these amendments don’t prevent the Bill curbing freedom of speech around elections. The Bill greatly increases bureaucracy for civil society groups in the year before an election, by halving the spending thresholds above which organisations have to register with the Electoral Commission. It also drastically restricts civil society’s spending on public campaigns in election years. The public wants legislation that makes politics and corporate lobbying more transparent. Instead this Bill makes almost no change to lobbying rules while punishing civil society for a loss of trust in politics that is not its fault. Publishing these amendments today leaves 2 working days for civil society to consider them before they are debated in the Commons. This rushed timeframe is an object lesson in poor law-making, and will only necessitate further damage-limiting amendments after the next debates.”
I referred earlier to the important work of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. Our view, which I have expressed, is that the Government amendments tabled today fail completely to meet Ministers’ promises in Committee. For that reason, we will support my hon. Friend’s amendment 101. We believe that the Government need to reconsider this whole issue and that the definition in their amendment needs to be tested widely and consulted on. Our view is that amendment 101 provides a better basis for reform than the dog’s breakfast put forward by the Government.
The Prime Minister used to talk about the big society and about how we could strengthen the role of the voluntary and charitable sector. In part 2, we have a direct assault on that sector and a sinister gag on legitimate democratic activity. It is a solution in search of a problem. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to go back to the drawing board and work on a cross-party basis with the Select Committees and the voluntary sector. We believe that amendment 101 provides a basis on which to do that, and I urge Members on both sides of the House to support it.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be given the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I welcome Government amendment 32, with its reference to expenditure that could
“reasonably be regarded as intended to…procure electoral success”,
because it demonstrates that the Government listened in Committee. On Second Reading and in Committee, we discussed the concern of charitable organisations that they would be captured by a wide-ranging definition, leading to their suffering the sort of litigation that we heard about earlier. I would be interested to hear what such litigation could be. As I understand the Bill, it would not change what charities have been able to do for the past three elections. My view is simply that we are moving back towards the definition in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, since when there have been three general elections.
Mr Harris
The hon. Gentleman raises a point that I and my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench have also raised. If nothing has changed, why must we have these provisions in the Bill? Has he been told by Ministers why these provisions are in front of us, if everything is going so swimmingly?
Stephen McPartland
The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know that my communication with Front Benchers is not as great as it should be. I voted against the badger cull, to which he referred earlier, so I would imagine that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will not be running a campaign in my constituency.
I always vote on the Bill and the amendments placed in front of me, not on what happened 13 or 14 years ago, and I am happy with Government amendment 32. It demonstrates that Ministers listened in Committee and on Second Reading when we talked about charities’ concerns and their wish to understand better how the Bill would affect them.
I have listened carefully to the examples given, and I understand that there is nervousness, but I hate the word “gagging”, with which people have tried to scare the third sector almost into stopping their campaigning. [Hon. Members: “It’s the Government who are scaring them.”] I do not think the third sector is scared. I am proud of the more than 400 charities and local community groups in Stevenage, none of which have approached me independently to talk about their concerns.
Hon. Members have mentioned the concerns about the campaigns that large charities might wish to run, but I do not think that that will be an issue. One of the big points people are missing is that charities are not allowed to engage in political activity that could affect the outcome of an election at the moment.
A lot of the activity that has been referred to today would already be captured by the controlled expenditure regulations in PPERA. Additionally, those engaging in such activity could be referred to the Charity Commission and investigated to determine whether they should retain their charitable status. We need to explain that to the third sector, because this talk of gagging is causing great fear among the wider charitable sector. As I have said, none of the smaller local charities in my constituency has had a problem with the proposals, but some of the larger national ones are concerned. I understand that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which represents 10,500 charities, has a range of concerns.
I said in my speech on Second Reading that I would never be involved in a Bill that would lead to any loss of freedom of speech. A constituent spoke to me the other week about the Bill. He jokingly made a good point that an organisation that tried to gag the press might then complain of being gagged itself if the provisions were deemed to affect it as well. It seems to depend on one’s point of view. The amendment demonstrates that the Government have come our way, and I am pleased that they have listened.
Stephen McPartland
Most charities campaign for improvement. I am the chairman of a large number of all-party parliamentary groups, and we meet various charities that campaign for improvements in respiratory health, for example. As the law stands, those charities can do that. The amendments demonstrate that that will continue to be the case. A problem would arise, however, if a charity were to say, “If you vote for this candidate, that would be best for our charitable purposes.”
Stephen McPartland
I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman such an example. I would love to do so, but that is not the point that I am trying to make. People have suggested that, if a candidate refused to sign up to a pledge with a certain charity, that charity could e-mail its members to tell them which candidates had signed up and which had not. Under the current law, any such candidate who felt that such activity would have an impact on the outcome of the election could complain to the Charity Commission, on the grounds that the charity had been seeking to secure the political benefit of one candidate over another. The current law would then determine whether such activity would fall under the rules on controlled expenditure. A lot of the examples that we have heard today would fall under those rules.
Mr Allen
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who made a particularly pertinent and sensible speech in Committee. I have a question for him, but I do not know whether he can answer it. Perhaps he could write to me if he cannot answer it now. As a member of the Conservative party who voted against the badger cull and who has spoken eloquently against the cull, would he object to being on a list—produced by, say, the RSPCA—giving details of which way Members of Parliament had voted on that issue?
Stephen McPartland
I imagine that I am already on such a list of Members of Parliament—
Stephen McPartland
I am definitely on a list in the Whips Office, as my hon. Friend says. I would love to write to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) about this. It is highly unlikely that I shall get preferment—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am choking with laughter. It is highly unlikely that I shall get preferment in this Parliament. If the RSPCA were to e-mail its members in my constituency and ask them to support me as a candidate because I had voted in a particular way, I would be very uncomfortable about that.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am sure that the Whips do have my hon. Friend’s name on a list, but that is a matter of public record; the votes in this place are always a matter of public record. I would be surprised if Members of any party were not keen to stand on their voting records in the House, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is keen to stand on his record. Surely, then, he could answer the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) by saying, “Yes, I am on a list, which is in the public interest and on public record.”
Stephen McPartland
My hon. Friend is indeed a great friend. He is no doubt on a number of those lists with me, but probably not with regard to badgers—especially when his constituency is Daventry.
Mr Allen
With the hon. Gentleman’s best interest at heart, will he have a discussion with the RSPCA? I would hate anyone during a whole year before an election inadvertently to produce a list that shows some Members supporting various things on a public vote and other Members not supporting them, particularly if such a list is available during an election year. The hon. Gentleman should take some advice from the RSPCA about its activities—perfectly innocent activities—because if he does not, the person who will decide the matter will not be the Deputy Leader of the House, who is talking away from a sedentary position preparing his next intervention, but a judge. I would always accept the view of the Deputy Leader of the House, but it will not be him who decides.
Stephen McPartland
I have great respect for the Chairman of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, and I read his reports with great interest—probably with greater interest than some other Members—because I genuinely believe that they are valuable. We agree a great deal about pre-legislative scrutiny, but without teasing him too much, when it comes to the Bill, I am very happy to stand on my record in Parliament. I am very happy for the RSPCA or other organisations to put me on their lists. The point that I would make, however, is that if they then e-mailed their members, asking them to support one candidate or another, that might—under current law and under the Bill—affect the outcome of the election, which would be considered wrong and would fall under the auspices of controlled expenditure. I am comfortable with that.
Mr Allen
The hon. Gentleman does not know what the outcome would be—neither do I and neither do Front Benchers on either side; that is the problem we face. The additional problem for the hon. Gentleman—I am looking out for him again—is that, unfortunately, some of the expenditure of a body such as the RSPCA in this hypothetical situation would be added to his own election expenses without his knowledge. He must be very careful. Both Front-Bench teams should be very careful, too, about committing into law provisions that will have what the Electoral Commission views as totally unforeseen outcomes.
Stephen McPartland
I take the hon. Gentleman’s warning to heart, and I will take it away and review it more closely and in greater detail, as well as speak to the RSPCA about it. Amendment 101 would introduce the primary purpose, but I am not sure why it is much better than the present amendment in addressing the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised with me. If I have to decide which way to vote, I shall vote in support of the lead Government amendment 32.
I genuinely believe that we pressed the Government hard on Second Reading and in Committee and received commitments from the Dispatch Box that Ministers would listen, try to improve the Bill and try to allay some of the charities’ fears. I believe that they have done that, as the amendment provides for a reasonable assumption. British law is founded on reasonable assumptions. If a judge is to make a test of someone’s behaviour, it will be based on reasonableness; the judge will determine whether the expectation that behaviour has led to one or another outcome is reasonable. For once, then, I congratulate our Front-Bench team on moving our way and on providing greater clarity, so that I can support the amendment.
As for the NCVO and the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Commission has produced a report today, stating that it welcomes and is pleased with the steps that the Government have taken. I understand that the NCVO, too, is broadly pleased with the outcome. Many queries come down to the question of definition in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which has been in place for 13 years, and there have been three general elections since. The questions put to me as I have tried to support Government amendment 32 have revolved around not the welcome reception of the reasonability test, but “what if?” scenarios and what might occur.
Members have referred to e-mails and election material. The cost of an e-mail is probably 0.0001p, so a great many people would have to be engaged in such activity for it to have an overall effect. Many of the campaigns to which we have been party since we have been elected—in my case, since 2010—have been e-mail-based, as is 95% of the correspondence that I receive from my constituents. In fact, I prefer to deal with constituents face-to-face, because it is much quicker and more interactive. I think that much of the concern about the impact of issues such as cost on larger charities will not come to the fore if the amendment is passed. It really would improve the Bill, and I think that if it were voted down, the Bill would be left in a much worse state. At least the amendment makes clear that the expenditure must
“reasonably be regarded as intended”
to change the outcome of the election of candidature process.
Earlier, in an intervention on the Minister, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said that he hoped that representatives of the NCVO and the Minister could sit down and have another conversation at some stage, and the Minister said that his door was always open. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), there is so much more that unites us on these issues in Parliament than divides us. We need to send a strong message to the many charities out there that the Bill does nothing to gag them or to alter the way in which they campaign. We should tell them, “Please campaign as much as you can, and become involved in the process as much as you can. Add your voice, add the voices of your members, and try to influence what is going on in government and in local communities.”
I fear that the suggestion that this is a gagging Bill will deter smaller charities from engaging in the process. I fear that not the Bill itself, but the language surrounding it, will put them off. That frightens me, because I am a great defender of freedom of speech and freedom of choice, and I think it important for us to do all that we can to involve as many people and organisations as we can in politics and issues that affect their local communities. I shall end my speech there, because my voice is going again.
Mr Allen
I should begin by declaring an interest, which is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the chair and founder member of a charity. We do not need to read what Sir Stuart Etherington thinks might happen, because I can say what I think might happen on the basis of my experience as a trustee and the chair of a charity.
Having listened to the debate today, I am even more convinced about how I shall respond if my chief executive comes to me and says, “We should get involved, because this is a great year in which to influence politics and people on the issue that we care about, that of children and babies. This is our moment: MPs are at their most open, and we can gain access to them and talk to them. It is absolutely wonderful.” I shall say, unreservedly and without equivocation, “Do not go anywhere near this just because that nice Mr Brake—that nice Deputy Leader of the House—has said that it is all going to be okay.”
If it were to be left to the Deputy Leader of the House to decide on these matters, I would be entirely reassured. I would not even be on my feet, because I trust the right hon. Gentleman implicitly on a personal level. The problem is that it will not be the Deputy Leader of the House who makes the decisions. Someone in a wig and gown down the road will decide what should happen in Stevenage if a certain body has said, “I want to show you the results of an historic vote that took place a while ago; I want to show you which Members of Parliament were for and which were against.”
I know that we have already had that debate. I apologise for intervening earlier on the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), but I realise that he is one of those Members who appreciate a dialogue in the Chamber rather than a monologue, and I think we both reached the conclusion that neither of us actually knew what the outcome would be. So we are going to employ our own solicitors to decide. It might be a very tight election in Stevenage; the hon. Gentleman might win by a handful over a Labour candidate who was desperate to kill, personally, as many badgers as he could lay his hands on.
This might be very significant, therefore. Situations such as an intervention by someone on—to be less humorous—an anti-racist platform or a pro-racist platform who says something totally outwith what the hon. Gentleman would want said on his behalf will start to influence our politics. It will not be well-meaning, good-hearted people in this House who decide on that. It will be people outside it; it will be people in the judiciary. They will not be taking the cases, however. The people who will be taking the cases will be people who are vexatious—people who normally do not like each other, people who are on opposite sides of a political, social or environmental argument. They will be pro-frackers and anti-frackers. They will be the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance. These guys do not lie down easily together. They will take opportunities to get hold of somebody and change our politics in a particular way; they have proven already in the right way that they are prepared to do that and long may that continue. It is something we should encourage. Those people should not be chilled from undertaking activities and campaigning in election year, and that should certainly not be the case for the broader range of people—the Royal British Legion, Civil Society, those in the big society and the third sector. These people are our lifeblood. They are the people who have supported us, and they include people who are affiliated to political parties as well. They are people who care about out politics and our democracy. It is those people, as well as my charity, who I will not allow to enter the minefield we today are in danger of creating.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Deputy Leader of the House made it clear in relation to amendment 101 that not only will these decisions be taken by people in wig and gown, but that the “primary purpose” definition in amendment 101 will result in legal dispute and interpretation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, and what is his defence of the expression “primary purpose”?
Mr Allen
I will get to that, but what I will say now is that this is an old trick. The civil service has got loads of people writing drafts, and hopefully they are doing the job well, and a Back Bencher then gets up with a proposal that comes in through the voluntary organisations, and the response is, “Oh, there are difficulties about the drafting here.” I will accept that. We will not divide the House on a nuance of drafting. I am very happy that my words do not appear in any Bill. Even though we will divide along party lines, what is uniting the House is that we all know this is a dog’s breakfast and clauses 26 and 27 are the heart of what is wrong with the Bill. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has made a game attempt to try to get it right, but we all know there is something wrong here. I will not be hung on a particular set of words, therefore.
I hope the House votes in favour of amendment 101. If we do so, we will be sending the strongest signal to the Government not that the words of the amendment should be added to the Bill, but that the Government should go away, think again, listen and do the consultation they should have done over a year ago. If we pass the amendment, the House will in effect be allowing the Government to put right the mess they made in previous times. That is the role of the House and it is something we can do.
Where did this start to go wrong again in the last week or so? I pay tribute to the Government for having listened to the outrage there was about clause 26. They realised that legislating and changing the rules was wrong. So off they went and, all credit to them, they have come back, having listened to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—we supported each other in that debate—and said, “Okay, let’s back off quickly lads and see if we can get back to where we were before we even opened this can of worms.”
John Pugh
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Pandora’s box. He is Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but I understood him to be suggesting that he wanted us to vote for a form of words, as an amendment to a Bill, that he did not want in the Bill. If that were the general practice throughout the House of Commons, it would create a strange precedent, would it not?
Mr Allen
Well, we were just being serious for a moment there. The hon. Gentleman normally joins me in being serious about the role of Parliament. I know that he is having a bit of fun, but this is a serious issue. Some 10,500 voluntary organisations and their parent organisations are saying, “We think you’ve got this wrong—think again.” If he feels that if the amendment were to be won tonight—whatever form of words we use—it would survive the process in the second Chamber and come back, he is having a little joke and we can all have a laugh at that. [Interruption.] I am being told to speed up so that we can get to the vote, so I would like to be allowed to make progress.
I am not just talking about 38 Degrees getting a bad press—rightly, some might argue—or people sometimes being annoyed, depending on their political view, with those on the fringes of some voluntary organisations, because a lot of other people have written to us just this day. A number of them have said things such as they fear this Bill, they are worried about unintended consequences and this does not have legal certainty. Are those the wild and wacky people we need to legislate against? I shall tell hon. Members who these people are; I shall tell the House who said those three things. They were said by Rabbi Sybil Sheridan of the Assembly of Reform Rabbis UK, Neil Thomas of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Farooq Murad of the Muslim Council of Britain and Paul Parker of the Quakers. I could go on to cite a list of about 20 people from faith groups. According to the Leader of the House, they are making something up in order to embarrass the Government or because they have been wound up. I do not believe these people are so frail-minded. These people are anxious, just as the chairman of a charity who is standing before you is anxious, that we are putting in the Bill and into law something that will chill our ability to campaign. I guarantee to the House that it will chill my organisation’s ability to campaign, because if some bright spark wants to take a case, for some reason or other, against what has been said inadvertently, my budget—I go around cap in hand trying to raise money for my charity—will be spent in a court of law, not on providing the service that I think is appropriate through my charity for babies, children and young people. How many staff would I have to fire if I got landed with a £200,000 legal bill? That is why amendment 101 and the symbolism of tonight’s vote are important. They are important for all those charities outside that have been inundating us with their views.
As the Chair of the Select Committee, elected by this House on an all-party basis, and not as a Back Bencher on the Labour side doing the bidding of the Whips to cause a few problems for the Government, I have a request for Members from all parties. When we last considered the question, the difference between the proposal’s falling, meaning it had to be reconsidered, and its passing was 16 votes. I am asking 16 Members of this House to vote with those who voted last time on amendment 101. That will mean that we give the Government a chance to rearrange the clause in a way that will satisfy people in this House and, above all, that will satisfy people outside who fear what we are going to do today.
John Thurso
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), and we often agree on these points more than we disagree. I was not going to begin by referring to amendment 101, but following his speech, let me address it with one or two short remarks. His argument is that we should vote for amendment 101 because it sends a signal by introducing the primary purpose test. He invites us to vote for that, knowing that if it is successful it could be put right with a better form of words at a later stage. He asks us to support the symbol rather than any particular words, a concept with which I am familiar and to which I often agree in legislation.
I have a much more significant problem with amendment 101, however, in that it introduces something that worries me greatly in legislation—that is, a subjective as opposed to an objective test. I have been involved in various bits of legislation, many of them rather dry and sometimes technical, such as the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, where we have sought to introduce tests that get certain things done. Whenever one is tempted to introduce a test that is not purely objective and does not have objective criteria, one comes up against all sorts of difficulties. Although I have a lot of sympathy with the concept, I could not support this amendment because, for me, it crosses a major legislative Rubicon between the objective test and the subjective test.
Andrew George
In that case, in what way is the intention described in Government amendment 32 any less subjective than that proposed in amendment 101?
John Thurso
I counsel my hon. Friend to read the many excellent briefings from the Electoral Commission, which point out that the 2000 legislation contains an objective test. I shall argue for a return to those words because that is an objective test that is relatively understandable. Objective tests can, of course, be argued in a court of law—we all know that—but they have a far greater degree of certainty than a subjective test. That is why I will not be seduced down the route of amendment 101.
I want principally to confine my remarks to the other amendments, proposed by the Government in response to the amendments I tabled in Committee, which I was asked to withdraw so that the Government could make their own proposals. Like the hon. Member for Nottingham North, let me state my gratitude that on that occasion the Government clearly understood what we were trying to do.
Let me give some of the background behind those amendments. Basically, the Government were seeking to redefine the legislation based on the request they had received from the Electoral Commission and others. This was seen at the time—when that legislation arrived before us—as making significant and potentially unintended changes that we had not been able to look into. Incidentally, I reiterate the point that I made on Second Reading and in Committee, which is that if ever a Bill deserved pre-legislative scrutiny, it was this one. But as has been said before, when we want to go to a certain place, we might not have wished to start from here, but we are here, so let’s get on with it and go to where we want to be.
It seemed to me that the sensible course of action to deal with the concerns being expressed by all the people who were in contact with me was to say, okay, let’s not make those changes. Let’s stick with the existing wording, and if we stick with the wording that exists already, we will have addressed that problem. That was what I proposed and what the Government said they would do. The test for me today is, therefore, whether the amendments do what we wanted the Government to do, and that is where I shall concentrate my remarks.
Following on from two of the interventions that I have made today, I shall try to answer one of the critical questions behind the Bill: what is the purpose of part 2? If one does not believe in the purpose of part 2, there is not a great deal of point in seeking to amend it to achieve the objective. To me, part 2 is a critical and essential part of the Bill. Part 2 sets out to regulate the political campaigning activities in favour of or against candidates by third parties. As such, it hardly touches on charities, which are already regulated, as has been mentioned, by charity law. That is not the target and that is why we are not seeking to regulate on that. The target is the non-charity third parties. That is why, among other things, the 2000 Act was brought into being and passed, and it is thoroughly appropriate to look again at it.
I look across the Atlantic, as I mentioned earlier, and I see what happens when organisations such as the National Rifle Association or others start to pour large amounts of money into one district, Senate seat or state, or into one issue. Such organisations have had considerable success in that country in changing the political representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate. I observe in passing that the extremism that has entered American politics over recent years seems to have followed naturally from that.
In our United Kingdom we have a plurality and a diversity in our politics which I think is exceptionally precious and needs to be preserved. I hope we would agree on that. I do see a danger of third-party organisations being created and funded in a way that could have a serious impact on the body politic, which I do not want to see. For me, part 2, far from gagging charities, is an enabler of the freedom of speech of the smaller people in politics throughout the United Kingdom.
I stand wholly behind the principle, as indeed did the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) an hour and a half ago, when I asked him this precise question and he responded that those on the Opposition Front Bench were in favour of the principle being put forward and were behind the 2000 Act. They agreed that the Act needed updating. The point of his reply to a straightforward question was that the principle behind part 2 was in essence one with which the Opposition still agreed. If the Opposition feel that there should be no regulation of third parties, if they genuinely feel that third parties in politics—great rich blocs of people—can come and shove money into distant constituencies and get away with it unregulated, I invite them to say so. If not, I hope for their support for the principle of the Bill.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
What a straw man the hon. Gentleman has just raised. Does he not realise that that is all avoided by the existing law, which was put in place in 2000? What we are dealing with here are changes that this Government are introducing, in a partial and partisan way, without any consultation or any attempt to discuss them with wider civil society, campaigners or third parties. What we need to do is take the Bill off the agenda and do it properly so that we can develop the electoral law for third parties and political parties on a cross-party basis in order to prevent the kinds of abuses he is talking about, which the existing law, unamended by the Bill, already prevents.
John Thurso
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, but I fundamentally disagree with her assertion, because the 2000 Act, as her Front-Bench colleagues have already accepted, does not do the job she claims. That is why the Bill has been brought forward. The principle is that we want to ensure that those who wish to pour large amounts of money into certain constituencies, as has been done quite legally over the last period, will no longer be able to do so.
There is a very important reason why we should have the principle of part 2. The question before us is not whether that principle is right, but how best to put it into legislation. Therefore, what we need to consider is the extent to which the legislation before us achieves that and the extent to which it might act against the interests of those we want to be unaffected, the charities and civil society organisations.
On that score, the intention having been largely to return the definitions, which is the key point, to the status quo ante, I was grateful to read in the Electoral Commission’s latest briefing of 9 October:
“The Commission believes that, where significant non-party campaigning takes place, it is right that this is done transparently and is properly regulated. As we set out in our regulatory review of party and election finance earlier this year, although the current system works well and we have worked closely with third parties to achieve this, there is scope for improving transparency”,
which is what the Bill is all about. In relation to these amendments, it has said:
“In our view, the new wording is clearer than the wording in the Bill as introduced, and we think this change is helpful.”
Mr Allen
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman inadvertently missed a page between those two quotations, because at the end of the first one, in relation to which he was praying in aid the Electoral Commission, it states:
“We were also clear in our review, however, that changes in this complex area require careful consideration.”
I think that he, being a fair man, would not say that what we have in discussing this without any pre-legislative consultation could be termed “careful consideration.”
John Thurso
I happily agree that in an ideal world there would have been pre-legislative scrutiny and a considerably improved process—the hon. Gentleman and I are as one on that. However, the Bill is before us and we are dealing with it. I think that the point I have made stands. I submit that the Government amendments reflect almost exactly the purpose of the amendments I proposed, and as such I am happy to support them. There are other parts of the Bill that we will come to later—I will not touch on them now, Mr Speaker, as you would call me to order—where I think there could be improvement. There are concerns about thresholds and other areas that we will come to, but I genuinely believe that this particular part has done the job required of it.
I want to mention briefly the legal advice that has been prayed in aid. I have total respect for the legal advice that has been put forward. They are called opinions, and they are called that for a reason: they have not been tested. In another place, I listened to opinions from a range of eminent QCs about how it was entirely unconstitutional to deprive people of seats there. During the passage of the Hunting Bill, a large number of eminent QCs said it was unconstitutional and so forth. In both cases, those opinions proved to be wrong.
The opinion in question is well written and contains a great deal of coulds and mights. However, its core is about not this Bill but the 2000 Act. The NCVO and other organisations are saying that the problem is the 2000 Act. That is not where we were in Committee, when we were talking about this Bill. I understand why the NCVO wishes to reopen the 2000 Act, but that is not the issue before us. It was a fine argument to make 13 years ago, but it is the wrong one now. The Act has been in force for two elections, 2005 and 2010, which have clearly demonstrated that the legislation can be lived with.
I know that others wish to speak. In conclusion, I should say that the amendments that I tabled and withdrew and the promise given by Front Benchers have been fulfilled. Some of the lobby letters that I have received, saying that this legislation is a gagging Bill, vastly overstate their case and fail entirely to put forward the need to ensure that the underlying principle of British politics—that people cannot buy a seat in the House or a proposition—should be upheld. That is why I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the amendments do the job that I asked them to do. They should support them.
Dr Francis
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), although I probably disagree with almost everything he has said.
I speak as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At the outset, I should declare some interests. I am a member, albeit inactive, of the National Trust. I also belong to Community, my union, a well respected campaigning organisation. I also declare, as a historical footnote, that more than 40 years ago I worked for the Trades Union Congress.
My Committee met this morning to consider its report on the Bill; its work, although not yet complete, is well advanced. I have been asked to make important points about part 2 as it relates to human rights on the issue of non-party campaigning. Notwithstanding the Government’s amendments, my Committee’s view is that the overall effect of part 2, on lower spending limits, lower thresholds for registration and increased numbers of campaigning activities, may well be a chilling and adverse effect on free speech and freedom of assembly at a particularly important time—the run-up to general elections.
In September, yesterday and today, I have told the House about my Committee’s concerns about unseemly haste; one member of my Committee—not me—described it as “appalling haste”. We believe that that has a potential impact on the human rights aspects in part 2.
The Bill purports to address matters of democratic process, especially transparency and lobbying, so it is a bit rich to tell the public that there is not sufficient time for them to be properly consulted. My Committee has been almost overwhelmed, not just by the late Government amendments but by the volume of public concern—from Oxfam, the TUC, the Electoral Commission, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, particularly with regard to non-party funding and campaigning. My Committee believes that there should be a democratic pause to allow the Government and Parliament to reflect on all the concerns about part 2 and to give time for consideration of our report when it is published very shortly.
The debate thus far has revealed the complexities and mysteries of non-party campaigning and funding, which needs to be properly and thoroughly explored inside and outside this House. Part 2—of a Bill of great democratic importance—should be properly scrutinised by both Houses. With all due respect to the other place—a non-elected place, important and valuable as it is—this House should also be given sufficient time.
When we reflect on the grave concerns expressed by large and small charities and organisations about non-party funding, we should remind ourselves of the people who make democracy work at the local level—the volunteers, the organisers and the people who demonstrate. Demonstrating is part of our democratic right. I joined the TUC 40-odd years ago in the week after the demonstration against the Industrial Relations Bill on 21 February. That was a very important occasion. I wonder whether its cost, if there had been a general election that year, would have fallen on the TUC.
In my own constituency I think of Ted Clark, who died last night—a campaigner in many respects, not just a party political campaigner but an active member of his church and his trade union. I also think, in my neighbouring constituency, of Hefina Headon, who died at the weekend—a campaigner with the Air Training Corps and Banwen pony club and the secretary of the Neath, Dulais and Swansea Valley miners support group. These are the people—the volunteers—who could well be affected by this Bill, and it is an offence to them.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that if the Government respond to my hon. Friend’s points they will assure the House that that is not the kind of organisation they aim to affect through the Bill. However, is not the fact that these real fears are out there even more reason why time should be taken to undertake this consultation, have this discussion, and do this debating and decision making properly?
Dr Francis
Indeed; that is the final point that I want to make. At this very late juncture, I implore the Government to have a democratic pause to allow them to allay these concerns. It would be an opportunity for both Houses to reflect not only on my Committee’s report but on the deep concerns of the many national and local organisations that have written to us. I think that our report will be more up to date than the Government’s position next week, because we will have taken on board all those concerns.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, and particularly to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), who speaks with great authority and experience.
I would vote against anything that frustrated this part of the Bill, so I want to speak in support of amendment 101. All the problems with this provision stem from one mistake, which is that it is rushed and has not been consulted on. In the past I have been responsible for negotiating compacts with the voluntary sector. Compacts are not widely known about, and even in the voluntary community and social enterprise sector they are viewed with a huge degree of scepticism. It can be the devil’s own work getting charities to engage with the process because they do not trust the local authorities, the Government or other organisations taking part in it. Driving a coach and horses through the first principle of a compact will do nothing whatsoever to encourage a relationship of trust with organisations in this sector. There has been no consultation and no time to consider the amendments. This is doing more than anything else I can imagine to damage the relationship with our voluntary and community sector that was starting to be built up in Government and in local government across the country.
It is a matter of huge regret that the Government have managed carelessly to stir up a massive amount of distrust in the third sector at a time when we are, rightly, asking more and more of its organisations—this is not a new thing; it has been going on for a very long time—in very important and sometimes dangerous areas of public life, such as the supervision of offenders, safeguarding children and adult social care. That is reckless in the extreme and I will be voting in favour of amendment 101.
Bob Stewart
In a perfect world, how much extra time does the hon. Lady think would be required for a consultation?
Jenny Chapman
I believe that good practice would be 12 months. Charities are very mindful of the rules that have stood since 2000. They do not engage in political activity and are very careful about not doing so. I do not understand why we cannot allow a proper consultation that would lead to a Bill that we could all agree on and support, and in which charities would also have faith.
Mr Allen
Just to help my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), my Committee has said that we or another Committee of the House—it would not necessarily have to be us—could do that and meet the Government’s deadline for getting proper regulation before the next election.
Jenny Chapman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. His is a reasonable offer and I encourage the Government to take him up on it.
Mr Tom Harris
I spoke on Second Reading last month, since when the Leader of the House has tabled a large number of amendments to try to repair or improve what was a dreadful Bill, but my goodness it is not much better now.
The Deputy Leader of the House has spent this whole debate repeatedly reassuring the House and the country that charities have nothing to fear, that there will be no chilling effect and that they will not be gagged. How, then, does he explain the absolute fact that heads of charities are still extremely concerned and feel gagged and that there is a chilling effect? Whatever the reassurances being given by the Deputy Leader of the House and the Government, they are not getting through to the charities. He needs to embark on a major information campaign, because civil society is not convinced.
I am still waiting for examples of charities that have been promoting and endorsing candidates and parties. Only those examples would justify the Bill’s measures; otherwise there is no point in having it. In my experience and that of all Members, charities are extremely careful not to break the rules of their charitable status, including not endorsing individual candidates. I am not sure why this provision needs to be in the Bill, unless the Minister can identify and tell us which charities have misbehaved in the past.
Do charities have to endorse a specific candidate or party in order to fall foul of the Bill? If a charity or another third party campaigning organisation were to embark on a campaign that was clearly, though not explicitly, helpful or unhelpful to a particular party or candidate, would that be covered by the sanctions?
When I intervened on the Deputy Leader of the House earlier in the debate, he said that he could not comment on whether a campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals exposing the evils of the badger cull would fall foul of the Bill, because he did not have enough information to offer an opinion and that the decision would be up to the Electoral Commission. That is not acceptable. It is not good enough to ask Members of this House to vote for a controversial Bill when the Deputy Leader of the House cannot even give an absolute guarantee about a hypothetical situation.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Among the many anomalies in the Bill are the cross-border implications —England, Wales and Scotland. We can well envisage a situation in which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Wales is campaigning on an issue and broadcast and print media could be received on the other side of the border. The RSPCA would say, “We’re from Wales and this area is devolved,” whereupon the response might be, “But it has an impact on the UK general election.”
Mr Speaker
Order. May I make the point that, I have noticed in my two spells chairing the debate, interventions have not decreased in length? If anything, they have tended to get longer. They need to be a little shorter.
Mr Harris
My hon. Friend is right to raise that concern. It occurs to me that, no matter how complicated a problem is, it will be a lot more complicated when we introduce talk of any of the devolved Administrations.
I want to offer one more important example that has been raised previously with the Minister. The National Union of Students might arrive in his constituency in the year running up to May 2015 with a leaflet saying, “Here is a photograph of your MP, Tom Brake, signing a pledge not to vote in any circumstances for increased tuition fees. This is what he said, and this is how he voted.” Will he confirm—yes or no—whether that campaign or that union would fall foul of the spending limits and the sanctions in the Bill? That is a reasonable question, and it is reasonable to ask the Minister to say, one way or another, whether that is the case.
At the last general election, I attended a number of hustings. At the very end of one that was organised by a church—a charitable organisation—it was announced that the candidates present would be asked to sign a public pledge and that a photograph of the candidates signing the pledge would be subsequently distributed to voters. The pledge was to campaign to allow asylum seekers to get work legally. I said, “No, I don’t believe in that policy,” and had to walk off the stage and allow the other candidates to have their photograph taken, which would have had an effect on the voting intentions of certain groups of people in my constituency. A charitable organisation was distributing information that had an effect on my election. Will the Minister say whether that, in his opinion, according to the legislation, will fall foul of the limits and sanctions in the Bill?
Those are important questions. If the Minister can answer them one way or the other, he would help a great deal in reassuring members of civic society and the heads of charities on whether their activities in the run-up to the next general election will, after all, be perfectly legal and not subject to sanctions.
Tom Brake
With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, I should like to respond to a couple of points.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said that we need to address party funding. I agree with him. The Government offered the Labour party an opportunity in the Bill to address trade union funding, which the leader of the Labour party wants to address. I regret that that offer was not taken up.
The hon. Gentleman referred extensively to legal advice —he said that that was not the entirety of his speech, although it did feel that way. One point he did make was that, because of the Bill, organisations must consult to see whether what they propose to do is acceptable. However, they must do exactly that under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—there will be circumstances in which organisations will want to check whether what they do is within the rules. There is no change in that respect.
I was hoping to hear from the hon. Gentleman something about what the Opposition believe. We have heard that they support the measure in principle, but, contrary to what he has said, we did not hear whether they believe that the cap is appropriate or that there is a need for a constituency limit, or whether they support the extension of controlled expenditure to other items, which the Electoral Commission has asked us to do.
The hon. Gentleman went on to explain that he would support amendment 101. The Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said that although he wanted that amendment to be passed, he did not really want it to be in the Bill in practice. That was an unusual position to adopt.
Mr Allen
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House inadvertently about the words that I used and my intent. I would be happy to see amendment 101 in the Bill. However, I feel that there is sufficient time for the Government—even this Government—to improve the wording. I do not claim that it is perfect. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has conducted the debate quite civilly to date, will not misrepresent me again.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made his point, to which there is no requirement for a reply. The Deputy Leader of the House may continue with his advocacy.
Tom Brake
I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s point. The Opposition spokesman said that he would support amendment 101. Personally, I think that it should be put into room 101.
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) supported what the Government are doing, which I welcome. He said that he would not support the loss of freedom of speech and nor would I or anybody else on the Front Bench. This is a good opportunity to remind people that this Government have got rid of ID cards, stopped the retention of the DNA of innocent people, got rid of internal exile and reduced the pre-charge detention period from 28 to 14 days. We will take no lectures on civil liberties from the Opposition.
The Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee explained the he is the trustee of a charity. I congratulate him on that. He said that he would advise his charity not to campaign on policy issues. I hope that that is not the case. We are talking about the PPERA legislation from 2005 and 2010. I assume that he did not advise his charity not to campaign on policy issues in 2005 and 2010, so I hope that he will not give it that advice now.
Tom Brake
I am afraid that I am due to complete my remarks. I am happy to discuss the hon. Gentleman’s point of view with him later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) rightly highlighted the risk of having a subjective test. He pointed out what part 2 is about, which has been rather lost in this debate. It is about preventing organisations such as the National Rifle Association from playing a major part in elections in this country.
There were a number of other contributions. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that the Bill may well have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and assembly, and he called for a democratic pause. We will certainly consider his Committee’s report and we can work with the timetable that he set out for its publication. However, as I said in response to a similar intervention, we intend to move forward with the proposals.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) expressed support for amendment 101, which the Government oppose adamantly.
Finally, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) asked me again to comment on a number of theoretical campaigns, without providing the detail that I or anybody else would need to judge whether they would constitute promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. I am therefore clearly not in a position to comment.
I have listened carefully to what the Opposition have said, but I will press the Government amendments.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendment made: 33, page 12, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘( ) Omit subsection (3).’.—(Tom Brake.)
Amendment proposed: 101, page 12, leave out line 37 to line 9 on page 13 and insert—
‘“For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose of—
(a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties;
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.’. —(Mr Allen.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, page 13, line 38, leave out subsection (1).
Amendment 60, page 14, line 10, at end add—
‘(3) Subsections (1) and (2) may not come into force until such time as the Electoral Commission has placed before Parliament a report on the impact of those subsections on relative controlled expenditure by political parties and non-parties in regulated periods’.’.
Amendment 61, page 14, line 11, leave out clause 28.
Amendment 103, in clause 28, page 15, leave out lines 26 to 35 and insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State may by order set limits applying to controlled expenditure which is incurred by or on behalf of a recognised third party in the relevant period in any particular parliamentary constituency in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(2B) The Secretary of State may by order set limits applying to controlled expenditure which is incurred by or on behalf of a recognised third party in the post-dissolution part of the relevant period in any particular parliamentary constituency in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.’.
Amendment 105, page 18, line 25, leave out clause 29.
Amendment 106, page 23, line 25, leave out clause 30.
Amendment 62, in clause 30, page 23, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—
‘(5) If the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under section 155 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Minister must lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the Order, and
(b) an explanatory document explaining the proposals.
(6) Sections 15 to 19 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (choosing between negative, affirmative and super-affirmative parliamentary procedure) are to apply in relation to an explanatory document and draft order laid under section 155 but as if references to section 14 of that Act were references to section 155.’.
Amendment 107, page 23, line 37, leave out clause 31.
Amendment 2, in clause 31, page 23, line 39, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (3)(a), after subparagraph (i) insert (before the “, and” at the end)—
“(ia) where that individual has received a Peerage within the last six months, details of any donations made by the individual to a registered party within the last 10 years.”.’.
Amendment 3, page 24, line 2, at end insert—
‘(2A) In subsection (3)(b), after subparagraph (ii) insert (before the “, and” at the end)—
“(iia) where any of the relevant participators in relation to the body have received a Peerage within the last six months, details of any donations made by the body to a registered party within the last 10 years.”.’.
Amendment 108, page 24, line 28, leave out clause 32.
Amendment 63, in clause 32, page 26, line 33, leave out sections 95C and 95D.
Amendment 109, page 32, line 14, leave out clause 33.
Amendment 64, in clause 33, page 33, line 20, at end insert—
‘(c) that controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a recognised third party in any relevant part or parts of the United Kingdom does not exceed the limits in section 27 (1).’.
Amendment 110, page 35, line 33, leave out clause 34.
Amendment 111, page 37, line 14, leave out clause 35.
Mr Allen
Following on from that interesting vote, I should like to point out that had 19 more colleagues voted for the amendment rather than against it, it would have been carried. I am sure that that will be noted by the thousands of people who have sent in requests to colleagues to consider their plight seriously. The fact is that those requests have been ignored by large numbers of Members of Parliament who might well feel that the voluntary and community sectors will be their supporters in the next election. I do not know whether the law will now mean that those people will be able to be prosecuted in some way, but I am sure that the voluntary sector and the charities will study the record with great interest. I also hope that they will study the record of our deliberations on clause 27.
Clause 27 is not about symbols or about gagging, as our previous discussions have been. It is about cash. It is about the ability of charities to put across their point of view, to have the money to do that, and to be able to enjoy the interaction with the democratic process that they have come to know in recent years. This is not about a Government handout or about some back-door way of influencing the Government. It is not about charities having to pay, as a professional lobbyist might. It is about their freedom to enter the democratic process in an election year. That is a right that they have enjoyed, but it is going to be changed if we allow clause 27 to go through tonight. That is why I wish to notify the Chair that I should like to call a vote on amendment 102. That will allow every Member of Parliament to make a simple statement by answering a very straightforward, black-and-white, yes-or-no question. They could state that the activity that charities have hitherto enjoyed in interacting with our democracy in an election year is fine and that they should continue to be able to do so, and that whatever else we have said about the Bill, the expenditure limits set out before clause 27 are okay. Alternatively, they could endorse the provisions in clause 27.
Those Members who have laboured through the Committee and Report stages of the Bill have probably heard this before. When the Select Committee was denied the right to give the Bill proper pre-legislative scrutiny, we attempted hurriedly to pull together witnesses. They and members of my Select Committee—some of whom are in the Chamber this evening—gave up their time to do some really quick pre-legislative scrutiny. That is absolutely not the way to do it.
One thing that I can say about this Bill—and one thing that we will remember about it—is that there are lots of firsts and lots of examples of how not to conduct a proper legislative process. It may be that the Electoral Commission, set up to deal with these issues, has not been listened to. The Government attitude seems to be, “Don’t let’s talk to them; don’t even tell them that we are changing their terms of reference until very late in the day”; and “Let’s not involve the people who are affected until we have drafted a Bill and it is virtually ready to go into print. At that point, perhaps we will talk to them”; and “Let’s not involve Parliament—a body so contemptible and useless that we do not want to involve this bunch of clowns in a pre-legislative process so that evidence from outside bodies could be gathered and people could come in and provide some advice.” Parliament, it seems, deserves total contempt—“They do not get to do any pre-legislative scrutiny until after a Bill is published; and if they want to do that, we will give them three working days between the Bill’s publication and its Second Reading.”
If we reflect on all that, we can see that the absence of proper pre-legislative scrutiny is not the worst crime that we have seen with this Bill. When it comes to abuse of the legislative process, this is about as bad it gets. Our hope has to be that our unelected friends down the other end of the corridor in the other place will see that, due to the lack of time Parliament has had to discuss the Bill and the lack of input from those affected by it, clause 27 shows the legislative process at its most pernicious. Why? Because as yet—perhaps this is the night—no justification, no evidence and no reason has been given for why clause 27 should exist. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House has been working hard on this during the Bill’s parliamentary stages, and I am sure that tonight is going to be the night on which he is going to tell us why there is a clause 27. Our Select Committee looked pretty hard at clause 27. We asked the Government, as well as other people, to give evidence to us, but we could not find the reason for it. I remain optimistic that we are actually going to hear it tonight, which would be a good occasion for all of us and a parliamentary first on this Bill.
What the Select Committee said about the lack of evidence in this area was:
“We have stated already that we have not seen adequate evidence for the setting of the new thresholds”—
the lower thresholds—
“for expenditure at the levels to be imposed by Part 2 of the Bill. The Government must explain the reasoning behind its decisions during the passage of the Bill. Even if the Government can make the case for imposing lower levels, it must be able to give a convincing account of why it has chosen these particular limits”—
I shall come back to that later in my remarks—
“as opposed to any others. If it cannot do so, we”—
the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, comprising Members of all parties—
“recommend that the existing levels continue to apply until such point as the case for change has been made.”
Such was the summation and conclusion of the Select Committee on clause 27. No case has been made, and certainly no case has yet been made about the figures. Why have particular limits been chosen? Again, we are hopeful that the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us this evening.
I understand that we may be seeking a vote at some early moment, so I shall speed through my remarks.
John Thurso
It is my understanding that clause 27 relates not to actual expenditure, but to the point at which registration has to happen. What is the hon. Gentleman’s view of the fact that registration is different as between England and the other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr Allen
I am afraid I do not have a view on that. Being the Chair of a Select Committee is almost like being Speaker Lenthall. I can speak only when my Committee has considered some evidence, and the time that we were allowed in which to consider Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in respect of England was not sufficient.
Today we have heard of an interesting new development relating to the Bill’s impact—now, allegedly, no impact—on the referendums in Scotland. As of yesterday, the Electoral Commission was awaiting a view on what the impact would be, and no impact assessment had been done until, today, we heard some words from the Deputy Leader of the House.
Let me repeat that the Deputy Leader of the House is a very reasonable man, and very easy to do business with—if that does not condemn his political career—but neither he nor the Leader of the House will decide these matters. I think that Mr Salmond may have a view. I think that other friends in Scotland—perhaps people who are litigious—may have a view. Then it will be the judges who decide, not that kind-hearted Deputy Leader whom we have here in the House of Commons. It will not be his judgment; it will be the judgment of others.
I would love to have had the chance to explore those additional points, and perhaps if we vote down clause 27—which is the objective of amendment 102—we will give ourselves the option of doing so. Perhaps we will give ourselves the option of allowing the Government to think sensibly about the expenditure limits, and will give the Government the option of making a case that they have signally failed to make so far during the very truncated progress of the Bill.
Is this measure necessary? Lord Hodgson produced a very thorough report on the Charities Act 2006, in which he said that the current arguments were working very well indeed, and the Cabinet Office stated in its response that the regulations were working well. We have been searching hard for people who believe that there is a serious problem that we need to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said earlier that in many respects part 2 was a solution looking for a problem, and here we go again.
We still do not quite know where all this stuff came from, which is partly because when my Select Committee, on behalf of the House, examined a consultative paper on the Bill, that consultative paper was all about lobbying and lobbyists. What we have before us now is something that none of us knew about until the end of July, one day before the House went into recess. Lo and behold, we did not get a lobbying Bill; we got a lobbying Bill, a Bill on limiting the activities of charities, and a Bill on this, that and the other. We got two thirds of a new Bill added to the one third that had been given cursory scrutiny by Committees of the House.
No wonder my colleagues are a little confused, and no wonder people outside feel that there is a lack of clarity about what the Government intend. We can have meetings with Government officials, finally. We can have a meeting with a Minister, finally. But if a Bill has popped out of the ether at the end of July, and if press releases are issued as part of a spin on the Bill and people feel that they are inaccurate, that does not provide clarity; it just adds to the confusion. That is why I think it appropriate to use a word that became commonplace in another context, and to suggest that there should be a pause in the Bill. That would enable scrutiny to take place, would enable me to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), and would enable the House to set up a proper process of scrutiny so that all the questions could be answered. How demeaning it is that the House cannot do that at present! We hope—fingers crossed—that the unelected people at the other end of the Corridor will help us out, and will put some of these matters right.
The case has not been proved. Whether we look at Lord Hodgson’s report on the Charities Act or at the Cabinet Office’s response, we see no evidence that people have demanded that these cuts in the expenditure of charities and limits on their ability to interact with us in an election year should be imposed.
I get a real kick out of the fact that we interact with our friends in the charitable and voluntary sector both in the normal way and when we come to a pre-election period, which is the point at which they can say, “Hey, come here. We want to hear from you. What’s your view on this? Where are you on the debate between badger cull or badger badge-wearing?” The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) is familiar with that topic. “What’s your view on foxhunting? What about the League Against Cruel Sports or the Countryside Alliance?” That is the lifeblood of our democracy and it is writ large in our democracy in pre-election years.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I was listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest, but is he seriously suggesting that at the last two elections the Woodland Trust engaged in expenditure that would be precluded under this legislation?
Mr Allen
I am not suggesting anything other than that the Woodland Trust and many other organisations are writing to the right hon. Gentleman, myself and every Member of this House. Today he will have received something from Oxfam and something from the faith groups and something from the RBL—and I am sure Members could remind me of other organisations who have passed representations to us today. They are concerned about this, and we should reflect upon that concern and say that in respect of clause 27 we are just possibly not getting it right.
Stephen McPartland
The House of Commons Library did a very impressive briefing on third-party spending at the 2010 general election. In the back there is a table and the lowest sum is £4,100 for England, and none of the charities the hon. Gentleman mentioned was listed in that table.
Mr Allen
I do not pretend to speak for all those people—and I certainly do not speak for the friends of the badgers, of whom I think the hon. Gentleman is the patron, if not the patron saint. These people are making their own representations through our democratic process—such as it has been—on this Bill, and they are making noise. They are saying the way we are doing this is not satisfactory.
Lady Hermon
I endorse the comments that have just been made and to say this is, perhaps, the piece of proposed legislation on which I have received the most correspondence. In Northern Ireland—and the other regions of Scotland and Wales—the threshold has for some reason been reduced by more than half to £2,000 for no good reason. No justification has been given for that at all. A number of cross-community organisations in Northern Ireland are exceedingly concerned about the impact on them and how they will be able to make representations to candidates in the run-up to any of the elections that are coming up in Northern Ireland.
Mr Allen
The hon. Lady makes a clear and succinct point. The sad fact is that this provision is a mystery; clause 27 has no antecedents and no pedigree, and we are not sure why it is in the Bill. Nobody has asked for a reduction in the interaction. Many colleagues throughout the House want a greater interaction—dare I cite the Prime Minister talking about the big society? I welcomed those words, because I would like to see that. This provision does not welcome the big society; it shrinks the big society to a slightly smaller big society that feels unloved, chilled, unable to get its point of view over and unable to articulate the things that drive it to be in existence.
My reason for moving amendment 102 and asking colleagues in all parts of the House to support it is, again, to send a signal to the Government that they should think again on the issue—this is not the end of the process. They should go away, take good advice, perhaps even listen to this House and perhaps even set up an arrangement whereby further evidence can be taken. My Committee, which is all-party, and its unanimous report might be able to help in that, and we are keen to find a way forward that arrives at a consensus. The only way in which we will get that pause, and get the Government to have another think and a little more of a listen to all the people who are writing to us today on this issue—people whose credentials are unimpeachable—is by voting down clause 27 tonight. The only way to do that is to support amendment 102 and I urge all colleagues to do so.
Tom Brake
Third parties may campaign in a relevant election up to a particular threshold without being subject to any electoral controls or restrictions on their activities. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets the threshold for third parties campaigning in England at £10,000, and at £5,000 for third parties campaigning in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Third parties may exceed these thresholds only if they register with the Electoral Commission as “recognised third parties”. They are then permitted to incur “controlled expenditure”, as it is defined by clause 26 of this Bill
Upon registration, third parties also become subject to spending and donations controls for the duration of the regulated period of the relevant election. The Bill’s intention is to ensure greater transparency of campaign finance, and so provides that a third party must register with the Electoral Commission as a “recognised third party” if it wishes to spend more than the revised threshold in the Bill—£5,000 in England or £2,000 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That will have the effect that more third parties will account for their expenditure and provide details of the donations they receive. It is not clear to me what the Opposition’s concerns about this provision are. It is about providing more transparency so that people can see who is campaigning locally in support of a party or candidates.
Lady Hermon
What is the reasoning for halving the expenditure threshold from £10,000 to £5,000 in England but more than halving the threshold in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Our threshold has been reduced from £5,000 to £2,000. Unless my maths escapes me, our figure is less than half what it was. What is the justification for doing that?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The reason is simply that the Government wanted to arrive at some straightforward figures—£5,000 and £2,000 in the respective nations—and we felt that given the size of those nations, spending £2,000 had a significant impact on the election campaign. Therefore, from a transparency point of view, we felt this was important to allow people to see who was actively campaigning in support of a party or candidates.
Mark Durkan
The Deputy Leader of the House says that the Government wanted a figure that was straightforward. Were the existing figures not straightforward enough? Who has been running rings around them? What has been the ambit of the abuse that the Government are trying to deal with? What problem has been solved? Problems have been created, but the Deputy Leader of the House has not told us what problem is being solved.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the Deputy Leader of the House responds, I ought to emphasise what should be apparent to everybody—namely, that we are operating under very tight time constraints. There are amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about which he might wish, perfectly reasonably, to speak and others also wish to contribute. A degree of self-discipline is now imperative.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. The answer to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is that the provision is about transparency and making people aware of a wider range of organisations that are campaigning in constituencies up and down the country in support of a party or candidate.
Once a third party has registered with the Electoral Commission it may then only incur controlled expenditure to a maximum spending limit, which is currently set at approximately 5% of the potential party spend. That amounts to just under £1 million—£988,000—across the UK. Evidence from recent elections shows that the third-party spending limit for UK parliamentary elections, which applies separately for each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is so high that third parties are effectively unrestricted in their level of spending. That renders the limit ineffective as a spending control.
As Members will be aware, clause 27 lowers the spending limits for the purposes of UK parliamentary elections to 2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit that applies to political parties campaigning in UK parliamentary elections. That is equivalent to £319,800 in England, £35,400 in Scotland, £24,000 in Wales and £10,800 in Northern Ireland. The Bill lowers the thresholds to increase transparency by identifying third parties that campaign in the political process, and I should have thought that Opposition Members would support that. Amendment 59 would amend clause 27 so that it no longer does that.
It is right to distinguish which organisations incur expenditure campaigning at elections and to ensure their funds are fully accounted for, but we recognise that there is a balance to be struck between transparency and placing regulatory requirements on third parties. We also need to take account of the spending limit in constituencies, to which I shall come shortly.
Amendment 60 proposes that until the Electoral Commission has undertaken an assessment of the impact of clause 27 on both political parties and third parties, and until that report is laid before Parliament, the provisions of clause 27 may not come into effect. A few hours ago, we had a lengthy debate on the impact assessments that the Government has carried out and that we would expect the Electoral Commission, as part of its normal duties, to conduct after the legislation is implemented and elections have taken place.
At the last general election, the largest 10% of third parties spent more than the remaining 90% put together. We are seeking a level playing field for the different third parties that might oppose each other in the course of an election campaign. It is worth noting that only two organisations spent more than the new lowered limits proposed in the Bill—Unison and Vote for a Change. That demonstrates that the spending limit is so high as to be ineffectual in creating the level playing field that spending limits seek to provide.
Clause 28 sets the constituency limits and the Government have been put on the spot and asked why we want to reduce the national spending cap. Third parties must comply with particular spending limits according to whether they are campaigning in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Under the provisions of the Bill, they may spend up to an aggregate £390,000 campaigning in a UK parliamentary election, a figure that we think allows third parties to campaign vigorously nationally but that also provides a greater degree of control over spending to ensure that big money does not seek to play a part in influencing the outcome of elections, particularly in a limited number of constituencies, distorting the electoral process. A third party could, however, choose to direct the entire national spending limit at only a small part of the UK. Again it is not clear whether the Opposition are comfortable with the current situation, where that is possible, or whether they would like to see change. Our view is that we do not want disproportionately large amounts of money to be focused on a limited number of seats. In other circumstances, that is the argument that the Opposition would put to us today if we were not taking the action that we are taking.
Clause 28 therefore introduces an entirely new provision whereby third parties will be permitted to spend only up to a certain proportion of their controlled expenditure in individual constituencies. Subsection (6) limits this per constituency spending to 0.05% of the maximum campaign expenditure limits applied to political parties, which amounts to £9,750. This limit applies for the duration of the regulated period for a UK parliamentary general election.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I wonder why, if there was a particular situation relating to a particular constituency, it would be wrong for a disproportionate amount of energy to be focused on that constituency. Surely in this country we have a general election, but within that we have 650 individual elections, and if there were special, unique features associated with a particular constituency and an argument going on there, it would not be unreasonable to have a different expenditure level in that seat.
Tom Brake
I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would agree that election campaigns were about political parties fighting together to secure the election of one of the candidates, and that if, for instance, an industrialist who was very pro-fracking decided that he or she wanted to unseat a parliamentary candidate who was anti-fracking and was prepared to spend just under £1 million under the current legislation in unseating that candidate, the hon. Gentleman would not support that. We certainly do not want to allow that to happen.
Further, also under subsection (6)—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say very gently to the Deputy Leader of the House, to whose contribution I am listening with my usual interest and respect, that I know that he will want the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to be able to speak from the Opposition Front Bench, as well as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I therefore confidently anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman is approaching the conclusion of his oration.
Tom Brake
Indeed, I will do so.
Under subsection (6), only a proportion of the expenditure—£5,850—may be incurred during the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the date of poll. Third parties campaigning for or against a particular candidate or candidates already need to think carefully about their spending to ensure that they stay on the right side of the separate, existing rules on candidate expenditure in the Representation of the People Act 1983. Third parties clearly campaigning for or against a particular candidate or candidates may spend only up £500 doing so. Besides raising this amount to £800 through clause 34, the Bill does not otherwise affect those provisions.
There are many other amendments that I would have liked to have an opportunity to discuss today, but the Government can support none of the amendments in this group. I hope therefore that Members will seek to withdraw them.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for being so co-operative.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is unfortunate that the Deputy Leader of the House has not had the opportunity to address my very important amendments 2 and 3, which were part of this group of amendments. I very much support the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and we will support him in the Lobby tonight.
I do not have an opportunity to talk about Scotland, which is what I wanted to talk a little bit about before I got on to my own amendments, other than to say what a dog’s breakfast the Bill has concocted on issues connected with the referendum. The failure to see this is a travesty on the Government’s part. The fact that we have the same expenditure threshold as Northern Ireland is a total disgrace. Northern Ireland has a population of 1.8 million. We have a population of 5.2 million, which is more than double, yet once again we are lumped in with the same threshold.
I shall speak briefly to my amendments 2 and 3. It has surprised me that there has been very little talk about big money and the House of Lords. One of the defining features of the previous Parliament was the cash for honours crisis. It was a disgrace that a sitting Prime Minister was interviewed by the police because there was a belief that millions of pounds had changed hands for a place in that place down the road. The police eventually did not pursue the matter, not because they could not find particular evidence, but because they believed that it was not in the public interest.
The public were appalled by cash for honours, but the Bill does absolutely nothing to address big money in the House of Lords. Only China’s National People’s Congress is larger than that big bloated Chamber, which has 786 Members, but in their wisdom they decided that it required another 30 Members. When we look at a list of those 30 new Members, we see that—surprise, surprise—£1.26 million had been donated in the last round of honours. The public will be aghast that that has been ignored and that the Bill does not even touch on cash for honours.
I will explain what I propose very quickly, because I know that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is still to speak. We have seen £1.26 million donated by the 30 new Members of the upper House. Sir William Haughey is among them, as is Sir Anthony Bamford and Howard Leigh, all Labour or Tory donors. Do not think the Liberals get off lightly, because they have already suggested a few Members who have given them significant amounts of money over the years. This is a cash cow for the UK parties and it has to stop.
We cannot have this as a feature of our democracy. The fact that someone can donate to a political party and then be rewarded with ermine in the unelected House of Lords, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North hopes might fix this mess of a Bill, is absurd. Is that any way to run a democracy in what is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world? There will soon be 1,000 of these people if we do not do something about it. I do not know how much money that would bring in for the UK parties, but I suggest that it would be a lot.
My gentle little amendments are all about trying to address at least some of those concerns. I do not have time to go through them in detail, because I see that Labour Front Benchers are getting twitchy. I will not push this to a vote, but let us look at what goes on with big money and cash for honours. It is a disgrace and the public are appalled, so let us stop it.
Angela Smith
I put on the record once again the declarations of non-financial interests that I made in Committee.
As we made clear in Committee, many of the clauses in part 2 of the Bill depend for their validity on clause 26, which we have just discussed. We were assured then that the Government would think again about that clause, but the consequence of their rethink appears to be a loosening of the gag, and a gag is still a gag. Therefore, the Bill could still have a chilling effect on the third sector and is still, in effect, a gagging Bill designed to insulate the governing parties from the challenges that are always part of a healthy democracy. As we have just heard in the debate on clause 26, the Government’s amendments still leave the third sector and the Electoral Commission facing a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity, which, combined with the measures in clause 27, will effectively dampen the third sector’s campaigning activity.
The Opposition have said repeatedly that we support taking the big money out of politics and having sensible controls on the money spent by third parties. We said that on Second Reading and in Committee. Earlier this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) reiterated the big figures. In the 2010 general election, political parties nationally spent £31 million, compared with just £3 million spent by third-party campaigners. The biggest third-party spender spent a sum that equates to just 4% of the £17 million spent by the Conservative party.
We also made it clear in Committee that we understand and support the need to review the provisions contained in the 2000 Act. As the Electoral Commission has made clear, a review of the legislation relating to third-party spending in an election period would be useful. We support that, but we would support such a review in the context of a much more ambitious agenda relating to radical reform of spending by political parties in the election period. That is the proper way to deal with issues that are so important and fundamental to the health of our democratic process, as I said earlier.
However, not only does the Bill fail to deal with the first-order issue, reform of spending by political parties, but it has been brought forward in a rush. To make things worse, it has been amended inadequately. Even worse, the Bill did not get the pre-legislative scrutiny that it needed and deserved and it has enjoyed only minimal scrutiny in this House. Not only have the Government failed to tackle the big money in politics; they have also effectively manipulated the legislative process to minimise the proper, robust testing of the Bill needed to pinpoint its weaknesses and expose its badly thought through changes to the 2000 Act.
I say “expose” because our view is that the Bill remains a bad one. Part 2 is built on the shifting sands of the utterly inadequate clause 26. I challenge the Government to admit that the Bill is the wrong way to tackle reform of election spending and join us in going back to the drawing board, starting with meaningful negotiations on the reform of party political funding.
Clause 27 has caused huge consternation in the third sector. If it is passed into law, it will play a major part, along with the other clauses in part 2, in effectively gagging the third sector in election periods. In the year before the election, according to Helen Mountfield QC, the changes will have
“a chilling effect on the expression of views on matters of public interest by third sector organisations”.
She also said that
“The restrictions and restraints are so wide and so burdensome as arguably to amount to a disproportionate restraint on freedom of expression.”
None of the Government’s changes alters that fact.
The situation cannot be right for any modern, 21st-century democracy. The sceptical among us could be forgiven for thinking that in part 2—in clause 27 in particular—the Government appear to be trying to insulate their record and policies from legitimate, democratic criticism. Raising the thresholds for registration by third parties and dramatically reducing expenditure limits in any given election period undoubtedly poses a real threat to the legitimate role of third parties in ensuring that the voice of civic society is heard during the most critical point in the cycle that governs our democracy. One could argue that it is only in a general election that the people of our country truly hold power in their own hands. Consequently, it is crucial that we have the widest possible input into the debates in a general election period that are so essential to ensuring that informed choices are made by voters.
If the Bill had been law before the 2010 election, a number of high-profile third sector campaigns could have been curtailed by the combined provisions of clauses 26 and 27, as we pointed out in Committee. At the next election, if the legislation goes through, the National Union of Students could find it difficult to hold Members to account for their record on the tripling of student tuition fees.
We have tabled two amendments to clause 27. First, we propose the removal of the reduction in thresholds for registration of third parties. Our amendment 60 proposes a report from the Electoral Commission on the potential impact of the reduction in controlled expenditure by third parties in the context of existing limits for political parties’ spending. Clause 27 would therefore not come into force before such a report had been laid before Parliament.
It is still not too late. The Government could still withdraw the Bill and enter into meaningful negotiations with the other—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House seems to find amusing my mention of the prospect of meaningful negotiations on the reform of party political funding. Do the Government believe in such meaningful negotiations or not? The choice is on the table. We are committed to proper consultation and the scrutiny of proposals as they emerge in relation to party political funding and funding for the third sector, but the two must go together. That is why today we will support amendment 102.
It is absolutely clear from what we have just seen from the Leader of the House that the Government have no intention of engaging in such meaningful negotiations. If they will not do that today, I am confident that the other place will ensure that the Bill gets the parliamentary time it deserves and the scrutiny it desperately needs.
Mr Lansley
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank Members from both sides of the House for their contribution to the debate. We have been busily engaged in considering the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report on either side of the summer and conference recesses and during the September sitting. The contributions of Members have exposed the issues and enabled the debate to take place.
As on Second Reading, I thank the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its scrutiny. I met the Committee on the morning of the Second Reading debate and my colleagues met it before that. The Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), made manifest his irritation with the amount of time that was available for that scrutiny on several occasions. However, I thank him and his colleagues for their participation.
With regard to our debates yesterday and today, I wrote to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Monday to explain in detail why I believe the Bill to be compatible with the European convention on human rights. I look forward to the Committee’s report. My colleagues and I will take full account of its conclusions, which I hope it will reach soon.
I thank my good friend and colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has responsibility for employee relations. Owing to the length of today’s debates, she has not been able to explain part 3 as fully as she would have wished. I am extremely grateful to the former Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith). I am also grateful to the officials who have supported the ministerial team and to parliamentary counsel for all their work on the Bill.
I do not want this moment to pass without expressing my thanks to the kaleidoscope of talent—I use those words advisedly—that has participated in the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I know that in order to try to construct an Opposition they found it interesting to see how our team was constructed. The shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) all contributed to our consideration of the Bill. They were an Opposition in search of an argument and they did their best.
The Government made a commitment that we would be the most open Government ever and that we would promote transparency in public life. We have sought to improve public confidence in our political system. We have been the first Government to publish details of the meetings that Ministers and permanent secretaries have had with external organisations. We have published details of our relationships with media editors and the like. We have published details of hospitality, departmental business plans and procurement processes. There is a wide range of raw data that people can assess for themselves. We have always sought to take transparency further.
The purpose of the Bill is to achieve transparency by fulfilling our coalition commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists so that the public know who lobbyists represent when they meet decision makers, and by making it clearer where and how money is being spent by third parties at elections to influence the outcomes of those elections. We are also seeking transparency by giving the public, and members of trade unions, the confidence that they know who their members are. Together, those measures will increase transparency in the political system.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, may I say for advisory purposes that I know of half a dozen Members who wish to speak? The Leader of the House is extremely experienced, and we do not need to repeat all the arguments in great detail. A pithy exposition will suffice, and then the majority of colleagues who want to speak will have the chance to do so. We will be led by the Leader of the House. I call Jonathan Edwards.
Jonathan Edwards
On Second Reading I listed a number of lobbying scandals that have decimated and dominated politics in this place for far too long: donations for dinners, cash for honours, cash for questions, a ministerial cab for hire. Which of those scandals will the Bill stop in future?
Mr Lansley
The character of each of those scandals is of a particular kind. We are setting out to ensure that relationships between lobbyists and key decision makers in Government are more transparent in future, so that those who impact on our political system do so in the glare of public life. For most of the things the hon. Gentleman describes, people were trying to seek influence covertly, and in some cases were completely contrary to the law and the codes of conduct of this House and elsewhere, or of government. We must expose those relationships everywhere, where we can, and when people breach the code, we will deal with it.
The Bill has been widely debated in the House and beyond, and I thank Members for sharing their views, because healthy debate is a cornerstone of our democracy. The measures in the Bill have also been misrepresented, and during the passage of the Bill we have fully exposed where those misrepresentations lie. The hon. Member for Nottingham North explained on many occasions in the course of his 190 minutes of offerings that there had not been sufficient scrutiny of the Bill. I gently say to him, however, that one does not take the moral high ground over lack of scrutiny by taking up more time than is needed to explain the issues. [Interruption.] Actually, I think there are relatively few issues, and we have exposed them clearly and answered them fully. I encourage Members in the other place to read the debates. They will see that, as the Bill completed its passage through this House, those issues have been answered, and by virtue of the amendments tabled the Bill has been improved. As is always the case, all is capable of improvement.
Simon Hughes
There can be no serious objection to parts 1 and 3 of the Bill, but there are clearly continuing concerns about part 2. The Leader of the House has committed to considering the report by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee when it is published, but will he confirm the undertaking that he and his colleagues will work to ensure that the misrepresentations are dealt with, and that the concerns—and some uncertainties—can be discussed with Ministers, the voluntary sector and others, including the Electoral Commission, in the days ahead?
Mr Lansley
I hope I will be clear, just as I thought my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was clear during discussions on part 2 of the Bill. We had a number of meetings with a range of organisations, and we listened carefully to points raised in this House and by those organisations. I met the National Council for Voluntary Organisations before Committee stage, and I was clear that we would make changes to the definition of expenditure for electoral purposes, to remove what it regarded as the risks and uncertainty associated with those definitions. It was not our intention to change in substance the test for what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes, albeit that we intend—rightly, I think—to introduce greater transparency by including the range of controlled activities in a way consistent with recommendations by the Electoral Commission in its regulatory review.
It is important for us to have a registration threshold, so that those who want to spend a significant amount of money to influence electoral outcomes do so openly. They will not be prevented from doing that, but they will have to do it in a transparent way. It is important to get big money out of trying to influence electoral outcomes. It is therefore important to bring down the threshold, and for it to be disaggregated so that it cannot be spent disproportionately in individual constituencies or small geographic areas.
We did not want to change the test, in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, that only expenditure that could reasonably be regarded as intended to procure or promote the electoral success of a party or candidate should be controlled expenditure. That will still be true. In fact, it will be even more narrowly true, because we have taken out the strand relating to enhancing the standing of political parties at relevant elections, as it was capable of being used to create uncertainty.
Members have quoted from the letter by Sir Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of NVCO. I urge them to read it carefully. It says that there is uncertainty associated with the definition in the 2000 Act, and that that continues to be the case. It is the job of the Electoral Commission—taking the test we have here, which is as clear as we could make it—to inform organisations through the guidance it produces. We stand ready to work with the Electoral Commission. It is an independent organisation and it is for it to decide how it goes about that task, but we could not have made it any clearer.
Lady Hermon
The Leader of the House is being most generous in taking interventions. May I ask him to address one particular issue that pertains to Northern Ireland? He emphasised the need for transparency and the need to know who influences elections, and I think we all agree that that is important. However, the Government have agreed that the anonymity of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland will continue. That can no longer be justified on security grounds, because Northern Ireland has successfully hosted, without incident, the G8 summit in Fermanagh and the world police and fire games. How does he square those two things?
Mr Lansley
Each has its own particular characteristics and the Speaker will forgive me if I do not respond to that point, as I think it is outwith the terms of the Bill. We do not intend to change that. We are introducing transparency relating to expenditure by third parties seeking to influence the outcome of elections. The Bill has no impact on the donations that individuals or organisations make to political parties, or on how political parties spend money at elections.
We were not able, on Report, to discuss the final group of amendments on part 3 of the Bill. We continue to value the important role trade unions play in public life. We recognise that their influence extends beyond their own members, which is why it is important for members, employers and the public to have confidence that unions know who their members are. The Bill is in no sense an attack on trade unions. That is not correct. The measures are not designed to make it harder for unions to operate. I will be clear: the Bill will not prevent unions from taking industrial action; it will not require unions to collect more data; and nor will it place membership data in the hands of employers. Instead, it provides the public with reassurance that trade unions are fulfilling the duties to which they are already bound. Part 3 of the Bill strengthens requirements in existing legislation to ensure that unions can demonstrate that they keep an up-to-date and accurate membership register.
Part 1 will create transparency with regard to who is lobbying whom in relation to key decision makers. The Labour party, and last year’s report by the Select Committee on the earlier consultation, seeks a different Bill—one that creates a large-scale bureaucracy listing everybody who engages in any kind of lobbying activity. We have looked at that approach, and, frankly, it is not remotely justified. Transparency is the way forward: transparency in lobbying and in third-party campaigning. When people set out to influence the electoral outcomes, they must do so in a transparent way.
Charities, voluntary organisations and third parties who want to campaign on policies and issues will continue to be free to do so, as long as they do not step over the line and set out to influence electoral outcomes directly. There will be transparency in how trade unions represent their members, because they will know who their members are. These are the ways we will provide reassurance in the political system and enhance confidence through transparency and accountability. I commend the Bill to the House.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On Second Reading, I said that this was one of the worst Bills any Government had brought before the House in a very long time. I called it a
“hurried, badly drafted…agglomeration of the inadequate, the sinister and the partisan.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 186.]
The Government have chosen to ram this disgrace of a Bill through the Commons as fast as they can, and nothing that has happened during this process has changed my verdict. If anything, my initial judgment has been reinforced. The unfortunate disappearance in the Government reshuffle of the former Minister with responsibility for constitutional and political reform, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), halfway through the Bill’s Commons progress was a cruel reward for her willingness to stand up and defend the indefensible. I wish her well, but it is a pity that the Bill did not disappear with her.
The Bill will do absolutely nothing to shine the light of transparency on lobbying, which the Prime Minister himself called the next big scandal waiting to happen. It will let Lynton Crosby, the tobacco lobbyist at the heart of Downing street, continue lobbying undisturbed, and does not even require him to publish his list of clients. It does not regulate big tobacco, but seeks to silence cancer charities that campaign against the malign influence of big tobacco nestling at the heart of this Government. It does absolutely nothing to ensure greater transparency in the Government’s cosy relationship with the big six energy companies, which make record profits while forcing energy prices ever higher for households and businesses, and which reacted so hysterically to Labour’s announcement of an energy price freeze.
The Bill seeks to silence critics of the Government in the run-up to the general election, while letting vested interests operate out of sight. It demonstrates all too clearly that they are a Government who stand up for the wrong people and are willing to abuse the legislative process in their own partisan interests. The one success that the Bill can claim is that it is an object lesson in how not to legislate. In his more candid moments, even the Leader of the House must know that the proceedings to which he has been a party on the Bill have been an affront to Parliament and a stain on any reputation he might have wished to develop as a parliamentary performer.
Let us consider the history of the Bill. The House has been subjected to an abusive and disgraceful process that brings shame on the Government. The Bill was published after three years of inaction on the day before the House rose for the summer recess. Second Reading was scheduled for the day after the House returned for its September sitting, and the Committee stage was then scheduled for the week after, on the Floor of the House, thus ensuring that there could be no pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposals in parts 2 and 3, which the Government drew up in secret. Those proposals had not been consulted on because nobody even knew they existed. Report and Third Reading were then scheduled for the first two days back after the conference recess.
Three Select Committees were caught unawares and had strong objections to the Bill, but the Government’s timetabling, by deliberate design, gave those Committees little time to develop or publicise their views. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee had to meet in the recess in order to be in a position to publish its highly critical report on the Bill. The Standards Committee had significant worries about the Bill, some of which the Government have been forced to address. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights has written to the Leader of the House complaining that the Bill could have a chilling effect and risks damaging the quality of debate in the run-up to the general election. That is a serious charge in any democracy, but the Government have simply chosen to ignore it. Their decision to ram the Bill through the House has ensured that the Select Committee will not even be able to publish its report until after the Bill has completed all its Commons stages.
The Government did not consult the many thousands of campaigners, trade unionists and charities directly affected by the sinister gagging proposals in part 2 prior to the publication of the Bill. Even more astonishingly, the Electoral Commission, the Government’s own regulator, was not consulted either and continues to regard many of the proposals in the Bill as undesirable and other proposals such as the constituency cap as unworkable, yet it is expected to police these partisan changes in electoral law. No one in the Government has plausibly been able to identify the problems that parts 2 and 3 of the Bill are meant to address or, much less, to solve.
It becomes clearer by the day that this is a disgraceful attempt by the Government to gag their critics in civil society in the run-up to the general election. It is a gagging Bill masquerading in true Orwellian style as a transparency Bill. The well-established tradition that changes to the law governing elections should be agreed on a cross-party basis has been abandoned by this Government in a partisan abuse of the legislative process that is aimed at hobbling their growing body of critics in civil society. This is an abuse that will not be forgotten.
The Government promised to sort out lobbying, but the Bill defines it in such excruciatingly narrow terms that it renders all claims by the Government to achieve transparency completely laughable. Indeed, it could even worsen the current situation by undermining the existing registers. It excludes in-house lobbyists completely and instead applies only to consultant lobbyists. It has been estimated by the industry itself that it will catch only 20% of lobbyists and a minuscule 1% of lobbying episodes. The Bill is so inadequate that it has achieved the previously unheard-of feat of uniting the transparency campaigners and the lobbying industry in opposition to it. It is so narrow that it would not apply to a lobbyist lobbying a Member of this House about the lobbying Bill. During the unacceptably rapid passage of the Bill through the Commons, we have argued that there should be comprehensive coverage of the entire industry, a code of conduct and sanctions for misbehaviour. We continue to believe that such a system must be legislated for in the future, and if this Government refuse to do that, we will do it.
Part 2 of the Bill has caused the most outrage and worry in civil society, and quite right too. Part 2 will place a sinister gag on the Government’s critics as the election approaches. It will create regulatory uncertainty, and it will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on civil society and on local campaigning in the year before a general election. Indeed, it has been deliberately designed to do so.
Instead of dealing with the funding arms-race between political parties during election periods, the Bill slashes the amounts that can be spent by third-party campaigners, leaving the political parties untouched, despite the fact that third parties spent only one tenth of what political parties spent at the last general election. The Bill significantly lowers the spending thresholds for third parties during the general election period, which will ensure that many thousands of small charities, bloggers and campaigners will be caught by the strict regulation required by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Indeed, the Bill will make that regulation far more onerous for all third parties and create a massive new administrative burden for them, further increasing the incentive for them simply to keep quiet.
The Bill introduces a new constituency spending limit, which the Electoral Commission has described as unworkable. After their initial bluster, the Government have at least acknowledged the furore that part 2 has caused by tabling their rather modest amendments to clause 26 and schedule 3, which we have debated today. But as we have seen, those amendments barely scratch the surface of what would be needed to make the Bill workable. A lucent gag is still a gag.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said:
“The assurances given by ministers on the floor of the house to ensure that charities will still be able to support specific policies that might also be advocated by political parties have not been met.”
The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations has said that
“these amendments don’t prevent the Bill curbing freedom of speech around elections.”
Just yesterday, an impressive coalition of Church groups including the Quakers, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Conference, the Assembly of Reform Rabbis, the Evangelical Alliance, Islamic Relief, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development stated:
“Following legal advice and a statement from the Electoral Commission, we remain concerned that…we still do not have the necessary legal certainty that Part II of this Bill could not be applied to a wide range of legitimate campaigns, despite such activities being intended to be party politically neutral.”
In other words, the gag is still very much in place. It must be removed or else we will see the triumph of the new breed of Tory authoritarians who, like the Justice Secretary, believe:
“Britain cannot allow a culture of left-wing-dominated single-issue activism to hold back our country”.
Presumably, he refers to the TaxPayers Alliance, the many right-wing blogs, the Adam Smith Institute and ConservativeHome, which have all opposed the restrictions in part 2.
Part 3 seeks to punish all trade unions by burying them in pointless and expensive administrative requirements for their membership lists because some of them have had the temerity to be affiliated to the Labour party. It should be seen for the grubby little piece of partisan legislative abuse that it is.
Tonight, then, the Government will succeed in using their majority to ram this illiberal Bill—virtually unamended—through the Commons. It will now be for the House of Lords to give it the scrutiny that Government timetabling has made it impossible for us to deliver in this place—and it is vital that the other place now does so. This is a very bad Bill. It is badly drafted and in places unworkable; it lets vested interests proceed unchecked in the shadows, while it gags charities and civil society. It is a sinister Bill that seeks to silence the Government’s critics in the run-up to a general election. It will have a chilling effect on the quality of our national debate, which is why we will vote against it the Lobby tonight. I urge all Members to join us there.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have fewer than 20 minutes left and five Members wish to catch my eye. If we can divide the time evenly, we should get everybody into the debate.
Stephen McPartland
I shall speak briefly. For the first time, I shall take no interventions, so that other Members get the opportunity to contribute.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Minister, but I am a little more optimistic about the Bill than she is. I am proud that we are the most transparent Government ever, having done a huge amount of work to open up the Government and become more transparent. I think that this Bill has been a victory for Parliament because it was improved in Committee—perhaps not to the extent that some Members wanted, but it has been improved, and I am very pleased about it.
On part 1 and the lobbying register, I know that many Members do not believe that the Bill goes far enough, but the reality is that, for the first time in many years, we have had the opportunity to discuss lobbying on the Floor of the House and to debate whether it has any impact. I said personally in my previous speeches that I do not think lobbying is particularly effective one way or another, but the important point is that this is a step at least in the right direction, as there will be a register of lobbyists—it may or may not be expanded, but I am pleased that we are moving in the right direction.
Part 2 is the most important part and it has excited the public imagination most. I have a real concern about this theme of gagging. I am proud of free speech and very concerned about the argument that has drifted in—that charities will not be able to behave as they did in previous elections. As we have identified at every stage of the Bill, Government amendment 32 has pretty much changed the definition so that it is much closer to that in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000, which emphasises the test of reasonability. For me, we are taken back to a position in which charities can campaign in a way that it was proven they could campaign in the 2001, 2005 and 2010 general elections. I am aware of some concern about the limits, but as I suggested in an earlier speech, the House of Commons Library has shown that the number of organisations that would be captured by those limits are very few. The reality is that only two were captured by the previous limits and that all the organisations discussed in successive stages would not have been captured by the proposed limits.
Overall, we have moved the Bill in the right direction, and I am pleased that the Government Front-Bench team have listened to Back Benchers and Members of all parties. That is important, as we have tried to improve the Bill. As we have discussed many times, there is more that unites us on this Bill than divides us—[Interruption.] I think we are close to reaching a position in which the charities can have more confidence about what the Bill will do. I would dearly love to be in a position where all the charities and community groups feel that they can continue to campaign, without feeling that they are gagged. Anything that affects freedom of speech—this Bill does not, although some of the hyperbole around the Bill might well have—is dangerous. We should all send out a clear message that we want every charity and community group to campaign as much as they can.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I think that people will feel that the Bill is a fraud. I genuinely believe that they will be disappointed that the Government have allowed this to happen, given that the Prime Minister was so forthright about wanting to tackle the abuse of lobbying. A situation in which lobbyists go free while the House agrees to gag people who merely want to exercise their democratic rights before elections is bizarre in the extreme.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a strong point. Does it also concern him that the rich and powerful who dominate the Tory party and the newspapers are completely ungagged, and will remain so in the future?
John McDonnell
Indeed. The Bill will have no effect on the abuses that have been listed by my hon. Friends today.
I ask Members to be careful about what they vote for and what they wish for. Part 3 is not merely a naive attempt to improve trade union membership lists. Trade unions already monitor their membership lists, and not a single complaint about discrepancies has been made to the certification officer in 10 years. This is not even just a grubby political stunt on the part of the Government. It is a back-door way of interfering in industrial action.
For years we experienced the problem of minor discrepancies in industrial relations ballots. Thousands would be balloted and thousands would vote in favour of industrial action, but if only three or four names were omitted from the list, employers would rush to court and ballots would be overturned. We tried to amend the existing legislation on five occasions with the aim of correcting the position, and failed. Only last year the courts did correct it, ruling that minor errors or discrepancies in balloting procedures relating to membership lists should no longer be taken into account if they had no effect on the result of the ballot itself. That legal decision was a major breakthrough for trade union rights, but part 3 will enable employers to subvert it through the back door. Employers will now challenge membership lists, because they will still be the basis on which ballots take place.
Government Members—particularly the Liberal Democrats, who may have voted for part 3—possibly think that the measure is innocuous, but it will have consequences for our industrial relations climate. There will be industrial action, and it will be described as wildcat industrial action, because people will not tolerate the interference of employers in the democratic processes of trade unions. It is extraordinary that trade union membership lists are the only lists with which we are dealing. We are not dealing with party membership lists, CBI membership lists, or any other membership lists, and in my view that is evidence that the Bill constitutes a hostile attack on trade unionism in this country.
John Thurso
Let me begin by reiterating what I said on Second Reading. I remain a great fan of pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Bill would undoubtedly have benefited from it. Notwithstanding that—as I also said on Second Reading—I want to see the Bill on the statute book. I wish that it had included more of the lobbying element, and I also wish that some aspects of part 2 had been better understood before we reached them. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my friends on the Government Front Bench for considering the proposals in my amendment and presenting them to the House today, and I am pleased that they have been accepted. I think that the Bill has been significantly improved as a result.
There remain a number of issues that will have to be dealt with in the other place, including the issue of controlled expenditure limits. I was unable to intervene in the debate on that subject, but I can say now that I have no problem with the reduction to £5,000. The limit has been £5,000 in Scotland since 2000, and there has never been any difficulty with it. However, I have a very big question to ask about why there should be any difference between the limits applying to Edinburgh and Birmingham. Why not have the same limit for both? I am happy for the amount to fall, but I should prefer it to be the same throughout the United Kingdom. I am also slightly concerned about the time limits prior to elections. All those matters will have to be dealt with in the other place, and examined by us again when the Bill returns to the Commons.
My biggest disappointment in the Bill concerns the way in which the Opposition have chosen to deal with it. As always, I listened with awe and admiration to what was said by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), but I must tell her that if there was ever an example of maximum hyperbole with the best skill chasing minimum fact, it was her speech. It is a great shame, because I think a dampening effect may come from a complete misunderstanding of both the intentions of the Bill and what it will actually do. That will dissipate with time, but it is a shame that that has been raised at this point.
Mr Allen
When my Select Committee belatedly considered this Bill we fairly quickly saw that it was a car crash. I said that it was a dog’s breakfast. The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) took me to task on his blog, however, saying I was wrong in calling it a dog’s breakfast as that was an insult to canine nutritionalists. I hope that is pithy enough, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I have tried to sit through most of the proceedings on this Bill but unfortunately yesterday I had to stay at home because I had to have an MRI scan. I do not know whether any other Member has had an MRI scan. Part of the patient’s body goes into a magnetic field and it is very noisy; there are moans and groans, bangs and clangs, whistles and whines to the extent that they give the patient a pair of headphones. Fortunately I had enough sense to take along with me the “Essential Bob Dylan” CD, and I lay there for 40 minutes and I was just getting into “Maggie’s Farm”, which is a tune I really enjoy at any time.
When I was listening earlier today to the Deputy Leader and the Leader of the House I wished to God I was back there with the headphones on, because they were making such a noise in order to try and hide what is going on here. They are the people who should be scanned, and they will be scanned very clearly about what has gone on here today and over the past few weeks, because this is not a mistake. Instead, this is part of a pattern of abuse that the two coalition parties have undertaken since this Parliament started.
There has been a range of constitutional changes for one reason and that is to get the two parties through the 2015 general election. That is not how constitutional matters should be handled. Constitutional matters should be about making this Parliament respond properly to the people of this country, not purely seeking electoral gain.
We should look at the record. What about the boundary changes? If that fix had gone through, what would we have seen? They tried to reduce the numbers to give themselves electoral advantage. They tried to put in a mathematical formula which every professional electoral registration officer said would not work, and thankfully it fell down.
They also fell down on Lords reform, which again would have given them an advantage, but they bounced back on that one. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said earlier, they have stuffed the other place with hundreds of people who should have been subject to this Bill’s provisions on the cash for questions issue. They have stacked the other place with people like that. Money for ermine; that is what was done.
They had the alternative vote referendum. Thankfully, that was thrown out, too. What was it for? It was for one thing and one thing only: to try to give the Liberal Democrats a constant seat in power, which they will never achieve on their own. They need to get some sort of cobbled constitutional fix which will keep them in their positions.
Now we have come to this: they have realised they are not going to be able to beat the people so they are going to try and get rid of stroppy campaigners. They want to shut people up, put them in the dark, and stop them campaigning when the people of Britain are tuned in for probably the only time in the whole Parliament—when the people want to hear what is being said, and what has been done in their name for the previous five years. They are trying to shut up the people who really know: the campaigners, the students, the Royal British Legion, the voluntary organisations, the pro and anti-hunt lobbies, and, in particular, the trade unions. They do not want them to have their say. They do not want them to expose what has been going on in their name for the previous five years.
The truth is the people have not been fooled by this. The Government must not think they have got away with this if the Bill passes tonight, goes along the corridor and comes back here in a few weeks. We know that this is being rushed through because they want it signed, sealed, delivered and stamped by the Queen before 8 May next year so there will be a full year before the election on 7 May 2015 when they can get away with hiding the facts from the nation and stopping people complaining. It will not work because the people will not forget this. They will not be forgiven for what they have done. This is not just abuse of this House, it is abuse of genuine accountable democracy.
Tom Brake
I wish to make a few brief comments. First, I say to the hon. Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) that the problem with someone dusting down their Second Reading speech is that they miss changes made to the Bill in the interim. I would, however, like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I appreciate that organisations from all walks of life have expressed views—sometimes strong views—about the Bill, and I am grateful that so many have taken the time to share them.
The Bill is about transparency and giving the public confidence in our political system. I am sure that no Member would disagree that we must ensure that all those who impact on our democracy do so transparently, accountably and fairly—these measures will do that. This debate has covered a wide range of viewpoints. There is not time to address every point that has been raised, but I will quickly recap what this Bill will do, as that should address points raised. It will introduce a statutory register of consultant lobbyists to complement our existing transparency regime; it will fill a specific gap where it is not certain on whose behalf consultant lobbyists are lobbying; it will ensure that third parties campaigning at elections do so in a fully transparent manner; and it will give the public reassurance that trade unions which influence public life beyond their own members know who those members are. The Bill will bring greater transparency to our political system, as we promised to do, and I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union Documents
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mobile Army Surgical Hospital
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I never thought I would see the day when the words “Mobile Army Surgical Hospital” would be the title of a debate of mine. I grew up watching the television series “MASH”, which partly inspired me to become a doctor. I want to make a serious proposal about a capability that this country should be able to deploy abroad. I started thinking about the issue following the Syria vote in August. I voted against both motions before the House that day. After that, I thought that I should come forward with a constructive suggestion for our engagement with the crisis in Syria. This is my suggestion.
I will present a history of field hospitals in general—just a brief one; don’t worry—and discuss the humanitarian response capability that we need. I shall then mention the challenges of bringing that about and, perhaps more importantly, the details of the facility.
I became a doctor for a number of reasons, but a couple of things spring to mind. One is a book called “The Red and Green Life Machine” written by a commander in the Royal Navy, a chap called Rick Jolly. The title refers to a field hospital in the Falklands war, set up in a disused abattoir in San Carlos bay. I read the book when I was about 13. I watched every single episode of “MASH” and developed desire and ambition—initially, to become a trauma orthopaedic surgeon. I subsequently went to medical school and decided that I would be a GP. What inspired me was the desire to do something to help people in distress.
However, I stress that I am no pacifist. I did not vote in August against the intervention lightly; in fact, I am in favour of quite significant intervention if it is well thought through, coherent and backed up with a strategy for the region. However, I am against the wilful, somewhat reckless destruction of assets in a small way because that can breed more problems going forward.
We are experiencing the ongoing crisis in Syria through our TV screens. I first visited the country in 1998 and I went back as vice-chairman of the Conservative middle east council in February 2011, about three weeks before the civil war started. I have a sense of association with the country. I enjoyed both my visits—particularly the first one, when I was backpacking around as a medical student. I visited Homs, Hama and the beautiful parts of Aleppo that I fear are no longer intact. When I came back from my second visit, I was gripped with a sense of foreboding that trouble was about to start, although not as quickly as it did. I also felt the sense that Britain’s engagement with the country in its crisis should be constructive and trying desperately to bring about a peaceful end to the war.
The problem is that since then there have been more than 100,000 deaths and more than 2 million people have migrated away from the chaos. There has been one public use of chemical weapons, and it has been suggested that there have been others. We have all had to endure some pretty appalling footage of death and destruction, primarily affecting innocent civilians—women and children. It is pretty shocking to have to endure it.
Our response should be multi-pronged. We could foresee a situation in which hard power is wielded, but soft power should also be considered. This is where I come to the MASH or mobile surgical hospital facility that I envisage for Britain. The history of field hospitals goes back to the Napoleonic wars and the gentleman called the father of combat medicine, Baron Dominique Jean Larrey. From that concept of forward surgical hospitals bringing medical support to combatants at the front line, things developed slowly. I guess that the fastest development took place during the Korean war in the early 1950s; the “MASH” TV series is based on that war, although it was always associated with the Vietnam war because of when it was made. During the Korean war, major developments were made in pushing field hospitals closer to the front line. There was the famous image of a Bell helicopter with two casualties strapped into stretchers on either side, with the purpose of bringing people back to be treated very quickly. The dictum was, “Life takes precedence over limb, function over anatomical defects.”
Since then, there have been massive advances. I have not yet visited the hospital at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan, but I am told that it is a remarkable facility delivering the very best trauma care. Of particular note to Britain is our experience in Kosovo in 1999, where the British Army managed to create, in effect, a tented village for a load of refugees as well as medical facilities. It was a fantastic success, and proof of what our military are capable of.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this innovative idea to the House for consideration. I have a Territorial Army ambulance unit in my constituency and they are renowned for the good work that they have done and can do. Does he see the MASH unit being staffed by regular soldiers or TA soldiers, because I believe that both could do the job equally well?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I had a field surgical team under my command in Bosnia in 1992-93. It was absolutely vital, and it was operated by a mixture of regulars and territorials. We must not think that this is necessarily soft power, because it needs security and it needs to be guarded.
Dr Lee
I thank my hon. Friend, who of course has a wealth of experience in the field in this matter. I was also going to come to the need for security. In the discussions I have had since I first mentioned this at Defence questions, there has been some disagreement about the level of security required.
The broader point is that this is about the re-tasking of our armed forces. Clearly a lot of change is going on at the Ministry of Defence and there are some cuts to regiments and to forces, but there is also a need to reconfigure forces so that they are interested in delivering not just hard power but softer power. Ultimately, in any response to a crisis—it could be a natural catastrophe such as an earthquake as well as the civil war in Syria—there needs to be joined-up thinking across all the parts of Government that would be involved.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the excellent idea that he is putting forward, which has my full support. There have been big increases in the budget for our international development funds but quite severe decreases in the defence budget. Perhaps this is a question for the Minister rather than my hon. Friend, but is there not a strong argument that when the Army is deployed on humanitarian grounds the money should come out of DFID’s budget rather than the Ministry of Defence’s budget?
Dr Lee
Yes, I was going to come to that. There should be a DFID-funded capability.
The capability needs to be constructive. A friend of mine has talked about having blue overalls, not blue helmets. In other words, we have a United Nations force with blue helmets, so why do we not have a force of people in blue overalls? Our intervention should not necessarily be military in appearance—we can also intervene in other ways. The capability should be resourceful. We are good at this stuff. We can draw on our experiences in the Balkans and the Falklands—I mentioned Rick Jolly’s field hospital—and prior to that. We are very good at this; we have the clinical expertise, in particular. The capability should be able to be expeditionary—that is, to go abroad. In the case of Syria, I foresee a situation where it could be located in a friendly country such as Jordan. It should also have a domestic application. God forbid that there is ever a chemical attack in this country, but the facility could also be deployed here.
The core goal should be to try to develop a stable world that we all appreciate, and that can be brought about by making friends and influencing people. The Arab street is not necessarily with the British or the Americans. We need to persuade civilians on the ground that we do not always have a malign, vested interest—a sense that we are just doing it for ourselves—in our approach to the middle east, but that we are there to do constructive and good things and to genuinely help people.
Turning to details and capacity, as a result of the conversations I have had I envisage a facility with at least 50 beds, perhaps more. If it is as successful as I think it will be I suspect we will extend it, but 50 beds is a good starting point. I think it should include a CT scanner, which is often not available in more rural areas and far-flung destinations. It is possible to put CT scanners in containers and companies such as Marshall Land Systems in Cambridge make container hospitals. There is no reason why we cannot do this. We need to consider whether the facility should also have paediatric and obstetric services, because it is not just soldiers such as those in the “MASH” television series who will be coming in, but children who have been affected by a neurological agent—such as those we saw in that dreadful footage—and pregnant women who have sustained injuries.
Cost is always relevant when it comes to Government spending and there are some figures available. Apparently the Finns purchased a hospital for deployment for about £5 million. I envisage that my proposal will probably cost between £5 million and £10 million. I think it should be a military asset, because the military is best placed to run it, but it should be staffed primarily with reservists, not regulars. Military logistics are important: the army are the best people to get this facility quickly into the field, and Kosovo is an example of that. The army’s command and control systems are relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has rightly referred to the facility’s security, which is of paramount importance. I think it would be a target. The facility would focus on hearts and minds and on delivering care on the ground, and if I were an Islamist jihadist I would think, “We need to knock that out, because it’s going to start changing minds and attitudes.” The facility’s security would need some thought. For example, RAF Akrotiri is stationed close to Syria and the deployment of troops may need to be considered in exceptional circumstances.
Clarity of funding is clearly important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) has said. The politics of international aid are tough on the doorsteps of Bracknell—trust me: I experience it quite often. This proposal would be one way of using DFID funds for something that is demonstrably humanitarian and of leveraging in some funds to a defence asset that would be used primarily for humanitarian purposes, but—this would always be at the back of my mind—that could also be deployed if we ever go to war.
Jim Shannon
We are discussing examples of armed conflict in places such as Syria and Kosovo. Does the hon. Gentleman also see this MASH unit playing a role in responding to humanitarian crises or disasters?
Dr Lee
Yes, I do. In fact, the last American MASH unit was deployed in response to the 2006 earthquake in Pakistan and it was then given to the Pakistanis. I would hope that the facility would be used less for military purposes. There are likely to be future crises and I think it should be used in response to them.
Bob Stewart
I am sorry to intervene a second time, but it strikes me that, if this facility is going to work, the way to demilitarise it would be for it to be connected to the British Red Cross or the International Committee of the Red Cross. That way it would certainly get some kind of international protection in terms of security.
Dr Lee
I am personally not against it, but I gather that there are difficulties.
Why do we not have such a facility? I wonder about that. DFID has global respect and does good work. There are issues with DFID funding—I am thinking of audit trails in sub-Saharan Africa and the like—and concerns have been expressed on where the money eventually ends up. In this situation, we can spend the money here at home for humanitarian aid. As I understand the definition of international development funding, that is acceptable. Indeed, we could use Marshall of Cambridge—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) has joined us in the Chamber. We could buy the facility new at home, and DFID money could, as I understand it, be used for such a humanitarian purpose.
Why is that not happening? Is it silo thinking? Is it to do with DFID not talking to the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office? If that is the case, we have a responsibility to try to overcome such bureaucratic hurdles. I recognise that the MOD has concerns about the long-term liability of cost and staffing. I am sure the NHS will have questions, such as, “You’re taking my orthopaedic consultant. Who’s going to do his list?” There are problems, and I have not come to the Chamber with a perfect project outlined and ready to go, but I see no reason whatever why the project cannot be brought about. If we could establish a British MASH unit with a Union Jack on the side of it, it would be fantastic for this country. Our reputation would be enhanced, and such a facility is clearly desperately needed in Syria and the surrounding countries. We are dealing with a significant humanitarian crisis. I know the Minister and his Department are responding in a good way, but that added capability would be much valued. We can do it and do it well.
I shall conclude with a quote which, of course, has to be from “MASH”—I was expecting to turn up in the Chamber to hear hon. Members humming the tune. The quote is from Hawkeye Pierce, the primary character in the series.
“I’m very impressed now with the terrible fragility of the human body and the unbelievable resiliency of the human spirit.”
By creating such a capability, we would display the best facets of that human spirit—we are all human beings. The quote comes from an episode titled, “Our Finest Hour”. If we were to bring that capability about, it would play a part in creating a further finest hour in the history of this country.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) for introducing this debate on such an interesting topic. Put simply, I entirely agree that military field hospitals could play a vital role in any international humanitarian response. Indeed, the Department for International Development has collaborated with UK forces in humanitarian responses over many years, for instance in Bosnia, which is well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), East Timor, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Haiti, to name some of the more notable examples.
DFID, the MOD and the armed forces continue to co-operate closely. Since 2007, that co-operation has been codified in a memorandum of understanding that sets out how DFID and UK forces will work together. Its main principles are that DFID will lead the UK response to overseas disasters, that it can ask the MOD for military support if necessary, and that the MOD will charge DFID only the additional operating costs for, for example, ships or aeroplanes, and not the full capital costs. In requesting military support for overseas disasters, it is clearly understood that UK defence requirements will always take precedence.
Alongside that established framework of co-operation, the two Departments have made explicit provision to use military field hospitals if required. DFID has agreed with senior military medical colleagues that, subject to defence priorities, military field hospitals may be deployed as part of a humanitarian response by DFID. To that end, DFID has visited the Army’s 34 Field Hospital at Catterick garrison, which is the MOD’s designated rapid response field hospital. DFID has held detailed practical discussions with it and has contributed to its humanitarian training and preparedness.
Importantly, it must be understood that the deployment of a military field hospital requires substantial logistical support. It might also require a considerable force protection package, which would have a bearing on the location and appropriateness of the facility. Our experience is that the use of any military asset is expensive. Issues around permission to operate and the command and control of such a facility would need to be agreed with the receiving nation, which would inevitably prove more complicated with a military facility than a civilian one.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Marshall facility in Cambridge specialises in building modular medical equipment. Is it not a key point that the initial funding for the equipment could come from the DFID budget under the existing definitions, which might ease the concerns of other countries about the military aspects of the facility?
Mr Duncan
Spending on humanitarian matters is official development assistance, so in that respect my hon. Friend is right. However, we must also show that there is value for money and we must know that the assets can be appropriately deployed. I will discuss that issue further.
DFID has worked on the ground alongside UK forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. DFID has also used Royal Air Force aircraft and helicopters in earthquake and flood relief in Pakistan, and in sending search and rescue teams to Indonesia. The Royal Navy was able to make its Royal Fleet Auxiliary Largs Bay ships available to help with relief after the Haiti earthquake.
So far, UK military field hospitals have not been deployed under the auspices of DFID. However, the way it would work is that DFID would request the support of the MOD in response to a natural disaster, in accordance with United Nations guidelines known as the Oslo guidelines. Those guidelines stipulate that support should be provided in line with the humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, humanity and independence. They also state that military assets should be requested only where there is no comparable civilian alternative. That implies that the military asset must be the only way of meeting the particular need and that its use should be a last resort.
DFID has to design its humanitarian responses carefully according to the specific humanitarian needs that they face and based on what responses are best provided by the UK and by other donors. Very often, what works best is help to restore and rebuild an afflicted country’s own health system. If a field hospital is needed, there are already well established civilian organisations that are used to providing such hospitals in humanitarian crises, notably the International Red Cross, which has been mentioned.
A civilian response will usually be what is needed in a delicate and complex situation, rather than a foreign military presence which, however well intentioned, is still military and may not be welcomed. For example, in Pakistan, which has also been mentioned, it was a difficult, finely balanced, decision to include RAF aircraft in the NATO relief airlift, when extremists had explicitly threatened the foreign relief effort and relief workers if NATO were to operate in that country. Like other international donors, therefore, while we are glad to have military field hospitals available, we will use them as a last resort, when it is too difficult or dangerous to use civilian measures and if the circumstances permit a military medical unit to be deployed.
DFID has also been building a UK civilian medical response capability. UK surgeons and other medical staff performed heroically in Haiti after the earthquake in 2010, saving lives and limbs which might otherwise have been lost. Building on that experience, DFID is supporting a programme of training and regional workshops for NHS doctors and other medical staff to equip them to deal with the additional challenges of surgery in a conflict zone. That is underpinned by an arrangement with the Department of Health and the national health service to deploy surgical trauma teams drawn from the British health service. Many of those personnel will also be military reservists, thus further exemplifying good civilian/military co-operation across Government.
My hon. Friend specifically mentioned the Syria crisis. As the House is aware, the UK Government’s relief response is considerable. The UK has so far pledged £500 million, making us the second largest donor. Much of that relief is to provide health and medical care. Through our funding we are supporting vital medical help on civilian channels and with civilian medical personnel, not all details of which can be openly revealed. I can say, however, that the range of services provided by DFID is wide and big. It includes ensuring the running, supply and necessary specialist training for a large number of emergency surgical facilities, including in remote areas. For example, we are supporting primary health care centres to help look after vulnerable groups such as women and children, as well as the elderly, who often have chronic unmet health needs. In Syria’s neighbouring countries, which now host more than 2 million refugees between them, DFID-supported health programmes provide medical evacuations and ambulance services, widespread primary health care facilities, mental health and psycho-social services, and highly specialised facilities for victims of sexual and gender-based violence.
We provide specialist training courses for health professionals, many of whom are specialist staff seconded into emergency departments to reinforce their capacity and specialist care. We provide health services for refugees, as well as for vulnerable resident populations that are hosting huge numbers of refugees in their communities. DFID and MOD officials are in frequent touch in London and the region, and the need for and suitability of mobile field hospitals is often discussed. While options remain open, it is agreed that deploying a mobile field hospital at the moment would not be the most effective way to reach the diverse needs faced by so many people in so many different locations.
DFID’s new civilian surgical trauma facility also remains an option, but so far it has not been necessary to deploy a surgical team in any of the refugee-hosting countries. Inside Syria, the level of conflict makes access to health care difficult in many areas, and unfortunately the security challenges also prevent the deployment of a field hospital or a civilian UK surgical team. DFID will therefore continue to support existing health facilities on the ground, and constantly review the situation.
Bob Stewart
Does DFID have the capacity to deploy not just a surgical team, but the equipment and some primary buildings in support of that team? Is that what my right hon. Friend is referring to?
Mr Duncan
I like to think that DFID is well prepared always to procure and lay its hands on any such equipment, to which end many framework contracts permit us to draw at short notice on many companies’ equipment so as to do whatever is appropriate in whatever humanitarian situation we face, be that an earthquake, a tsunami or a conflict.
In conclusion, the Government value their ability to deploy military surgical teams as an important option, additional to other means of response. DFID’s response is based on the needs of the affected population, and so far the need for a UK military field hospital has not arisen. If it does, we remain ready to respond as required in the best and most appropriate way.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 7 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
International Criminal Court (Kenya)
(10 years, 7 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
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)
I am conscious that some hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber know quite a lot about this subject and have shown great interest in Africa, particularly Kenya, over the years. Some of what I say will not be news to them, and will be well known to the Minister, but it is important to set the scene and to say a few things that may seem obvious to some, but not to others observing what is going on at the moment. Today, I am particularly concerned about the nature of the ongoing action by the International Criminal Court against President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto, and that is, primarily, the context in which I will speak. I will make a few comments about the ICC, but they will be entirely contextual and legitimate, and I will be careful not to stray too far, Mr Caton.
On Monday 13 October, the African Union will meet to discuss the possibility of African ICC member states withdrawing from the ICC en masse. That meeting will take place in Addis Ababa and was precipitated by the ICC’s treatment of President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto, but the crux has been a long time coming. There is nothing inherently unreasonable in holding people to account in front of the ICC, but the nature of the present action against President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto is of particular concern.
Some nations, particularly African nations, that are signatories to the treaty of Rome are placing the future of the ICC in question. There is a risk that Africans in the UK—I speak to many of them in diasporas of all sorts—and particularly Kenyans will see it as the African criminal court, rather than the International Criminal Court. I want to set out how and why that has happened. I am not critical in any sense of the Government’s position on Kenya over the past year or so; they have handled the situation not elegantly—that may be putting too fine a point on it—but rather well earlier in the year, when President Kenyatta won the election. The Prime Minister encouraged him to come to the UK and met him soon after his election, which sent a significant message. Nevertheless, there is a strange and strained diplomatic relationship, in that we still support the ICC and its ongoing action to bring the President to court.
Kenya is one of our most important allies on the African continent. One of our largest foreign training bases is there, and the UK and Kenya host each other’s large diasporas. Trade with Kenya through Nairobi has been increasing almost exponentially for some years. We have the strongest of historical links, too. I will not go into whether the empire was good or bad. There were many good things about it, although we tend to remember the bad things, but the long view shows benefits that accrued on both sides.
Sometimes our relationship with Kenya has been fraught, to put it mildly, notably during the Mau Mau uprising. It is to the Government’s credit that at the beginning of the summer they recognised that crimes that were broadly described as being against humanity took place when we were running the show, and reparation has been made to Kenyans who were affected. Some people are ambivalent about that, because some Kenyans were fighting against British soldiers at the time, but the Government’s general view—I am not sure what the Opposition’s position is—was that it was right to make reparation. Soldiers who behaved abominably, as some did, cannot be held to account now because they are dead, and we should remember that, but we should also remember the context in which the Mau Mau uprising took place, and the nature of the deployment that our troops faced. However, we bear in mind that we are making reparation for what can today be described as war crimes.
I will not rehearse the democratic period in Kenya, but will fast forward to 2007, when there was bad violence just before the election. There is no question about that, and no one doubts it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the Chamber for consideration. Some 600,000 people were displaced and 1,100 were killed, including 30 women and children who were burned alive in a church. Does he believe that now is the time—time is going by fast—for the International Criminal Court to try those who were responsible for those crimes?
Eric Joyce
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important intervention, which goes to the crux of the debate. I will explore some aspects of the decision that sits with the ICC, but it is becoming a political issue. Of course it is right to hold people to account, but things happen in the world, in Africa and, historically, closer to home, and sometimes a choice must be made between justice and peace. That is not to say that standards are lower, but as my argument develops it will be seen that this is one such case.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Innocent people have been murdered and burned alive in churches, so surely the Government must address the whole issue of corruption in Kenya. Countries donate money to African countries where there is a lot of corruption, and Governments must deal with that.
Eric Joyce
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is true that when we think about Africa, politics and governance, we tend automatically to think about corruption. Corruption in many parts of Africa and of course in Kenya must be dealt with in every possible way. We must encourage the authorities to do that, and I think the authorities in Kenya, as in most African states, are willing to do so. Sometimes we are a little too ready and quick to flag up corruption as a synonym for a nation state’s name, instead of remembering that such states are sometimes making enormous progress. I will not rehearse the arguments about Rwanda, which is perhaps the best example, but Kenya is also a good example of a state that is making bounding progress. That is part of what causes me concern about the ICC action.
We know that there was violence before the 2007 general election, and we know that following the election, presidential candidates came together to form a Government of national unity. President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga were the two primary office-holders, and that coalition held together for a full term of office. Significantly, violence was almost entirely absent at the following election, after the coalition—the election that has just taken place. That suggests that a lasting resolution was achieved with the coalition back in 2007, and Kenyan people understand that.However, part of that coalition agreement was that there would be an inquiry, quite rightly, into the violence that took place during the election.
The inquiry was duly conducted by a Kenyan judge, Justice Philip Waki, who felt that six individuals had committed serious offences, but when the Kenyan Parliament took a vote—it votes on judicial or legal matters in a way that we probably would not—it decided not to refer the matter onwards, so the judge decided to refer it to the United Nations Secretary-General, with a recommendation that it should then be passed on to the ICC. That is why the series of six cases has ended up where it has. It was essentially a quasi-judicial process in Kenya, which has ended up as an administrative and legal process in The Hague.
Following a two-to-one decision in a pre-trial chamber in The Hague, the ICC indicted a number of people. Some of those cases have collapsed, but now, six years later, the cases against President Kenyatta and Vice-President Ruto, who won this year’s election, continue. Both men have been indicted and both have made voluntary appearances, unarrested, at The Hague. We have seen them on our televisions; they have freely attended as required, and they have supported the process up to a point.
The action by the ICC, six years after events on which there is one dissenting opinion, has enormous implications for the Kenyan people. It is true that Mr Kenyatta is not the first Head of State to be indicted by the ICC, and I will come to that shortly, but Kenya is of enormous importance to the UK—that is not to say that Sudan is not, but Kenya is particularly important to the UK and all our allies. Kenya has also successfully come through a period of strife, when other countries have collapsed under the terrible weight of internecine warfare. Kenya is the great economic success story of east and central Africa. It is leading the fight against terrorism in Somalia. We know now, given events over the past few weeks at the Westgate mall, how terrible a price the Kenyan people are paying for being at the front in that ongoing battle, but they have not wilted or split. Kenyans have remained united in the face of all that has been thrown at them by terrorists. It seems to me that we reward them by insisting that the President and Vice-President, who are leading them into what promises to be a very decent future, stand trial at the ICC, accused of hotly disputed offences that took place years ago.
People may well say that the ICC has an important role to play, and I would agree. They may say that it is not for us mere mortals to make judgments about evidence, and that there must be due process. They may say that politics should not play a part. I would say, however, that although it is not ordinary for politicians to intervene in judicial processes, the ICC is inherently political, as are its outcomes. It seems entirely appropriate that, at some points, when there are very significant political implications for a particular nation, it is for politicians and not civil servants to decide. In the same way, the Chancellor does not ask his civil servants to read out his Budget in the Chamber or ask them to lead the whole Budget process. In this case, it is for politicians around the world, including in the UK, fundamentally to make a decision. It is beyond the powers of civil servants, Government servants, or the international Government servants—whatever we call them—who run the ICC’s administration and procedures.
It is significant to note that all 32 indictees of the ICC have come from Africa. Eight African states have been involved, so I guess that is about four each. Initially, they were primarily from the Congo, and now a number are from Kenya. Four of those countries—it says this in Wikipedia, and I have also seen ICC officials saying it—referred cases involving their own people to the ICC. The ICC says, “Come on guv, you can’t blame us for taking action, because they were referred to us,” but that is where it becomes inherently political, because we put great pressure on those states to refer cases to the ICC. We cannot just hold our hands up and say, “Nothing to do with us, guv.” Clearly, we put enormous pressure on those states. Cases involving the Lord’s Resistance Army, for example, in Uganda, remain a cause célèbre—although less than they were, I suppose—and there are other cases.
Enormous pressure was put on those states, and they did what we asked, but now, because they did, they find themselves in a terrible bind. The only place that the ICC is able to act is Africa, and that is a terrible state of affairs. It cannot act in nations that are in the orbit of China—we all understand why—or of Russia, so the “stans” and the far east are out. Sri Lanka is out, obviously. India is out. Anything in the orbit of America is out. Obviously, Europe is out—we are not going to indict ourselves, are we? The United States did not sign up to the ICC originally, because it was concerned that former politicians might be arraigned in front of the ICC. It did not sign up for political reasons, and it still has not signed up for the same reasons. Of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the three most powerful have not signed up for political reasons. That takes out the great majority of the countries of the world, leaving those that are not considered to be strategically important, and—guess what?—are in Africa.
The Africans say, “This is the African criminal court, really, isn’t it? It is not an international criminal court at all.” The ICC says, “We are having a look at other cases,” but we know that it will not take action against FARC or anybody else in Colombia, for obvious reasons—because there is a peace process. It clearly will not take action, nor would I particularly want it to. Therefore, we end up with action being taken only against Africans, and even then only when political implications have been considered. In many cases, action has not been taken because of politics. Therefore, people who say that it is up to ICC officials are missing the point; it is fundamentally a political issue.
I shall not bang on forever, Mr Caton—other Members may wish to jump in—but I will say a little more. I suspect that at least one Government Member will correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that, when I arrived in this place, just before the final stage of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the then Opposition opposed joining the ICC. It may be that they changed and voted to do so at the end, but I remember that, at the time, the argument in the Chamber was that the then Opposition—now the Government—strongly opposed it. They did so because they were concerned—I voted for and still support the ICC’s existence, but the concern was legitimate at the time—that soldiers, deployed as they are around the world, in all sorts of different places, might find themselves captured, not returned to the UK, and in front of the ICC. There was a deep concern about that.
Those fears were largely allayed, and clearly, the Government are a supporter. The fears have not come to fruition, because we are willing and able to try our own people. We show that and have actually done it, so there does not seem to be a great risk. I notice, however, that the Americans still have not signed up, so they clearly think there is a risk. There is at least one politician, famously—it would not be fair to say his name, but I think most of us know who it is—whom many lawyers have said might well be arraigned in front of the ICC. Even that one case, and the fear that others might happen in future, would stop the Americans signing up.
Such fear is significant. UK citizens are not more likely than anybody else to commit serious offences, but the concern was that it might become political, and indeed, I think that has proven to be the case, almost by default. It has not become political on purpose; it has become political because the ICC has been unable to be even-handed across the world, for strong political reasons.
I will not go through the entire history of the ICC, although I quite rightly could. However, it is worth reflecting on the principle of the ICC. I may have sounded very condemnatory of the ICC before, but the principle is entirely laudable. Obviously, it extends out of our experiences with more than one tribunal in the mid-part of the last century, just after world war two.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I presume that the hon. Gentleman is about to embark on a discussion of the laudable principles that lie behind the conception of the ICC, and I agree that they are laudable. However, does he agree that principles are one thing but the practical outworking of what we have seen, which he alluded to in the earlier part of his contribution, is quite another, and that what we really need to see is a workable ICC that is trying to get itself divorced from the practical and political considerations that inhibit it from doing much of its work?
Eric Joyce
The hon. Member is absolutely bang on. His intervention was very thoughtful and considered, and he is absolutely right. The difficulty at the moment is to get past what is a very dangerous phase for the ICC. If the ICC gets it wrong and if the international community gets it wrong in respect of Kenya, the ICC will fall apart; I do not think that it will continue, in a meaningful sense, in existence. I know that there is concern among NGOs and experts, including lawyers, that if there were to be a discontinuation of the case against the President and Vice-President of Kenya, that would effectively be the end of the ICC. I do not agree with that view. I will not put all the arguments as to why I disagree with it. I simply think that that would not be the case. It would be more practically effective to find a way of dealing with the situation, which effectively means putting a case into abeyance, but I will say more on that at my conclusion. I have one or two more points to make quickly before then.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman referred to the ICC and its credibility. The fact is that the Kenyan Government have decided to withdraw from the ICC and that there are cases pending at the court. How does he see the role for Government in trying to ensure that there will still be prosecutions, now that Kenya is no longer—at least on paper—part of the ICC?
Eric Joyce
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think that the technical situation is that the case will continue even if Kenya withdraws, although my instinct is that it will be difficult to do anything in that situation. I suppose the ICC may criticise the President’s absence and then carry on with the trial. Theoretically, and it is pretty theoretical, the African nations that are considering withdrawing—I hope that they do not withdraw—would still be subject to any current cases involving them, although not to any future cases. So, for the moment the case against the President would continue. In a sense, therefore, it is academic whether Kenya has chosen to withdraw from the ICC or not, although I hope that it will come back in. I think that Kenya is making a very powerful statement, just as some other African states that are supporting Kenya’s cause at the moment are making a similarly powerful statement.
I will start to draw to a conclusion. I visited the ICC’s former chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, in The Hague a couple of years ago, regarding a particular case; it is pertinent to this debate, so I hope that you will bear with me, Mr Caton. My concern at the time was that all these people being indicted were Africans, and I was concerned about one particular case. I was concerned about President al-Bashir, as a head of state, being indicted, but in particular I was concerned about a chap called Bemba, who was a Congolese leader indicted for an alleged crime in the Central African Republic. I spoke to Luis Moreno-Ocampo and I was with him for much of the day—strangely. He gave me a tutorial in how the ICC operated, and convinced me that he was doing his best and that the ICC was doing its best. It was taking a long time to get a prosecution. It has now had one successful prosecution, that of Thomas Lubanga of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mr Moreno-Ocampo was very convincing and he convinced me that the ICC is indeed a good thing. There are clear difficulties, which the ICC recognises, in pursuing cases in the orbits of nations that do not fancy having the ICC in their own backyard, as I have described before.
Then, however, Mr Moreno-Ocampo was gone, and he has been replaced by the former Gambian Justice Minister. My instinct, although it is harsh to say it, is that, although I have no doubt she will be a very fine lawyer, that appointment in itself was a political nod—“We are only indicting Africans, so we will have an African in charge”. However, just to show the difficulty, she herself—I will not be critical of her personally but contextually—was the Justice Minister in Gambia. Gambia is not the most pure place on the planet. The last time that I was in Gambia, as we were driving to the airport there was lots of security around and we discovered that the President had just shot a whole bunch of prisoners, some of whom were political prisoners essentially. Gambia has its issues, so it seems to me that a political nod in a particular direction may have had the opposite effect to that intended. I think that the ICC recognised the need to make a political gesture, and to some degree therefore it accepts that the whole thing is a political process.
It seems to me that at the moment we tend, right across the board, to apply values straight from our desks and pop them straight down on to the desks of politicians and other leading folk in African states, without really considering the period of development that those countries are going through right now, as we speak. Just as I walked across here to Westminster Hall, I was reflecting—I am not quite sure why—on the fact that most of us would put our hands up and say, “Chemical weapons—bad thing.” However, as far as I can remember, we were developing chemical weapons into the ’80s. Chemical weapons became a bad thing in the ’90s, but I think it was still British military doctrine to use chemical weapons until just a few years before then. I remember that when I was a private soldier, troops alongside me volunteered to go to Porton Down to have chemicals put on their hands—I do not think that Porton Down was looking for a solution to the common cold—and that was in the ’80s.
We have now moved forward and we say that chemical weapons are a horror; Winston Churchill was a fan of chemical weapons, but now we say that they are a horror and it has taken us 15 or 20 years for us to get to that point. Now we say, “Here is a democracy in Africa and we expect you to uphold the same standards that we do here in all the same ways”, without trying to contextualise things. That is a tough gig, as the Africans become increasingly nationalistic, and pan-African nationalistic, if that is not too grand a phrase to use; I am not harking back to a slightly different phenomenon from 60 years ago. However, if Africans are in that zone and in many cases looking towards China rather than looking towards us, it is because there is a very strong taint of a kind of imperialist attitude.
My understanding—what I am about to say may be wrong, but I do not think that it is—is that the Kenyans have refused to accredit three diplomats; the would-be ambassadors from France, Germany and Belgium. I understand that that happened just a few days ago, and I also understand that the Tanzanians refused to accredit the new German ambassador, on account of the fact that she had invited—probably unwisely, because it was clearly a gesture on her part—the former Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, as a guest of honour for a wee party before she left. That was a clear statement, so the Tanzanians went, “That was a nice statement. Here’s another one—off you go.” So that was a neat political statement by a daft German ambassador—a former German ambassador to Kenya—but there is a lot of that going on.
During the election in Kenya, the American ambassador—everyone will have heard references to the British ambassador, which are not true—allegedly said, “Choices have consequences.” And the Kenyans went, “OK, then, so we will choose to do the thing you don’t want us to do, obviously.” The consequence was that the Americans got the person they did not want, ironically just as we got Jomo Kenyatta, who was originally not the guy we wanted. There it is—we handled it then and we handle it now.
To conclude—I have been going on rather a long time—I know that it is a difficult situation for the Government. They have to support the ICC; I have no question about that. I know that the Government are seized of the importance of maintaining the rule of law—as far as we can—but also of the importance of maintaining a strong relationship with a really important ally, for all the reasons that we all know; I will not rehearse them again. However, the fact is that there is a crux and if the crux is not properly climbed then the ICC will fall off and it will no longer be an effective and meaningful international force.
Just as a slight digression, I will say that it is possible for someone to spend five years in the ICC and then get found not guilty, as one Congolese chap did at the end of last year. So we suspend certain rules and assumptions—reasonably, because it is very hard to gather evidence—but we should remember that Jean-Pierre Bemba remains there. His trial is now in its third year and he has been there for almost six years, with no end in sight. If he is found not guilty, he will have spent seven or eight years in custody. If anyone tried to do that anywhere else, we would say that that country was a dictator state. We have made allowances and allowed that to happen at the ICC. I am concerned about how long the process takes but I am not critical per se, because I know that it is very hard to gather evidence and to argue the case when we are talking about certain countries, such as the Central African Republic. In this case, it is for the politicians to make a political decision to take the matter out of the hands of administrators and to put the case against President Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto. That would give the Kenyans a fair crack of the whip at a time when they really need our support.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
This is an interesting and important debate. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary groups on Kenya and on Uganda and, as chairman or secretary of various other all-party groups, I have been much involved in all matters relating to east Africa since the 1980s. I have a strong sense that that part of the world is extremely important both in its own right and in relation not only to the United Kingdom but to the world as a whole. Economically, it is one of the fastest-growing areas in the world and, as with all countries—and I exclude none—there is a process of evolution and a necessity to ensure that justice and fairness prevail.
At the heart of all this lies the question whether domestic matters should be adjudicated by a methodology applicable through international law when the better route could well be to have them dealt with in the country in question. That important issue is illustrated by the fact that in many, many countries in the world—I do not need to set them all out, but Vietnam is a case in point—terrible things happen. There are civil wars. We had a civil war, as did the United States, and there are times when innocent people get caught up. We have a vast range of civil wars going on all over the middle east; it is a very disturbing picture. Not unnaturally, people will attribute blame to individuals who have been involved in the process, but it is an unwise person who makes assumptions about who was responsible for any particular causal event or incident.
Jim Shannon
One concern is that if the ICC case collapses, and there is every possibility that it might, the credibility, security and safety of the witnesses who have been called come into question. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about those independent witnesses who may feel under threat if the case collapses?
Mr Cash
I certainly do. There must be a significant review of the methodology that is applied in relation to the ICC process, which can be encapsulated in an expression from Maine’s “Ancient Law” that says that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure. It sounds grandiloquent, but it is extremely important given the incredible number of events that are taking place. We have to look at not just what is happening in countries such as Syria, where people from both sides commit atrocities all the time, but the motivation for such atrocities and the extent to which they are politically driven. Some would argue that the use of atomic weapons or chemical weapons is a matter where distinctions need to be drawn. It could also be said that all weapons of mass destruction should automatically be regarded as of one kind, which they are not.
In relation to the terrible events that took place in Kenya some years ago, the methodology that was applied in the prosecution and indictment is a matter that requires very careful consideration. There are good grounds, I believe, for taking a step back and looking at the matter again, taking into consideration the evidence and who is responsible for the conduct of the prosecution and the manner in which it is being deployed. It is also extremely important to bear in mind that the most incredible sensitivities will arise, and have arisen, which may lead to the African Union and other individual countries, many of which I am familiar with, withdrawing from the ICC.
There are several issues to be considered. One relates to justice, fairness and the question of procedures and methodology. Another relates to the impact of what is being done in relation to the African Union and individual countries there, and the extent to which they are taking a position, which, to say the least, is radical. Then there is the question whether the matter should really be dealt with in domestic courts. Is there the political impetus to prosecute a Head of State or one or two people when the evidence could as well be addressed in a domestic arena?
I was shadow Attorney-General for several years, and have always had certain reservations, to say the least, about the assumptions that lie behind some human rights trials. I will not enlarge on that, but what I will say is that with the massive number of conflicts and potential conflicts in the middle east—in countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria and Tunisia—Somalia and elsewhere in Africa, a complete analysis of the whole matter is required. In addition, some of the most significant countries, not only numerically but in terms of power and influence, are not members of the ICC. How can we have a system of justice that is based on differentiation between those countries that are not involved in the process because they have not signed up, and others that are? There are so many interwoven complexities that it makes me seriously wonder about the whole question of justiciability and the methodology that lies at the heart not only of the procedures but of the underlying consequences of the ICC system.
I do not want to say any more, because I want everyone to stand back and ask themselves some central questions. The Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, has a very difficult task here. I have raised the matter with the Foreign Office, both after and in the run-up to elections, because I was concerned about the politicisation of what could be regarded as a matter of domestic legal process. Justice and fairness are key, and how we arrive at that, and whether the ICC can do so in this case and in many others, is a very big question. I will rest my argument there, but I shall continue to pursue such questions, because I believe that fundamental issues arise for not only us, but many other countries.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) for calling this debate, which has been very interesting. The speeches and interventions have added to our consideration and understanding of an intensely difficult issue. Although I will be seeking to find out the Minister’s position in due course, I do not envy his having to respond on so difficult an area, but such difficult questions are those faced in government. This reflective debate will assist us in analysing the difficult questions that international politics currently involves.
From what my hon. Friend said, he clearly understands about the security and the importance of Kenya. He has great respect for the Kenyan people, who are looking at the issue extremely closely. I know from communications I have received that the matter is of profound import. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has a particular role in the all-party group on Kenya.
Kenya always provokes interest because of our long-standing link with it and its people, and because of its significance in what, at the moment, is an important part of north Africa. Some of the biggest political issues on the planet are being played out in complex geographical areas across north Africa, with cultures, faiths and economies colliding and causing enormous issues. We must grapple with those issues if we are to make progress. Kenya, whose relationship with the UK is massively significant, is hugely important in that regard, for instance in addressing the difficulties in Somalia and the horn of Africa. That cause has been carried out at great cost to the people of Kenya over several years, most recently, of course, in Nairobi. The country is strategically important, and we all want it to be a strong international player.
Before I turn to Kenya’s membership of the ICC, I want to refer, as other Members have, to the dreadful recent attack in the Westgate shopping centre. Right across the world, the focus has been on Kenya because of what happened there. The confirmed death toll was 61 civilians and six security officers, and Britons were among those killed. Our thoughts are with all those affected by these tragic events. We must of course support the Kenyan Government in showing leadership in dealing with a problem that, as I have said, transcends the borders and boundaries of countries across the world, but is a specific issue across north Africa.
Mr Cash
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a massive dilemma in what he says? On the one hand, we want to support the Government of Kenya, but on the other hand, are we to encourage the prosecution of the Kenyan Head of State in the International Criminal Court? That is the simple dilemma, but it is not only a dilemma: the question is whether justice and fairness are at the root of the matter. In my opinion, that is as yet uncertain and, in fact, I am deeply worried about it.
Ian Lucas
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent intervention, and puts the difficult question very well. It is, however, important to remember that Kenya has chosen to be a member of the International Criminal Court. If it withdraws, it will leave an international institution that it chose to join. As we have already heard, several countries have refused to join the International Criminal Court. If we are a member of an institution, we have to accept that it has rules that it must apply to its members without fear or favour. The reason why we need to support the Kenyan Government is that they face the very difficult situation caused by the Westgate shopping centre attack, but equally, the fact is that Kenya chose to be a member of the International Criminal Court and, as a consequence of decisions made in Kenya, the court has been seized of the case and is proceeding with it.
To return to the Westgate shopping mall, rigorous inquiries are taking place, and must continue to do so, into the circumstances leading to the attacks. We need to support the Kenyan Government in their taking steps to bring those involved to justice and to ensure that such an incident does not recur. We must also, however, conduct rigorous inquiries into the perpetrators of the violence that followed the 2007 election, because we cannot take action in one area, but not in another, and I therefore turn to the Kenyan Government’s possible attempts to withdraw from the ICC.
We must reflect on the violence in 2007, when, as we have heard, more than 1,000 people were killed and 600,000 people were displaced. The investigations into the violence culminated in the ICC bringing charges, including against the Kenyan President, of crimes against humanity and of orchestrating ethnic violence. For that reason, charges have been brought against President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto.
Eric Joyce
I do not dispute my hon. Friend’s earnestness and his argument, but can he imagine a situation in which the UK Prime Minister is held responsible by the ICC for some terrible cataclysm? Does he think that we would agree to send the UK Prime Minister to The Hague?
Ian Lucas
That would be massively controversial, but we are a member of an international institution. We are discussing international problems, and the world has to deal with more and more internationally connected issues every day: events in Africa profoundly affect our constituencies in the UK. Far from this being a time for us to withdraw from international action, we should be more involved. If we submit ourselves as a nation to the authority of the International Criminal Court, we must accept that that court has jurisdiction. Such an issue would be difficult and many in the United Kingdom would not want to accept the court’s jurisdiction, but if we have submitted to the court through legislation, as has been mentioned, we must accept the consequences. We cannot duck out when it gets difficult; we must accept that such difficult issues need to be addressed, as they should be by the nations involved.
It is a difficult problem of that sort—nobody pretends that it is not difficult—that we now have to address. The Parliament of Kenya is dealing with the difficulty that, in the hypothetical case mentioned by my hon. Friend, might apply in the United Kingdom. The two politicians are not the only individuals facing charges. I understand that the ICC has also issued an arrest warrant for a journalist called Walter Barasa for offering bribes to prosecution witnesses in the trial of Deputy President William Ruto. However, I believe that this trial is the first time that sitting leaders have been tried before the court.
In September 2013—last month—Kenyan MPs, having tabled a motion, voted to pull out of the ICC, and a Bill is likely to be introduced. The withdrawal will still have to pass through Parliament and could take more than a year to come into effect. The ICC will in the meantime continue with the trials of the President and the Deputy President, but if Kenya does pull out, no charges will be able to be brought in this way in the future.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Falkirk and I am aware, of course, of the perception that exists in Africa, linked to the United Kingdom’s role on the continent—its “imperialist past”. Although I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, I cannot agree with him in this case. I have to say to him that this is about the creation of international institutions and dealing with the very difficult issues to which the hon. Member for Stone referred. We talk about what is happening in Syria, Egypt, Somalia, and Mali. All these matters have in some way involved international capacity and interventions, whether they be military or non-military interventions, in different places at different times. The process of dealing with the problems has been one of using international institutions, because these are international problems.
Mr Cash
I am getting slightly worried; in fact, I am getting very worried about the line of route of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I referred to civil wars and the total chaos that there is in the middle east and in parts of north Africa. Is he seriously suggesting that, ultimately, all these matters, because they have an international dimension, should, given the competing claims and counter-claims made by people who are engaged in political processes, be dealt with in an international court? We would spend all our time, and without any beneficial result, arguing about the legal questions, which are essentially political, tragic as they may be. I do ask the question.
Ian Lucas
I was not specifically, in the context in which I was speaking, talking about the International Criminal Court. I was talking about international problems being dealt with through international institutions. The United Nations and the Security Council of the United Nations are the most obvious example. I was making the general point that international institutions and countries, working together, need to deal with international problems, which manifest themselves within individual countries.
We know that in north Africa, for example, many of the things that have caused major problems in the region have involved groups of people crossing borders at different times. Those borders are often ill defined and not policed in any way. Mali would be one example, and Somalia and Kenya are another. I am talking about a collective approach, through organisations such as the United Nations, and a progression of that. I am saying that, in particular cases, the use of the International Criminal Court is appropriate. For that reason, when countries choose to join the ICC process, it is appropriate that we, as a country that has also submitted itself to that process, support the process.
I think that we need to respect the role of the ICC and international principles of justice and democracy and apply those principles in the future, so I would be extremely concerned about the implications of Kenya withdrawing from the ICC if Kenya were to withdraw, because that would be a step away from dealing with very difficult, shared problems in a collective way. It would be a step backwards, because it would be a step towards more isolation. Ultimately, that would bring about a lower level of capacity to solve the problems that we want to address.
Eric Joyce
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; this will be my last intervention. Kenya will not be isolated, because all the African Union countries will come out of the ICC and it will fall apart. Who knows what will happen soon? I hope that it does not happen, but the risk is that the Kenyans, the Ugandans, the Tanzanians, the Rwandans—most of the African states—will, very sadly and against their own instincts, come out en masse. That is the great risk.
Ian Lucas
Well, the United Kingdom is a member and has a very long-standing commitment to the ICC. For that reason, this is a difficult time; people are working through a difficult issue. That is why we should be supporting the ICC at this time, rather than saying that when the going gets tough, we opt out. In those circumstances, the institution will never make any progress. What is needed is for the process to continue and for dialogue to continue. We must support the development of international institutions. Having agreed to set up the ICC and having become a member, if we do not support it when the pressure is on, the institution will never make any progress. It is clear that if that is the case, we will have one less weapon in our armoury to deal with the hugely difficult international problems that we face.
I know that there is a great deal of concern and worry about the ICC proceedings relating to Kenya and that that is affecting our relationship with Kenya. It was inevitable that that would be the case. It is cast into even sharper relief by what has happened in Nairobi in the last month. The hon. Member for Stone has, legitimately and properly, pointed out the practical concerns that are presented by the dilemma that the Government face.
I shall therefore ask the Minister a few questions that he can consider in his response to the debate. First, what does he consider would be the implications of Kenya withdrawing from the ICC? What is his assessment of the position more broadly of African countries on the question of the ICC proceedings against Kenya at the moment and what steps they might take in the months ahead? What specific discussions has he had concerning the operation of the ICC process, and what steps has he taken to try to resolve the dilemmas that we have discussed?
I know that this is a very difficult problem for the UK Government. I know that they will address the problem with rigour, but I do think that engagement is extremely important in the time ahead. We need to remember that Kenya has in the past chosen to be a member of the ICC and it is for that reason that the court is seized of this issue in the first place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
It is a pleasure to be under your chairmanship and guidance this morning, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) on securing this important debate, and on his continued interest in and knowledge of Africa, and Kenya in particular. I thank him for referring to the importance of having a detailed knowledge and understanding of the significant bilateral relationship, historically and today, between the United Kingdom and Kenya. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has significant knowledge and experience of east Africa and Kenya, and who shows a continuing energetic commitment to improving the lives of those who live in Africa. My hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Falkirk, and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), powerfully articulated the complexities and sensitivities of the issue.
I will endeavour to address all the points that have been raised. First, I will take stock, as the hon. Member for Wrexham did, of our wider bilateral relationship, particularly in the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attack on the Westgate shopping centre in Nairobi on 21 September. I am sure that the whole House will join me in re-emphasising our deep sympathy and profound condolences to the Kenyan Government and people, and to the other countries affected by that abhorrent act. As the Prime Minister has said, it was a sickening and despicable act of appalling brutality.
Hon. Members may have spotted that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary laid before Parliament a written statement setting out the UK Government’s response to the crisis. On the day of the attack, the Prime Minister spoke to President Kenyatta, and I spoke to the Kenyan Foreign Minister, Amina Mohamed, to express the UK’s solidarity and to offer assistance. The UK has provided assistance at the scene in identifying victims and collecting forensic evidence. We have also provided medical supplies and rations to the Aga Khan university hospital, where many of the wounded were taken.
We are determined to work with Kenya on the shared challenge of addressing regional terrorism and building stability in Somalia. The close co-operation and understanding that underpin the UK response to the Westgate attack is a reminder that the UK and Kenya share many priorities and interests. The relationship between the countries today is one of partnership, shared mutual interests and shared concerns, through being members of the Commonwealth, through strong commercial security and through personal ties. The UK is the largest commercial investor in Kenya and the second-largest trading partner, with bilateral trade worth more than £1 billion a year. Thirty thousand British nationals reside in Kenya, and 180,000 British nationals visit Kenya every year. Kenya is also one of the largest bilateral recipients of DFID aid, with the UK contributing £135 million annually in support of Kenya Vision 2030. Our projects tackle conflict, increase stability and improve education and health care.
I have read what the hon. Member for Falkirk said in a similar debate that he secured in March. In that debate, he highlighted the fact that we have a strong defence and security relationship. The British Army trains 10,000 British soldiers in Kenya every year, which benefits not only the UK but the Kenyan defence forces and the wider economy. We want that co-operation to continue and develop for the mutual benefit of the UK and Kenya.
Before I move on to specifics about the International Criminal Court, I will address a couple of points that arose in interventions on the hon. Member for Falkirk. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) rightly raised the importance of trying to reduce, if not eradicate, corruption in Kenya. Department for International Development programmes are involved in supporting greater transparency and accountability at national and county level. The hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned the Mau Mau settlement. It is important to understand that that did not constitute reparation; it was a settlement of claims that recognised the pain and suffering experienced by people on all sides during those events many years ago.
At the heart of our relationship with Kenya is counter-terrorism engagement, through which we assist Kenya in defending itself and countering cross-border security threats, many of which stem from Kenya’s leading role in the African Union Mission in Somalia. Kenya made significant sacrifices during that mission in its attempts to secure peace and stability in Somalia, and we recognise and welcome the significant contributions that Kenya and others have made.
I turn to the issue at the heart of the debate, namely the International Criminal Court. I think it would be helpful if I briefly set out what the ICC is about and why it is so important before I address some of the complexities and sensitivities involved in the issue that we are talking about. The UK and Kenya are among the 122 countries that are signatories to the ICC’s founding Rome statute. Of those countries, 34 are African states; that is the biggest bloc anywhere in the world. As the hon. Member for Wrexham pointed out, we strongly support the ICC’s work around the world as an impartial, independent guardian of the rule of law. It is a court of last resort for the most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It takes up cases only when national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so. It provides no immunity for those in positions of power, even Heads of State—a point that has been made powerfully. That universality is one of its strengths. It plays a vital role in ending impunity, holding perpetrators to account and delivering justice for victims.
In July, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary launched the Government’s ICC strategy, which sets out our thinking on how we can ensure that the ICC retains its independence—that is vital—delivers justice, increases its membership, builds more support for its decisions from states and the UN Security Council, gains wider regional support and completes its work more efficiently.
As I have said, the ICC will take on cases only where national authorities lack the capabilities or the will to undertake prosecutions, as was the case in Kenya. The UK is committed to helping to provide training and mentoring to national authorities to help them develop their own laws and systems.
The hon. Member for Falkirk powerfully highlighted the common perception that the ICC is anti-Africa, and I want to address that point. In Africa, the court is working tirelessly to deliver justice for millions of Africans who endured appalling treatment at the hands of fellow Africans. African states have been some of the most important supporters of the creation and effective functioning of the ICC. African states played an active role in the negotiations that led to the establishment of the court, and 22 African countries were among the founding ratifiers of the Rome statute. Interestingly, the first and most recent states to ratify the Rome statute, Senegal and Côte d’Ivoire, were African. The majority of African Union member states—34 African states—are now ICC state parties. It is important to recognise that Africans are among the highest level of ICC officials, and they serve as judges and prosecutors at the court.
The ICC investigates situations, not people, and only after situations have been investigated do prosecutions occur. Suggestions that the ICC focuses solely on Africa do not tell the full story. Preliminary investigations are already under way in cases outside Africa, including in Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia and Honduras. The majority of cases brought against Africans have been lodged with the ICC by Africans.
I turn to specifics that all hon. Members raised about the ICC and Kenya. Of course I accept that the topic is controversial and sensitive, and creates difficulties for the Kenyan Government, but after the appalling post-election violence in 2007-08, many believe that justice is essential for national reconciliation and healing, and that the trials must continue to give the victims and the accused access to justice. We should remind ourselves of the numbers involved. I underline the figures that hon. Members have mentioned: more than 1,000 people were killed; 3,000 people suffered serious sexual violence; and more than 600,000 people were displaced. We strongly welcome the Kenyan Government’s co-operation with the court and urge them to continue to co-operate, as they have pledged to do.
The UK Government recognise that President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto have constitutional obligations and important responsibilities at home, as the Westgate attack illustrated so graphically. We therefore believe that the court’s decision to alternate the trials of the President and Deputy President, to ensure conformity with the Kenyan constitution, and to agree a short delay to allow Deputy President Ruto to take part in the Kenyan Government’s response to Westgate, showed welcome pragmatism.
The hon. Member for Wrexham raised the issue of witness intimidation. We remain deeply concerned by reports of witness intimidation, and call on all state parties to assist the court in preventing it. That would mean Kenya responding to the arrest warrant the court issued last week.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Kenyan Parliament’s vote in support of a motion to withdraw from the Rome statute. We must be clear: it is for Kenya, as a sovereign country, to decide whether to withdraw. We, of course, very much hope that it does not. Withdrawing from the Rome statute would not remove Kenya’s obligation to co-operate with the court on the current investigation, as the hon. Members for Falkirk, and for Wrexham, pointed out. The UK Government support the process, but we are clear that it must be recognised that defendants remain innocent until proven guilty. It is for a competent court—in this case the ICC—not the UK or any Government or individual, to pass judgment. The strength of the court lies in its independence, and its processes are, rightly, independent of the UK. I do not share the analysis of the hon. Member for Falkirk that the court process is political, not judicial; it is very clearly a judicial process. We are determined to ensure that the UK’s support for international justice and the ICC does not jeopardise our wider bilateral relations with Kenya.
Mark Simmonds
As I said earlier, the ICC only takes up matters when the country in question does not put in place the requisite judicial process to allow relevant prosecutions or investigations to take place. Specifically, the Waki commission, to which the hon. Member for Falkirk referred, gave the Kenyan authorities time to put in place the necessary and appropriate structures to deal with the judicial process, as it relates to the terrible atrocities that occurred in 2007-08. It is only because the Kenyan authorities did not do that at the time that the matter was referred to the ICC.
There are seven cases before the ICC, including the Kenyan issue. Of the other six, four were referred to the court by Africans themselves, and two were referred by the UN Security Council. The hon. Member for Falkirk raised the issue of the speculation that the African Union summit could result in some states withdrawing from the Rome statute. He will not be surprised to hear that I will not engage in speculation, but I shall make two points. Although there is a perception that the ICC is focused only on Africa, there is a broad range of views, as there would be in the UK, across the African Union. Only a couple of days ago, 130 groups from across Africa called for not only sustained but greater co-operation with the ICC. He will not be surprised to hear that we urge African states to continue their support for the court, and encourage those African states not party to the Rome statue to consider ratification or accession and other ways that they can support the court’s work. African support and expertise continues to be vital to enable the court to fulfil its mandate of delivering justice for victims and tackling impunity.
I am the first to acknowledge that the court is a young institution. The UK is among those, not only in Africa, but elsewhere, who would like to see improvements. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made a powerful point about other countries around the world that are not signatories to the Rome statute, and the terrible atrocities in Syria, which we have seen on our television screens. I am sure that he is aware of the UK Government’s position: those who perpetrated those horrific crimes should face justice.
Before I conclude, I shall reflect for a moment on the Kenyan elections in March. The Kenyan people and politicians need to be congratulated on the peaceful nature of the elections, which was in stark contrast to the violence which marred the election in 2007-08. That demonstrated the determination of the Kenyan people to express their democratic right to elect a Government of their choosing in an environment free from violence and intimidation. Kenyans should be proud of that significant achievement. The UK played a role in supporting the democratic process, including by providing £16 million to support free and peaceful elections. The UK position has been consistent and clear: it is for the Kenyan people to elect their leaders and for the courts to resolve any disputes that stem from the election process.
Mark Simmonds
As always, I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about his views. I will of course be pleased to hear how he thinks the ICC could work better.
The UK-Kenyan relationship is significant, and we want it to continue to develop. We want trade to grow. We want more UK companies to invest in Kenya and more Kenyan entrepreneurs and businesses to invest in the UK. We want to strengthen our partnership in a range of areas, from counter-terrorism co-operation to defence matters, as well as help, through Department for International Development programmes, to alleviate poverty, build capacity and assist those in Kenya who are less fortunate than all of us here today. However, the UK also supports the ICC. We acknowledge, respect and welcome President Kenyatta’s pledge to respect Kenya’s international commitments and to continue co-operation with the ICC.
Energy Policy (Winter Preparations)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
Mr Caton, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair during this important, but short, debate.
Every year the Government need to think about how they will prepare for winter and the challenges that lie ahead, including how we can prevent thousands of people from dying from cold each winter. However, we have a greater challenge this year and in the years to come. Energy bills have risen by more than £300 under this Government; Ofgem is warning of blackouts; and the energy market appears to be becoming less and less predictable. We need short-term and long-term action and I want to be confident that the Government are taking that action. I want to be confident about that, so I can pass it on to thousands of my constituents who are elderly, disabled, have young children or who are alone and are worrying about how they will heat their homes this winter. I may get silly answers, as one official told my office staff yesterday, but I am sure the Minister has more sense than that and will give these issues proper consideration.
First, I want to speak about the worrying headlines about blackout Britain. Before anybody tries to intervene—unfortunately, there are no hon. Members here to do that—I am talking about actual blackouts due to lack of energy, not energy companies scaremongering about what they might do if a Labour Government froze energy prices. Ofgem announced in the summer that we are facing a crisis, with our safety margin of spare capacity for electricity about to shrink from a healthy margin of around 15%, to less than 4% within three years. This winter, the estimated de-rated capacity margin is 6.3% and, only this week, National Grid announced that it was keeping a “close watching brief” on supplies. I do not want to be alarmist, because we will probably be all right, but if the chief executive of Ofgem felt it necessary to warn of a “near crisis”, I think we need to take that seriously. Do the Government take it seriously? I know that provisions have been included in the Energy Bill for this, and we support the principle of a capacity mechanism, even if we have not been given many details. As an aside, I would like to know when we can expect details on this. Hopefully, we will have them before 2018.
Crucially, the first capacity market auction for 2014 is for delivery of capacity from 2018-19. What provisions are in place for this winter and those leading up to 2018? Will we be reliant upon the small diesel generators available under the short-term operating reserve in these years? What assessment has the Minister done of the necessity to use those during this period? In such cases, we could become further reliant on gas, particularly liquefied natural gas. Demand for that is increasing from countries such as China, so I have concerns about the price we will have to pay for this commodity. External shocks might dramatically increase the price of gas, just as Fukushima increased Japan’s demand for gas and therefore increased prices across the world. Gas storage in the UK is equivalent to 14 days’ worth of supply, compared with between 59 and 87 days’ worth in Italy, Germany and France.
DECC acknowledges that the UK has returned to levels of import dependency not seen since the 1970s. We must consider the countries from which we are importing gas—Qatar and Russia are key suppliers. According to Peter Hughes, a former vice-president of BP, importing from such countries means we are more vulnerable to short-term price increases, and we are therefore vulnerable to political volatility. I recognise that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change recently published a statement saying that he will press ahead with interventions already in hand, but I do not think we will see the immediate effects here.
I also hope that DECC officials are planning how to use any excess gas. Were we to buy too much gas and have a warmer winter, will energy prices be lowered? I would have thought so, as energy companies blame higher profits on the cold winter, but knowing what I know, I think we will have to work hard to ensure that we see the financial effects of a warm winter. Is Ofgem capable of forcing companies to do that?
In a recent BBC survey, 25% of people said that they are living in an unacceptably cold home. That is unbelievable in the 21st century. The Government have committed to ensuring that half of all households have at least one insulation measure by 2022, but the Minister will be only too aware that we are nowhere near meeting that target. In the middle of last month only 12 households—not 12,000, nor 1,200 but 12—had some sort of measure installed under the green deal, with 372 households waiting. What assessment have the Government made of that? Why is uptake so low?
The green deal is not a good deal for the public; it offers high interest rates of some 8%, which I have been told can be undercut by other sources of finance. The only incentive is the cashback payments, which will soon dry up. Predatory door-to-door and nuisance call selling tactics are also not encouraging concerned people to take up the deal. Perhaps the Minister needs to give some sleeping pills to his colleague the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who said that he would not be sleeping unless 10,000 had signed up to the green deal by the end of the year—he must have had a lot of sleepless nights.
That is based on those households that can even apply for insulation. I have a good number of tenement blocks in my constituency that are home to some of the people who we really need to be helping in the winter months: the elderly and the poor. The green deal is not a bad deal for them; it is an impossible deal. Glasgow city council has been trying to upgrade some of its stock through retrofit schemes, but there are so many types of building that are unfit for insulation measures and are leaking heat at an alarming rate. What are the Government’s plans for them? For those people who are waiting on the green deal to bear fruit, January 2014 is not good enough. People need warm houses at the start of the winter, not at the end.
Many people do not turn on their heating because of the cost. In fact, almost seven in 10 households did not do so at some point last winter. The revised figures in the Hills report show that 7,800 people die in winter because they cannot afford to heat their home properly. Of course, rising energy bills are not helping. Energy barons are simply profiteering from their customers, with profits going up each year from what are already eye-watering figures. The big six doubled their profit margins in the last year alone. The Government have totally failed to act on this, claiming that the market is competitive, which it simply is not.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he accept that fuel bills may be rising, but there are things that individual constituents can do? In my area of Northumberland, for example, 13 groups have formed oil-buying clubs, which have seen reductions of between 10% and 20% in heating oil prices for thousands of people across the region.
John Robertson
There are a lot of people doing a lot of good things, and they know how to manipulate the market. They can take up contracts, use the internet and work things out, but I am talking about people who cannot do those things. I am talking about the poorest in society, who do not get the help they need. Unfortunately, my constituency is one of the poorest in the country. There are many such constituencies in my area and in other areas, and I am talking about those people, not the others.
Guy Opperman
I totally accept that we should be looking after those people who are least able to look after themselves. There are areas of tremendous social deprivation in the north-east, but those groups, supported by local churches, credit unions, parish councils and community action groups, are the ones being helped in such circumstances.
John Robertson
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says to a certain extent, but they cannot do enough. The Government have to take a lead. Perhaps he will agree with my final points, because I am a great believer in giving solutions as well as criticism.
As I have said, many people do not turn on the heating because of the cost. The Government’s report shows that 7,800 people die because of the winter cold. The energy barons are profiteering as far as I am concerned. The big six doubled their profit margins last year alone, and the Government have totally failed to act, claiming that the market is competitive, which it simply is not. I am pleased to say that in 2015, if Labour is elected, as I am sure we will be, energy bills will be frozen.
The energy companies are scaremongering, saying that they will turn the lights off and that investment will stop. They could manipulate a black-out, so a real hard-nosed regulator is needed now, just in case. A family in my constituency will save £112 a year under Labour’s idea, but that is not enough on its own. Energy prices have been rising far too much for far too long, but it would be a start. The fact that Co-operative Energy backs the move shows that bills do not need to rise. All the companies could give contracts lasting for two years. Saying there would be a black-out due to the price freeze is absolutely spurious. There is no way they can justify saying that.
Despite having 98% of the market, the big six provide only 47% of investment. So where exactly is the money from successive price rises going? The Government, as the previous Conservative Government did with BT, need to support new companies in the sector and ensure that at least 25% of provision is in the hands of companies other than the big six. That was a Conservative policy in the 1980s. I spoke against it back then, but I can see the need for it now, particularly for the energy companies.
The big question today is: what are the Government going to do this winter and next? Will my constituents be left helpless for another year, watching their bills go up by an expected 10% this year and probably twice again before the general election? We want people to have a better life, and this Tory-led Government want big business to make the difference. That is not happening in the energy sector. The Government are unwilling to sort out energy prices. We will have to wait until 2015 for a Labour Government to do that, but perhaps the Minister could consider cold weather payments. I was shocked to find that nobody in my constituency received a cold weather payment last year or the year before. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has acknowledged that that might be due to unclaimed pension credit, although saying that is different from acting on it. More can be done to get pensioners on to that benefit. What is actually being done?
The key reason is that the conditions on these payments are much too strict. The £25 is automatically allocated if the weather has been, or is forecast to be, an average of 0° C over a seven-day period. That is extremely cold and for an extremely long time. Last winter was bitter. In the weeks leading up to other parts of the country being given the payment in March this year, there was a seven-day period in my constituency when the average temperature was 1.57° C. During that time, the thermometer recorded much lower temperatures—minus 3° C, minus 4° C and even minus 8° C one day. I am talking about record low temperatures, but no payment was made.
It is estimated that there are about 8,000 extra deaths for every 1° C drop in the average temperature. We need to have a good look at how the system works. How many people have to die before anything is done? Perhaps we could look at raising the temperature threshold or, as the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers suggests, basing it on heating degree days. In my constituency, winters are long. The weather was particularly cold in April last year, but cold weather payments go up only to 31 March. Why? Will the Minister do an impact assessment on the effects of those cut-off points?
What is the Minister actually doing to save lives? The Government’s Hills report told us of the thousands of people dying due to fuel poverty. How long will it be until Ministers take notice? How many lives will be lost? These payments are important because, as a recent study showed, poorer households reduce their food expenditure by 7.2% in cold weather shocks. I commend the Prime Minister for making the £25 payment permanent, but I believe it should be higher. The website energyhelpline.com estimates that, on cold days, families could be spending as much as £20 a day on energy. With energy bills rising, that is certain to increase. We have been told the payment will be set at £25 for the whole Parliament. Clearly, that is not enough.
My last point assumes that people will turn on their heating in cold weather. Elderly people, in particular, worry about turning on their heating, because of the cost. However, the winter fuel payment not only provides the financial support pensioners need to turn the heating on, but gives them confidence that they can afford to keep it on for as long as they need to.
John Robertson
I will carry on, if that is all right with the hon. Gentleman. I want to give the Minister a lot of time to answer a lot of questions.
I am proud that the Labour Government brought these payments in and consistently looked to increase them. I am pleased the coalition Government honoured our 2010 Budget for that winter, making one-off £100 or £50 payments to various people, but that was not continued. Those payments were crucial to helping pensioners afford to keep warm. Expenditure on them is likely to decrease from £2.2 billion to £2 billion by 2017-18. I am confident we could ensure that those who receive the payments get enough to cover the prices we are likely to see in the years ahead.
How are the Government publicising these and other support measures? I fear the emphasis in terms of spending may be misplaced. Considering that the firm used to advertise the green deal was fined £45,000 for nuisance calls, the advertising budget could surely be spent better. Perhaps it could be spent on advertising offline to reach all vulnerable people and to highlight the different support measures available: winter fuel payments, cold weather payments, the warm home discount, Warm Front, Nest, the energy assistance package and the priority services register—the list goes on. I worry that those who really need help do not know what options are available to them, whether they are eligible or how to apply for them.
I realise that some of those support measures fall outside the Minister’s Department, but that is part of the problem. Do Departments actually talk to each other? Do the Government talk to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly or even Glasgow city council, which looks after my area, because some of these measures are their responsibility? Perhaps there is not enough joined-up work. We need real leadership, but I fear we will not get it from this incompetent Department.
We have seen this new Energy Minister saying different things from the Department, such as on Ofgem’s warning about power cuts. Our Energy Secretary also does not get on with his staff, making huge severance payments as a result. We really need someone to take the lead on this issue—a Government poverty champion. They could bring together the different issues from all Departments that go towards tackling poverty, and they could make sure those issues got the attention they deserve. If the Minister is unable to find anybody in the Government, let me put myself forward for the job, because I am sure I could do better than some of his colleagues.
I hope this winter is not a cold one, but we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. I am here today to make sure our energy supply is secure over this winter and the next. I am here to make sure my constituents and others have all the access they can get to financial help. Sadly, we cannot rely on the energy companies helping their vulnerable customers, who are struggling more and more with the cost of living. We also cannot rely on this incompetent Government to stand up to these bullies. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I must congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing this important debate on energy policy and preparing for the winter.
We all recognise that we need to be reassured, and that we need our constituents to be reassured, as the chilly winter months approach. It is obviously difficult to predict what kind of winter this will be, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and others attending that the Government are confident in our energy capacity, that policies are in place to protect the most vulnerable and that we are promoting long-term energy-efficiency solutions for the winters to come. I think the hon. Gentleman said that prices had risen by £300 under this Government, but I remind him that they have risen more slowly in the first three years of this Government than they did in the last five years of the previous Labour Government.
Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, on margin and capacity. He will have studied the assessments made by the National Grid and Ofgem. Those assessments say that the margin would tighten if nothing were done, but things are, of course, being done. Things are being done in the short term better to balance the system. Ofgem is consulting on a number of measures to ensure that there is better balance on the demand and the supply side. As the hon. Gentleman himself said, the Government plan to run the first capacity market—the reserve supply. We are ready to run the auction next year, so that supply can be available in 2018. He asked when further details of the capacity market would be made available; that will be in the next few weeks, before the legislation leaves the House of Lords.
On the outlook, the National Grid assessment is that the demand for energy this winter will be broadly similar to last year’s. We are not immune to the impacts of prolonged severe weather. A combination of a diverse range of import capacity and a mixture of storage types has performed well over the past few years, and we expect it to do so again this year. We expect electricity demand this winter to remain flat at current levels, and we have significant spare gas capacity, as the Holford and Aldbrough storage sites increase their delivery networks. Last winter, gas demand was around 290 million cubic metres a day. Our gas supply infrastructure can deliver more than twice that amount with high levels of secure flow from Norway and the continent.
John Robertson
It is good to hear what the Minister says, but the fact is that all we have heard of late is people saying that we will have black-outs. Are those companies playing politics because they do not like the Government’s policy? I agree with what the Minister has said, so why are we suddenly in black-out territory?
Michael Fallon
We are hearing about black-outs because of the totally irresponsible pledge of the Labour party to freeze prices artificially. The pledge, if it is credible, would have the immediate effect of discouraging precisely the investment in energy infrastructure that the hon. Gentleman and I want. That is why we read about black-outs, but it is a matter for his party to clarify. It needs to reassure us on how there could be a freeze without bringing to a halt the investment that there has been so far.
Michael Fallon
I think I had better make some progress, because the hon. Member for Glasgow North West raised several points that he wants answered.
I will deal first with the green deal, the energy efficiency programme. I will not comment on the sleeping patterns of the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), although I note what he said. We encourage people to think not just about keeping warm this winter, but about winter-proofing their homes for the future through a range of policies—not simply the green deal, but also the energy companies obligation.
The green deal is the Government’s most ambitious energy efficiency programme, and is designed to deliver improvements to homes and businesses throughout the country on an unprecedented scale and over a much longer time frame than a particular Parliament or public spending period. It is an ambitious 20 to 30-year programme. So far, there are more than 100 green deal providers and more than 2,000 individuals authorised to carry out assessments. Some 70,000 assessments have been done. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West asked specifically whether the interest rate was too high. Only 8% of households that have decided not to install green deal measures have said that it was because the finance package was unattractive.
Guy Opperman
Does the Minister agree that the energy policy is being affected by green deal funding and the domestic renewable heat incentive programme, which, certainly in Northumberland, has had tremendous take-up? Businesses such as the Centre for Green Energy in my constituency are expanding because of that policy.
Michael Fallon
I am glad to hear the good news from Hexham, because it is important to understand that those programmes are now up and running, and helping homes and businesses.
Alongside the green deal, there is the energy companies obligation, which has the twin objectives of reducing carbon emissions and tackling fuel poverty. Nearly 200,000 measures under the ECO have already been installed, with more than 60% delivered in low-income households in England, Scotland, and Wales. Alongside the green deal, the ECO carbon saving obligation supports the installation of measures for hard-to-treat situations—cavity or solid walls, and so on—which would otherwise be difficult to finance, but which are long-term energy efficient solutions. That is worth some £700 million a year.
The affordable warmth obligation—another part of the ECO—which provides targeted assistance to low-income, vulnerable people in private tenure households, through investment incentives to landlords, is worth about £350 million a year. That has already resulted in about 40,000 boilers being installed. In July we were already delivering 70% more heating measures through the affordable warmth obligation than were being delivered under the average rate of delivery for Warm Front, its predecessor policy. Finally, the carbon-saving community obligation, worth about £190 million a year, is supporting low-income communities, with at least 15% of funding delivering energy efficiency, particularly in rural areas. As of the end of July, we had already delivered more than 60,000 energy efficiency measures.
In addition, energy suppliers are supporting low-income and vulnerable households through our warm home discount scheme, which is worth £1.1 billion up to 2015 and is expected to support about 2 million households a year up to 2016. It is composed of four elements. The first is a core group, whose members automatically receive a £135 discount on their bills. Consumers who are either under 75 and not receiving the savings credit part of pension credit, or over 75 on the qualifying date and in receipt of a pension credit, are eligible. The discount rises to £140 in 2014-15. For older consumers who have less access to technology, that automatic payment is a big advantage. We expect this year’s automatic payments to be made by Christmas. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of payments will be made this month, giving people confidence that they can afford to turn their heating up when the cold weather sets in. The broader group also targets low-income and vulnerable consumers, but provides energy suppliers with the opportunity to set the eligibility criteria, which must be approved by Ofgem. The third element is a legacy spend group for suppliers to continue to provide support for customers who had previously been on discounted tariffs and rebates.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West raised the matter of winter fuel and cold weather payments. We are committed to supporting pensioners through the winter months, and we continue to provide winter fuel payments; £300 will be offered automatically this winter to Britons aged 80 and over, and £200 will be offered to households with a resident above the current state pension age for a woman. Last winter, more than 12.5 million pensioners received winter fuel payments, which delivered £2.15 billion in support. If the average temperature for a region is recorded or forecast to be 0° C or below for more than a week, pensioners and those receiving income-related benefits will receive a cold weather payment of £25 for each period. Payments are made on recorded and forecast temperatures, ensuring that those on prepayment meters are proactively supported. Last winter, 5.8 million cold weather payments were made, delivering more than £140 million in support.
Beyond basic financial concerns, cold weather is a major public health challenge. Any extra death because of cold weather is to be regretted. We believe that local authorities are best placed to address local public health issues, and £5.4 billion in funding has been made available from 2013 to 2015 in England. Public Health England will publish the third annual cold weather plan in the coming weeks, and will work in collaboration with other Departments, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It will set out several levels of response, which will encourage year-round planning.
I have not had time to answer all the hon. Gentleman’s detailed questions. I hope that he will allow me to respond to those in writing. However, I assure him that the Government are committed to keeping the lights on. There is an investment programme, encouraging investment in new sources of home-grown energy, and a framework in place to ensure that those in the most need are protected during the colder months.
Abortion Act
(10 years, 7 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 David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I know that you share my concerns in this debate. I welcome everyone who is here for the debate and I thank the Ministers for coming. Their presence shows the seriousness and concern that are felt about the issue.
The debate has been triggered by The Daily Telegraph’s investigation into gender-selection abortion last year and the subsequent police investigation and decision by the Crown Prosecution Service on 5 September this year that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the doctors who were found to have contravened the Abortion Act 1967. The Director of Public Prosecutions has now given his detailed reasons, following a review of the public interest factors for or against prosecution.
Concerns about the authorisation of gender-selection abortion and the lack of any prosecution have been widely felt in the House and among the public. I am grateful for the support from hon. Members of all parties, despite our usual divide and the divide over the abortion issue. Indeed, 50 signed a letter to The Daily Telegraph. They were united in calling for clarity from the Attorney-General about the policy on contraventions of the Abortion Act. We look forward to that clarity coming from the Attorney-General today.
Keir Starmer, the DPP, recognised in his article on Monday that
“this country has a strong tradition of open and transparent criminal justice, and the probing and debating of prosecutorial decisions is an integral part to that tradition.”
Today I want to follow that fine tradition of probing and debating. The conclusion I have come to, supported by the DPP’s statement, is that the policy on prosecutions or offences contravening the Abortion Act is unclear, and, sadly, largely unenforceable. The DPP has helpfully shone a prosecutorial light on the practice of abortion where doctors have no direct contact with patients, where authorisation forms can be pre-signed, and where assessments concerning physical or mental health risk can be treated as routinely as questions of choice.
Some will argue that the issue of gender-selection abortion is simply a restriction of choice. Ann Furedi is the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the leading provider of abortion services. It has some 40 clinics in England, Wales and Scotland and performs 60,000 abortions a year. She says that sex selection may not be grounds for abortion, but there is no legal requirement to deny a woman an abortion if she has a sex preference, provided that the legal grounds are still met. Indeed, Ann Furedi went so far as to say it would be “wrong” to refuse to consider an abortion request when gender is cited as a reason. Those are the words not of the Chinese or Indian pregnancy advisory service but of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, advocating gender selection abortions and the removal of barriers to abortion. The issue is worldwide: The Economist recently published an article describing the 100 million abortions, which it described as “gendercide”, that are done on the basis of gender throughout the world. Concern is shared throughout the House about the need for proper gender equality and respect for basic rights.
When I heard about the investigation and the Care Quality Commission investigations that followed, I could not believe that such things could be happening in this country. The words I have quoted and the lack of any prosecutorial decision—there have been a handful of prosecutions for abortion contraventions in the past 10 years—give a green light to abortion on demand, which flies in the face of the Abortion Act and the intention of parliamentarians in 1967. Some 98% of abortions tick the box of mental health risk, but if we are honest, the truth is that that covers a multitude of reasons, and one of those reasons might include gender.
The DPP himself has referred in his statement to a programme manager at the Department of Health who indicated that many doctors feel that forcing a woman to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy would cause considerable stress and anxiety. The corollary of that is justifying the mental health grounds. It follows, therefore, that in practical terms we have in this country abortion on demand. I recognise that the Attorney-General is focused on the prosecution policy and will not trespass into the wider health policies, but my question is relevant. How does this reality impact on the policy towards prosecutions? How can it be in the public interest—Ann Furedi has raised this question—to prosecute contraventions of the Abortion Act when there is such a gap between the law and practice?
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The key issue is about the definition of the mental health issues and the bar that is set for them to be understood to be a meaningful reason for an abortion. That can be a catch-all for an inclination on any grounds to have an abortion. If it is not set clearly and applied appropriately, it will result in what my hon. Friend has set out.
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend makes a good point. A wider issue is transparency and honesty around definitions and assessments. It is an issue because 99.6% of the 98% who relied on the grounds of mental health risk are those that this applies to. The investigation and the reasoning have highlighted the lack of guidance and how it is disparate across the country. We need further information. We are in the unknowns, because there is a lack of data and proper information. We do not know enough about the assessments in relation to mental health grounds. Perhaps the doctor is not even present to make the assessment.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I shall call him my hon. Friend this afternoon—for securing this debate. Following on from the previous intervention—I think he is starting to allude to it—if the doctors concerned are not even meeting the woman who is presenting and requiring an abortion, how are they to judge whether the barrier is met?
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend—he is very much my hon. Friend in these matters—is right. In the case that brought about the investigation, both GPs failed to carry out an in-depth mental or physical assessment of the patient. One GP even claimed that he thought the patient was lying. Instead of taking it a stage further and delving further, they agreed to authorise the abortion. In one of the cases that have been reported, one of the GPs brazenly said that it was “like female infanticide”.
We need to get to the bottom of what the law is for, and that is the focus of this debate. We will then draw attention to the issue of appropriate guidance. So what is the law on gender selection abortion? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the outgoing public health Minister—I welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is here—wrote to me on 3 October; it was one of her last letters as public health Minister. She wrote to say unequivocally, and it has been repeated by the Secretary of State for Health, that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is unacceptable and illegal. This has not changed. I therefore look forward to the Attorney-General making the obvious point and confirming the policy position. However, there is some doubt, because Ann Furedi, the BPAS chief executive, says that the law is “silent” on the question. Indeed, the DPP in his letter on 7 October said quite properly that the law does not expressly prohibit gender-specific abortions. Rather, it prohibits any abortion carried out without two medical practitioners having formed a view in good faith that the health risks of continuing with the pregnancy outweigh those of termination.
The public might be surprised that such a prohibition is not expressed and that it is not clear. The British Medical Association takes it a stage further, aside from the issue of whether there is an express prohibition. In the BMA’s words,
“there may be circumstances, in which termination of pregnancy on grounds of fetal sex would be lawful”.
That is in the BMA’s handbook of ethics and law and the guidance that goes to GPs. The concern about policy—this is my question to the Attorney-General—is whether the law is clear or silent. In particular, we are concerned about the practice emanating from the policy, which in effect is to turn a blind eye to contraventions of the Abortion Act.
Robert Flello
I am listening carefully to a well-measured and thoughtful speech. Perhaps Members will forgive my simplicity in such things, but is it not the starting point for any position that any termination of an unborn child is infanticide, and that the 1967 Act gives specific situations in which it is not? Therefore, surely the default position must be the original position, as it was before the 1967 Act.
Mr Burrowes
That is the position in principle: the Abortion Act provides effective safeguard and defence against the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. We have a gap, therefore, and the issue is, where it has been exposed—rarely do such cases see the light of day—why, when the evidential threshold has been reached, is it not considered in the public interest to take things a stage further, into court?
In the particular cases brought to light by The Daily Telegraph investigation, the DPP and the CPS give much weight to the law giving
“a wide discretion to doctors to determine when a risk to the health and wellbeing of a pregnant woman exists”.
The CPS stated that it was up to doctors “to interpret the law” and, flowing from that, that the cases were
“better dealt with by the GMC rather than by prosecution.”
The gap I referred to is, therefore, in effect being determined by doctors, with their wide discretion to interpret the law—if a problem is exposed, it is for the professional body to investigate. As a politician, to me that seems to be passing the buck—the responsibility for enforcing the law—from the courts to doctors, thereby second-guessing the intentions of Parliament on enforcement.
As a criminal defence lawyer, I looked more deeply into that decision. The reasoning seems to be for an evidential rather than a public interest factor against prosecution—the public interest factor was the focus of the review. The CPS statement seemed to be going into what the DPP himself admits were the overlapping considerations of the evidential and public interest tests. The main basis of the DPP’s reasoning for not supporting a prosecution—which went a stage further and, with great respect, I suggest perhaps moved the goalposts towards the evidential side of things—was the evidential difficulties arising in the case, which I think can be applied generally and are of general concern in all such cases. Although the evidential test in that particular case had been passed, my concern is that the wider public interest appears to have been sidelined. That is not only my view, although I have 20 or so years of experience in the criminal law and in dealing with cases where it is difficult to detect a crime.
What is the public interest factor in such cases? The former DPP, Lord Macdonald, drew attention to that point, saying that there is “strong public interest” in prosecuting crimes that are hard to detect, such as sex-selection abortion. The onus is therefore much more on looking into what is in the public interest when so few cases are exposed and where we recognise that there are evidential difficulties—perhaps inherent—in the current system, given the lack of guidance. Does that not make the case even more strongly for a prosecution being in the public interest?
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing a subject of such huge interest and importance before us. What impact does it have on public perception of the law and its integrity? Any effect can spread to all sorts of other areas, such as assisted suicide. Once the public’s perception is that the law is not enforced, as it has been in one or two cases, confidence in the law’s ability to deal with highly complex issues disappears.
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In cases of assisted suicide, the DPP has come forward with guidance to provide some clarity, and that was carefully worked through. One of my requests to the Attorney-General is to reflect on what has happened and, with the DPP, to come forward with clear guidance to ensure that confidence in the integrity of the law that many say has been lost. I also ask the Attorney-General to comment on the former DPP’s view. In addition, it must be in the public interest, in policy terms, for such cases, in which there has been an obvious abuse of abortion legislation—the cases are unusual and rarely see the light of day, because they are not readily detected—and in which the evidential threshold has been passed, to be seen in court.
The danger now is that the decision by the DPP, following on from the CPS, sets a precedent—no prosecutions under the Abortion Act without clearer evidence. Where will we get that clearer evidence? Do we now have a new evidential test for abortion-related offences, which can rarely be satisfied due to the lack of the different factors affecting this, not least the lack of professional guidance from doctors?
Another concern about the CPS decision not to find public interest to prosecute was the deferral to the GMC to enforce the breach of law. That was particularly apparent in the original decision of the CPS, which saw that as a key factor. The last time that I checked on enforcement of the Abortion Act, it was for the courts to do, and not for a disciplinary committee of GPs, which was never mentioned or even suggested in 1967. That option is certainly not in statute. This is specifically prescribed in statute as a contravention, and the law should be enforced. I trust that the Attorney-General will make it clear today that criminal sanctions cannot be avoided because of professional status—making a point about integrity—and that applies across the board with other instances of criminality involving the professions. Plainly, everyone is equal under the law, although some of us would say that that is not the case for an unborn child.
The CPS decision to drop the case and to leave it to the GMC highlights the gap between abortion law and practice. That must be filled somehow, at least by guidance through GPs, but also by reform of the legislation. I therefore welcome the assurance that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, then an Under-Secretary of State for Health, that the Department of Health has requested that the chief medical officer issue guidance. I look forward to it, and hope that there will be proper consultation on it.
Such guidance is needed not only because of the cases involving GPs highlighted by The Daily Telegraph, but also because of the CQC investigation in July last year. Fourteen NHS hospitals throughout England failed inspections, all involving the photocopying of doctor’s signatures and other breaches. For example, Rochdale hospital’s regular routine was to pre-sign all abortion forms—not only in one case—and the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow used the photocopied signature of a doctor for so long that it was well beyond the time that he had been employed as a doctor or could have had any knowledge of the cases. Such is the extent of the abuse and breaches of the Abortion Act. Such malpractice would not be tolerated by patients or others in the prescription of antibiotics or common painkillers, for example, and yet a blind eye is being turned in abortion cases.
The scandal is not only about malpractice, however; those hospitals were not referred to the police for investigation, and no CQC investigation has resulted in any prosecution to date. Why is that? What is going on? Will the Attorney-General respond about the policy? The system is open to abuse, to dishonesty and to criminality, which, without reform, are going unchecked and unprosecuted.
Why was the DPP not more involved at an earlier stage in the initial CPS decision on whether to prosecute, given the significant public interest? Was the Attorney-General consulted on that decision, given the public policy considerations, and if not, why not? Will guidance be provided to the CPS for consideration of future contraventions of the Abortion Act? Will a review consider whether the safeguards set down by Parliament, in good faith, are being properly applied in 2013 and still have full force in law?
On the subject of public interest, which is what we are discussing today, I want to thank The Daily Telegraph, which has been acting in the public interest by investigating and exposing the problems with the Abortion Act, which are of concern to many, on all sides of the fence on the issue of abortion, in particular because such problems might have led to sex-selection abortion. Without such investigative reporting on behalf of the public interest, there would probably be no one to complain, and the issue would go by the bye. The reality is that the unborn child has no complaint process. There is a lack of transparent information, and no real safeguards. It is up to Parliament to deal with that, and we must seize on it in this debate and beyond by speaking up for the voiceless, ensuring that we respect life and at least to ensure that the Abortion Act contains safeguards with proper meaning and proper force.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Five hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and I do not want to impose a time limit so I hope that colleagues will be mindful of others, given that I want the wind-ups to start at 3.40.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on bringing this important matter to the Chamber. I fully support what he said, and the number of hon. Members present indicates the amount of moral and physical support in the House. The legislation in Northern Ireland is different from that on the mainland and makes procuring an abortion more difficult. I will explain the Northern Ireland perspective and add my support to the hon. Gentleman and what he seeks to achieve.
It is a good thing that we have that legislation in Northern Ireland and we do not want it changed to what exists on the mainland. Whether I agree with the law, the fact remains that it is the law and it should be obeyed. That is how our society works, and abortion law should be no different. Indeed, it should be more strictly enforced because it involves something as precious as human life.
During my time in the House and having got to know more about what happens on the mainland, I have become more and more disturbed about reports indicating that some registered doctors have allowed abortions to take place because the baby’s sex was not what the parents wanted. That is disgraceful and it angers me and many other people. It blows my mind that, after years of looking down on the Chinese for disregarding female children, we are now taking that a step further, if we follow the hon. Gentleman’s line of thought, and aborting their life. In the House, hon. Members individually and collectively as a Parliament have been outspoken about the horrific abuse of human rights in China, but it now seems that we are no different when we allow the abortion of children based on nothing more than their gender. As DNA techniques improve, I wonder whether parents who are unhappy—I do not mean this facetiously—about eye or hair colour may test for that and abort a baby at will. Where will that end? Is that the message we want to send? It is certainly not the message I want to send, and it is not one that many of the Members who will participate in this debate want to send.
I have said before in this place that 1 believe in human rights. I am on the record as having spoken on many human rights issues for Christians, for those with different religious beliefs, and for oppressed minorities. I believe in the most basic human right, which is the right to life. I believe that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and the vulnerable, and I seek to uphold that protection. It is a terrible shame that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not take the same view.
A decision not to prosecute when there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution is disgusting. When an opportunity has arisen to make an example and to set the bar high, as it should be, the DPP has chosen not to prosecute those who have acted outside the law by offering to abort children based on gender. It follows that the DPP’s belief is that the law does not need to be enforced and that he can pick and choose legislation that must be followed. The House should send a strong message about that. I thought the issue was for law-makers, but having heard about what is happening, I must be mistaken.
Abortion is emotive and always will be. How could it not be when it involves the most vulnerable in our community and their protection? I can understand that it may not be the role of the DPP to be emotional—or immoral— but nor is it his role to determine what is an acceptable or unacceptable breach of a law that was for good reason designed to restrict the use of abortion. Its purpose has been disregarded.
In 2011, the total number of abortions in England and Wales was 189,931, and approximately 2,729 took place at up to 20 weeks, 702 after 20 weeks, 763 after 21 weeks, 553 after 22 weeks and 565 after 23 weeks. Of that total, 778 were under ground (e), which covers substantial risk of abnormalities, as to be seriously handicapped, and exceptional circumstances. The majority of remaining abortions were carried out under ground (c), for largely social reasons, such as the after-effects of recreational sex—a term I do not use lightly. Are we now to add another category that the baby’s sex was not as desired? That is preposterous, yet the DPP would, in his decision, allow that to be a valid reason. Every law student knows the benefits of a test case. When something is not tested, it is seen to be approved. Does the Attorney-General approve of that? Perhaps he will indicate where he stands on the DPP’s role.
It is abundantly clear that there must be a tightening of the law in Great Britain to ensure that it is not acceptable for a doctor to sign off an abortion procedure without even seeing the patient. I urge that tighter regimes, such as those in Northern Ireland, are brought back to the mainland to ensure that the open door of abortion is closed. That would be good news.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that problems often arise because of lack of clarity and understanding of the law? In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the issue is often lack of clarity and understanding about what is and is not permissible. Greater clarity would benefit all concerned on either side of the argument.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Clearly, he is right. The problem seems to be that the DPP is not providing clarity. The law is clear, and I hope that the Attorney-General will provide clarity on that.
With its more liberal abortion law, the UK mainland has a higher rate of maternal deaths, and that speaks volumes. It is clear that Northern Ireland’s law to restrict abortion to save the mother’s life works well to save the lives of both mother and child. I cannot stand by and allow the DPP to send his message unchecked because it is important to put the issue on the record. I wholeheartedly support my colleague, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, today and ask that the right message is sent from this place to those who prosecute. We deplore the fact that any medical professional would ever stretch the current legislation to allow selective abortion. The GMC has intervened, but that is not enough. The law was not designed for that and it was determined that that was not the desire of this place. We demand not only that the DPP and Attorney-General respond on that decision, but that they tighten up the law so that can never happen again. We seek that clarification today.
Some hon. Members believe that abortion is an acceptable choice for a woman, but it should not impact on the fact that the DPP, sometimes with the help of local police officers, has sometimes been quick to prosecute those who stand outside clinics with pictures of fetuses urging people to rethink their decision. Something is wrong with a law that does not enforce the existing abortion rules but allows prosecution of those who are against what is taking place.
Is that fair, right or proper? I was blessed with a good mother, who often said, “If you don’t stand up for something, you will fall for anything.” We must not fall down the slippery slope that has been created, and that should be made crystal clear today. I support what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, and I hope that the Minister will provide reassurance.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) must be congratulated on securing this debate, which is extremely topical and follows a great deal of reporting on this very serious issue. It is virtually impossible to be prosecuted in this country for carrying out an illegal abortion. I have found out that between 2003 to 2007, for instance, only seven people were prosecuted. It would be interesting to have more up-to-date information from the Attorney-General when he responds.
The real issue for Parliament and for this debate is whether Parliament makes the laws, or whether the Crown Prosecution Service does. This Parliament makes the laws, and clearly when it framed the Abortion Act—whatever one’s views on the Act’s merit or otherwise—it never envisaged a situation where there would be gender selection in this country. In my view, it is outrageous that in Britain today the most dangerous position to be in is that of a female fetus. That is completely unacceptable. It should not be tolerated in a free society; we should not tolerate it.
The actions of the CPS have been extraordinary. It conducted a 19-month inquiry and has conceded that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a prosecution with a “realistic prospect of conviction.” Jenny Hopkins, deputy chief Crown prosecutor for London, said that
“on balance there is enough evidence to justify bringing proceedings…This is a case-specific decision on the individual facts; it is not a policy decision of general application”.
I think we need clarification from the Attorney-General. If Parliament has framed an Act, and there is enough evidence to prosecute under it, why has the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to prosecute?
The decision not to prosecute the two doctors in question may not specifically be a
“policy decision of general application”—
that is what the CPS is talking about—but it certainly seems indicative to us of a pre-existing policy not to prosecute. Putting it simply, the CPS has found that we have an Act of Parliament, and there is enough evidence to prosecute, but it has decided that is not in the public interest to do so. Why is it up to the CPS to determine what is in the public interest?
I remind the Chamber what The Daily Telegraph found. One doctor said:
“I don’t ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a termination.”
Another doctor was also filmed agreeing to conduct the procedure, even though he told the woman:
“It’s like female infanticide, isn’t it?”
Do we want that sort of thing to go on in this country?
The CPS claims that prosecuting the two doctors in question was not “in the public interest”. I believe that the CPS is simply wrong. It is in the public interest that laws are enforced, and if a law is against the public interest, it must be changed through the normal legislative process. If we have not framed the Abortion Act in a sufficiently clear way, it should be looked at again.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good case about what is in the public interest. Is he aware that India has 37 million more men than women, and that what we are debating today is the cause of that? Does he agree that whether that arises from the abortion of female fetuses or female infanticide, and whether it takes place in Bombay, Beijing or Birmingham, it is wrong?
Sir Edward Leigh
Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend—it is quite wrong. India’s 2011 census shows 7.1 million fewer girls than boys under the age of six—a gap that has almost doubled over two decades. Rather than a function of villages being backward or poor, this is a phenomenon that grows more pronounced, apparently, as Indians grow richer. Studies show that wealthier, better-educated Indians are more likely to have boys, because they can afford the newish tools of ultrasound and gender-specific abortion. In Mumbai, some clinics market their services as cheaper than dowries:
“Better 500 rupees now than 500,000 later”,
as one advert put it. We all know that weddings are expensive, but it is a shocking statement. The message is abhorrent in our eyes, and our instinct is not to look at the issue at all, but this is going on, and we do not want it going on in our country.
The General Medical Council is being strong on the issue, and we must commend it for investigating the claims of illegal activity by doctors. We welcome the statements and strong words of GMC chief executive, Niall Dickson:
“Doctors who do not comply with the law relating to abortion are putting their registration and careers at risk”.
I put it to the Attorney-General that given the infinitesimally low rate of prosecutions for illegal abortions, and given what the director of the CPS has said, we live in a situation where doctors, frankly, can get away with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, spoke most forcibly about pre-photocopied forms going out, but it goes further than that. We know, from The Daily Telegraph investigation, that doctors are specifically, personally cognisant that they are committing female infanticide. The issue for this House—for a liberal, western society—is whether that is tolerable. I believe that it is not, and that it is now up to Parliament and the Government to take action. I look forward to the Attorney-General’s response.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I speak as someone who firmly believes in the right of women to access a safe termination of pregnancy, but who does not believe that not liking the sex of a child is reasonable grounds to do so. I also speak as someone who has experience of sitting with many women over a number of years, counselling them and listening to their views, as they attempt to take the most difficult decision of their lives.
To help hon. Members, I have brought copies of certificate A, which is the form that doctors have to complete prior to an abortion—perhaps the Doorkeeper can pass some around. On certificate A, two doctors have to sign to say:
“We hereby certify that we are of the opinion, formed in good faith”—
then it lists a number of criteria that must be fulfilled. How on earth can any doctor form an opinion in good faith if they have signed a form, undated and unnamed, and it has then been photocopied? That goes to the heart of one reason why a prosecution could not be brought in the most recent cases, which was the issue of the variation in clinical practice. Where there was what seems to me like very clear-cut, straightforward malpractice, a decision was made not to prosecute. As a result, it has become more difficult to prosecute in the cases of alleged gender-selection abortion.
Will the Attorney-General, in his summing up, say whether the original decision could be revisited, or at the very least whether very clear guidance could be issued to doctors, saying that the practice is completely unacceptable and that, in future, they could expect to be prosecuted for it? The Care Quality Commission’s decision to deliver no more than a slap on the wrist was disgraceful. The CQC should be there to ensure, beyond doubt, that if clinics carry out the practice in future, they will be closed down, because it goes not only against the spirit of the law, but, in my view, the letter of the law, as set out clearly in certificate A.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
In her distinguished medical career, did my hon. Friend think, at any time, that because she could be taken to the General Medical Council for a failing of practice, she was exempt from the law of the land on a matter such as this?
Dr Wollaston
Absolutely not, but I think that all right-thinking medical professionals, on viewing this form, would reject pre-signing it, and would find it completely abhorrent that someone could pre-sign it and allow an unnamed, undated form to be photocopied. That point is very important. We also saw the scale of this; it was happening at 14 locations, so it was not an isolated event.
The guidance from the BMA’s handbook of ethics and law, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred to, is also part of the problem. The guidance begins:
“The Association believes that it is normally unethical to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of fetal sex alone except in cases of severe x-linked disorders.”
So far, so good. However, the guidance goes on to say:
“The pregnant woman’s views about the effect of the sex of the fetus on her situation and on her existing children should nevertheless be carefully considered. In some circumstances doctors may come to the conclusion that the effects are so severe as to provide legal and ethical justification for a termination. They should be prepared to justify the decision if challenged.”
That is wholly unacceptable. A woman may feel under huge pressure from her family to abort a fetus of the wrong sex, but doctors should not collude in the family’s point of view and assist in a termination just because the situation may be stressful for the woman. Rather, they should explore the reasons for that pressure with the woman and protect her from undue pressure from her family; they should certainly not just collude in such attitudes, which reinforce a misogynist point of view that daughters are of less value than sons. That harms not only women worldwide, but all societies where this practice is common, including the men in those societies. There is a straightforward, strong issue of equality here.
As has been said, there is no specific exclusion for gender-specific termination in certificate A. However, we have a precedent for such an exclusion in paragraph 11 of schedule 2 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which refers to sex selection when embryos are implanted. The Act makes it clear that, other than in cases where we are trying to prevent a severe inherited medical condition, gender selection is unacceptable in the implantation of embryos. I wonder whether now is the time for an amendment to the Abortion Act to make that explicit and to put the issue beyond any doubt.
Another issue with certificate A is the wording of category A, which refers to the possibility that
“the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated”.
The statistics for maternal mortality for 2006-08 show that 107 women died from conditions directly related to pregnancy, whereas two women died as a result of complications following sepsis after the termination of a pregnancy. Will the Attorney-General clarify whether it would be possible, on a technicality, for any doctor to carry out any abortion on demand because of that difference? Technically, it could be argued that every abortion could satisfy section A of certificate A.
It is perhaps time for us to issue greater clarification of what would constitute unacceptable grounds. It is perhaps time for us to have a wider debate about that. As I said, I speak as someone who firmly believes in a woman’s right to access safe abortion, but not to access it on grounds that, in my view and the view, I think, of the vast majority of the public, would harm women’s rights and make misogynist attitudes more acceptable.
In a number of cases, we have seen that people have a natural tendency to shy away from awkward situations. We saw that in Rochdale, in different circumstances. When we drill down and look in greater detail at the possibility that gender selection is happening in this country, we see that, although there does not appear to be a distortion in the gender statistics overall, that could be the case in certain communities. We should not, therefore, take the view that these things are not happening in the UK, because they could well be, and we need to put the issue absolutely beyond doubt in law.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Honourable Members, has it come to this? People in this country have spent 40 years fighting discrimination, but no action is to be taken when one of the most blatant forms of discrimination—the deprivation of life on account of being a girl—is highlighted. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on bringing forward the debate, and I entirely agree with him that the time has come to review the moral, legal, ethical and practical framework in which the Abortion Act operates.
This is not the only form of discrimination against the unborn child in this country. Over the course of more than a year, the cross-party parliamentary inquiry into abortion on the grounds of disability, which I had the privilege of chairing and which published its report in July, took evidence from 300 witnesses. The full report can be seen at the website abortionanddisability.org. Just as people are shocked that abortion can be allowed on the grounds of sex, people we spoke to were shocked to discover, in an age when we go to extensive lengths to accept, support and respect disabled people, seeing them as wholly equal, that a child can be aborted right up to the moment of birth on the grounds that they may be disabled. In contrast to the situation for non-disabled babies, there is no 24-week time limit. Indeed, we heard that many expectant mothers felt funnelled into having an abortion when they were told that they were expecting a potentially disabled child.
The inquiry highlights the lack of clarity in the abortion regulations about what constitutes a serious disability. Some mothers who were told they were expecting a disabled child told us the diagnosis was wrong. Others were told that abortions would be allowed on the grounds of a cleft palate or a club foot, and indeed they can be. Those are minor disabilities, as I know, because I have a son with a club foot. In an era of enormous support for the disabled and their families, we cannot allow this form of discrimination to persist. We must take action to review it.
Equally, we must take action to prevent any hint of discrimination against an unborn child on account of their sex. We have had much more than a hint that this is happening; we have the investigation from The Daily Telegraph. The time it took to look into that investigation—19 months—is deplorable. In his statement of 7 October about the investigation, the DPP said:
“on balance, there is just sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction.”
We are talking about conviction for a criminal offence, according to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. What kind of message does that decision send? It sends the shocking message that authorities in this country will turn a blind eye to involvement in acts preparatory to the commission of an unlawful abortion—authorities in whom trust is vested to apply and uphold the laws made by this Parliament.
The reason the DPP gave for not proceeding with the prosecution was that it would not be in the public interest. Prosecutors have also pointed out that the issue has become sensitive and political. How can it not be in the public interest to state firmly and clearly that abortion on the grounds of a child’s sex is wrong? It is wrong morally and legally, and if the law is not sufficiently clear on this point, it is our duty as parliamentarians and politicians—I see nothing wrong in politicians being involved in this issue—to make it clear.
The grounds on which an abortion is legal have never included the sex of the child, and that is true not just in this country. The UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which the UK has ratified, is a legally binding treaty in UK law. The convention recognises the right to choose the “number and spacing” of one’s children, but not the sex. International law is very clear: sex-selective abortions are not legal.
We recognise that in this country when we fully condemn China’s one-child policy, which has resulted in a disproportionate number of young men, running into the millions. The ratio of young men to young women in many parts of China is now 30:1. This country prides itself on respecting human rights, and we cannot be so hypocritical as to condemn that policy and then do nothing when such things occur within our own borders. I said that there was more than a hint that that is happening; in January 2013 I tabled an early-day motion, citing
“recent confirmation by the Department of Health that there are discrepancies in the balance between the number of boys and girls born to groups of women from some overseas countries to an extent that”—
in the Department’s words—
“‘falls outside the range considered possible without intervention’”.
The motion called on the Department of Health to put procedures in place to address the issue, and it was supported by more than 50 parliamentarians. There are a number of parliamentarians here today, but I know from the EDM alone that there are far more who support the views that have been expressed today.
There is further evidence. Dr Vincent Argent, a former medical director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, has been quoted as saying that the practice is “fairly widespread” in the UK; and there are data from Dr Dubuc of the university of Oxford, who has studied the issue for 35 years, suggesting that sex-selection abortions are happening with increasing regularity among certain groups in the UK because of the increasing availability of technologies to determine the sex of an unborn child. The statistics show that the practice is particularly prevalent when a third child is expected.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I should explain that I have only Department of Health statistics to go on, but this may be helpful. As far as the UK as a whole is concerned, the statistics on gender balance in births fall squarely within what are regarded as acceptable norms. As to mothers who were born in other countries, there is, with only one exception, no clear evidence of such a divergence from the norm. Interestingly, the country in question is Sri Lanka and, curiously, the birth ratio for mothers born there is 99.2 male children for every 100 female children, which suggests the opposite of what my hon. Friend is talking about. There again, however, there is nothing to suggest that the ratio is outside the statistical norm.
Fiona Bruce
If my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me, I shall send him Dr Dubuc’s data and research, which show figures that at least need to be looked into.
I ask for not only Ministers but the British Medical Association to take action. The 2012 third edition of its guide, “Medical Ethics Today”, does not clearly prohibit sex-selection abortions. The doctors we heard of in the investigation by The Daily Telegraph clearly felt uncomfortable. I should have thought it would help the many other doctors who might feel uncomfortable in such circumstances if the BMA medical ethics committee were to take a clear stance against the discriminatory practice in question, and support practitioners accordingly. As to the reference by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the General Medical Council taking action on the investigation by The Daily Telegraph, it is worth remembering that the GMC has no powers on criminal actions and cannot prosecute breaches of the law.
Finally, in April, I presented a ten-minute rule Bill on the very issue that we are debating. It was interesting to note that there was no opposition from any Member of the House. My purpose was to raise the issue and to remind the police and Crown Prosecution Service that abortions on the ground of gender are illegal in this country. My Bill called on the Department of Health to establish procedures to record the gender of babies aborted under the Abortion Act 1967, when the sex can be determined, and to consider a review of the penalties for anyone found to have facilitated the abortion of a child because of their gender. The United Kingdom prides itself on striving for gender equality and tackling discrimination in all its forms, and any indication of that most fundamental form of gender discrimination and violence against women must surely be investigated further.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for bringing the matter to the Chamber today, because it is a serious issue. I cannot believe that in the 21st century, in this great country, we are having this debate; I would not have believed that gender-selection abortions were possible here.
Many hon. Members have said that the unborn child has no voice, and appears to have very few rights in the context we are discussing. I am not a lawyer or doctor, but my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, who has a legal background, made many good legal points, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), with her medical experience, spoke from a medical point of view. I shall be simple and straightforward in my remarks. If the law is not adequate to stop the practice in question, it must be changed. If it has not been properly interpreted and enforced, it must be. It is up to the Attorney-General to make sure that that happens. If my accountant signed a form and allowed me to fill it in for my farming business and send it to the tax authorities, although it was all completely wrong, we would both be prosecuted. Yet here we are, talking about the actions of doctors in various places. Most doctors act very honourably, but there are a few who have not. They cannot just photocopy forms and allow someone else to fill them in.
Some lawyers and the CPS argue that practice is so lax that it is not possible to prosecute. What on earth is going on? I am not a lawyer, but I have some faith in the law of the land. However, why should people have faith in it, if shoddy practice allows perfectly healthy babies, of whatever sex, to be aborted? I shall be completely honest and open: I do not like abortion. I think it is carried out far too late, and I do not much like its being carried out at all. I accept that in exceptional circumstances, when there are very serious problems with a fetus, there could be an argument for it to be aborted; but not just because it does not suit someone’s lifestyle, religion or background.
I shall again say something a little controversial. Is it perhaps because the issue has something to do with race that we do not want to tackle it? Are we running scared because we live in this very politically correct world? Well, if that is the result of a politically correct country, I do not want to live in this role. This Parliament is about common-sense rules that are enforced. I am totally amazed and saddened that we must have this debate.
I will finish with my question to the Attorney-General. What is wrong? Is it the fact that the law is not correct as it stands, and we cannot stop people asking for abortions on the basis of the baby’s gender?
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman may understand that those of us who are strong supporters of a woman’s right to a legal, safe abortion, and also of the notion that we should respect other cultures, find the notion of gender-selective abortion impossible to support, for the reasons that other hon. Members have given. It reinforces patriarchal and oppressive ideas in society. I found the time to attend this debate because it is important that we unravel the issue; but I want to make the point that it is not only those who are anti-abortion in principle who have a problem with sex-selective abortion.
Neil Parish
I very much respect the hon. Lady and thank her for her intervention. I am not here to make particular points about people’s backgrounds, but I emphasise that the issue, now, is how it is possible for this issue to have arisen in this country. Most people would say that the idea of having a baby aborted because of its gender is wrong; and that brings me to my final comments.
Is the law as it stands inadequate? If so, I ask the Attorney-General to consider ways to change it. If the law is adequate, why is no one being prosecuted? Why is it that forms can be signed in hospital and the doctor can have retired from that position, but the forms are still being used to carry out gender-selection abortion? Someone is wrong—someone has got it wrong. We, as a Parliament, must ensure that the law is upheld and, if we are not satisfied that the law is adequate, we must change it so that it is. I would be very interested to know what the Attorney-General believes and what he sees as the solution to this problem, because, I repeat, I do not believe that in the 21st century, in this United Kingdom, we should be in any way, shape or form allowing gender-selection abortion.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On 5 September, the Crown Prosecution Service issued a statement justifying its decision to take no further action regarding two doctors who had been caught in a Daily Telegraph sting allegedly assisting an undercover journalist to procure an abortion on the grounds of the gender of the fetus. The original statement started with a statement of the law:
“The Abortion Act 1967 allows for an abortion in a limited range of circumstances but not purely on the basis of not wanting a child of a specific gender.”
That, incidentally, is how I would read the law. The statement went on to say that although the case was not straightforward,
“on balance there is enough evidence to justify bringing proceedings for an attempt.”
The plain English reading of that is that there was enough evidence to prosecute for an offence of procuring an illegal abortion purely on the basis of not wanting a child of a specific gender. But the decision not to prosecute was taken on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest. The CPS said:
“Taking into account the need for professional judgement which deals firmly with wrongdoing, while not deterring other doctors from carrying out legitimate and medically justified abortions, we have concluded that these specific cases would be better dealt with by the GMC rather than by prosecution.”
The statement added that
“when looking at the culpability of the doctors in this case, we must take into account the fact that doctors are required to interpret the law and apply it to”
a
“range of sensitive and difficult circumstances which are not set out in the legislation.”
The statement concluded by attaching weight to the level of harm to the victim, which in this case was none as no abortion took place.
I found the statement very disturbing and that day wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions to request him to review the decision not to prosecute. My first objection was that I could not understand how it could be in the public interest not to prosecute in respect of an abortion that was carried out on the basis of gender alone. Gender-based abortion is part of a complex of misogynistic beliefs and practices to which we cannot give an inch. Along with female infanticide, it is the purest expression of the belief that the male is more valuable than the female, for invariably gender-based abortion involves the destruction of female fetuses; we do not hear of male fetuses being aborted.
Women are not the weaker sex. We are not a curse. We are not a burden to be disposed of as a family sees fit. What is more, people have to be completely myopic not to see that if it becomes known that doctors are taking a no-questions-asked attitude to gender-selective abortions, women will be pressurised into having them. Gender-selective abortions are at root an exercise of patriarchal and communal coercion, not female choice.
Jim Shannon
I want to ask a question of the hon. Lady in her position as shadow Attorney-General. Is it her opinion that the decision not to prosecute should be reviewed, and could it be reviewed by the Attorney-General?
Emily Thornberry
If the hon. Gentleman will hold his breath, I will get there. In my view, it is not in the public interest for us to behave in this way. We must make it absolutely clear that, as a country, we have no truck with this. I am a staunch advocate of women’s right to choose, but I do not accept that that corners me into supporting something as plainly monstrous as gender-selective abortion.
I am also concerned that if the public see abortion as being used for gender selection, support for abortion will erode. In my view, there has been and remains a clear majority, albeit a silent one, in favour of abortion, and their views are reflected in the very thoughtful contributions made today by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). We must not play into the hands of the likes of those who claim that the most dangerous situation to be in in Britain today is to be in a womb and to be a female. We need to take a sensible view of this.
My second objection, which was echoed at the time by the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, was about the amount of deference that the CPS seemed to be showing the medical profession. The CPS seems to believe that doctors can have the discretion to disapply the law in their surgeries. It seems to me that when a roofer breaks the law, he is hauled into court and faces the prospect of prison. When a doctor does, he should also be hauled into court and should not simply be heard by a panel of his peers with no criminal powers. That is taking the idea of “Doctor knows best” far too far. The rule of law has to apply to all equally; otherwise, it is meaningless.
Following the outcry, the DPP, Keir Starmer, has issued a statement seeking to explain further the reasoning behind the decision. That statement, which comes a full month later, introduces a number of new lines of argument, while quietly dropping some of the old ones. Mr Starmer now tells us that the evidential threshold for the allegation that this was a gender-based abortion has not been met. He says that that was because other factors were alluded to during the discussion between patient and doctor. Instead, the matter hinged on whether the doctors fulfilled their duty under the Abortion Act to carry out a sufficiently robust assessment of the risk to the pregnant woman’s mental and physical health to reach a good-faith opinion that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve a risk, greater than if the pregnancy was terminated, to the woman’s mental and physical health. The director explains that there is no guidance on how a doctor should assess that and therefore no yardstick by which to measure whether the doctors’ assessments fell below a standard that any reasonable doctor would consider adequate. The director concludes that it would be of questionable public interest to prosecute amid such uncertainty.
That is a more elegant and persuasive way of hoofing the matter back to the GMC. Gone is any suggestion that we will not prosecute criminal attempts because the victim is unharmed. Gone is any impression given by the earlier statement that the very fact of the GMC’s involvement is sufficient and that the criminal courts need not be involved. Gone is any suggestion that it is somehow okay for doctors to abort fetuses merely because they are female.
I am reassured by the director’s statement that had the decision boiled down to one of whether to prosecute on the basis that the doctors attempted a gender-specific abortion,
“there might be powerful reasons for a prosecution in the public interest”.
To my mind, the director’s statement illustrates the need to ensure that the DPP personally signs off all decisions about prosecutions under the Abortion Act 1967, whether those decisions are in favour of or against prosecution. I hope that the Attorney-General can assure the House that that is what will happen in future.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before I call the Attorney-General, I note, just for Hansard, the unusual circumstances in which we have present at the debate three Ministers: the Minister responsible for public health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison); the Solicitor-General; and the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate.
Investigative journalism plays an important part in a vigorous and healthy democracy. The Daily Telegraph has done a very important public service in bringing these issues before us today. The debate has been a characteristically thoughtful one, as befits matters touching on the criminal law, personal health and dignity, ethics and moral issues, professional standards and the wider public interest. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who have all made contributions, and to those right hon. and hon. Members who have intervened.
The cases highlighted by The Daily Telegraph were much debated at the time of the original CPS decision not to prosecute. The terms of that debate may have given the public the impression that this case was about medical practitioners offering abortion on the basis of the gender of the child. On that basis, it may well have seemed incomprehensible that the full force of the criminal law was not being brought to bear on a practice that most people would regard as abhorrent. I certainly do and I think that everyone in this room does. But as I hope to make clear and as I hope has been made clear by the DPP’s explanation, that is not in fact what these cases are at root about.
The DPP has recently published detailed reasons for the CPS decision. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to read his account very carefully, if they have not already done so. It is absolutely right that prosecution decisions are taken by independent prosecutors on the facts before them and free from political influence. That is what entitles the public to have confidence in those decisions. However, it is also important that the public should be able to understand the decisions and, where that is not straightforward, that prosecutors make a special effort to explain them. This was obviously such a case, and I am particularly pleased that the director has taken the time and trouble to review—I requested him to do so—the decisions personally and to set out fully the reasoning that led him to endorse the conclusion that it would not be right to prosecute.
The Attorney-General
In a moment; I was going to answer the two questions raised by my hon. Friend. First, the director did not make the initial decision not to prosecute, but he was consulted, as is normal in complex and sensitive cases. The answer to the second question, on whether I was consulted on the decision before it was taken, is that I was not. The case was not raised with me by the director prior to the decision not to prosecute being taken. In my view, it should have been, and on reflection, the director accepts that he should have done so. Before that leads to an inference that therefore the decision might have been different, I simply make the point that as I asked the director to review the decision completely and I had ample opportunity to consult with him before he did so, I am satisfied that the decision that has now been reached, which I will come on to in a moment, would have been the same had that process taken place in the first case.
Mr Burrowes
Does my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General agree that in hindsight it would have been appropriate for the DPP to be involved at an earlier stage, to respond to the question raised by the shadow Attorney-General, and should not all future investigations of allegations of contraventions of the 1967 Act involve the DPP at that earlier stage and proper consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend?
The Attorney-General
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the DPP himself does not under the statute have to give consent. Nevertheless, I am sure that the DPP will have noted my hon. Friend’s comments—representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service are here. It is clear to me that this is an important issue in a difficult area, which I will come on to in a moment. I trust that his comments are noted, but he will appreciate that the decisions are ultimately for the DPP, not me.
The director’s reasons speak for themselves. I am satisfied that this difficult decision was taken properly and conscientiously. The responsibility of taking such decisions is a heavy burden, which few of us would relish. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the distinction with which the current director has fulfilled an onerous and difficult series of public duties over recent years, particularly as his term of office is drawing to a close.
The hon. Member for Strangford asked whether I agreed with the decision taken by the director. I emphasise the point I made: I am clear that it is not my role as Attorney-General to second-guess the decisions of independent prosecutors. These were difficult decisions on which different prosecutors could reasonably have come to different conclusions, but I am entirely satisfied that this difficult decision was taken properly and conscientiously.
I shall say a little more by way of context. First, abortion law in this country, in my judgment, is workable, but needs to be understood. I should perhaps emphasise that the law is not framed in terms of prohibiting gender-specific abortion or indeed listing any other forms of unlawful abortion. It works, or was intended to work by Parliament, by providing for abortions to be performed safely, by qualified medical practitioners, when those practitioners judge it to be in the medical interests of the patient and where that is the course that the patient herself agrees is right. Two medical practitioners must on each occasion have formed a view, in good faith, that the health risks of continuing with a pregnancy outweigh those of termination. That is our guarantee, as provided by Parliament, that we have a system of safe and lawful abortion provided by the 1967 Act.
Neil Parish
Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that he believes the law to be correct as it is? If that is the case, why is abortion being allowed for gender selection?
The Attorney-General
I think my hon. Friend might misunderstand. We can have a long moral and ethical debate about the workings of the 1967 Act, as we have had in Parliament—I dare say that many in the room will express different views on the Act and all sorts of connected aspects—but that would be about an issue of policy. The question I am dealing with in this debate is whether, within the framework of what was intended by the 1967 Act, it is possible to enforce the law as Parliament intended it to be. I hope I will be able to develop that thought in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough asked about the statistics on those prosecuted under the 1967 Act. Since 2010, there have been 25 prosecutions, and he is right that none has been of medial professionals for failure to observe the terms of the 1967 Act.
Jim Shannon
As I asked the shadow Attorney-General, in light of the disquiet expressed by Members today and the disquiet outside the House, would the Attorney-General agree to a review of the case?
The Attorney-General
So far as this case is concerned, the decision is that of the CPS. For me to overturn or review somebody else’s decision in a case in which the decision does not fall on me would be wrongful interference in the independence of the prosecution and its discretion. As far as I am concerned, the function I have has been performed, in that there has been a review by the DPP of his decision and he has been able to explain it fully in the explanation he has provided. As I have already indicated, I do not consider anything to be in any way improper or unreasonable in that explanation or in how he has approached the matter. If the hon. Gentleman will let me develop my argument, he may understand why that is the case in a moment.
The question in this case is not about proving whether gender-specific abortion was being offered on demand. It was about whether the doctors had done what the law requires, which is to reach an opinion in good faith about the consequences for the patient of continuing with or terminating a pregnancy. I appreciate that abortion gives rise to strong views based on ethical and philosophical differences, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be the subject of much public debate, but the issue for the prosecutor is the law as it stands.
Neil Parish
Is that not semantics? Is the Attorney-General saying that doctors are not prosecuted because they took the decision that abortion due to gender selection was all right in theory because the mental health of the mother might be affected or based on some other grounds that are acceptable under the 1967 Act? That seems to be pure semantics.
The Attorney-General
I am sure that my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to read the full note produced by the DPP. It sets out in detail, which I do not have time to go into this afternoon, the evidence in the case of each doctor presented to the CPS. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is important that the evidence in each case is looked at separately. The DPP goes through it in detail and explains that the issue is not gender-specific abortion. If somebody says to a doctor without more ado, “I want an abortion on gender-specific grounds,” and the doctor says yes, the case might be a clear-cut matter to prosecute because the grounds fall clearly outside the ambit of the 1967 Act. The section of the Act with which we are concerned is about the physical and mental health of the woman. It is about good faith, in that it is for the doctor to satisfy themselves that any abortion falls within the criteria. If my hon. Friend looks at the matter in detail, he will see why the director came to the conclusion he did, which I will address, but in briefer terms.
The CPS concluded, with some difficulty, that there was just enough evidence available in the cases to bring the good faith of the doctors into issue. I think that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury was wrong when she said in her final statement that the position had changed. The DPP’s statement of reasons says, nevertheless, that the evidence was not strong in either case and the prospects of conviction would not in his judgment have been high on the facts as they appeared. The matter does not rest there. Even in a case that just about passes the evidential threshold, the CPS is obliged to consider whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. That is one of the tasks that we require it to do. The fact that an evidential threshold is passed—a point raised in the debate—does not mean that a prosecution has to, or indeed should, follow.
The decision was that prosecution did not pass the public interest threshold. It is that aspect of the decision that raises wider issues of public policy, some of which we have debated today, which I accept are an entirely legitimate topic of debate. The issue, as I see it, is this. Because the law makes the difference between lawful and unlawful abortion subject to a medical test, doctors have to be able to carry out that test on a case-by-case basis according to proper medical standards of care, skill and judgment. That is, effectively, what the test of “good faith” in the 1967 Act means. Doctors are required by law to make such decisions to a proper professional standard. If a question arises about whether a doctor has done so in any given case, a law enforcement agency must look to approved medical practice for assistance in identifying the proper standard. The same thing applies in virtually every case involving professional standards. Dare I say it, it would apply even in the case of a plumber who carried out some work that led to a catastrophic outcome.
Sir Alan Beith
It would surely not be right in such circumstances merely to demonstrate that other plumbers engaged in conduct that did not meet professional standards, and no more would it of doctors.
The Attorney-General
I reassure my right hon. Friend that that is certainly not the case. Ultimately, in any case, the jury decides, not the experts. One would normally expect a jury to be given some indication of the professional standards expected in a profession—there may even be rival professional views about what the standards should be—in order to help it decide.
Such a problem might not arise in an extremely clear-cut case. We might imagine a case in which a doctor behaved in a way in which no reasonable practitioner would behave, for example by arranging a medical abortion for a patient about whom he or she knew nothing and whom he or she had never met or spoken to. In any other circumstances, however, the CPS would need, and would expect to be able, to refer to medical consensus to determine whether a proper professional approach had been taken.
When they are looked at in the kind of detail considered by the prosecutor, the cases that we are debating are not extreme ones in which the doctors behaved as no reasonable practitioner would behave. Complicating factors were raised by both the patients and the doctors, who subsequently had to take the decisions. There were, as we have discussed, no detailed professional rules or step-by-step guidelines telling doctors how to take such decisions; the matter was left to general professional standards and ethics. The CPS, therefore, had no detailed consensus to help it to evaluate the matter.
To prosecute would have been to ask a jury to decide what steps a doctor should take. Juries take difficult decisions robustly, and sometimes they have to find their way through conflicting medical evidence. Is it right or fair, however, to ask a jury to arbitrate on a question of medical standards and ethics on which the profession has not published a detailed consensus, and on which a great deal turns for both doctor and patient? The CPS concluded in the recent cases that it would be contrary to the public interest to proceed.
Those who have the relevant policy and professional responsibilities are, no doubt, reflecting on the conclusions to be drawn. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), is present for precisely that reason. As the House will appreciate, these are not my responsibilities.
Mr Burrowes
I recognise that in such cases, because of the level of uncertainty, it is questionable whether a prosecution would serve the interests of justice. When more certainty has been achieved through the publication of guidance, will the Attorney-General undertake to review the matter and consider whether further guidance is required to provide clarity on prosecution?
My supplementary question is to ensure that the Attorney-General does not get off the hook without commenting on another issue. The CQC has provided evidence of 14 hospitals where—forget “good faith”—doctors were not even present when forms were signed. Surely the Attorney-General must ask why no prosecutions occurred in such cases, which go way beyond questions of guidance. They are malpractice and a flagrant abuse of the Abortion Act 1967, and they must lead to prosecutions.
The Attorney-General
I hope I may be able to reassure my hon. Friend. On the second matter that he raises—it is not germane to one of the cases, although it was to another—as he knows, the evidence revealed that the pre-signing of forms was quite widespread. I understand that that practice has now been stopped, and that clear guidance has been issued as to its undesirability. That is a policy issue, and I have no doubt at all that as a result, the requirements set down by professional standards have already been clarified.
I turn to the more general point. There are two ways in which we can move forward. We might take the view that the current situation is, overall, a satisfactory one, in which professional medical discretion, which must inevitably be relied on, is left at large, with the law enforcement agencies acting as a back-stop for the most egregious cases that flout any conceivable proper standards. The other view, which I understand that the Department of Health has accepted, is that such a situation allows law enforcement far too residual a role and that the balance needs to be redressed. The law enforcement agencies will need clearer and more specific guidance on how to distinguish between desirable and undesirable professional practice in making and recording decisions on the termination of pregnancy. I greatly welcome that, and I have no doubt that it will make the task of prosecutors much easier.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Attorney-General has rightly said that we should not second-guess a prosecutor, the professional judgment of a doctor or the position of a jury when taking evidence. We can, however, second-guess ourselves as legislators. During the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, we were assured that gender selection would not be permitted as a ground for abortion, and that a proposed amendment to that effect was redundant. I am sure that that was said in good faith, and the amendment was withdrawn on that basis, but do we not have cause for consideration in that area?
The Attorney-General
It is quite clear from a reading of the 1967 Act that gender selection alone is not grounds for the termination of a pregnancy. The debate has highlighted policy issues, which Parliament can debate further if it wishes, about how the question of gender selection may carry some weight in respect of, in particular, the impact on a woman’s mental health of continuing with a pregnancy. That is inherent in the drafting of the legislation, which places a great burden of responsibility on the medical profession to carry out a specific assessment, under the subsection that, as we know, is the most relied on as the justification for a termination.
It would be wrong of me, in the course of this debate, to start re-examining something that is a policy issue for Parliament. I have done my best to answer the question, which is whether the law as it stands is workable and can be made better. I have already indicated that if, as I understand to be the position, the General Medical Council produces such guidelines, they will be of immeasurable assistance in providing a benchmark for how doctors are expected to make the assessments required under the 1967 Act.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has informed me that he would be more than happy for his officials to comment on the practicalities, from a prosecutorial viewpoint, of any amended arrangements, should that be thought necessary. I can see that that might be of great practical value. I hope that I have been able to provide hon. Members with some reassurance.
Teaching Unions (Strikes)
(10 years, 7 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
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
It is an honour to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
This debate is extremely timely, as it comes against the backdrop of recent strike action by certain teaching unions. Last week, on 1 October, members of the National Union of Teachers and NASUWT went on strike in 49 local authorities in eastern England, the midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, consequently denying education to pupils in 2,500 schools. I want to put on the record that, thanks to non-striking teachers’ dedication to their pupils and profession, many of the schools that expected to close were able to remain open.
Another wave of strikes is planned on 17 October in London, the north-east, the south-east and the south-west, where my constituency is located. I take this opportunity to urge teachers in schools in my constituency to think twice about strike action and, like their many fellow professionals who turned their back on last week’s strike, not to strike at the expense of their pupils’ education and welfare. A national strike of union members is planned for later in the year, before Christmas, and that will inevitably disrupt the lives of pupils and parents alike.
Let us turn to the origin of the decision to take industrial action. Last year, the two largest teaching unions, the NUT and NASUWT, voted to take industrial action throughout 2013. At first glance, the results of the ballots seem decisive: 82.5% of NUT members and 82% of NASUWT members voted in favour of strike action. We must, however, look at the turnout for the ballots: just 27% of all NUT members responded by returning their ballots, as did 40% of NASUWT members. In reality, strike action was therefore voted through by just 22% of NUT members and 33% of NASUWT members.
Even then, it is important to note that those unions do not represent the teaching profession of more than 750,000 teachers in its entirety. Taking that into account, strike action was agreed by the unions with a mandate of only 17.3% of teachers voting to strike. That is significant, because we must recognise the increasing divide between teachers or teaching professionals and the unions who claim to represent their voice.
In recent years, it seems that the only voice that unions represent is the growing tendency towards militant socialism that has gripped the heart of teaching unions. A breakdown of the NUT national executive shows that more than half its members have links to far-left organisations, with 21 of the 40 members having links to the Socialist party or the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, while 11 were endorsed by the Socialist Workers party in their election to the executive, four are members of the Socialist Teachers Alliance, one was a Socialist party candidate in the 1997 general election and there is even a member of the Communist party.
It is well known that union leaders do very nicely in pay and conditions out of their members’ subs. In the NUT, Christine Blower’s total remuneration is now £158,155, which has increased by 25% since she became general secretary in May 2009. That is more than seven times higher than the average teacher’s starting salary, and her pension contribution alone, of £42,236, is almost double that starting salary. Chris Keates of NASUWT earns a total remuneration of £139,834, which has increased by 78% since she became general secretary in 2004.
Let us not believe that the unions, either in numbers or in voice, reflect the everyday lives of the teaching profession. Tens of thousands of teachers—the silent majority—work tirelessly to transform the lives of young people in their care, and do so without recourse to strike action or what might be termed “teacher absenteeism”.
A new generation of teachers is coming forward who are the best trained and best skilled work force we have ever had. This generation of teachers deserves to be rewarded for their ability to raise their pupils’ performance. They are increasingly turning their back on the unions as their mouthpiece, knowing that they are being given greater freedoms to teach and improve their pupils’ education in the classroom. Some are even tearing up their union cards. One teacher wrote on The Guardian “Secret Teacher” site that
“we came into teaching for a reason. To inspire children, to go that extra mile, and to become better at what we do—ultimately for the students who are the reason we chose this profession. Yes, there are many issues facing us that do need action—but why is it that the unions’ suggested actions simply serve letting down the very people at the core of teaching?”
We need the best teachers to be in place, particularly in schools where the gap between the most affluent and the most disadvantaged pupils remains stubbornly high, to help turn pupils’ lives around. A good-quality education depends entirely on good- quality teachers, so rewarding good teachers must be at the heart of this Government’s school reforms.
That belief is overwhelmingly backed by the public. In a recent Populus poll of 1,700 people, 61% agreed that schools
“should be able to set the pay of individual teachers based on the quality of their performance as determined by an annual appraisal”,
while 28% believed that teachers
“should…receive the same salary regardless”.
When asked what the most important factor is in deciding teachers’ pay, only 8% plumped for length of service, which is the current measure. The poll found that 70% of people are opposed to teaching unions’ planned strikes, while 34% believe that teachers should be entirely banned from taking strike action.
I do not believe that the Government should be in the business of banning teachers from going on strike. It must be up to teachers themselves, not only as responsible adults, but above all as responsible professionals, to choose how they wish to be regarded. Do they believe that as professionals—that is how we wish teachers to be seen—they should take strike action where no other professionals would dare to? It must be up to teachers to face their responsibilities and to ask themselves why, if it is not acceptable for pupils to be absent from school, it should be acceptable for teachers to indulge in teacher absenteeism. What possible example can that set? How can the authority of a teacher’s professionalism be anything but diminished by strike action?
If teaching unions think that there is a genuine and deeply felt need to strike, they will recognise that such a need is also felt by the entire school community—pupils and parents alike. Each individual school, rather than taking its cue from the phantom democratic ballots of union leaders, should know whether strike action is necessary at local level and whether taking the ultimate step of sacrificing a day of pupils’ education is in those pupils’ interests.
The teachers’ cause would be strengthened if they had the backing of the entire school community, including parents. One solution for assessing whether an individual school has a truly effective mandate for strike action would be for it to ballot its parents on whether they agree with any proposed strike action. After all, parental ballots are not a new feature of our education system: they were introduced by the Labour party in 1998 as a means of assessing whether grammar schools should close.
Rather than strike action taking place with just over 17% of support from teachers, industrial action backed by parents would appear far more legitimate and have a greater chance of being taken more seriously. Allowing parents a voice over teacher strike action would help to depoliticise strikes, which are currently organised by a militant few at the expense of the welfare of the many pupils and parents whose lives will be disrupted in the next few weeks.
Of course, rather than take strike action in term time, thereby disrupting the education of thousands of young people and effectively denying them a day’s learning, surely it would be better for teachers to strike during the school holidays, when they are still at work in schools? We are frequently informed that just as a parliamentary recess is not a holiday for Members of Parliament, school holidays are not entirely holidays for teachers, who continue to work hard in their schools.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does he agree that we should encourage head teachers and chairs of governors to do their utmost to keep schools open as a learning environment for children, given that being at home may not be suitably positive for learning reinforcement?
Chris Skidmore
It is extremely important that school leadership remains strong at this time. I am referring here to the chair of governors, who has a duty to reflect the community’s voice, and the head teacher. As we know, it is the leadership that decides whether a school should remain open or should close. In my own constituency, I have seen the head teacher make the decision. As well as telling teachers who wish not to strike to have the courage of their convictions and to cross the picket line and go into school, we must also tell head teachers to stand firm on their principles. They are the captain of the ship in the school and they must ensure that it stays open for as long as possible.
Going back to my point about teachers striking in school holidays, I do not believe that teachers are taking off the entire school holiday. They are working hard in that period when the pupils are away from school, so it should not make any difference if the strike action was taken in school holidays rather than term time unless the deliberate aim of the teachers’ unions is to cause the maximum possible disruption to pupils’ learning, which would be regrettable.
In conclusion, there will always be disagreements and battles over how schools are run and pupils are taught. That is fair enough. Teachers themselves may disagree over the direction of a policy or a Government, and that is their right, but such battles should be fought not by strikes but in the court of public opinion, with ballots that reflect the views of all teachers and parents, and, ultimately, at the ballot box. They should not be fought, as those striking well know, at the expense of the children whom they claim to serve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
It is a pleasure, Mr Pritchard, to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on his excellent speech, which outlined many important issues, and on his ongoing work to support the reform of education, which is vital for our country. I note that we do not have Opposition Front Benchers at this debate. The Opposition have remained silent on the issue of trade unions, even though many of their Members of Parliament are funded by those organisations.
Strikes benefit no one. They damage the education of pupils and inconvenience parents and carers, who often rely on school when they are out at work. The children who are let down the most are those from low-income backgrounds who desperately need an excellent education to help them get on in life. Moreover, strikes do not support the teaching profession. What we want is a highly valued and respected profession that takes professional responsibility for what it does. The strikes are in danger of undermining the well deserved public respect for teachers.
The recent strikes have been particularly disappointing. They do not command public support. A recent Populus poll found that 70% of the public do not support the planned strikes, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, teachers themselves do not support them. Less than a quarter of teachers voted in favour of strike action when they were balloted by the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT.
I am pleased to say, though, that fewer schools closed than on previous occasions. In last week’s strike in Yorkshire, the midlands and the east of England, only a third of schools were fully closed to pupils. That was down to the hard work and dedication of many teachers and head teachers. By comparison, 60% of schools in the same regions were fully closed in the national strike of November 2011. That shows that those who seek wholesale disruption of our schools are losing the argument, and less and less support for such action is being shown in the classroom. Like my hon. Friend, I encourage teachers and head teachers in constituencies that could be affected by the forthcoming strike to keep their schools open. The majority of Britain’s hardworking teachers understand that strike action is not the right way to express their concerns about education reform, and they need to put pressure on their unions to stop it.
The NUT and the NASUWT have identified the issues of pay, particularly performance-related pay, and pensions as an underlying cause of the strikes. Most people get performance-related pay, so the concept is widely understood. It helps to improve performance and retain high-quality personnel. Teaching should be no different. The public understand that. In recent surveys, 61% of the public supported performance-related pay for teachers. Pay reform, which means moving to a performance-related pay system and away from automatic increments based on how long someone has been a teacher, will reward excellence and raise the professional status of teaching. It will help schools to attract high-flying graduates and career-changers, particularly to subjects for which it is difficult to recruit teachers because there are highly competitive jobs available elsewhere.
Schools in challenging circumstances, which often struggle to retain good teachers, can now, because of the additional flexibility that we are giving, use the pupil premium to attract the best staff and make the biggest difference to the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said:
“Basing pay progression on performance would bring classroom teachers into line both with head teachers, where it already operates, and with most other sectors”,
so the leader of the head teachers’ union has suggested that performance-related pay would help.
A recent YouGov poll for Policy Exchange found that nine out of 10 teachers think that the quality of teaching should be a major driver in pay and progression, while only six out of 10 think that years of experience should be a major factor in pay. Many teachers themselves support the changes. The unions should be helping us to work with head teachers to ensure that performance-related pay is implemented in a way that is fair to teachers, rather than calling for strike action, which will not only cause problems for the profession but potentially affect children.
The other issue is pension reform. Changes to teachers’ pension arrangements are in line with changes to public sector pensions in general. We all know that people are living longer, and the cost of public service pensions has increased by a third in the past 10 years to £32 billion. The new teachers’ pension scheme remains one of the very best available. All the evidence suggests that it does help to attract people into the teaching profession.
The Minister for Schools and the Secretary of State for Education have had extensive discussions with the unions and others involved in education, and the policy direction on pay and pensions is now fixed. As I have demonstrated in my speech, the reforms command broad popular support, and support in principle from the teachers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood made some interesting points about why the teaching unions might be motivated to take strike action for ideological reasons, or for reasons relating to their pay and pensions, which appear to be pretty generous when compared with those of teachers. That is no excuse to damage children’s education, disrupt parents’ lives, which has an ongoing impact on the economy, and bring into disrepute the teaching profession.
We are willing to meet the teaching unions; we are planning to meet them again soon to discuss their concerns. However, we are very clear that the direction that we have set on pay and pensions is right, and it is part of our overall reform package to improve education in this country.
We have great esteem and respect for the role of teachers. All educational research suggests that the quality of teaching is the No. 1 factor in a child’s education that will make the difference between learning and not learning. However, we have seen this week, in the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies study from the OECD, exactly where we are in the skills league table, and during the past decades, our skills have not significantly improved. It is a huge worry that, in key skills such as literacy and numeracy, we have not seen the kind of improvement that those who said that exam grades had improved have claimed.
We face a big issue with our education system. We know that the quality of our education and skills is related to economic growth. We also know that children who do not reach the levels of literacy and numeracy that they need to reach will not get good jobs and will face more danger of being unemployed. Those are critical issues, which is why we have embarked on a wide-ranging series of reforms in education. First of all, there was the academy and free schools programme, to ensure that head teachers have the powers they need to improve results in their school. Secondly, there was our programme to reform exams and the curriculum, to ensure that we are teaching subjects such as mathematics, science and English in a rigorous way. That is why we have reintroduced marks for grammar, spelling and punctuation at GCSE level, and why we have addressed the rampant grade inflation that has been evident in our GCSE results. However, possibly most important of all our reforms is the way that we are working to recruit the best and brightest to the teaching profession.
There are a lot of tales of doom about teaching, but our figures compare very well with those of other countries around the world when it comes to the age profile of teachers. In many countries, those in the teaching profession are close to retirement; that is a particular issue in Germany. Here in England, those in the teaching profession are pretty young. Teach First, a programme that ensures that top graduates are attracted to teaching as soon as they leave university, has been very effective. It is now the biggest graduate recruiter from our universities, and teaching is now seen as an aspirational career by many graduates when they leave university, which is fantastic. I am delighted that this autumn we have been able to extend Teach First to the early years, so we now have teachers who are top graduates straight from university teaching three and four-year-olds.
A recent OECD study compared the rates of pay and pensions of our teachers with those of teachers in other countries. We perform above the average for OECD member countries, so our teachers are well remunerated, as is right, and we need to bear that in mind.
There is so much that we have to work on as a country to ensure that our education system is world class. It is about all the things that I have mentioned: teaching; the way that schools operate; and head teachers having the flexibility to run their school in a way that will deliver results for children. There are so many things that need to be done that it is vital that everybody in the education system works to those objectives. Progress is being made, and we have seen very positive results. For example, the number of girls studying physics and chemistry at GCSE is at a record high, and we have also seen the number of children studying maths and science at A-level go up. When we have these very positive results in our education system, it is very disappointing that there are still those who seek to disrupt that system, rather than help us and work with us on the progress that we are making.
I note that there is a new shadow Education Secretary in position, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), although I am sad to see that he is not in Westminster Hall today. The former shadow Education Secretary, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), refused to condemn the strike action; actually, I do not think that he supported or condemned it, but just said nothing about it, even though children’s education was being disrupted. What we need to hear from the new shadow Education Secretary is an answer to this question: does he agree that these strikes should be condemned, and does he agree with us that it is wrong for teachers to go on strike at this important time in children’s educational careers, or is he in the pockets of the unions, like his predecessor and like the leader of his party? That is a question that I hope the Opposition will answer very soon.
It is very important to have had this debate, and to have discussed these issues at length. It is crucial for our children that they are able to attend school every day knowing that they will receive a good education. The best way of reforming a system is to participate and to have the debate in proper public forums, not to take out frustrations on innocent bystanders—those children and parents who do not have an alternative, including parents who may have to miss a day of work because a school is not open, and children, perhaps from low-income backgrounds, who are learning and who miss a day of their education as a result of this strike action.
I note the positive trend in the proportion of schools staying open. I hope that next week and the week afterwards we will see more schools stay open, and that today’s debate will encourage them to do so.
“Go Home or Face Arrest” Campaign
(10 years, 7 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
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon for this short debate, Mr Pritchard.
I want people to imagine a situation and just think about it for a minute—a van pulls a billboard through the streets, telling illegal immigrants to “Go home or face arrest”. Just imagine it, and picture it. This is not 1940s occupied Europe; it is not even one of those National Front campaigns from the 1970s. This is the United Kingdom in 2013, where a van pulls a billboard through the streets of London telling people to “Go home or face arrest”. Just in case people did not quite get it, what else was on that poster? It was a huge set of handcuffs. And just to make it even more provocative, this van was trailed through some of the most racially diverse and multicultural parts of London. That was almost as stupid as it was grotesque.
What sort of response did that action get? Well, I do not think that I have seen a Government campaign that has been so roundly condemned. I could not even start to read out the lists of organisations, individuals and groups that were overwhelmingly opposed to it. Suffice to say that it managed to create a coalition of everybody from the Deputy Prime Minister to Nigel Farage, with the Business Secretary flung in for good measure, with his acerbic comment that it was “stupid and offensive”. As I say, this particular campaign united everybody from the Deputy Prime Minister to Nigel Farage, such was the opposition to it.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. Does he agree that this campaign has caused division, and also fear in the minds of the citizens who freely walk on the streets that they will be stopped and perhaps harassed by the police and other agencies?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he reminds me of something else that went on that week, and he is right to mention it. Not only did we have the grotesque sight of a van pulling a billboard in London telling people to “Go home”, but it was part of a joint operation whereby, for the first time in years if not decades, we had racial profiling at London underground stations as part of UK Border Agency operations. What on earth was going to happen next? Where was this going to go after that?
Of course, today we had the landmark ruling from the Advertising Standards Authority, which has effectively banned this stupid and grotesque campaign. I have seen the Minister who is here today go round—
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Did it ban the whole thing or did it just point out one element that was wrong?
Pete Wishart
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, because I saw the Minister this morning, going from studio to studio, defending this decision. I think that he took some comfort from the fact that the ASA only banned it because it was misleading, not because it was offensive or racist. However, that is cold comfort to the Minister, because the ASA said that this campaign was reminiscent of the anti-immigrant campaigns of the ’70s and that people would find it offensive.
Pete Wishart
The Minister is scowling. The saddest thing about these TV appearances this morning is that he is still prepared to defend this absurd campaign and to revise it and bring it back to us, once again, aping his boss, the Home Secretary, who made the same remarks in an interview with Andrew Marr on Sunday. We might see the son of hate vans in the streets soon.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the start of the debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not just on securing this debate, but securing the decision from the ASA to coincide with it. Has he seen the reply to my parliamentary question about the cost of the pilot project, which was put at £10,000? Given the pressure on the public purse, does he not think that that £10,000 could have been used better in some other area of the immigration field, which we know the Minister is keen to repair?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I must have missed his parliamentary question, which is remiss of me, because I usually look out for every one of his parliamentary utterances and questions. Of course, he is right. The £10,000 could have been better spent than on that absurd campaign with a hate van, trailing through the streets of London with a message saying, “Go home”.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the Minister can hardly take any comfort from the ASA’s statement that the Government were using misleading statements? They were basically saying things that were not true on a van being trailed through areas of mixed ethnicity, which was bound to cause trouble.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend is right. I cannot remember any campaign that has effectively been banned by the ASA. It is the first time in my 12 years in the House that I have seen anything like this misleading information. The Minister should be thoroughly embarrassed about what happened this morning, but instead we have seen the parody of him going through the news studios, defending these awful, appalling vans.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that all vans advertising the breaking of the law may put fear into the hearts of those who may be breaking it? For example, people could go to prison if they did not pay their television licence.
Pete Wishart
That is a good point. I want to come on to such points, which are important, about how the message was communicated and observed by the target groups. If I miss that point, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once again.
These vans have been correctly labelled, in common parlance, as hate vans or racist vans, and that is how we have started to refer to them. We could not find a terminology to express our horror and disgust at the sight of these things and we were right to label them as such.
I agree with the Minister that illegal immigration must be tackled. I think that all hon. Members here agree with that. It is wrong and the Government must do something to deal with it. However, they have to deal with such issues reasonably, in a measured and mannered way. Probably every hon. Member in this Chamber agrees that there should be voluntary return. If people want to go home, let us assist them.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Can we also send out the message of the importance of immigration and how people benefit, both in host countries and countries of origin? The Philippines, for example, with about 9 million of its citizens migrating abroad for work, has a national migrants day. I encourage hon. Members to read Philippe Legrain’s book, “Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them”, and to see the benefits that immigration generally brings to all societies, where it happens.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend gets to the heart of so many of our debates on immigration, including the philosophical debate about the value and worth of immigration. We never hear about that from this Government. They do not accept for a minute that immigration is valuable. It is a problem that has to be managed, and this Government in particular say that it has to be managed in a more hostile, aggressive, robust way. As we head towards the new immigration Bill, which contains some thoroughly nasty horrors, we will see much more of this from this Government and it will get ever worse.
Pete Wishart
I have given way already and shall try to make some progress. I may come back to the hon. Gentleman later.
The hate vans, or racist vans, were ranting at people through a billboard with a telephone number on it, instead of communicating with them reasonably, trying to get a measured response and trying to ensure that people can return voluntarily. We should be helping them—assisting them—not shouting at them and giving a telephone number on a billboard. That is not the way to deal with some of the keen and sensitive issues to do with immigration. However, there is no way that we will get through to this Government on such points.
The Minister knows how hard life is for illegal immigrants. Life is desperate for illegal immigrants in this country. They cannot work—certainly, not legally—and they do not have access to benefits. They live a life of destitution, in fear of being detected. That is the reality of life for illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom, not the Daily Mail version, in which they are living the life of Riley, at our expense, laughing behind our backs, which sometimes I think that the Minister believes. It is a life of desperate destitution and fear.
It is about fear and that is what is being communicated. We have to look underneath the stupid message—the silly “Go home or face arrest”—and find out what it is intended to do and to achieve. Stupid poster though it is, there is something fundamental underneath this. The campaign is trying to engender a sense of fear and exaggerate the problem, to politicise it and appeal to the basest political instincts. That is a dangerous game to play. That is where it leads to real issues, tensions and anxieties in our communities. This Government should stop that and ensure that it is never done again. These hate vans and racist vans are touring our country.
Let us gloss over the obvious point that those who are notionally targeted by the campaign probably cannot read English and probably have no idea what the vans are trying to say. If they do read English, the first thing they will do is go right underground and try to hide away, having been made aware, thanks to the Government, of a more aggressive campaign that is out to get them.
Let us be generous and say that this campaign gets through to its target audience. Mr Pritchard, imagine that you are an illegal immigrant, walking down your street in your multiracial, multi-diverse community. There is something in the back of your mind and you are thinking, “There’s something I’ve got to do. What is it? I can’t figure out what it is.” Then, all of a sudden, one of these vans comes along, telling you to go home and you say, “That’s it! That’s what I forgot to do! All this time I’ve been in this country, I’ve forgotten to go home whence I came.” What nonsense. [Interruption.] No wonder you are laughing, Mr Pritchard, as is every other hon. Member. That is how nonsensical a concept this is. Imagine that.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. For the record, unless I misheard the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that I show any emotion when chairing debates. I am completely impartial.
Pete Wishart
I am sorry to have misinterpreted your wry smile as any sign of jocularity, Mr Pritchard.
Pete Wishart
I am glad that that is resolved. Thank you, Mr Pritchard.
Come on, let us figure out what it is really all about. I think that all hon. Members in this Chamber can be candid. This has little, if anything, to do with illegal immigration, but everything to do with the rise of the UK Independence party in the opinion polls. It is about this Conservative Government’s fear of the electoral challenge from UKIP and the fact that it has made immigration a key plank of its appeal. The Government are now engaged in a desperate race to the bottom with Nigel Farage, to see who can be the hardest on immigration. I gently say to the Minister that he will never out-UKIP UKIP. UKIP is the master of nasty, pernicious, right-wing populism, and it is to the Conservative party’s credit that it will never beat UKIP in a race to the bottom on such issues, regardless of how hard the Conservative party might try.
What did Nigel Farage do when he saw the campaign? He laughed in the Home Secretary’s face and mumbled something about the Big Brother state—imagine the campaign’s target laughing in the Home Secretary’s face. I bet Nigel Farage went home that evening and, like a badge of honour, knew that he had managed to move the Government significantly on to his territory, where he will decisively beat them on such issues. This is UKIP UK. UKIP does not have even one Member of Parliament, but the whole political world down here is now spinning around the world of the fruitcakes and loonies, as the Prime Minister so cleverly, clearly and accurately described them. That is where we are now: the reality of UKIP UK. UKIP is pulling the strings and the Conservative party is dancing to it.
People might wonder why I, as a Scots Nat, am concerned about these vans in London. First, they appal me as a citizen of this country, and they should appal every decent, reasonable person. They are appalling and should not be here. But the Government brought the campaign to Scotland. When I first saw the vans, I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary asking whether there were any plans to bring them to Scotland. I said, “We do not want the vans in Scotland. We have fantastic relations throughout every single community, and we value those relations. The vans would be most unwelcome.” I did not get the courtesy of a reply. I therefore wrote again to the Home Secretary asking why I did not get a reply to my letter. Coincidentally, I got a reply from the Minister yesterday—it might be that there just happens to be a debate. I say this not to the Minister but to his officials: get your act together, for goodness’ sake.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Remarks should be made to the Chair, not directly to officials. I am sure the hon. Gentleman recalls that, as he has been here for many years.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful, Mr Pritchard. It must have just slipped my mind.
I ask the Minister to ask his officials to ensure that they reply, for goodness’ sake, to Members of Parliament on sensitive issues such as this. Will the Minister pass on to his officials that it is not good enough that Members of Parliament are not responded to until they decide to hold a debate on an issue to ensure that they get that reply? That certainly seems to be consistent with what is happening in the Home Office.
In the meantime, between my writing to the Home Secretary and where we are today, the full suite of “Go home” materials arrived in Glasgow. The UK Border Agency office in Brand street, Glasgow now plays host to those appalling materials. We do not have UKIP in Scotland. In Scotland, we loathe UKIP to the bottom of our ballot boxes. UKIP does not even retain its deposits. Nigel Farage had to get a police escort the last time he visited Edinburgh. UKIP is alien to our cultural and political values. The campaign jars with our sense of community, and it is something that we just do not want in Scotland.
The Minister should take his battle with UKIP elsewhere and leave Scotland out of it, because I do not want people in Scotland who go to the Glasgow Brand street office to be met with those materials. What do those materials say? Before people are even sitting down, they are asked to think about going home, with the inquiry “Is life hard here?” They are then told “Going home is simple,” before being told by another poster with a photograph of a plane:
“This plane can take you home. We can book the tickets.”
On the way out there is a dangling plane, which suggests “This is the plane that can take you home.” That is absolutely disgusting and contrary to how we would like to address such issues sensitively, and it makes me more determined than ever that, with independence, Scotland will always get the Government whom we vote for. We will not have a Conservative Government with their one lone panda of a Member of Parliament ruling the roost over our country and imposing such nonsense on my nation, and thank goodness we will secure that next year and end such Tory rubbish in our Glasgow offices. Minister, please keep Scotland well out of this.
What happens now? We have had the ASA ruling today, and we are all very pleased. It looks like the end of these appalling hate vans—these racist vans. The son of hate vans might be coming, I do not know, but perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he is encouraged by what he has seen over the past few months. When the Government were first challenged, they seemed to be able to pull out some sort of statistic showing that the vans were actually working. I do not know what on earth that statistic was based on, but perhaps the Minister could tell us about how the vans were supposed to be working.
Pete Wishart
My time is up, sorry.
Hopefully we will see the end of the vans, which I think were a testing exercise in advance of the next immigration Bill. The Government floated the policy just to see how much they would get away with, how nasty and pernicious they could be, in trying to get their immigration Bill through. That is exactly what they were doing. Everyone in this room has a concern on immigration, and we will be questioning the Minister when the immigration Bill is introduced, because it will contain some horrible stuff that we must confront. We are still part of the UK, and we will be subject to the Bill. We do not want it, but unfortunately we will be subject to it. The Bill is contrary to everything that we are trying to achieve for positive, good relations in Scotland, but we will be subject to a Conservative Government’s immigration Bill.
How did the Conservatives get this past the Liberals? I want to hear the Minister’s take on this. How on earth did they get the Liberals to sign up to something like this? I heard that the former Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), was not available, so the Conservatives decided to proceed any way. After what we have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister, with whom I know he worked closely, the Conservatives managed somehow to get the policy through the Liberals and into the campaign. Hopefully the Liberals will veto anything like this in future so we have no repeats.
The one thing I want from the Minister, and I know I will not get it, is an apology for exposing this nation to a nasty, pernicious and grotesque campaign. I know I will not get that apology, but perhaps I will get a small acknowledgement that there was something wrong with the campaign, that it was not right and that it was inconsistent with the good community relations that we are trying to achieve. I just want an acknowledgement, but somehow I do not think I will get that, either. Let us hope that we never see the likes of this again, but I have a feeling that it is just the beginning.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked me lots of questions and has not left me a great deal of time to answer them, but I will do my best. If colleagues will forgive me, I shall address my answers to him, as it is his debate. If I have chance, I will take interventions from others, but it is right that I try to address his questions.
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I, from the sound of his remarks, will not agree on the merits of the campaign, but it is worth setting out our thinking, because the campaign is not what he suggests. It is not focused at migrants; it is focused at people who are in the United Kingdom illegally—people who are here and breaking our laws. The campaign is not about migrants.
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I apologise again, because I always mangle the name of his constituency—said that the Government do not welcome people to Britain, which is not true. Every single time we make a speech or publish something, we make it very clear that Britain is open to migrants from across the world: people who want to come here to work, to study and to make a contribution. That message, which is welcoming to people who want to follow our laws and rules, is perfectly compatible with a message that says, “For those people who come here and do not follow the rules, and who want to break our laws, we should be equally firm about telling them that we want to enforce those laws.” Frankly, if people are here illegally, they should go back to their country of origin. There is nothing wrong with suggesting that they do so. If it is as bad here at the moment as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire suggests, the obvious question is why people are in this country illegally and not returning to their country of origin. We have worked closely with community groups and those involved in supporting migrants to help them to deliver that message sensitively.
The campaign to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a pilot, and we were trying to give a tough message about what will happen if people do not leave the country voluntarily: they will leave themselves open to arrest, detention and enforced removal. But the message also said that there is something that those people can do: they can contact the Home Office, and we will assist them in returning to their country of origin voluntarily, perhaps supporting them to do so. A significant number of people, more than 29,000, do that each year. That way of addressing the problem is greatly preferable, and it is much better for the taxpayer.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost. The cost of the pilot was just £10,000. If an individual who was in the country illegally chooses to go home as a result of the pilot, it will have paid for itself. We are doing a full evaluation. At the end of the three-month period, which is a reasonable period because of the time it takes to get travel documents, we will do the evaluation and then make a decision about the pilot.
However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the first voluntary departure as a result of the pilot took place on 2 August. It was that of a Pakistani national who had been living in the UK illegally since December. Interestingly—colleagues might find this slightly ironic—he did not see the ad van itself; he saw a picture of it in The Guardian newspaper. He texted the number and we arranged to support him for his flight home, so at least one individual has left the country as a result of the pilot. From a cost perspective—something that I think the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs has mentioned—the pilot has already paid for itself. If we had had to arrest, detain and enforce the removal of one individual, it would have cost the taxpayer probably the best part of £15,000, so from a cost perspective, if we can persuade people to go home voluntarily, that is clearly the right thing to do.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire referred to the Advertising Standards Authority, but I do not think he accurately set out its view. It was very clear today and did not uphold any of the complaints about the vans or the allegations that the vans were offensive or racist. It said:
“We considered that, in context, the claim would be interpreted as a message regarding the immigration status of those in the country illegally...not related to their race or ethnicity.”
It concluded that
“the poster was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or distress”
and was
“unlikely to incite or exacerbate racial hatred and tensions in multicultural communities...it was not irresponsible and did not contain anything...likely to condone or encourage violence or anti-social behaviour.”
The van referred to someone’s area, and the hon. Gentleman is right about the ASA’s view that people would interpret that as being quite a narrow area. For example, in a London borough, people would assume that it meant the London borough. Since our statistics were from a slightly larger area, the ASA said that it was misleading. We have therefore agreed not to use those advertisements in the form that was used.
The ASA did not support the outlandish claims that I think the hon. Gentleman suggested. He should also be aware that his views are not supported by the public. The poll conducted by YouGov on 13 August found that 66% of those polled in the United Kingdom did not consider the poster to be racist, so two thirds of those polled do not agree with him. Also, the comprehensive poll conducted by Lord Ashcroft and published on 1 September found that 79% of those polled supported the messaging in our posters, because they can see that giving a firm message to people who are in the country illegally is perfectly compatible with being welcoming and supportive of those who come to our country legally, follow our rules and comply with the law.
The hon. Gentleman got very heated on that point, but I do not think that he has the measure of public opinion on this issue. People want to welcome those who come here for the right reasons, but the public want to deal firmly with people who should not be here. The advertising campaign was squarely aimed at those who are in the country illegally and have no right to be here. Asking people in that context to return to their country of origin is perfectly reasonable.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Scotland reporting centre. He should know that that pilot ran from 29 July, which is prior to his letter, to 4 October. It did not use any of the materials that we used for the ad van campaign. A significant proportion of those using the reporting centre are people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom. They should not be here and should be returning to their country of origin. Partly, the message is a tough one, but the other side of the message tells people that we can support their return and help them to go home.
Our immigration enforcement officers work closely with many communities in the United Kingdom. They work with faith and voluntary groups that know of people who want to return home, but need support to do that. They do not want to be arrested or detained; they want to come forward in such a way that they avoid that experience, and I think that that is perfectly reasonable.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we might do in future. As I said, we are evaluating the campaign to see how successful it has been in driving up significantly the number of voluntary returns. We will make that information available and then decide whether to continue.
On the street operations that we conducted, the hon. Gentleman referred to racial profiling. I absolutely refute that. Our officers do not have the legal power, and we do not have the ability, to do that. We use intelligence to identify where to run the operations, and when we encounter people, we decide whether to talk to them based on their behaviour, not their race, ethnicity or appearance. I absolutely refute his allegation that we are involved in racial profiling in street operations, and it is not supported by the evidence. Again, it is worth saying that the general public support the work that we do in enforcing illegal working laws and in making sure that people obey the law.
Our officers have a difficult job to do. I have been out with them on operations. They take their responsibilities and the intelligence seriously, and they are well aware of the legal environment. They have proper briefings before the operations and they deal with the people they encounter sensitively. I have seen operations where, for example, we have encountered people who have done nothing wrong, and our officers have dealt with them very sensitively and handled a difficult situation well. I do not think that the way in which the hon. Gentleman characterises the issue reflects the reality on the ground. It is hard and difficult work. Just as the police have a difficult job in enforcing criminal laws, our immigration enforcement officers have to enforce immigration laws. They deal with people who should not be in the United Kingdom, and who might not wish to return to their country of origin, but it is important that we enforce the law. It is difficult work and will remain so. It has to be done sensitively, which is what we have been doing.
Mr Virendra Sharma
Nobody is questioning that we are talking about illegal immigrants. We support the idea that there should be no illegal immigrants, but we question the tactics used—for example, when there is forced entry into shops and other places where they cannot find anybody and the intelligence is poor. The small sample of 500 people supporting the idea is not good evidence.
Mr Harper
On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about entry, our officers have to obey the law in the same way as other law enforcement officers. I have attended operations on which we have encountered the “beds in sheds” phenomenon in his part of London, where there are some appalling pieces of accommodation. When we have to gain entry to those properties, we have to work with the local authority. The local authority has to seek a warrant for entry. We have to go through a proper legal process. We have to have evidence and intelligence when we deal with those things, and it is the same when we do illegal working operations. We have to have intelligence; we do not simply do it on a speculative basis. If we have intelligence, we approach people and gather evidence on whether people are working illegally. I make no apology for doing that, because it is not simply about the fact that they are breaking our laws. Employers who employ people illegally undercut legitimate business people. They compete with them unfairly, and we should deal with that.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire both said that they are against illegal immigration. I am glad that they said that. All that the campaign was about was trying something—a pilot—to see whether it was successful. We have been frank about it and we will be guided by the evidence. If the evidence suggests that the pilot has been successful, I might flip the question round and ask why we would not go ahead with a pilot that is successful and that leads to more people leaving the country voluntarily. If the pilot proves unsuccessful, we will not roll it out. It will be based on the evidence. We will analyse the pilot properly.
The evidence from the public is that they support a tough approach. I make no apology for dealing with the concerns of the public. We are not, as was suggested, talking about a recent phenomenon. We said at the general election that we would deal with immigration. We have reduced net migration to the country by a third. We have cracked down on abuse. We have seen an increase in the number of students and skilled workers coming here. We want to give the message that we are open for business for the best and the brightest, but that should be combined with dealing firmly with people who break our immigration laws and either come here illegally or overstay their visa. Those things are compatible, and that is how we wish to continue.
Written Statements
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Export Guarantees Advisory Council (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment, Lord Green, has made the following statement:
The Government are committed to periodically reviewing public bodies to ensure their roles, functions and operations continue to be necessary. A triennial review of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, a statutory non-departmental public body of the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), will commence shortly in line with published Cabinet Office guidelines. The review will be carried out by ECGD officials. Interested parties will be invited to make representations. The aim is to complete the review by the end of 2013. The outcome will be presented to Parliament.
British Hallmarking Council (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The coalition Government made a commitment to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state. The triennial review of the British Hallmarking Council is one of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) scheduled to commence during the third year of the programme (2013-14). The review will commence in October 2013.
The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance, in two stages.
The first stage will:
Identify and examine the key functions of the British Hallmarking Council and assess the requirement for these to continue;
If continuing, then assess delivery options and where the conclusion is that a particular function is still needed examine how this function might best be delivered, including a cost and benefits analysis where appropriate;
If one of these options is continuing delivery through the British Hallmarking Council then make an assessment against the Government’s “three tests”: technical function; political impartiality; need for independence from Ministers.
If the outcome of stage 1 is that delivery should continue through the British Hallmarking Council as a non-departmental public body, then the second stage of the project will be to ensure that it is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance, using the Cabinet Office “comply or explain” standard approach.
When completed the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Equitable Life Payment Scheme
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Government announced today that the Equitable Life payment scheme (“the scheme”) will be extended to 2015.
The Government are taking this action to make sure as many Equitable Life policyholders as possible receive the payment they are due for the injustice they suffered. The scheme’s latest progress report confirmed that policyholders have already received £734 million in payments, and since then payments continue to be made.
Despite this good progress, the Government want to maximise the number of people who receive their payment. This has been our aim from the start of the scheme, but because the address information received from Equitable Life can be up to 20 years old, or non-existent in some cases, the scheme has been unable to trace a number of policyholders.
We will shortly launch a national advertising campaign to encourage eligible policyholders to come forward and claim their payment. This work will complement the ongoing work the scheme is doing to trace policyholders. By extending the scheme we are giving this work a greater chance of success.
Any policyholder who believes themselves to be eligible for the scheme, but has not yet been contacted, is encouraged to call the scheme directly on 0300 0200 150 where they will be advised of the next steps to take.
Opening up UK Payments
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
In March 2013 the Government published a consultation, “Opening up UK payments”, which set out the Government’s proposal to introduce a new, competition-focused, utility-style regulator for retail payment systems in the UK. This proposal reflected the Government’s concerns about the market for UK payment systems, in which strong network effects and vertically integrated ownership structures give rise to problems in three main areas: competition, innovation and delivery against end-user needs. The consultation presented a set of questions identifying the key issues on which the Government sought views. The consultation closed on 25 June.
The Government are publishing their response to the consultation today. The Government are introducing amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill to establish the new payment systems regulator as a separate body under the FCA. The payment systems regulator will have objectives to promote competition, innovation and the interests of end-users. The regulator will be able to oversee any payment system operating in the UK that is brought into scope by being designated by HM Treasury. Once a payment system is designated, the payment systems regulator will have a range of powers over its participants—operators, infrastructure providers and payment service providers that provide payment services using the system—in order to advance its objectives.
The payment systems regulator will have powers to make requirements regarding rules for the operation of designated systems, and to give directions to participants in such systems. It will also have specific powers to require direct and indirect access to designated systems, and to vary agreements relating to such systems, including fees, charges and terms and conditions. The payment systems regulator will also have enforcement powers to publish details of compliance failure, to impose financial penalties in respect of a compliance failure, and to require owners of payment systems to dispose of their interests in them, subject to HM Treasury approval. The regulator will also have concurrent Competition Act powers to enforce the Competition Act 1998 prohibitions against anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance, and to make market investigation references to the Competition and Markets Authority.
I am placing copies of this document in the Libraries of both Houses.
Bovine TB
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The two badger cull pilots, in Somerset and Gloucestershire, were designed to test that controlled shooting is a safe, humane and effective means of reducing badger numbers. Successfully tackling bovine TB (bTB) in the badger population is a key element in our strategy to rid England of bTB within 25 years.
Today I am announcing to the House that the six-week period of the Somerset TB control pilot cull was completed on 6 October. Current indications suggest that the pilot has been safe, humane and effective in delivering a reduction in the badger population of just under 60%. We set ourselves a challenging target of aiming to ensure that 70% of the badger population was removed during the pilot. The chief veterinary officer (CVO) has advised that the 60% reduction this year will deliver clear disease benefits as part of a four-year cull. However, Natural England are considering an application from Somerset for a short extension of the culling period, as provided for under the agreement with the company. The advice of the CVO is that further increasing the number of badgers culled would improve those benefits even further and enable them to accrue earlier.
The targets for this cull were set at the outset on the basis of population estimates carried out in September 2012. This was repeated in August 2013 immediately before the culls started.
The results of this latest exercise show that the estimated number of badgers is significantly fewer in both areas compared to last summer. In Somerset the latest population estimate is 1,450 compared to 2,400 last year, and in Gloucestershire 2,350 compared to 3,400.
In the six weeks of the cull, 850 badgers have been removed in Somerset.
One of the lessons we have learned already from this pilot is that in order to ensure high levels of safety and humaneness, the cull period may need to be longer than six weeks in future. The independent panel of experts will consider all the information which has been collated during the culls and it will be made publicly available after the culls have finished.
The cull in Gloucestershire is still ongoing and I will make a further statement when the six weeks is completed. I understand that this morning Gloucestershire is also submitting an application for an extension to Natural England.
To achieve our aim of ridding England of bTB within 25 years will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. This Government are committed to tackling the disease in all reservoirs and by all available means. Our cattle industry and the countryside deserve no less.
Russia: Arrest of British Nationals (Greenpeace)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to inform the House of developments concerning the arrest of 30 people, including six British nationals who were onboard the Arctic Sunrise in the Arctic circle. All have all been charged with “committing acts of piracy”, and the investigation continues.
Since we were made aware of the detention of the ship on 19 September, our priority has been to provide full consular assistance to the six British nationals, and to their families and friends in the UK. This has included ensuring their welfare and that they have access to lawyers. We have also provided consular support to two New Zealand nationals.
Murmansk is around 1,500 km from Moscow. We deployed a consular team prior to the vessel’s arrival in port and arranged for access to the detained. On 24 September consular officials met the British nationals on their arrival in Murmansk.
Subsequently, our consular officials were in attendance for the preliminary court hearings for the British nationals between 26 and 29 September. All 30 detainees were placed on remand for up to two months and transferred to pre-trial detention facilities while the authorities carried out further investigation. Before and after the hearings, consular officials were permitted to talk with the British nationals and take messages from them to pass to concerned relatives in the UK.
On 2 October the Russian Investigative Authority charged all 30 detainees with acts of piracy. Consular officials carried out further consular visits on 3 and 4 October to all six British nationals, and one of the New Zealand nationals. We were able to check on their welfare and address any concerns. We are working closely with the Russian authorities and we remain grateful for their continued co-operation. Going forward, we will remain in regular contact with the British detainees and continue to provide all appropriate consular assistance. We are working closely with Greenpeace to address any concerns they may have about due process and welfare.
On 3 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met John Sauven, Greenpeace executive director and Ruth Davis, Greenpeace political director, to discuss their concerns. He made it clear that he was following the case closely and that he had spoken with Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov in New York on 25 September. The Foreign Secretary said we would remain in close contact with all other nations whose citizens were involved, and make representations to the Russian authorities if necessary.
Senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have also raised the case with Russia’s ambassador to the UK on 26 September and our ambassador in Moscow raised the case with Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov on 2 October.
EU Transport Council
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I will attend the first Transport Council of the Lithuanian presidency (the presidency) taking place in Luxembourg on Thursday 10 October.
There will be an orientation debate on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage. The UK will look to ensure that additional burdens and costs on UK industry are minimised (while retaining an appropriate level of protection for passengers), particularly on the core issues that the presidency have identified for discussion.
The Council regulation amending regulation (EC) No. 219/2007 on the establishment of a joint undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) will be adopted. The single European Sky initiative aims to modernise the European air traffic management system and has considerable scope to reduce costs and improve the travelling experience for UK passengers. We plan to support the proposed extension of the SESAR joint undertaking to 2024 because it still has an important role to deliver the research and development set out in the air traffic management master plan in support of the wider single European Sky initiative.
There will be a general approach on three proposals.
The first is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on railway safety (part of the fourth railway package). The UK’s position on the recast railway safety directive is to ensure that we build on processes that already work well and, where appropriate, modify these to recognise changes such as the introduction of the single safety certificate. All UK interests and objectives are maintained by the proposed general approach text. I therefore fully support this proposal and the adoption of a general approach by the Council.
The second is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EU) No. 912/2010 setting up the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) Agency which will play a central role in improving the governance and management of the EU’s satellite navigations systems Galileo and EGNOS. I fully support this proposal and the adoption of a general approach by the Council.
The third is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on multi-annual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and to marine pollution caused by old and gas installations. The Commission is proposing a multi-annual financial packet to be dispensed from the European Union budget for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 coinciding with the new multi-annual financial framework. This planned funding will not be agreed until the overall multi-annual financial framework is finalised.
The Commission proposes earmarking an amount of €160.5 million for the referenced period compared to €154 million for the previous period. Annual appropriations will then be determined by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial framework. As this is coming from within the existing EU budget there are no additional financial burdens to the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom supports the work of the European Maritime Safety Agency and recognises the contribution it makes to maritime safety.
Under any other business, the Commission will provide information on the aviation emissions trading scheme (ETS), on recent transport accidents, requirement of passenger data by the Russian Federation (PNR) and on the system for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international maritime transport.
Fares and Ticketing Review
(10 years, 7 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 publishing “Rail Fares and Ticketing: Next Steps”, the outcome of the Government’s review of fares and ticketing. The review has been an opportunity to consider a range of options to address issues about fares and ticketing raised by passengers and others.
In conclusion, we are setting out our vision for a modern, customer-focused fares and ticketing system that will support our objectives of allowing even more people to travel by rail and ensure they have a better experience and which:
supports a passenger-focused railway, meeting changing needs and travel patterns;
promotes a vibrant future for our railways supporting economic growth and prosperity and helping to reduce the country’s carbon footprint;
enjoys the trust of passengers and the commitment of the rail industry; and
maintains its current strengths while embracing sensible change in the interest of passengers and taxpayers who fund our railways.
New track and trains are only part of the story for improving our railways. We remain committed to rolling out smart ticketing across the network. We want the whole experience of travelling by rail to be modern, seamless and easy, starting with buying a ticket to travel. We also recognise that the cost and complexity of train fares is naturally a key concern for passengers.
To help passengers, I can confirm that from January 2014 we will give rail passengers a better deal by capping the upper limit of any individual fare rise at 2% above the permitted average of inflation plus 1%, for all regulated fares. This will protect passengers from large fare increases which can have a significant impact on household budgets by taking 3% off the maximum.
We are trialling a scheme to regulate longer distance off peak tickets on a single-leg basis to remove the scenario where some single off-peak tickets cost nearly as much as return tickets.
We will also trial more flexible tickets that can provide a more attractive offer for commuters travelling fewer than five days a week or outside peak hours.
The report reconfirms the Government’s commitment to ensuring that ticket offices remain an important route for passengers to buy tickets. Reflecting changes in the ways that people are buying train tickets, the Government are at the same time setting out ways that train operators can make improvements to their ticket offer at stations providing that appropriate passenger safeguards are also put in place. We intend for passenger representative bodies to play a greater role in shaping the packages that are brought forward by train operators.
Other measures highlighted in the report include:
A ticketing code of practice—The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) will oversee the code to ensure that passengers are provided with the information they need to choose the best ticket for their journey and that this information is clear and not misleading;
A market review—The ORR will look into the sale of tickets and consider whether current markets are operating efficiently, effectively, and in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers. The Department has committed to consider any cost-effective recommendations that come out of the review;
Annual surveys—The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has agreed to release the information to customers from next year on how well ticket office staff, ticket machines and websites perform in regards to selling passengers the best ticket for their journey.
Our railways are a vital part of our nation’s future. The Government are determined to build on the continued success of our railways and that is why we are providing over £16 billion to support the network and make sure it can respond to increasing passenger demand, help economic growth and cut our carbon footprint.
While above-inflation fare rises in recent years have been necessary to help fund our record investment in the network, it remains our firm ambition to cap fare rises at the level of inflation, just as soon as economic conditions allow and savings have been made to the cost of running our railways.
The review document explains how we will blend the best of regulation with the best of market forces to deliver a fares and ticketing system that puts passengers first and our railways on a sustainable footing for the future.
I will place copies of the document, “Rail Fares and Ticketing: Next Steps” in the Libraries of both Houses.
Cold Weather Payments Scheme 2013-14
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to announce that later today we intend to lay regulations to amend the cold weather payment scheme. The changes detailed in these regulations will come into force on 1 November this year, in time for the beginning of the winter period.
Following advice from the Met Office, for winter 2013-14, no new weather stations are recommended. However Rostherne weather station has been upgraded and given a permanent status at the same location and Church Fenton weather station is no longer listed as the alternative station for Linton on Ouse and has been replaced with Bramham weather station.
Also, and as a result of MPs’ representations, a few postcodes will be reassigned to suitable weather stations.
This will ensure that the weather stations to postcode links are as representative as the current arrangement.
I am writing to each Member who made representations about the administration of the scheme last winter to make them aware of the advice from the Met Office.
Cold weather payments are separate from, and in addition to, winter fuel payments.
The amendments resulted from the Department’s annual review of the cold weather payments scheme. The review drew on expert advice from the Met Office and took account of representations from benefit claimants and Members of Parliament.
For winter 2013-14 the cold weather payment rate will continue to be £25 for each seven-day period of very cold weather.
Grand Committee
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Children and Families Bill
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
““(9ZA) Subsection (9A) applies (subject to subsection (9B)) where the local authority are a local authority in England and—
(a) are considering adoption for C, or(b) are satisfied that C ought to be placed for adoption but are not authorised under section 19 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placement with parental consent) or by virtue of section 21 of that Act (placement orders) to place C for adoption.(9A) Where this subsection applies—
(a) subsections (7) to (9) do not apply to the local authority,(b) the local authority must consider placing C with an individual within subsection (6)(a), and(c) where the local authority decide that a placement with such an individual is not the most appropriate placement for C, the local authority must consider placing C with a local authority foster parent who has been approved as a prospective adopter.(9B) Subsection (9A) does not apply where the local authority have applied for a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in respect of C and the application has been refused.””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the government amendment to Clause 1. I start by thanking the adoption Select Committee for its invaluable contribution to the proposals under consideration today. I am also grateful to all those noble Peers who, over the summer, gave me the somewhat backhanded encouragement, “Don’t worry, everybody wants this Bill, it’s fantastic—but you’ll still get plenty of amendments”. They were right. I have also been most struck by the level of passionate, professional and rigorous scrutiny that the Bill—my first—is receiving in your Lordships’ House. The committee’s thoughtful and thorough consideration has helped to shape Clause 1 in a way that will better meet the needs of vulnerable children.
The key aspect of the Government’s adoption reform programme is to reduce delay for children needing adoption so that they are able to move in with their potential adopters earlier than they currently do. Fostering for adoption has the potential to achieve this. Clause 1 imposes a duty on a local authority to consider placing a looked-after child for whom the local authority is considering adoption with foster carers who are also approved prospective adopters. This is a fostering placement that, subject to a placement order or parental consent, may become an adoptive placement. Highly respected organisations in the adoption field, such as Coram, Barnardo’s and the British Association for Adoption and Fostering have expressed their support for this policy.
However, while we have tried to draft the clause in the way we consider most appropriate, concerns about it were raised during the debate in the other place. Many felt that the clause disapplied the duty to give preference to a placement with family and friends and that, as a result, it would encourage social workers to overlook this type of placement. Ministers made it clear that it was not the Government’s policy to exclude family and friends, whose role in caring for these children we highly value. The Government have carefully considered these comments, as the Minister for Children and Families said he would. I now seek to amend the clause to put it beyond doubt that before a local authority considers a fostering for adoption placement, it must have explored placement with relatives and decided that it is not the most appropriate placement for the child. I hope noble Lords will agree that this amendment is appropriate. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I must advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 4 to 8 because of pre-emption.
Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1)
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, may I welcome the Minister to the first meeting of his first Bill Committee? I thank him for the opportunity to discuss some of these issues in advance. I hope that all of us together can build on the commitments that we made at Second Reading to make these provisions as good as possible because they affect some of the most vulnerable children.
Part 1, as we know, concerns adoption. Clause 1 would enable agencies, as the Minister said, to place a child in a fostering for adoption placement. This would apply to any child coming into care for whom a family placement is not possible and before any decision to move towards adoption has been approved by the adoption panel or the court through a placement order. We certainly share the Government’s concern that where adoption is the best option for a child, any delay in matching and placing the child should be reduced to a minimum. We share the Government’s overall intention. I am also pleased that the Government have listened to the debate on kinship care and brought forward Amendment 1 today, which addresses that issue.
In introducing the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench, I would point out that some of the amendments were placed in respect of the original Clause 1. Those are Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 9. Since then, we have seen the Government’s Amendment 1 and we have tabled further amendments, Amendments 2, 3 and 10. It is to those more recent amendments that I am predominantly speaking at the moment.
While welcoming the Government’s amendment, I still think there needs to be further improvement to the measures proposed in two important respects. The first is kinship care, by which I mean care by a relative, friend or other person connected with the child, as defined by Section 22C(6)(a) of the Children Act 1989. The requirement in government Amendment 1 to consider kinship care as a first step appears to be—I will listen carefully to what the Minister says about this—a weaker prescription than that in subsection (7) of the current legislation, which requires local authorities not just to consider, but to give preference to, kinship placements where they are possible. Furthermore, Amendment 1 still disapplies subsections (7) to (9) in their entirety. These are requirements in the current legislation to place the child near their home, not to disrupt education or training, to enable siblings to live together, to accommodate any disability the child has and to be within the local authority’s area. We think that those are all sensible requirements that enhance the stability of the placement for the child. Therefore, our Amendment 3 simultaneously requires that stronger requirement on kinship care to take preference and retains those other criteria for placement, including keeping siblings together.
However, even with the current legislation, many people share a strong belief that local authorities could do more to explore the potential for kinship care, so Amendment 10 proposes the introduction of pre-proceedings work and family group conferences, designed to ensure that, at an early stage and in a systematic way, the family is encouraged to identify possibilities for the child within the wider family network.
It is easy to understand why family members might not initially come forward at an early stage to suggest options without such structures and support. They might be concerned not to upset the parents who are—obviously, by definition—their relatives. Many often feel, certainly, that they have to wait for the decision of the court as to whether the child is free for adoption, but by then it is too late. Therefore, Amendment 10 would build into the process an early examination under professional guidance of kinship care possibilities.
Our second concern about the clause, as it would be if amended by government Amendment 1, is about the extension of fostering for adoption placements potentially for all children coming into care through whatever route. As currently formulated, Amendment 1 would require the local authority to consider a fostering for adoption placement for every child for whom kinship care was not possible.
I am very much in favour, as we all are, of reducing delay in achieving quality alternative permanent placements for children who need them. I have supported the development of concurrent planning adoption, which is the template for fostering for adoption placements. Concurrent placement has undoubtedly been beneficial for the children placed early on with foster carers approved to adopt. However, we need to be clear that concurrent planning has so far been used only for babies under two born into families where it is already well known that the parents have serious and chronic problems, such as long-standing drug addiction, which interfere with their ability to parent, and who have often already had to relinquish previous children.
In the pilot run by Thomas Coram that the Minister mentioned, 61% of the children were referred for concurrent planning placement at or at about birth and 95% were under one year old, so this is a very special group. In the 11 years of that pilot, only 59 children were placed by this method, so carefully selected are the children for very good reasons. Of those 59, two were returned to the birth family and 57 were adopted, with their original foster carers having been approved for adoption, and they had very good outcomes. However, opening up to the whole diverse range of children coming into care a model conceived specifically for a very small and tightly drawn group of babies seems to be dubious, not least because there is no evidence base as to the possible outcomes for children and families with different characteristics, particularly for older children.
Most particularly, the requirement to consider a fostering for adoption placement would apply also to children placed into care voluntarily by their parents under Section 29 of the Children Act. By definition, these parents have not relinquished their children for adoption, nor have the local authorities applied for a care order. I do not think it is appropriate even to consider placing such children on a pathway to adoption without the fully informed and independently witnessed consent of the parents, as is required by current legislation. That is why our Amendment 2 would make it clear that the requirement to consider a fostering for adoption placement would apply only to children for whom the local authority had a care order. Indeed, I think that the unintended consequences of not exempting from this requirement children who come into care voluntarily may be to deter parents in the future from approaching local authorities with a view to voluntarily placing a child into care when they are in difficulty.
Briefly, there are a number of other issues on which we should like to hear the Minister’s views before deciding whether the Bill might need further amendment on Report. The main issue is that there is still a lack of clarity, including in the draft guidance that the Minister helpfully issued last week, as to when in the process a local authority may be judged to be considering adoption. We welcome the intention outlined in the guidance to require the director of children’s services to approve a decision to use a fostering for adoption placement and to inform parents and prospective adopters in writing. However, as the draft guidance makes very clear, the local authority will be required to consider a fostering for adoption placement even when the first priority for that child is to be rehabilitated with the birth parents. I think that that is very questionable. When will considering adoption come into play? The guidance says that this will vary from case to case. That is not nearly tight enough and a defined trigger may be needed, possibly as suggested in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Secondly, there is very little emphasis in the guidance on matching. Thinking about fostering for adoption placements, that is a very important issue. It is worth noting that under the current arrangements it is very often during the fostering phase that detailed knowledge about the child comes to light with professional and expert foster carers. They may learn additional things about a child’s disability or behavioural problems, or the child may disclose experiences to the foster carers that were not previously known, and all this goes into the matching process to try to ensure that the adoptive placement, when it occurs, is as secure as possible. I am concerned that in a fostering for adoption placement, outside of the narrow range of the babies I talked about, of whom knowledge is probably pretty full, issues may come to light during that placement that deter those potential adopters currently fostering a child from proceeding with the placement any further because of the nature of the issues that come to light.
Finally, there is an important issue of timely planning for permanency across all alternative permanent options and I regret that the Bill as it stands does not say very much about those other options. However, we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these issues. I beg to move
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we have two amendments in this group. As we are starting in Committee, I begin by declaring an interest as a patron of PAC, which deals with both pre and post-adoption support and care and the Intercountry Adoption Centre. I am joint president of London Councils—of course, local authorities have adoption responsibilities—and I have other interests that are well in the past. I have been informed by the directorship of an adoption agency, membership of a local authority adoption panel and membership of the legal group of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering.
I enjoyed both the subject and the process of serving on the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Fostering for adoption is a concept much supported by members of that committee, although we all recognised that it may be of quite limited application. The Select Committee urged the Government to widen the scope of the duty to include it in options for all children for whom adoption is the permanent plan. I appreciate that that is why the Government made an alteration to the original draft clauses, although not the alterations that the Select Committee suggested.
I appreciate that my Amendments 5 and 7 would be pre-empted if the Committee accepts government Amendment 1. However—and I say this for clarity and not too aggressively—if we are not persuaded by the response to the other points raised in this debate, I for one will want to return to the matter on Report to deal with the equivalent issues in the clause that, if we accept the government amendment, will then have been amended.
My first amendment is to probe both the meaning and the weight of the term “consider”. It is not a technical term. When I first saw it, thinking very much as a non-professional, I wondered where on a spectrum of thinking about something—from something casually crossing one’s conscience all the way to making a decision—“consider” comes in terms of considering adoption. I then discovered that many professionals were also concerned. BAAF and the Family Rights Group, endorsed by other organisations, say that there is a wide spectrum between adoption considered as one possibility when all options are open and a formal decision that a child should be placed for adoption. Things follow automatically, step-by-step, when one is in the formal process. This suggestion is made that unless we link this provision to the statutory review process, we are not centring it properly as part of that step-by-step sequence. In defining a more precise trigger point, they suggest it when the local authority considers that adoption is the likely permanence plan. I accept that I have failed to bite the bullet by not offering an alternative.
I wondered whether I was fussing unnecessarily because if one looks at new subsection (9A)(a) of Section 22C, all that will be required is for the local authority to consider placing the child with a foster parent approved as an adopter. However, and this is very central to my point, I worry that a lack of clarity or agreement across the sector as to what is meant by “considering for adoption” may lead to inconsistencies in practice between agencies. That cannot be a good thing.
Given that the Government’s amendment proposes new subsection (9ZA)(b), I am even more unclear now about the local authority being satisfied that the child should be placed for adoption. Why is paragraph (b) required if being satisfied, in the terms set out there, is different from “considering adoption” in paragraph (a)? I hope that in reply the Minister can explain the distinction between the two paragraphs in the first part of his Amendment 1.
Amendment 7 would require the matching process to have been carried out; the noble Baroness referred to this and to issues coming to light which are not necessarily initially obvious. It is a very careful process which should be reflected in the legislation. I was not reassured by what the Minister said in the Commons about this. He said that fostering for adoption should,
“be used where the local authority has not … decided”,
on a “permanence option” and that it is,
“not … appropriate … formally to match the child and carers”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children and Families Bill Committee, 12/3/13; cols. 183-195.]
He also said it would be “premature” because a fostering for adoption placement was generally before adoption was the definitive plan. If permanence is the objective, I do not follow the logic of that.
There is of course an important place for guidance in all this. I thank the Minister for distributing the indicative guidance but it does not seem to deal with this. Surely it should at least be included as an issue, even if one does not go as far as the amendments that I have tabled. What a lot of this comes down to is taking all reasonable steps to avoid placing a child in a situation where disruption or a breakdown of the placement has not been considered adequately.
I know that my noble friend Lady Walmsley will say a word about Amendment 10. I absolutely take the point about work with families being difficult. On the drafting—this is a detail—I was not sure that it was necessary for an emergency to preclude the steps which are spelt out. I also wonder how this would relate to Section 47(5)(a) of the 1989 Act, which requires the ascertainment of a child’s wishes and feelings. I suspect that everything else in that section is subject to that anyway but perhaps the noble Baroness might say a word about that.
I finish by putting on record my huge admiration—and not just mine—for both foster parents and adopters. Above all, to be prepared to foster with a view to adoption, and therefore necessarily with a view also to not adopting, is particularly admirable. In the somewhat technical approach that we may have to take to some of this, it is appropriate that we should not lose sight of the enormous contribution that these families, which are sometimes a family of one, will make.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I want to add a couple of comments to those of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, with whose words I totally concur. I have a great deal of sympathy with Amendment 10, and I urge the Minister to consider it and perhaps come back to us at a later stage with some further thoughts about it.
When we are considering all this, we need to bear in mind that adoption is not the only form of permanence, and we must not lose sight of that fact. It is not appropriate for many children. When it comes to considering placement with family and friends, on whatever basis, in my view you cannot do that early enough. A briefing that I received from the College of Social Work pointed out to me—I had not realised this before—that there is currently no duty on a local authority to consider family and friends before the child is taken into care. Given the 26-week limit that we are about to bring in, it would be very wise for the Minister to consider this amendment. It would mean that family and friends were considered even before the child was taken into care, and the concern that people have raised, that 26 weeks may not give family and friends time to come forward, would be averted if family and friends were being considered even before the child went into care. This amendment has merit, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I have two brief points. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am concerned about the issue of consideration, and I would like to know at what stage this consideration kicks in.
Secondly, I have the greatest respect and admiration for family and friends carers, who do such a remarkable job, sometimes in very difficult conditions, and I take on board the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised about timing. I am curious about the dropping of the preference for looking first at family and friends carers as appropriate to a child. I am surprised that that is not being strongly supported by the Government. I believe that something like 86% of kinship care proceedings are initiated by the prospective kinship carers themselves, not by social workers, and surely that is quite the wrong way round.
I am also surprised that the Government do not seem to consider the costs of kinship care and care by friends. I believe that a foster care placement costs something like £40,000, while the average cost of care proceedings is more than £25,000. I hope that the Government will look again at the whole issue of placing family and friends care at the head of the proposals. I am aware that it is not always appropriate and I accept that, but to have dropped the idea of preference, if appropriate, is a mistake.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I have three points. I begin by saying that I believe that legislation should enhance and underpin practice. I declare an interest as being a member of the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, along with my colleagues who have already declared that interest. It was quite clear to us that, were we able to improve practice in a number of areas, the legislation would simply not be necessary.
The Government should return to thinking about that issue, particularly in relation to the practice of social workers and the difficulties they face at the moment, and the pressures of local government. I am sure the Minister will want to concentrate on what he has before him but unless the Government take a more strategic and broader view of children’s needs, we will simply add to the legislation and the difficulties that local authority social workers are experiencing rather than meet the needs of the children.
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)
I am reluctant to query the noble Baroness because I am aware of her huge expertise in this area and have enormous respect for her, but in my amateur ignorance I do not see in the Bill or the amendment anything which assumes that the local authority must consider adoption. The amendment refers only to where the local authority is considering adoption; it does not say that it must consider adoption. If I have missed the wording somewhere else, I hope that somebody will put me right, but the noble Baroness’s third consideration seems not to appear in the Bill.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
I, too, welcome the Minister to his first Grand Committee day of a Bill and thank him for his time over the summer in dealing with some of my concerns. As I listened to the debate, my mind went back to a meeting four months ago with women whose children had been taken away from them in the 1950s and 1960s. At the time, they were single women and were strongly encouraged to give their child away. Those women bitterly regretted having done so and were campaigning for an apology from government. It is unlikely that this Bill will result in women campaigning in 20 or 30 years’ time for an apology from Parliament for what is being done now, but we really have to raise our game. It is clear that if we took a more consistent approach towards to some of these vulnerable families and helped a few more parents off drugs and alcohol, as we could well do, we would not need to take their children away. We must not be too optimistic and allow children to be kept in those families and be harmed, but we see through the effectiveness of Louise Casey’s focused work with troubled families and through District Judge Crichton’s work in the family drug and alcohol court that, where a real effort is made and where central government is prepared to step up and take responsibility, we can make a difference with those families. I welcome what the Government are doing, but some of these children would not have to be taken into care if we raised the overall quality of our child and family practice.
This debate highlights the great judgment required of child and family social workers. They are in the position of making that lifetime decision: will a child stay with its birth family in kinship care or will it be removed for adoption? I welcome the huge investment that this Government and the previous Government have made in raising the status of child and family social work through the social work college, the new post of Chief Social Worker and the Munro review. Despite those all being very helpful inputs, a social worker who was training in London—an intelligent woman—said to me last week, “I was bitterly disappointed by my training. I didn’t get the feedback. Many of my fellow students felt the same way. I’m now going to Bristol to carry on my training in social work”. There is therefore an awfully long way to go in the nuts and bolts of getting the social work profession to where it needs to be to serve those families properly.
What progress are we making in the retention of child and family social workers? People are saying—I heard it said again recently—that we are getting the best young English social workers into the profession now and have seen a great improvement over the past two years, but are we succeeding in retaining those young people? Are we managing to retain experienced social workers close to the front line so that they can mentor and support those child and family social workers?
I have one final question for the Minister, which he might care to write to me about. It is a concern raised in the past by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the outcomes for children in adoptive placements. We need robust evidence about outcomes for children in adoptive placements. We have them already for children in kinship placements. We need to compare, contrast and make good policy decisions based on those. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that, if that cannot be produced at the moment, research projects will be put in place so that in future we know how stable those adoptive placements are. The worst outcome would be for a child or children to be placed for one or two years, to be settled, and then to be rejected again by their new family. I am sorry to have gone on so long.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests. I, too, was a member of the Adoption Legislation Select Committee. I have what feels like a lifelong involvement with Action for Children, which certainly goes back to when I was very small and collecting money for the National Children’s Home, which has changed its name a few times. I think I am now an ambassador for it. I also had some experience of supervising adoptions when I was a social worker, but that was a very long time ago so I am not sure that it is really a relevant interest because the legislation and everything else was very different.
One of the things that were different in those days was that most children who were placed for adoption were babies. When I hear the rhetoric about adoption from the Government at the moment, I sometimes suspect that they still think that that is the case. The reality is that most children being placed for adoption now, before the changes, are not babies, and that if the Bill as it stands becomes law, that will be even more true.
I have worked with and still know several people who are both foster parents and adopters; some are just foster parents and some are just adopters, while others have done both. They perform a remarkable job. Far too often we take for granted the work, the commitment and emotional support that they put in and the trauma that their lives and their families are put through, and it is very important that we do not do that.
I have concerns about this issue. Even when I was a social work student, I did an adoption supervision and took it to court. I was very impressed with, and supported, the judgment and the words of the presiding judge. I know that you really have to get the law right. You have to ensure that the family understand their rights, and that the adoptive family understand not only their rights but the rights of the parents who are placing their children for adoption.
We are talking here about going to a further stage, where the parents are not placing the children for adoption but the local authority will decide that there should be permanence, and therefore fostering for adoption should be considered. That is legally a new situation. I need convincing by the Minister that the Government have done the work to ensure that the family court will not then come back and say, “Actually, we are not convinced that the rights of this child and its natural family were properly considered in your decision around permanence and therefore around placing for fostering up to adoption”. That means that when the case gets to court for adoption, the judge may then be tempted to say, “I’m not convinced that this is in the interests of the child or that the process has ensured that the rights of the child, which are expressed very clearly in all sorts of places, including the UN convention, have actually had due attention paid to them”. We would then be putting social workers and local authorities in an invidious position, and we really have to take account of that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make a brief intervention. I welcome the Minister to his current position. He is not the only new boy; I am a new boy to this subject, although not to this House. I declare an interest in that I sit as a family magistrate, and I have been doing that for about one year now so I regard myself as new to the subject.
I had not intended to speak to this group of amendments but I want to make one point: in my experience, the use of parallel planning for younger children is extremely beneficial. The far more experienced magistrates and district judges who I sit with have told me many times over the past year how effective parallel planning can be. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said about the problems of extending parallel planning and how it needs to be carefully looked at, but from what I have seen there would be far more benefit in doing that. It is certainly the case, and I am sorry to have to say this, that you come across wider family groups who have a lot of experience of the family courts and—I use this expression deliberately—know how to play the system. They know how to extend it again and again before the courts make their final decision. If you can have an element of parallel planning in this, that is for the benefit of the child. I will leave it there. That is the point that I wanted to make in support of Amendment 10.
Lord Nash
I am grateful to noble Lords for their kind welcome as we start our consideration of this very important Bill. I welcome their challenges and questions as we all seek to do our very best for the children who may be the most vulnerable in our society. We have had a very good discussion and I hope that I can provide some clarification on some of the points. I am happy to write to noble Lords about any issues that I do not pick up, of which I am sure there will be a few.
Turning to the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, local authorities have a duty to place a child with the most appropriate placement available and one which best safeguards the child’s welfare. If a local authority is unable to make arrangements for the child to return home, then it must look for someone else who is able to care for the child. This might be through a placement with friends and family. At this point, the local authority must give preference to suitable family and friends carers.
Where there are no suitable family or friends carers able to care for the child, the local authority must make alternative plans for the child outside the family. If adoption is a possible option, then the clause requires the local authority to consider a placement with approved adopters who are also approved foster carers. They will foster the child until the court makes a placement order. In some cases, the local authority will be working to rehabilitate the child with the birth family, with adoption as the alternative if that is not successful. If it is successful, the child will leave the FFA placement and return home. The clause specifically requires that the local authority must first consider family and friends care before going on to consider FFA. At this point, the clause disapplies the duty to give preference to family and friend carers because before considering fostering for adoption, the local authority will already have considered whether the child can return home and, if not, have considered suitable family and friend carers.
However, if a family or friend carer emerges at this stage or after the child has been placed in an FFA placement, the local authority must consider them. If placement with these family or friend carers is the most appropriate for the child, the local authority must move the child. We must remember that this is a duty to consider fostering for adoption, not to place. It will not be suitable for all children but for those for whom it is right, it allows them to move in with their potential permanent family much earlier.
In Amendment 10 the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, propose a duty to seek to identify a family or friend carer when a local authority has concluded that a child should be looked after but before applying for the care order. There is the potential that this could lead to a delay in making a care order application for a child who may be in danger of significant harm. This would be contrary to the duty of the local authority to safeguard and promote that child’s welfare. It is a principle of the Children Act 1989 that the local authority must first look to place a looked-after child with a family and friends carer, as I have said, if they are unable to be returned to their parents. It is of course right that the child should be kept safe while arrangements are made for an appropriate placement.
I agree that establishing what family support is available is essential in pre-proceedings. Family group conferences are one particular way of achieving this. This Government are committed to the use of family group conferences at all stages of the involvement of children’s services with families. We are currently funding the Family Rights Group over a two-year period to implement a framework of accreditation. However, we would not wish to make them compulsory as they will not be suitable for all families in all circumstances, not least because the families themselves must agree to one.
It is clear, and understandably so, that the noble Baronesses’ proposed clause has been prompted in part by the concern that more rapid proceedings might make it difficult for family members to put themselves forward to care for a child. However, we have put in place the necessary measures to allow for extensions to care proceedings and for them to be resolved justly. There is no limit on the number of extensions that can be granted. I hope that the noble Baronesses will feel reassured by this and consider that a new clause would not be necessary.
On Amendment 8, regarding placements with siblings, I spoke briefly about the first part of this amendment. With regard to its second part and the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, about siblings, it might be that in some circumstances it would be in the child’s best interest to be placed with or near a sibling. However, we are talking about the placement of a child with foster parents who may go on to adopt him. It will not always be the case that adoption is being considered as an option for the child’s sibling. It may not be in his or her best interests to be adopted together with a sibling. It must be for the local authority in each case to decide what is in the best interests and what is the most appropriate placement for each child in a sibling group. I hope that the noble Baronesses will agree that Amendment 8 would therefore not be appropriate in this context.
I turn to the trigger point for the duty to consider fostering for adoption. A number of arguments have been put forward about the point at which the duty should bite. Your Lordships will have seen that the government amendment enables a fostering for adoption placement to be considered from the point when the local authority starts to think about adoption as an option for the child to the point at which the local authority is authorised to place the child for adoption with prospective adopters. We believe that this will enable local authorities to consider fostering for adoption for a child at any point during the care journey for children for whom this type of placement is appropriate. This is consistent with other early placement practices such as concurrent planning—a practice that the Select Committee recommended should be promoted more widely.
What is meant by “considering adoption”? The term comes from the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 and its concept is very familiar to adoption agencies. “Considering adoption” means considering it as an option for the child. A local authority may be considering adoption at different stages during a child’s care journey. In some rare cases, it might even be before the child comes into care or, as in a concurrent planning scenario, where the local authority is working with the birth parents to return the child home but has adoption as the alternative plan should rehabilitation fail. In some cases adoption will be the only option being considered and in others it will be one of several.
I appreciate the concerns raised about the term “considering adoption”, which some feel might be misinterpreted and lead to rushed decisions about whether adoption is an appropriate option before all other options have been carefully assessed. The clause requires that when a local authority is considering adoption as an option it also considers fostering for adoption. It will be for the local authority in each case to decide whether the chances of the child going on to be placed for adoption are sufficiently high for a fostering for adoption placement to be the most appropriate one for him or her. Cases where there is robust evidence and background history about the child’s birth family could support the need for such radical intervention. Using “considering adoption” as the trigger would also cover concurrent planning cases.
We have explained in more detail what is meant by the term “considering adoption” in draft statutory guidance, which the Minister for Children and Families promised to provide. We will consult on the draft guidance soon and would welcome all comments on how it could be improved. Amendments 4, 5 and 9 propose alternative trigger points. I hope that the noble Baronesses will agree that the government amendment best delivers on the objective of the policy and will agree not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this important subject, many of which were contributions from positions of considerable expertise and experience in this field, working with children, families and foster carers, and on adoptions. I will not rehearse those contributions as Members of the Committee have heard them. In concluding this debate, perhaps I may draw some threads from them.
I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Walmsley, and my noble friends Lady Massey and Lord Ponsonby, particularly their support for Amendment 10. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me some specific questions about the phrase,
“unless emergency action is required”.
That is just a reference to the fact that in situations of urgent child protection it may not be possible to make these offers. She also asked me a technical question about the implications for Section 47 of the Children Act, and I would like to get back to her on that if I may.
However, I think all those contributions testify to the importance of trying to maximise the possibility of kinship care and of recognising that, while at the moment the law requires that local authorities give preference to such an option, the reality is that—often for very good reasons, as I and others outlined—those possibilities often become evident, if at all, too late in the judicial process to act upon them. That is why Amendment 10 specifies pre-proceedings work. It is important that that is done in a structured way under the stewardship of an experienced professional. It involves handling very difficult issues within the family, and family group conferencing has been proven to be the safest way to do that.
I would say to the Minister that Amendment 10 does not in fact make offering those pre-proceedings activities and family group conferencing compulsory; it would simply require local authorities to offer them in those circumstances. Therefore, it does not put a compulsion on that issue at all.
While we are on kinship care, the Minister—and perhaps he could write to me about this—did not clarify whether the Government’s wording in the amendment is a weaker prescription for local authorities than the current legislation; that is, whether the requirement for local authorities to “consider” the kinship care option is weaker than “giving preference to”, as specified in Section 22C(6)(a) of the Children Act 1989. Perhaps he could clarify for the Committee in writing whether he regards the current formulation in Amendment 1 as a weaker prescription, because that was one of our most important points.
I turn to the points about fostering for adoption. Again, I am grateful for the contributions from, in particular, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, my noble friend Lady Armstrong and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. They speak from great experience. My noble friend Lady Armstrong made a point, which echoed my own, about concurrent planning. At the moment, it is restricted. You see adverts in newspapers and in the trade press from local authorities offering concurrent planning, and it is all for babies aged nought to two. Coram has a restriction of age two. In fact, the evidence that I cited showed that in practice 95% of babies who have been referred and placed through that route have been under one year old. This is not a situation in which one can imagine that a seven or eight year-old or a teenager will present the same issues. A great deal is already known about the babies who have been placed by that route. They are very young, so they are unlikely to have a lot of negative experiences as older children may have done, and there is therefore a great deal of certainty from the outset about the child whom the fostering for adoption parents are taking on. That would not be the case with older children or children who are known to have had difficult experiences.
The Minister responded to the question of whether we should have a specific trigger for fostering for adoption placements. In relation to that, one issue that we have not touched on is: what is the perspective of the foster carer approved to adopt in all this? Certainly at the moment, the foster carer approved to adopt is hoping for an adoption.
When it comes to placing children, a direction of travel and a change of culture are being signalled here. Putting all children on a pathway for potential adoption is not appropriate. It would be putting children on a pathway to adoption; that is what the adopters themselves hope will be the outcome of this. As my noble friend Lady Armstrong and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, have said, once cases get to court, judges will be very reluctant to disrupt a situation that they feel a child has become accustomed to and embedded in, where they have started to develop relationships.
Secondly, the Minister replied to the comment, “What does ‘consider’ mean?”, by rehearsing the arguments in the draft guidance that it can mean different things to different local authorities in relation to different children. Another way of saying that is that it can mean almost anything at any time. I worry about that, because for the local authority to have to consider a fostering adoption placement for all children, including those going into care voluntarily, is a very serious change. He said that adoption might be one of several options; there might be a list of options and adoption might be on it. Why, then, if there is a list of options, is fostering for adoption the one that the local authority has to consider first? That is the effect of the Government’s amendment.
The comment that concerned me most was what the Minister said about matching. He said—I wrote this down and I hope I have got it right—that in a fostering for adoption placement, the local authority is not required to consider matching in the same way as it does for adoption. If the fostering for adoption placement looks like it might proceed to adoption, then it will undertake the formal matching process—by which time the child will have been there for perhaps six, nine or 18 months. Given that this is supposed to be a device to minimise disruption to children and to place them early with parents with whom they may remain if they cannot return home, that seems to be totally counterproductive. I urge the Minister to think again, certainly in framing the guidance, about what is said about matching. Clearly, if children can stay in a placement that started out as fostering for adoption, then matching needs to take place right at the outset, otherwise there is a real danger that children may then be moved.
I do not feel that I can say we have had a lot of assurance from the Minister on the points raised so far. I hope that he will reflect further on the points that Members have made and on the amendments put forward, and will come back to us before Report with some further thoughts. We will be thinking about what we may want to bring forward on Report ourselves, and it may be that we can come to some consensual agreement on some of these issues. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“( ) In subsection (4)(d) (matters to which court or adoption agency must have regard), after “the child’s age, sex, background” insert “, religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have a considerable number of interests that I need to declare, not all of which I have to say I can remember. I am a governor of Coram, a patron of BAAF and of PAC, a patron—I think—of TACT and a patron of the Grandparents’ Association. I am very involved with Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and probably many others. I was also chairman of the pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny committees.
I strongly support the Government on the Bill, which in principle is an excellent one. There are, however, as one would always imagine, certain points that need both elucidation and change. Perhaps I may also add how delighted I am with the extra resources that have now been offered by the Government toward the adoption process and post-adoption support. There is an area about which I wish to speak in this debate and that is Clause 2 of the Bill, where it is intended to repeal Section 1(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
The opinion of the adoption committee that I chaired was that it was right to start with the removal of the words from subsection (5). This is an issue of ethnicity—an issue of race, culture, religion and language. In Clause 2, the Government are removing it entirely from the 2002 Act. That is a step too far. In paragraphs 57 to 83 of the adoption report, we said—putting it shortly—that we agreed that the Government were right to take it out as a separate subsection of the 2002 Act. It was given too great prominence. The evidence that we received as a committee was to the effect that there was a time when social workers elevated subsection (5) to inappropriate heights and therefore they were trying to match in colour in particular where it was not appropriate and moving children from very good families who were not of the same colour, race or background. However, we also had evidence, both from social workers and from the adoption agencies, that that problem had largely receded; it had been far less obvious in recent times and there was a counterdanger that, if it were taken out altogether, the social workers who cared too much about it when it was in would care equally when it was out. They would say, “Now that it’s not in, we have to disregard it. We must not consider race, ethnicity, language, religion or culture”. That is an equally important danger. We had evidence from the social workers and the agencies that there are social workers and other people out there who might take that view. It is a danger and one that must not be disregarded.
We also had informal evidence from children; we had a group of children who had been adopted and a group of children who were looked after who came to talk to me and one or two other Peers at the request of the then Children’s Rights Director. They were extremely interesting groups of children, ranging in age from about seven or eight to about 19. The young ones were very vocal, and at least two of them said to us that the question of ethnicity was extremely important to them, and they were worried about being placed—or the possibility of being placed—with someone who would not understand their background. To me, this was very powerful evidence from the horse’s mouth. I am very concerned about the Government keeping this clause in the Bill, when in fact we made it very clear in our report how concerned we, as a committee, were. Our proposal was that it should not be set out on its own, where it has too important an effect, but in among other matters that have to be considered under Section 1(4) of the 2002 Act.
If my amendment were accepted, Section 1(4)(d) of the Act would require the court or agency to have regard to, “the child’s age, sex, background, religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant”. It is neatly packaged into a number of other matters.
As I understand it, the Government are saying that “characteristics” includes that. It does in a sense but, unless you highlight the relevant points somewhere, there is a great danger that they will be overlooked. If you look at subsection (4) it is interesting to see the various points that are spelt out because a great many of them could be covered by one word or sentence, but the legislators of the day thought it necessary to explain some of them. I urge the Government to think very carefully about including, neatly packaged in subsection (4)(d), those words as part and parcel of a larger package of what the social workers should be looking at. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendment 12 is on the same issue and a similar wording to that moved so eloquently by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We very much support the argument that she put forward and the care with which the adoption Select Committee considered this matter and other issues.
As the noble and learned Baroness pointed out, under the Children Act 2002, the court and adoption agencies must under current legislation give due regard to a child’s religious persuasion, racial origin, culture and linguistic background when making decisions. The Bill removes that wording, but we continue to consider that these are important factors.
No one wants children to be disadvantaged by delays caused by the search for a perfect match, but the evidence of the adoption committee was that while there had been pockets of poor practice in the past, this is not a widespread problem. Indeed, it heard evidence from organisations such as Barnardo’s, which believed that the current legislation was adequate, and Coram, which also argued that, while there might have been a problem in the past, the situation was improving rapidly. The committee also identified that there were several other factors affecting the placement of black and minority ethnic children, including having fewer prospective adopters, the age of the children being put up for adoption and a failure of social workers to promote their availability. We are concerned that too much of the legislation being put forward on this issue is being based on anecdote and there is in fact a paucity of evidence that the wording in the legislation is the cause of black and minority ethnic children waiting longer for placements.
The general view was that the current legislative wording was not a problem per se. We therefore think that the Government have swung too far in the opposite direction by seeking to remove any reference to ethnicity, religion and culture. That is why we believe that putting these factors in the welfare checklist, along with other considerations, strikes the right and proportionate balance in addressing the issue. It would require agencies to have regard to these factors, but they would not be paramount.
In addition, any change in this area would be in direct contradiction to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, in particular, Article 20 which states:
“Children who cannot be looked after by their own family have a right to special care and must be looked after properly, by people who respect their ethnic group, religion, culture and language”.
We agree with this principle. It is important that parents understand the identity of their child and that they are able to help them feel at ease with that identity. We cannot be blind or neutral to these considerations. I very much take the point that was made in the earlier debates. We sometimes think that we are talking about babies, but we are not. We could be talking about young people—anything up to adolescents—who have a view about these things. That point was made very eloquently by the noble and learned Baroness in her introduction. They have an identity and they want that to be considered and expressed. There may have been overzealous social workers in the past, but there may also have been adoptions that failed because the complexities of a child’s identity were not properly addressed. It is important to get a balance.
The Government have argued that these issues are taken into account in the general welfare provisions in Clause 2, but in fact Clause 2 does not achieve that. It removes the express duty to give consideration to these factors, but we are concerned, in the same way as the noble and learned Baroness expressed, that withdrawing them completely will send a clear message to those involved in adoption that these factors are no longer to be considered.
In his response to the Select Committee on adoption report, the Children’s Minister argued that specifying ethnicity, language and so on would continue to place excessive emphasis on these factors and would therefore distort the way that they were applied. To be fair to the Minister, when we met him the other day he made a similar point. He said that in order to counterbalance the excessive emphasis, we had to go to the opposite extreme to ram the message home to local authorities and adoption agencies.
We do not consider that that is the right way forward. These are important and sensitive issues. Having the factors on the welfare checklist, balanced with other issues, would allow the flexibility needed to make an assessment of all the child’s needs in the proper context, which would achieve the Government’s stated aim. I look forward to other comments and the Minister’s response but we very much support the point made by the noble and learned Baroness in opening this debate and the eloquent arguments that were put in the adoption report in the first place.
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)
My Lords, like many others, I see many good intentions in the Bill and, along with others, I welcome the aim of speeding up the rate at which adoptions take place and are completed. But I also very strongly support my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss in this amendment.
When we talk about a person’s identity—this will come up a number of times in other amendments that we are due to consider, and some noble Lords have raised this issue already—it is a multifaceted affair. It has many constituent parts. It seems like an anomaly to try to say that “characteristics” or “background” could encapsulate all the things that we might mean by identity and which might influence the way in which we feel we are being brought up or looked after by people who are standing in for our biological parents.
I do not understand the argument that there is somehow an excessive emphasis if you mention it. That does not make sense to me, given that we live in a society where there is still racism and discrimination based on religion, cultural background and language. How can it be excessive when we are having to deal with all those different forms of discrimination? We do not have a society where we have the luxury of saying that we do not need to talk about this because it does not matter and it is not something that people consider or talk about.
Last year, I hosted a round-table discussion that had been organised by the NSPCC. It took place while the Select Committee on adoption was still gathering evidence so we were not influenced by what the committee was saying. Present at that meeting were adoptive parents, adults who had been adopted as children, academics, researchers and representatives from major charities and local authorities—everyone working in the field of adoption. We focused on racial origins, transracial adoptions and ethnicity. We referred to case studies and experiences in the UK and overseas, and some DfE officials were also present. By and large, that group of about 20 people also came to the view that it was both important and necessary to consider ethnicity, racial origins and culture when seeking to place for adoption. That is not to say that anyone present thought that transracial adoption should never be undertaken. However, it was considered that in our society cultural identities are key factors that ought properly to be taken into account when a child is to be adopted.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch made reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have heard some very powerful arguments in support of these amendments. I simply want to support what has been said with reference to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights said on this, and I speak as a member of that committee.
My noble friend and others have questioned the evidence base for the Government’s position. The Joint Committee looked at the evidence and we asked the Government what evidence they were using. We came to the conclusion that the evidence simply did not support the Government’s position. There is clear evidence of problems with delay. We share the Government’s concern about that and I do not think that anyone is arguing that we do not need action to deal with it. However, the evidence to which the Government referred did not show that these delays were due to ethnic matching. Therefore, we concluded:
“We are … not satisfied that the Government has demonstrated by reference to evidence that the statutory provision it proposes to repeal has been responsible for delays in the adoption process to the detriment of children from ethnic minority backgrounds”.
Perhaps the Minister could explain to the Committee what this evidence is, because what the Government have provided so far is not convincing. The committee continued:
“Even if there were evidence showing that the ‘due regard’ requirement … has led to disproportionate weight being given to a child’s ethnic background”—
and as I have said, we do not think that there is—
“we fail to see why it would be necessary to remove from the legal framework all reference to ‘religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.’ We do not follow the logic in the Government’s argument that including those considerations in the welfare checklist would still lead to them being accorded disproportionate weight”.
I am completely bemused. A lot was said about this at Second Reading. I do not understand why the Government are so resistant to the very sensible recommendation from the adoption committee that it simply should be part of the checklist. No one is arguing that it should be given disproportionate weight any more; that has been accepted. The very fact of taking it out, though, as has already been said, in a sense is giving disproportionate weight to the other view that, “Clearly, we mustn’t take any account of it at all because the Government said that it must not be part of the list”. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want to achieve. Perhaps the Minister will explain why they are so resistant to that simply being part of a list that gives equivalent weight to other factors. The committee stated:
“In our view, removing from the legal framework any reference to ‘religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background’ risks those considerations being regarded as no longer matters to which due regard must be paid, which would be incompatible with Article 20(3) UNCRC”.
There could be a challenge to that with reference to the UN convention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, referred to the need for other actions. The NSPCC suggested that legislation of itself will not address the problems of delay. The Government therefore need to commit to other actions such as paying attention to the need to actively recruit more adoptive families from a range of minority ethnic backgrounds; to give more support to adoptive parents and social workers to aid their understanding of the needs of minority ethnic children and improving long-term stability for minority ethnic children who are looked after; and, as has already been said, to consider how to boost permanency for such children beyond adoption, particularly through a consideration of guardianship, kinship care and long-term foster care.
I endorse what has already been said but I am completely at a loss as to why the Government are so resistant to this proposal from the adoption committee, which the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also endorsed.
Baroness Hamwee
I too have my name to Amendment 11. It seems that these issues of religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background have been the subject of a pendulum that has swung considerably backwards and forwards over the years. It may be that these issues are not everything but they are certainly not nothing. As other noble Lords have said, the Government have recognised that these issues should be considered along with all other relevant factors.
I thought what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had to say about identity was so powerful that I do not want to pursue the issue myself because I could not say it as well. I just wrote down the word “identity” with big marks against it when I was making my notes for this debate. We must not suppress these issues. Our society comprises a huge variety of combinations of these different matters, and an increasing variety as people from different ethnic backgrounds marry one another and different mixes appear. There should not be excessive emphasis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, used the phrase, which I think the Minister also used, “ramming the message home”. It is not for legislation to ram a message home; legislation should get the measure right rather more calmly. There is a danger that the message that will be taken is that these issues should now be ignored, when what really matters, as other noble Lords have said, is a placement with adopters who understand the issues and can support the child. You might come from exactly the same ethnic origin or religious background but not be able to support the child; they are not the same thing. The indicative guidance that we have received recognises this. I think that it talks—and if it does not, it should—about the need to recruit adopters from a range of backgrounds.
I do not think that there is a difference of view between what we are all saying and what the Government are thinking; it is not about the “what” but more about the “how”. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said that she was at a loss. I do not think that I am at a loss. There has been an oversensitivity, if I can put it that way, to what some parts of the media regard as “political correctness”, and there are better ripostes to that attitude in the media than the change in legislation that is proposed. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I would like to say something about where I think this all came from. We should remind ourselves that in the 1980s racism was rife. When I was working at that time in local authorities, we had people called “race advisers”, some of whom were not the most helpful people. Some changed the whole attitude to racism; some made social workers take a particular view of race. I know that because I was the head of a social work department and was battling to get something rational, while the irrational was being pressed on the workers.
I make this point because I think that this Bill has so much of value and would hate to see one dogma replaced by another, but that is what is happening here. As the pendulum has swung, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, so the Government are feeling that we can stop all this and get placements moved on. However, we need to think about the issues—those points have been made eloquently and I shall not repeat them—and I hope that the Government take a rational rather than a dogmatic view of this issue because it is important for the children. I, too, have talked to young people whose ethnicity is extraordinarily important to them, even though they were placed, and have grown up, in white homes. They need to understand their ethnicity and their links. I hope that the Minister will accept that the welfare checklist is a very straightforward document and that this could be included without any difficulty.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, the UN convention quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asks for respect for a child’s ethnicity and cultural, linguistic and religious background. If I were putting down an amendment to the Bill, which I am not doing, I would want something that emphasised that. That does not mean that adoptive parents have to be of the same ethnicity or religious conviction as that of the child being adopted, but they have to be the kind of people who genuinely respect that. If I may be allowed an anecdote, although we have just been told not to rely on anecdotes, I can tell the Committee that I lived through such a thing in my own family. When I was a very little girl, my parents “adopted” a child of the Kindertransport. Her parents had sent her away from Hitler’s Germany just before the outbreak of the Second World War and my parents, as Christians—my father was a minister—decided that they would open our home and our family to this little girl, Marrianna, who became my sister to all intents and purposes for several years until her own family was able to take her towards the end of the war. I remember well my parents straining every muscle to allow that little girl to keep her religious identity—we learnt in our family to respect all the Jewish customs and festivals—and they were determined, although Christians themselves and very powerfully so, that they would do that. What we are surely asking for is that kind of genuine respect for the child’s religious, cultural or ethnic background, and not for someone who has to be the same. The rationale of the noble and learned Baroness’s amendment reaches towards that, but I would like something that emphasised the wording of the UN convention, which is “respect for” rather than “the same as”.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I would like to make two points. First, I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Jones, about the danger of transgressing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I will address the point made about respect by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, when I come to my second point.
I am going to give the Committee an anecdote. I am sorry, but this is why I am so passionate about believing that the well balanced solution of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to the perceived problem is much better than taking the issue out altogether. It is the fact that my son and his wife, in addition to having their own two white, blond boys, have adopted a Chinese daughter. Cathryn is a wonderful little girl and she is much loved by the whole extended family. For the past seven years, she has been very successfully adopted and I very much hope that it continues that way. Of course, when going out in public with her family she might as well have a big sign on her forehead saying, “I am adopted”, because she clearly looks different. It was so important that her adoptive parents were sensitive to difference and its importance, and to the importance of cultural, racial and ethnic identity. They are approaching the adoption of their little Chinese daughter with all that in mind. That is why I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that we must ensure that where there is transracial or transethnic adoption, the matching is right. That is more important than the child and the parents having the same skin colour.
I would also say to the Committee that ethnicity really matters; I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young. That is why it is important that you find the right adoptive family. If the race, culture and ethnicity are different, they have to understand, be sensitive to and take account of that as they help the child to develop into a fully fledged grown-up with an understanding of their ethnic and cultural background. To throw it out altogether puts the Government in great danger of the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction and no account being taken at all of the difference in ethnicity. If they did that, they would be in danger of finding adoptive families who, although they were very well intentioned, did not have that sensitivity to difference and to the importance of the cultural identity of the child.
That is so important when you have a transnational, transracial, transcultural or transethnic adoption. The fact is that we are going to have some of those because there is a mismatch between the pool of children of ethnic majorities who are waiting for adoption and the ethnicity of families who are prepared to adopt them. Until we get equal numbers in those two pools, we will have transracial and transethnic adoptions. However, the important thing for the success of the adoption is that the matching is right. The danger is that if you take out reference altogether instead of putting it in the checklist, as has been so sensibly suggested, you will get a mismatch and have unsuccessful adoptions. Alternatively, the adoption will complete until the child is an adult but that adult will be damaged by the lack of consideration having been given to their background.
This is terribly important. I can tell your Lordships that it can be very happy and successful—because I have personal experience of that—and I very much recommend that it happens where a child needs a loving family. Those considerations really matter, though, and we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment. Living in Britain as a culturally diverse person can be very challenging and you need to be well prepared to face the challenges and adversities, which can be never-ending, even if you are living with your birth family. When you are different, you have to be confident about who you are as a person.
Since I spoke about this issue at Second Reading, I have been contacted by those who are for and against my stance that “due consideration” of a child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural background when being placed for adoption should not be removed but should be included as an important part of the Bill.
We all agree that adoption between races adds another invaluable dimension to the adoption experience which cannot be ignored, because living in a loving family is priceless. However, the evidence points to ethnic background being a significant factor which cannot be ignored, and this has been said to me over the past few months by both children and adults who have been adopted. That is why I believe that social workers need to ensure that prospective carers can respond positively to the ethnic background of the child and consider what implications this may have as they grow up, especially during their adolescence, reflecting on their identity and heritage.
The British-Chinese adoption study by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering in 2012 found that this was an important consideration among young Chinese people who were placed with families with whom they could not identify, unlike the story that my noble friend has just told about the little girl whom her family has adopted. If a child experiences racism or rejection because of their religion or culture, they may feel isolated and not able to share this with anyone within the family. Being visibly different from family members can also result in a sense of feeling as though you do not belong, along with a loss of confidence, which I mentioned earlier.
I know that the Government recognise this as an important factor, but I believe that we are in dangerous territory if we remove consideration of it altogether from legislation. Do we really understand what the impact of these changes would be? Do we really understand what would happen and the message that we would be sending out? Nothing that has been said to me can convince me that such consideration by a court or adoption agency when coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child is not important. Social workers need to be sensitive to this factor and to work with parents, who need to be able to understand the identity of the child they are adopting. This should not be a stand-alone but should be included in the child’s welfare checklist along with religion, culture and language, as so passionately put by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and as recommended by the House of Lords Select Committee on Adoption Legislation. It should not be the be all and end all, and nor should all the emphasis be placed on it, but it should be considered.
Equally important is the need to encourage more diverse families to become adoptive parents. That is not something that many people from diverse backgrounds consider, but there are ways in which we can make people realise that they can play an important part in our community.
We also need to improve the long-term stability for culturally diverse children by helping to boost permanence for these children beyond adoption, and the consideration of kinship care and long-term foster care. That is why I believe that everyone needs to support this amendment, for the sake of the well-being of the children whom I speak about who feel that they want to be part of this society and feel as if they belong.
Lord Nash
My Lords, a number of moving contributions have been made to this debate, particularly by my noble friends Lady Perry and Lady Walmsley. I know that we are all trying to find the right way forward in a difficult area. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is vastly experienced in these matters, and I hesitate to gainsay her. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked for some evidence. I would like to provide some, underline what is behind the Government’s position and reaffirm that my department’s main aim is to ensure that all children, whatever their background or race, achieve the best start in life.
The Government’s concerns about this can best be summed up in the simple equation that once they have entered the care system, white children are three times as likely to be adopted as black children who have entered the system. Some 6% of white children in care are adopted while 2% of black children are adopted. This is a fact.
Lord Nash
Six per cent of white children in care are adopted while 2% of black children in care are adopted. That is a fact that should make all of us angry. The average length of time that it takes for a child to be adopted from entering the care system is two years and seven months, but for black children it is three years and eight months. That statistic of course conceals the fact that many children are never adopted at all.
It is worse than that, though, because all the evidence is that, generally, the younger a child enters the care system, the more likely they are to be adopted. Black children in fact enter the care system four months earlier than white children, on average as babies, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said about the age of children entering the care system. We believe that with the best intentions in the world, social workers are trying too often to make perfect matches and taking the aspect of ethnicity too much into account. As a result of this, the system is leaving—
Baroness Young of Hornsey
I am sorry to interrupt. I just want to get this clear, because the Minister seems to be saying that the provisions around ethnicity in the 2002 Act are virtually the sole or main reason why black and mixed-heritage children are being left behind in the adoption queue. I would still argue, as have other noble Lords, that there is little if any evidence to suggest that that is the case—that there is an exact, identifiable causal relationship between the provisions of the 2002 Act and the lack of progress for black children.
Lord Nash
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for enabling me to clarify this point. I am not saying that it is the sole cause at all. It is one of a number of factors and we believe that our approach will be one element in helping to address this imbalance, which is leaving ethnic minority children short-changed.
Social workers will of course continue to pay considerable regard to ethnicity as they and the courts will be required to have regard to,
“the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant”,
as part of the welfare checklist. These will obviously include ethnicity. We do not accept that our approach means that this will no longer be considered at all, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Hamwee and Lady Benjamin, suggest. Indeed, in her speech the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred specifically to background. “Background” and “characteristics” must include ethnicity. That is a matter of plain English.
There is unequivocal evidence about the negative impact on their development of delay in placing children for adoption. Children need to form attachments with one or two main carers to develop emotionally and physically. There is also clear evidence about delay caused by practitioners seeking a “perfect” ethnic match. Professor Elaine Farmer, in An Investigation of Family Finding and Matching in Adoption, found that of the BME children in the sample who experienced delay, attempts to find a family of similar ethnicity was a factor in delay for 70% of them. A study by Julie Selwyn—
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Forgive me for interrupting, but I wonder if I could have the date of Elaine Farmer’s report.
Lord Nash
The noble and learned Baroness will get that information in a second.
A study by Julie Selwyn, Pathways to Permanence for Black, Asian and Mixed Ethnicity Children found that “same race” placements often dominated the child permanence report over and above other needs and that some social workers were so pessimistic about finding ethnically matched adopters that there was little family finding. She said:
“We found that local authorities were much quicker at changing the decision away from adoption for minority ethnic children than they were for white children. There were a great number of minority ethnic children for whom no families were found and the decision was changed away from adoption”.
Whatever the child may want, would they rather not be adopted at all or adopted late in life so that they cannot form those early attachments that we all know are so important?
The answer to the noble and learned Baroness’s question is 2010.
Amending Section 1(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 does not mean that ethnicity should not be considered. A child’s adoptive family needs to be able to meet the child’s needs throughout his childhood, having regard to all the factors provided for in Section 1(2) and 1(4), rather than simply matching his or her ethnic background or not matching at all. We have published draft regulations on this for your Lordships’ consideration.
We recognise that practice is very important. That is why we are developing a range of training materials and other tools to support the continuous professional development needs of children’s social workers, supervising social workers, team managers and independent reviewing officers working in fostering and adoption. This is part of the Government’s drive to ensure that social workers working in the care and adoption systems have the knowledge and skills they need to get decisions right and weigh the impact of delay appropriately in the decisions that they make about placements for children in care.
Of course, we need more adopters from all ethnicities. That is why we have allocated over £150 million this year to help adoption agencies respond to the pressing needs of children awaiting adoption and a further £16 million over the next two years to expand the sector.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not require children to be placed with someone who shares exactly the same ethnicity but someone who respects it. Section 1 of the Act, as amended, will not prevent this. Many children in our society live with natural parents who do not entirely share their ethnicity. I urge the noble and learned Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken on this amendment with a unanimity of support for it. I acknowledge, however, that Amendment 12 is more accurate since it recognises the different position of Wales, whereas my amendment was entirely devoted to the question of what was taken out and did not address the rest of the subsection, so I apologise for that. I think it should probably be Amendment 12 rather than Amendment 11.
The question of ethnicity, culture and so on is not just a question of black, white or brown. I happen to know Kenya quite well and there are 45 tribes and, I think, 47 languages there. It is totally different from Ghana or Nigeria, and so different from Jamaica. It would be very difficult to put a black child from Kenya with a black family from Jamaica. It would be much easier to put them with a white family. I have experienced the difficulties of a black family of whom the son, who is mixed race, is my godson, of whom I am extremely proud, and his black mother in the Cayman Islands had a very rough time because she came—according to the people in the Cayman Islands—who were black, from the trees. So when we are talking about ethnicity, we are not talking about black, white or brown, or indeed people from south-east Asia, whether they are Vietnamese, Malaysian or whatever it may be. What we are looking at is their cultural background, their ethnicity—and the ethnicity, as I say, of one black tribe. Indeed, those who come from certain parts of the United Kingdom are very different from other parts of the United Kingdom or other parts of Africa or Asia. It is important that we recognise that.
One of the most important points that were made in the speeches was about the issue of identity, and that follows very much from what I have just said. It was well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to whom I am grateful. It is underlined by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I very much liked what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said about respect. I am not quite sure how easy it would be to put into a list of what a judge must have regard to. I am not entirely sure whether we could require a judge to have regard to respect, but it was a very attractive idea and one that we should be looking at.
I take issue with the Minister: we are not suggesting for one moment that there should be a sameness of ethnicity, such that a Kenyan child would always have a Kenyan family. That is impossible and not even desirable. What is needed is an understanding by each of those who would wish to adopt of the cultural differences between them and the child whom they may adopt: the origins, language and culture of the child, as well as racial differences. These need to be understood and recognised, and that is the point of these two amendments.
If the Minister thinks that I am talking about same ethnicity—which is what he has just said—then I hope he will read what I have said in Hansard, both now and in my opening speech, because in no way did I intend that to be. There is a real danger, as has also been said, in replacing dogma with dogma—“I pick it up and adopt it with enthusiasm”—because that, I fear, is what this Government are proposing to do. Having come to the view, which I totally understand and with which I agree, that in the past there have been efforts to put a black child with a black family, regardless of their ethnicity, they are now saying that we must not consider it at all. That is a step too far, and I am very concerned about it. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Elaine Farmer report was from 2010, but we had evidence last year that that problem with social workers has largely disappeared.
If the amendment is not given the prominence of being in Section 1(5) but is neatly packaged away, as I have suggested, in subsection (4)(d), it will not get undue prominence. I must say respectfully that the Government are wrong in not listening to the unanimity of this Committee in what has been said today. I hope that they will go away and at ask at every level—not only at the level of junior Ministers but right to the top—whether we are really all wrong. I respectfully say that we are not. I shall bring back the amendment on Report and hope that everyone will support me on that occasion if the Government will not listen, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Directions under subsection (1) shall be given in writing setting out the Secretary of State’s reasons which shall be in accordance with regulations.
( ) A local authority to which directions have been given under subsection (1) may at any time—
(a) request the Secretary of State to review the directions,(b) appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to the High Court.( ) The Secretary of State may at any time rescind directions given under subsection (1).”
Baroness Hamwee
This and other amendments in the group take us to Clause 3, which deals with the recruitment, assessment and approval of prospective adopters. That is the heading for the clause, at any rate, but it is in fact about the Government’s possible power to give directions to local authorities to restructure the way in which they deal with adoption matters.
The Government accepted the recommendation by the Adoption Legislation Select Committee in responding to proposals for a government power of direction. Looking back at the report, I thought that the language used by the Select Committee was really very mild, but then we endeavoured throughout to be as constructive, dignified and helpful as possible. We said:
“We … urge local authorities and partners to work together to make progress on these issues”—
that is, recruitment and so on—
“particularly in light of concerns that outsourcing adopter recruitment”—
which is what this would be—
“risks isolating adoption from other services for looked-after children. We strongly encourage the Government to allow sufficient time for the sector to develop viable and achievable alternative proposals, before using the new power”.
That was the bit that I thought was very mild.
The Government state in their response—and I agree with an awful lot of this—that a lot is happening in the sector, with lots of new, good things going on, and that they have invited the sector to consider further how to address its concerns. They further state that they,
“will continue to work with the sector over the coming months to monitor the impact and implementation of their commitments. The Government has told the sector that it will reach a decision in January 2014 about any further action it intends to take”.
If we had not had that date, which is now three months away, I would have felt more optimistic about how the Government might regard this provision. It seems very heavy-handed—a sort of legislative sword of Damocles.
There is anxiety among local authorities, and I shall come back to that, but I have heard that the voluntary sector, too, is anxious about the prospect of the Secretary of State giving directions that would transfer functions, or certainly action—“functions” might not be quite the right word in the context—to the voluntary sector. We might think, “Well, local authorities are going to object to this. They would object, wouldn’t they?”, but for the voluntary sector to be concerned fleshes out the issue. It is concerned about its capacity.
Local authorities recognise the need to recruit more prospective adopters, and there has been an increase in the number of adoptions, as we know. Eighty per cent of adopters are recruited by local authorities, so for the Secretary of State to exercise this power would be very significant. I believe that the Government, too, recognise the sector-led improvements, and I shall quickly mention some of them.
In London, local authorities are working together across the city to identify and implement improvements with both regional and sub-regional partnerships, and that includes partnerships with the voluntary sector. Similarly, outside London there are consortia of local authorities. We heard about some very interesting approaches to work when we were taking evidence on the Select Committee. In north London, the consortium has put together a single point of contact for initial inquiries and a joint database, it has collocated the adoption teams, it has consistent timescales and it is sharing training and publicity and marketing strategies.
As I said, the Select Committee had very good examples of joint working, although it identified some barriers to it as well. However, I do not believe that this is a simple matter of psychology—that a threat of directions will itself lead to improvement. The Minister has said, rightly, that the Government will listen carefully to the points raised on this. I quoted the words used in the response to the Select Committee, but lifting the sword of Damocles for a further three months—I am not even sure that this legislation will be through by January 2014, but that is another matter—does not seem to be the acknowledgement that its other words would indicate.
Amendment 13, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, would require the Secretary of State to give reasons for exercising this power of direction and the reasons would be in accordance with regulations. There is a real lack of understanding about just what criteria the Government are setting and what they would expect local authorities to have achieved so as not to be at risk of such a direction. Local authorities need to know what they are doing wrong, if they are doing things wrong, and they need to know what they are regarded as doing right.
It follows from that—this is the second limb of Amendment 13—that there should be a right to request a review and a right of appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision. I understand the Government to be saying that this is not heavy-handed and that in fact it is a very precise response to the problems in particular local authorities. I am therefore a little puzzled as to why the Secretary of State would need to be able to give directions to all local authorities.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, have amendments that deal with some of the concerns that I have expressed. I think that that is one of them. My noble friend Lord Storey and I are very concerned about this, but we are happy to look at amendments and to debate issues around this matter and how the provision might be ameliorated. We have an underlying feeling that it will be very hard to get this to a position that would leave us feeling satisfied, which is why we have also given notice of our intention to oppose the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. There is a single group of amendments for debate today plus the stand part. I start this debate in moving Amendment 13.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 14 to 17 in my name in relation to Clause 3, which, as we have heard, grants the Secretary of State a new power to direct local authorities to outsource their adopter recruitment services to another local authority or to a registered adoption agency by amending the relevant part of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. We understand that the driver for the Government seeking these powers is to tackle the shortage of people approved to adopt. Certainly, we share this starting point with the Government.
I listened with great interest to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and it is clear that there is deep concern about these provisions and where they might be taking adopter recruitment services in the future. For me, that is the key issue, as I will explain. I have no disagreement in principle with the power for the Secretary of State to intervene in individual underperforming local authorities as in subsection (3)(a) of new Section 3A under Clause 3. As a Minister, I issued many such directions. Indeed, my first point is that there already are substantial powers of intervention, including the ability of the Government to outsource services when local authorities are underperforming. Perhaps the Minister will explain why these powers in subsection (3)(a) are necessary.
However, it is difficult to see how intervening in an individual local authority can solve or address the wider problem of the national shortage of potential adopters, which brings me to the powers under subsection (3)(b) and (3)(c) and where our concerns lie. Those powers would give the Secretary of State the power to remove responsibility for adopter recruitment either from entire categories of local authorities or from all local authorities at a stroke completely.
There are both practical reasons and reasons of principle why those two powers are problematic. First, on the practical reasons, local authorities currently recruit and approve about 80% of adopters. Moving many or all local authorities from this task would seriously compromise the adoption system when there is already an acknowledged shortage of adopters.
Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, elegantly pointed out, the voluntary and not-for-profit sector has made it clear that it does not have the capacity to take on the recruitment of the numbers of adopters that would be needed. The third reason is very important. Given that local authorities would retain responsibility for the placement of children and for seeing them through to adoption, it seems to me to be wholly undesirable that they should have no stake in the adopter recruitment process. We actually want local authorities to be more willing to use adopters approved by other agencies. This is more likely to happen if local authorities retain some responsibility for recruitment and are still part of the adoption system so there are some strong, practical reasons that I would like the Minister to address.
In discussion with the Minister this week, he said that the problem of adopter shortage was not in any case primarily one of underperformance by individual local authorities. In his view this was system failure at the national level, particularly because of the disincentives for local authorities to recruit more adopters than they need for their own individual populations and the reluctance, as he perceived it, of agencies to work collaboratively. Again, there have been really positive moves in that direction, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, albeit perhaps recently. That might be so: it might be system failure, as the Minister said, and if the Government wish to review adopter recruitment and propose a radically different system, they are of course entirely free to do so. But if the Government wish to come forward with a new system that would take responsibility for adopter recruitment away from local authorities and give it to some new or different kind of agency, I put it to the Minister that they should come to Parliament with those proposals now for wider scrutiny and debate.
My objections to subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) are therefore fundamentally ones of principle. It seems quite wrong to go partway along that path to pave the way for wholesale outsourcing or privatisation of adopter recruitment through the negative resolution procedure set out here without spelling out for Members what the endgame here is. I asked the Minister whether he had a vision of where he would like these services to end up and he said no, he did not. However, I cannot see the point of the power in subsection (3)(c) unless the Government have at least some desire, if not the intention, to move towards providing the recruitment of adopter services in a very different way.
In our view, the powers in subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) are a step too far unless the Government set out their further vision. Our Amendment 14 would delete them from the clause. Amendments 15, 16 and 17 would address the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised were the Government to retain the ability simply to intervene in an individual authority by instituting: that it should be by the affirmative resolution procedure; for the Secretary of State to give reasons for direction and to allow the authority to ask for a review; and for the Secretary of State to revoke any direction should he desire so. Amendment 17 would address the point that the direction should be based on the quality or performance of the local authority in providing these services.
With those amendments, this would be a reasonable and proportionate mechanism for the Government to use when they believe a local authority could do much better at adopter recruitment. They would take away the possibility that the Government could slide through an entirely new system on the back of a negative resolution procedure in relation to subsection (3)(c).
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it really is important that we do what is best for the potentially adopted child or young person. If we consider this carefully, we can see where some—I would use the word “some”—local authorities have been very poor in this respect. That is in the amount of time taken, the lack of care and attention to detail and the way things are organised. Quite frankly, that is not good enough but it is a very small proportion of local authorities. As we have heard, 80% of placements are carried out by local authorities, which themselves recognise the need for changes to be made in how some of them operate. Many have been hallmarks of good practice and have been highly praised by the Government and the voluntary sector. So the notion that the Secretary of State is given the power to say that all local authorities should cease placement is concerning to me, and I wonder why it is there.
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, that this is some plot by the Government to privatise adoption—surely they would not—or push everything to the voluntary sector, because we know that the voluntary sector has said, “No, we don’t want to do that, and even if we did we wouldn’t be able to cope with it”. I am surprised that the noble Baroness would even consider such a daft notion. No, I think that this is about the Government. I well remember David Cameron, our Prime Minister, saying in the early days, “Look, I am concerned at the time that some potential adopters have to wait before all the paperwork and the processes are carried out”, and he was right to say that. This part of this wonderful Bill addresses that issue by saying, “Yes, we need to ensure that the amount of time taken is proportionate”.
Still, the notion that you give the Secretary of State—maybe Michael Gove’s successor in two, three or five years’ time—the power to come along with these draconian powers is quite concerning, and actually not in the best interests of children. I hope that, if we want to ensure changes, the Government will look at how we learn from best practice in local authorities and in the voluntary sector—not all the voluntary sector is perfect in this, of course; we think that because the tag is “voluntary sector”, they must be fantastic, but not all the voluntary sector is. We must learn best practice from the voluntary sector and from local authorities, and constantly lift the bar and learn and disseminate those best practices so that we do what is best for our children and young people.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. I shall read out again one sentence from the conclusion of the adoption committee:
“We strongly encourage the Government to allow sufficient time for the sector to develop viable and achievable alternative proposals, before using the new power”.
Having said that, I have to say that I am not entirely opposed to the Government having this power. However, it should be a power of last resort, not a power that would be up front. The various amendments, if I may respectfully say so, are overly elaborate. I would have thought that it would be a good idea, if the Secretary of State had to give a direction, that such a direction gave the opportunity to the local authority to judicially review the Government if it thought that the direction was out of order under administrative law proposals. So I am not at all happy about these current amendments. I believe that the Government should have some power, but I do not like the way in which the power is framed at the moment. I hope that some sort of compromise might come on Report.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, for a number of reasons, I support my noble friends in their Amendment 13 and on clause stand part, failing the amendment—or something—getting through. I think that this is an excellent Bill in many ways, and I am very proud of it and welcome it. It would be a pity if it were spoilt by one particular little bit that, if implemented, would result in complete chaos in the system.
If new Section 3A(3)(c) were implemented, there would be complete chaos in the system and increased delays in the time that it took for a child to be adopted, because the voluntary sector simply does not have the capacity to take up the other 80%, and could not do so in the foreseeable future either. The Government are going too far too fast, particularly in the light of the changes that are currently being made in the adoption system. I would put a caveat next to that comment, because I think that we all believe that an extra month taken to find the “forever family” for a child waiting on the adoption list is a month too long. We do not want to increase delays; indeed, we want to shorten the period as much as possible, while at the same time getting it right. In the light of the fact that so many changes are taking place—local authorities are working together and the Government have already put changes in place—the clause as it stands should not be implemented until those changes have been allowed a reasonable amount of time to bed in. Subsections (3)(b) and (c) need to be taken out.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this debate. I remember the last days of the previous Government, when there was a great deal of concern from the Minister responsible at the lack of uptake by local authorities of voluntary adoption agencies. She repeated on several occasions, “The evidence is there; the outcomes are better; but it seems that local authorities have the perception that going down that route is more expensive”. Again, there was some debate about the research, but I think it pointed to the fact that in fact it was no more expensive than using local authority adopters. This is just a detail, but I would be interested to know what progress has been made—maybe the noble Baroness mentioned this and I may have missed it in what she was saying—in making better use of voluntary adoption agencies. There has been a huge amount of change in this area.
In the back of my mind, I also have an idea that it might be helpful for a one-page summary of all that has been done by the Government about adoption since they came into office. Maybe I just need to look back at the Second Reading debate; it is probably all there already in the Minister’s opening speech.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, much of Clause 3 is perfectly reasonable. It would allow the Secretary of State to take action against local authorities that were failing in their duties to recruit adopters by removing those powers from them—quite rightly, too, as long as that is done in a fair way and takes account of steps that local authorities might be taking to improve. There is, after all, an adoption crisis in the country, which the Minister has pointed out, and some local authorities are not stepping up to the plate.
However, children’s charities such as Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as one of its vice-presidents—as well as the Local Government Association have concerns about the fact that the Bill as it stands would allow the Secretary of State to remove responsibility for adopter recruiting from all local authorities. This proposal has caused alarm, which could lead to chaos in the adoption system. There is no guarantee that external providers would be able or willing to take on these services immediately, and any delays across the system will severely damage the chances of some of the country’s most vulnerable children of being adopted. Of course local authorities should be held to account; it is right that the Government can intervene if they are not doing their job properly. However, Clause 3 as it stands effectively allows the collective punishment of local authorities, and this punishment, as Barnardo’s and others have pointed out, would not even solve the problem but would make it worse. I urge the Government to consider Clause 3 very carefully and remove it from these provisions.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, there are fundamental problems with this clause. As has been said, there is no appeal against directions; the recipient must comply, and promptly. There is no parliamentary scrutiny of directions, and for these reasons directions are usually confined to failures in administration, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. I think we all understand that the Treasury is very good at setting out directions about how you should write your accounts. There is not much point in arguing with the Treasury about that matter of administration, but in my view directions are not suitable to implement a change in policy of this type. That is exactly what this clause empowers the Executive to do—change policy. The point has already been made that there is therefore a point of principle here, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response. Given everything that has gone on, the dissatisfactions or doubts that might emerge between central government and local government could and should perfectly well be settled in the normal course of business. As has been said, Clause 3 goes one step too far, and I could not support it.
Lord Nash
I begin with the proposal to remove the clause, but most of what I will say is also relevant to all the amendments. I think that we would all agree that we have an undoubted problem in the narrow but important function of recruiting, assessing and approving a sufficient number of prospective adopters. The statistics are stark. As I have already said, the average length of time that it takes for a child to be adopted from entering the care system is two years and seven months, and of course this conceals many children who do not get adopted.
My noble friend Lord Storey said that there is poor performance by local authorities in only a minority of cases, but I respectfully suggest that the figure of two years and seven months denies that. However, I agree with him that there is good practice: in West Berkshire, for instance, the figure is a year and a month. I question why many if not all local authorities cannot do the same.
At the end of March this year, there were 6,000 children with placement orders waiting to move in with a permanent family. This is 15% higher than a year previously. When compared with the 3,980 children adopted from care last year, one can see that this is a very significant backlog. Indeed, one cannot conclude from this backlog anything other than that the system is broken and we are facing a real crisis.
In order to find families for all the children waiting to be adopted, we have estimated that we would need around 2,000 more adopters than are currently approved and waiting to be matched. We would then need at least a further 700 additional adopters each year to meet the growing demand from children waiting. Ofsted data tell us that in the year ending March 2012 just over 25,000 enquiries about becoming an adopter were received, but these resulted in only around 4,000 applications to become an adopter—a 16% conversion rate, which I suggest is very low.
The size of the recruitment gap requires us to take radical and immediate action to resolve the underlying problems within the system. These were set out in our January publication, Further Action on Adoption. We currently have around 175 adoption agencies, many operating at too small a scale to be efficient, yet they have no incentive to expand and meet the needs of children outside their local area. Even worse, some local authorities turn away prospective adopters because they do not need them themselves.
A further problem is that, while some local authorities work in constructive partnerships with voluntary adoption agencies, too many commission from them only as a last resort. In large part, this is a consequence of local authorities acting as both a provider and commissioner of adoption services. By this, I mean that they are trying to find or commission adoptive parents on behalf of the child while simultaneously trying to recruit or provide those same parents. There are also issues around the level of fees that are paid to voluntary adoption agencies.
These underlying problems have resulted in a system that fails us in national terms; a system that is unable to make best use of the national supply of potential adopters or respond effectively to the needs of vulnerable children waiting for a loving home and a system that provides no incentives to individual organisations to address a national shortage of adopters. These problems are not the fault of the individual adoption agencies concerned. Indeed, many are doing their best to rise to the challenge and we know that there are some good examples of partnership working between different agencies:
Harrow, Kent and Cambridgeshire, for example, have all contracted elements of their adoption service to the voluntary adoption agency Coram. Oxfordshire has brought in the Core Assets Group to run its adopter assessment process. Three boroughs in London—Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham—and three unitary authorities in the north-west, Warrington, Wigan and St Helens, have merged their adoption services in order to save money while improving quality.
The problems result from the flawed way in which the current system is structured and operates. We therefore require a structural solution that tackles these systemic problems; a solution that incentivises and enables the recruitment of a far greater number of adoptive parents. Clause 3 provides for such a solution.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I have been accused of being rather unkind to the Minister in thinking that there might be some plans already as to how to do that. He said that this needs a structural solution to address a national problem and that Clause 3 of itself is that solution. In fact, Clause 3 of itself is not that solution. Clause 3 would pave the way for a solution but we do not yet know what that solution and change of policy might be, as the noble Lord said. Can the Minister indicate the kind of solution that Clause 3 would pave the way for so that we might have some indication of the Government's thinking?
Lord Nash
Yes, I did say that Clause 3 provides for such a solution. It is not a solution in itself. As I said to the noble Baroness earlier this week, there is no dark plan and no end game. The fact is that the system is working poorly and erratically. There is good practice and there is clearly bad practice. Adopter recruitment could clearly be done more efficiently and on a greater scale, which may involve working more closely together. Of course, the sector may take time to develop and recognise that, which is why we have funded voluntary adoption agencies substantially in order to stimulate them. The power is necessary to stimulate change and I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for supporting the Government in having a power.
Turning to Amendments 14, 16 and 17, Clause 3 is not therefore intended to tackle cases of poor performance or service failure within individual local authorities. Our recruitment problem is not the result of individual failure and, if it was, the Secretary of State already has substantial powers to intervene. We therefore do not consider that the amendments, which would effectively use Clause 3 as an additional intervention power for a small number of local authorities, are necessary.
I am aware that the structural change proposed under Clause 3 would be substantial. I also acknowledge the view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concerning the delegation of a power of such scope. With respect to all the amendments, and with particular reference to Amendments 13 and 15, I would therefore like to reassure the Committee that I am keen to continue to listen to views as to how this power could best be used. In due course, the Government will then bring forward their own amendment which is likely to provide greater clarity about the process by which the power might be exercised.
When I write to Members of the Committee following this debate, I will provide a summary of the many steps that the Government have taken to support voluntary adoption agencies, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, requested. Briefly, we have invested £150 million in local authorities through the adoption reform grant and recently announced a £16 million boost package for voluntary adoption agencies which will help to recruit and approve more adopters. In terms of stimulating the system generally, as the Committee will know, we have introduced the national gateway. I therefore urge my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lady Walmsley and Lord Storey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes, Lady Jones and Lady O’Loan, not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it is quite distressing—in a Bill that, as noble Lords have said, by and large we welcome very much—to find oneself at the end of a debate even more worried than at the start of it. I do not say that flippantly. Of course I welcome the Government’s assurance that they will be looking to put forward an amendment to give greater clarity about the use of the power but, as others have said, that is only part of the story. I make clear to my noble friend that that was not a pun. A direction may be given, but we are not at all clear—I am certainly not—about what would be put in place if that direction was given. That is the very essence of the problem.
Clause 3, as has been said, is not the solution to the problem. If the Government are going to reach a decision in January about further action, I hope that the Minister will be able to share with the Committee what that action might be before we are legislatively committed to giving them an opportunity to take that action, whatever it is.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to concern about the cost of using voluntary agencies. That indeed seems to be an issue that is around, but it is one that I hope has been satisfied when discussions have been had about it. It may well be that it is a function of the way in which local authorities operate that one budget holder is concerned about an expenditure that at the moment is effectively being covered by another budget holder but, if you looked at the totality of it, you would see that it was cost-neutral.
Perhaps I can have a discussion with the noble and learned Baroness about her response to the amendment. I should know, but I do not, whether other powers of intervention that might be comparable with this require reasons to be given and involve a right of appeal. I am not immediately sure about judicial review—I know that the Government are actually trying to reduce the use of judicial review rather than increase it—or whether it would be appropriate. Its origins were more about process, although it has been used very imaginatively recently. I am not sure.
Generally, the points that have been made about transparency and a better understanding of what the Government have in mind are hugely important. None of us endorses poor practice or failures, but this is certainly something that we will have to return to on Report. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this is a small amendment but it concerns an important point. Clause 4 takes us to adoption support services and the proposal for personal budgets. It requires a local authority to prepare a personal budget if asked to do so by the recipient of adoption support. My amendment would simply say: if asked to do so “at any time”. That is because I wanted to put before the Committee the possibility that problems may arise at any time and may manifest themselves at any time—for instance, when a young person who has been adopted as a child reaches adolescence. There are Members of this Committee who are far better qualified than I am to describe this sort of circumstance. My drafting is not very good and I acknowledge that the clause as drafted does not limit the timeframe, but I wanted to raise the issue and to ask the Minister what reassurances he can give with regard to support being available for as long as it is needed.
While I am speaking, perhaps I could comment on Amendment 19, which either the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, or the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, is about to speak to, on the use of prescribed agencies. This amendment proposes regulations regarding agencies from which adoption support services can be purchased. I wondered whether that might be—while showing an understandable concern about quality, which I assume is what this is about—a bit too prescriptive. Personal budgets are about choice and personal responsibility and I was not very clear whether this actually fitted with the philosophy of personal budgets. I also wondered whether paragraph (i), which deals with the conditions that have to be complied with on direct payment, might not cover their concerns. Personal budgets are increasingly used in various areas of social care, but they are still developing as a way of working. It is also right to put on record that the Local Government Association is concerned that the clause is not commenced until findings from pilots are available. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we have two amendments in this group, Amendments 19 and 270. Amendment 19 is about the principle of personal budgets. Endorsing the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we welcome the overall approach of making personal budgets available to empower families and adopted children. The idea of personal budgets has been common and has been extending in care packages for children with disabilities for some time. When properly funded and organised, they have the capacity to give families greater flexibility and reduce the administrative burden on local authorities, so we see their advantages.
Our amendment was attempting not to be too prescriptive but to widen the scope of the use of the budgets. I am happy to go away and make sure that we have the correct wording in that respect. We were concerned to ensure that barriers would not be placed by local authorities on how the budgets could be used. While agreeing that this is a positive proposal, we are seeking clarification in new Section 4A(4) as to where the services can be bought from. Many voluntary adoption agencies offer adoption support services to their own adoptive families and presumably to local authority services. Sensibly, Clause 4 would allow these services to be bought by local authority adopters or by voluntary agencies. As it stands, new Section 4A(4)(e) refers to,
“the description of adoption support services to which personal budgets … may (and may not) relate”.
While this indicates that no restriction is intended, it would be clearer and more reassuring if specific reference were made to the use of non-public sector agencies. Again, just for clarification, that is what we are intending to do—to extend the provision. We believe that that would provide greater flexibility and choice for adopters, which is exactly the point that is being made. We will be very happy to look again at the wording at later stages.
Of course, while the use of personal budgets is welcomed in a broader sense, it does not in itself address the lack of adequate available support, which can of itself lead to adoption delays. For example, TACT has been in contact, telling us that it knows of adopters who have delayed seeking a final adoption order as they are unhappy with the support that they will receive afterwards. While the child remains in the care system, they have access to services that are not available after adoption. Therefore, this remains a separate challenge that needs to be addressed.
I echo the point that the noble Baroness made about the pilots that are taking place in other areas of social care. We believe that it is important to take the time to evaluate the impact of the pilots and to see how those lessons can best be applied to adoption services. Therefore, while we have tabled our amendment as a point of principle—we want to offer more choice—we think that time needs to be taken to learn from the pilots. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that a decision on commencing these clauses will not be taken until the findings from the pilots are available and are able to inform the implementation.
We have also tabled Amendment 270, but it very much mirrors the amendment from the Government on this matter, which takes on board the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee. I think that both amendments attempt to address that issue. We are satisfied that the government amendment achieves what was asked for on that occasion, so we support that amendment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, before I respond to the important points that have been raised, I should like to explain government Amendment 20, which will ensure that the first set of regulations made in relation to personal budgets is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her welcome of this.
We tabled this amendment after listening carefully to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and we are very grateful to the committee for its consideration of this matter. It recommended that the affirmative procedure should be used the first time the power in Clause 4 is used. We agree, which is why we have tabled this amendment.
I take seriously the point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about learning from the pilots. Indeed, these pilots will inform the way the regulations are drawn up.
I turn to Amendment 270, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, feels reassured by what we have put forward.
I should now like to speak to Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Walmsley. Local authorities are under a duty to carry out an assessment of a person’s needs for adoption support once it has been requested. A request for an assessment can be made at any time. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
The right to a personal budget is a consequence of the local authority’s decision to provide a person with adoption support, following an assessment of need. Clause 4 as drafted therefore enables those persons being provided with adoption support to request a personal budget at any time after the local authority’s decision to provide support. My noble friend is right to point out that support might be needed at a later point, and this follows from that kind of procedure.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, on the “at any time” amendment, the concern in my mind is that local authorities are bound to be increasingly reluctant as years go on to contemplate having to find funds to deal with a situation that has made itself manifest many years on from a placement. That is just a fact of human nature; I am not imputing any ill will. I wonder whether there might be a place to reinforce the point in the guidance, but I shall just leave that thought there.
On pilots, I appreciate that my noble friend has been involved in the Bill for about 24 hours, so I will leave this question with her as well, rather than expecting an answer. She said that pilots will inform the regulations, and it would be helpful to know whether the Government have any indicative timetable for publishing the regulations and commencing this scheme so that those who have made the point to us about the need to learn from the experience of pilots can be reassured that they will have the space to do so. I wonder whether I might ask her to come back to me following this debate. I see that she assents to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
“( ) On the occasion of the first exercise of the power to make regulations under this section—
(a) the statutory instrument containing the regulations is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, and(b) accordingly section 140(2) does not apply to the instrument.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we have Amendments 21 and 24 in this group and I shall address them both. Amendment 21 arises from our continuing concern that children could be rushed into adoption prematurely. It echoes some of the concerns that we raised in the debate on Clause 1 relating to fostering for adoption and, in particular, the concern that a number of noble Lords expressed about what being considered for adoption means.
We are concerned that the government amendment to the Adoption and Children Act register would allow children to be added to the register before a formal decision was made about their future. That goes back to them being only “considered” for adoption. It is our view that if we are not careful this could add unnecessary stress and anxiety to the families and the children. As we said earlier, we are not necessarily dealing here with babies; we could be dealing with children and adolescents who may well know what is happening to them and that these actions are being taken on their behalf. They may be concerned and distressed if this is happening in a way that they consider to be premature. In other words, our amendment would require local authorities to be satisfied that it was the appropriate action to take and that they had the appropriate authority to do so by putting the children on the register. This would ensure that speed was not at the expense of the child’s interests.
I know that we all acknowledge the importance of stable and caring relationships, and we all understand that too many children are waiting too long in temporary care. They also develop significant parenting relationships with their temporary carers, only to be disrupted, sometimes after many months or years, when they are moved on or subject to a number of temporary placements. We understand the need for fast action where that is appropriate.
Where adoption is the proposed plan for the child, there are particular issues centring on the legal severance of the child from their birth family, which of course has major significance. It is a central principle of current law that only the court can authorise the action of a local authority to place a child for adoption without parental consent and that the local authority should not take any action that might anticipate the judgment of that court. This is to ensure that the welfare of the child remains central to decision-making, and part of the welfare considerations has to include the stability and care of that child.
We are concerned that the Government moving children on to the adoption register more quickly will be disruptive and cause stress, and might perhaps raise questions and concerns when the issue comes to court. Therefore, we seek that the Government reconsider this point. We do not doubt that reconciling the need of the child to be placed in a long-term caring environment in a timely way, with the issues raised in the court, can be challenging and complex. However, we are concerned to ensure that this is done in the proper order and in the proper way, and we do not believe that the Government’s proposals achieve that. Our aim is to provide the child with as much certainty and stability as possible amid the emotional upheaval that surrounds the whole process. We say that it is wrong to place children on the adoption register prematurely.
Amendment 24 deals with the Delegated Powers Committee. We briefly touched on this issue in our debate on the previous clause. On this occasion, the Government have not gone quite as far as the Delegated Powers Committee recommended. The committee took the view that it was not,
“appropriate to characterise the provisions made under section 128A as being operational, administrative or procedural”,
which is how the Government have described it. It continued:
“We believe it constitutes an important change to the operation of the Register in that it will allow access to personal and sensitive information which otherwise only adoption agencies have access to.”
The committee was concerned about the issues raised here. We believe that our amendment goes further and follows the proposals of the Delegated Powers Committee rather than what is proposed by the Government. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support Amendments 21 and 24.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones. I understand their concerns and must make it clear that these fostering for adoption placements will be fostering placements, not adoptive placements. This clause seeks only to improve the likelihood of local authorities finding a potential fostering for adoption placement for children for whom such a placement has not been found locally. It will remain the case that a child cannot be placed for adoption without parental consent or a court making a placement order.
I reassure noble Lords that the details of children being considered for a fostering for adoption placement will be held in a separate section of the register. This is to ensure that their details can be seen only by the register staff, social workers and approved prospective adopters who have expressed a willingness to care for a child on a fostering for adoption basis. Noble Lords may recall that the 2002 Act provides for the register to assist with placing children for purposes other than adoption, as well as for adoption. The inclusion of children who are being considered for adoption in the register is one way in which this original design can be realised. I hope that the Committee will be reassured by our proposals and I therefore urge the noble Baronesses to withdraw their amendment.
On Amendment 24, which was also tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, I can understand the desire to ensure that there is a parliamentary debate before the regulations are made enabling approved prospective adopters to search information on the register. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that regulations made under proposed Section 128A in Clause 6(4) should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government have listened to the concerns of noble Lords. We have responded to the recommendation from the committee by introducing government Amendment 22, so that the affirmative procedure is used to make regulations for the first use of the power. The safeguards relating to arrangements for approved prospective adopters to access the register are included in the first set of regulations that we intend to make, which I have published for your Lordships to consider. This means that under the Government’s proposal, noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate them in full.
The Government believe that any subsequent changes to these regulations should be subject to the negative resolution procedure because those changes should be minor in nature and will not represent significant reforms. The reforms that we are introducing are in fact an extension of arrangements already in place elsewhere in the adoption system. Approved prospective adopters are already able to access the details of children through hard copy and online publications such as Be My Parent, published by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, or Children Who Wait, published by Adoption UK. Professor Elaine Farmer’s investigation into family finding and matching identified that in 30% of cases, delay was associated with unwillingness to seek a family outside a local authority’s own group of approved prospective adopters. We believe that these improvements to the register, which allow approved prospective adopters to be actively engaged in the matching process, will lead to a greater number of matches being made more quickly, particularly for those children who may be harder to place. The register already generates around 10% of all matches nationally.
The DPRRC has today indicated that is not persuaded that restriction to the first set of regulations, where we are content to use the affirmative procedure, is sufficient. This is because the DPRRC considers that substantive changes may be required in the light of the pilots. We will consider this advice and return to the matter on Report. I therefore ask the noble Baronesses not to press their amendment.
Finally, I would like to return to Amendment 21. The Committee will be aware that we gave an undertaking to Parliament that we would introduce access to the register by approved prospective adopters on a piloted basis initially, to ensure that the process worked effectively in practice. This minor amendment will ensure that the regulations to be made piloting approved prospective adopters’ access can apply only to discrete areas. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendment is necessary and I urge the Committee to accept it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I think I understood the Minister to say that the Government were taking the delegated powers point away to have another look at it, which I welcome. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about Amendment 21. We have common ground, in that we all want to speed up the process of adoption, but our concern is that if children are being placed on the register when no final decision has been made, for those children there may be a period of stress and unhappiness that premature decisions are being made on their behalf. I am not sure that the Minister really addressed that matter. It is about the psychology as much as the organisation of the register. We are keen to make sure that people know their rights, are clear that decisions are being made appropriately and at the right time and are being followed through in the right way. We may want to return to this matter and explore it in further detail. I want to have a look at what the Minister said in Hansard. For the moment, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) On the occasion of the first exercise of the power to make regulations under this section—
(a) the statutory instrument containing the regulations is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, and(b) accordingly section 140(2) does not apply to the instrument.””
“( ) In section 140(7) (power for subordinate legislation to make different provision for different purposes) after “purposes” insert “or areas”.”
Baroness Hamwee
“Pre-commencement adoptions
(1) Section 98 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (pre-commencement adoptions: information) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (a) of subsection (1) substitute—
“(a) assisting—(i) persons adopted before the appointed day,(ii) the descendants of persons adopted before the appointed day,who have attained the age of 18 to obtain information in relation to the adoption of the adopted person,”.”
Baroness Hamwee
I am sorry that we are coming to this amendment late on the first day. I understand that we started at 3.45 pm and intend to finish not before 7.45 pm. I am sorry, but not so sorry that I will cut down very drastically what I want to say because this is the moment to say it.
The amendment would introduce a new clause and I am grateful to be noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for adding their names to it. The issue of information available or not available to the descendants of adopted persons was a matter brought to the attention of the adoption legislation Select Committee. We recommended that the Government amend legislation in order to bring direct descendants of adopted persons within the scope of the provisions that allow access to information or, more accurately, to intermediary services related to seeking information about the adoption.
Those who are entitled to seek information cannot simply go straight to the records without advice about the possible implications and the impact of their having information. They are required—and there are regulations dealing with this—to seek the services of an intermediary agency. Quite a lot of people can seek intermediaries’ services—a lot of relatives, but not necessarily those who are close to the adopted person. The birth mother’s half-sister and her husband can seek information and so can the birth mother’s stepfather and the birth father’s wife, when that wife is not the birth mother, but not an adopted person’s child.
The noble and learned Baroness and I first became aware of this from the situation of a lady in her 60s who discovered that her father had been adopted. She discovered this after his death when she found his birth certificate. She realised that it gave no details of his parents or the place of his birth, saying only “England”—a so-called amended certificate. Her reaction was to sympathise with him, as he had probably found out that he was adopted very late in his life, but she also felt annoyed and cheated,
“as if my relationship with him had been a lie”.
She said:
“Why hadn’t he told me? Why hadn’t he told my mother? She’d been married to a man for 50 years she hadn’t really known. I felt I owed it to her to find out”.
This lady started a very energetic search, all of which led to dead ends. She made an application to the court that the Registrar-General should disclose the information. The judge was very sympathetic—I have read the judgment—but, because of how the law stands, was unable to grant the application. She started a support group.
I have warned the Bill team that the Minister’s answer to this amendment is going to be considered very keenly by a lot of people outside this House who are affected by this situation—far more people than I think anybody had expected when this issue started to raise its head. I am obviously not going to give the Committee all the examples that I could of how people are affected but I shall mention one which came to me yesterday.
It concerns a social worker working with a man in his early 30s who has no birth information in relation to his father. His father died unexpectedly a few years ago aged only 48. He had started the process of looking into his adoption but died before he was able to access any information, and his stepmother had cleared out all the paperwork. I am told that in the light of the father’s unexpected death, this young man would like to continue the search on his father’s behalf, and he would also like to access any medical information. Of course, there are a lot of reasons why someone might want to have information. It is not just that adoption has become much more transparent over fairly recent years—it used to be a case of “leave well alone”. It is understood not just that there are practical or medical reasons but that the understanding of one’s relationship with one’s parent is very important. Family dynamics are important, and it is important to be able to pass on a proper family history to one’s children. We talked about identity earlier this afternoon; this is an issue of identity as well.
BAAF, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, is very supportive of a change. The social worker who supported the lady to whom I have referred, who made an application to the court and gave evidence herself, said:
“Descendants can benefit a great deal from accessing information about their genetic origins. It can help people feel more connected and rooted, and provide a sense of belonging, helping bridge the past, present and future. It can help them understand why they have certain physical attributes and particular skills and abilities. It can also help people understand some of the adversities they have faced in life, for example, if someone suffered from depression and learned that their great grandfather committed suicide”.
The change that the amendment proposes is supported by many agencies, including major ones such as Coram, Barnardo’s and the Salvation Army. In 2010, BAAF asked the Law Commission how various aspects of adoption information—and this was one of them—might be considered by the commission. I understand that the commission saw it as a worthwhile project but lacked the resources to undertake the work.
I asked a Written Question earlier this year and the Answer from the Minister was that he understands why descendants of adopted people want to find out about their relatives’ history, but that there is a need to balance this against the rights and wishes of adopted adults and the adults’ birth family. It is a complex and sensitive issue which needs careful consideration before any change in legislation is considered. Let me emphasise again that I am not seeking direct access to information; I am seeking access to intermediary services, which will be provided on a case-by-case basis.
Before today’s debate, I sent the Minister and other noble Lords a question and answer sheet provided by BAAF, which I will not attempt to read into the record. However, I asked him to tell the Committee of any points that they have made with which the Government disagree. I suspect that one of those may be the numbers who will be involved. The Government at one stage estimated as many as 2 million people. BAAF has set out the calculation it has made, which falls far short of that figure. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister could tell the Committee whether the Government have an authoritative basis for the numbers that might be involved or a best guess. I accept that this is a question of cost, although the applicants will bear the cost by paying for the services.
Just as the Minister responded to me, in response to the Select Committee the Government referred to the sensitivities involved. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell these out and, in particular, how they differ from those already managed by the intermediary agencies providing intermediary services.
Finally, the Government have referred to the possibility of the Law Commission including the issue in its next programme of law reform. Reference to the Law Commission would not be unwelcome but, however sympathetic it may be, am I right in thinking that the Government cannot guarantee that the Law Commission will take on this work? I am sorry to have taken up the Committee’s time late in the day, but I think it was important to spell out a good deal of what lies behind this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment. In paragraph 274 of our post-legislative scrutiny committee we said:
“We believe that the exclusion of descendants of adopted persons from the definition of relatives in section 98 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 creates an unfair anomaly in the legislation. This can be a cause of significant distress”.
Indeed, we had evidence to that effect. We continued:
“We recommend that the Government amend section 98 of the Act to bring within its scope the direct descendants of adopted persons. The Adoption Information and Intermediary Services (Pre-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005 should be amended accordingly”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already said, there are a number of people in respect of whom this small but important amendment really matters. It came to my attention through a friend of mine who is a lawyer—he is actually present in this Room. He wrote to me including the letter from the lady to whom the noble Baroness has referred. There are others out there; it may be that there will be a number of people who will benefit from this, and we know there are. There may be cost implications, except that they will be likely to pay so it would be their cost.
Perhaps more importantly, this is an anomaly. Other people out there who are related to those who are adopted, and to birth parents and so on, have the right to this information. The issue is not whether it is sensitive or whether people should know. It is why so many groups should be allowed to find out and this group not be allowed to find out. The amendment cuts through this sensitivity and complexity. There is actually no complexity; it is an anomaly which requires to be put right. For the Government to hide behind reasons of sensitivity and complexity when all the information is there anyway for everybody else seems at the very least disingenuous. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I think that most of the points have been made, but I want to go back to the days when some of us were engaged in the 2002 legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will remember that when we were trying to get some of these provisions through, this cohort of people were among those who had not been prepared in the same way as those who have been prepared thereafter. However, the world has changed significantly since 2002, particularly in relation to health information, as both my colleagues have pointed out. It is a human right for an individual to know about their genealogy and therefore to be able to trace issues relating to health. This will be particularly true of girls and breast cancer, when different kinds of medical intervention will be available. Although I understand the sensitivities, we are not asking for access for absolutely everybody, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out; we are asking for an intermediary. When that route is not taken, individuals attempt to find out by other ways. I have a story of a man turning up at the gate of his birth father—a very eminent man—and saying, “I am your son”, having found out by other ways, and being told, “You may be, but I don’t want to know you”. One can see how an intermediary could have made a real difference to that relationship and the hurt that can come from that kind of situation.
This anomaly needs to be put right. It is absurd that everyone else can find out except the descendants—so you can go and get someone else to do it for you. It just needs ironing out, and the arguments that I have heard so far have passed.
Lord Nash
I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for bringing this important matter to the Government’s attention, both earlier this year through the report of the Lords Select Committee on Adoption Legislation and through this proposed clause.
I entirely understand why the descendants of adopted people may want to find out more about their biological heritage, particularly where there may be a hereditary medical condition. The Government are open to the possibility of reform in this area, but we believe that more detailed thought is needed about the implications and practicalities of any legislative change. For example, we must think carefully about how more information might be provided to descendants, and we need to balance this against the rights and wishes of the adopted adults themselves and their birth families.
This is a complex and sensitive area which needs careful consideration before any change to legislation is considered. That is why the Government are exploring with the Law Commission whether this issue might be included within a possible project as part of the commission’s 12th programme of law reform.
The amendment would enable descendants of an adopted person to find out about the adopted person’s background. It applies to those adopted before commencement of the 2002 Act. Such adoptions were carried out privately and secretly, with very little information shared with the adopted child or his or her birth parents. If a mother, who may never have told anyone about an adoption, was approached out of the blue by her son asking about his adoption, that could have a devastating effect on the individual and the whole family.
We fully appreciate the wishes of descendents and there will be examples—
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I apologise to the Minister. Under this proposal, there is no suggestion that there should be any direct relationship between the person seeking the information and the person who has been adopted. It would be done through an intermediary, which is the whole purpose. I urge the Minister not to go down that line because that is not what we are asking for.
Lord Nash
I assure the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that we are not seeking to be disingenuous about this and we do regard the issues as complicated. My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked what evidence the Government have to suggest that if we make this provision it could open the floodgates or that the new clause would lead to unwelcome contact. The answer is that we do not have any evidence, which is why we would like the Law Commission to consider it and are prepared to provide funds. I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance on the amendment and I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce, if it is necessary because I think that it will be clear enough in Hansard, the point made by the noble and learned Baroness. The Minister’s scenario is exactly that which we are seeking to avoid with this amendment. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to explain the points about sensitivity and complexity on which the Government are relying. He has told the Committee that the Government will give the issue more detailed thought. I think I have got it right that the Government will consider how detailed information should be made available to the descendant of an adopted person. I do not believe that it is for the Government to think and advise how information should be made available to that person. Quite rightly, in 2002, the Government set up the structure of involving an intermediary.
Of course, I cannot press the matter to a vote tonight because we do not do that in Grand Committee. It would be remiss of me not to ask the Minister if it might be possible for me to meet him following this stage to reinforce and perhaps explain better than I was able to do in what I appreciate might have been a rather rushed introduction. Perhaps we may meet before Report to see if there is a way in which we can work with him to be as persuasive as possible to the Law Commission, if that is the way it is to go, that it should take on this work. I do not know what private as distinct from public communications there may be with the Law Commission. I certainly would not ask the Minister to say so tonight, but it is morally and practically wrong not to sort out what the noble and learned Baroness so rightly describes as an anomaly.
Baroness Hamwee
I am very grateful for that and on that note I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
This may be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee and to suggest that we meet again on Monday 14 October at 3.30 pm.
House of Lords
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Mendelsohn
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS: Health and Social Care Act 2012
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the cost to clinical commissioning groups and other parts of the National Health Service of tendering and legal fees in the commissioning of services under Part 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and draw the House’s attention to my health interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, Part 3 of the Act does not change the requirements on clinical commissioning groups when they tender health services. The rules are the same as under the Public Contract Regulations 2006, introduced by the previous Administration, and as set out in the rules for commissioners.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Earl will recollect our debates on the Health and Social Care Act 2012, when repeated assurances were made by Ministers that clinical commissioning groups would not be forced to tender out services. However, all the evidence to NHS England and the advice which clinical commissioning groups are getting from their lawyers suggests that under Section 75 of the Act, they have to do so. Does the noble Earl agree that that is an awful waste of money and effort, and that all it is doing is fragmenting services?
Earl Howe
My Lords, commissioners do not have to use competitive tendering for all services. First, acute elective care—which represents the vast majority of NHS services—is not secured through competitive tendering at all, and that will continue to be the case. Secondly, a single-tender action may be justified on the basis that there is only one provider able to meet the clinical quality and safety standards that the commissioner requires. There will be guidance coming out on that, and draft guidance has already been published. Any confusion that exists among commissioners should be clarified by that means.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, would it be fair to say that the noble Earl is somewhat between Scylla and Charybdis on this issue? On the one hand tendering is certainly more expensive but, on the other, if tendering does not take place, is there not a real risk that services will be offered at the price that the market will bear rather than the one that it really costs the health service? The health service has not always managed to cost out its treatments effectively.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord makes a good point. There is, I think, a desire on everybody’s part not to see competition result in a race to the bottom on price. That is why we have specified that commissioners must make clear what standards they expect and apply those consistently to whoever is tendering for the service in question at a price which reflects a fair value. We believe that the current rules protect the NHS but also protect those bidding. I emphasise that competition will not be pursued as an end in itself; it will be pursued as a means to drive up quality.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, it is quite clear that there are certain kinds of services that benefit from being grouped together and provided by large providers who can do so economically but to a high quality. However, there are other services that are better provided locally by people who know the circumstances and are often working in relatively small charitable bodies; for example, in the mental health sector. It is very difficult for these to tender in the way that larger companies can. Can my noble friend give me some reassurance that the Government recognise this dilemma and are trying to find ways in which smaller, local, charitable providers in certain areas can be protected, facilitated or encouraged, so that we are not simply taken over by larger corporations, which may not be in the best interests of patients?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes an important point. I think that it is common to all sides of the House that charities and social enterprises play an important part in providing NHS care. They have done so for many years, and give patients more choice of where and how they are treated. We have a set of rules which, at least in theory, should protect those groups of providers. If a commissioner fails to take account of providers who are capable of providing a service and simply, for example, rolls over an existing contract, then it is open to the provider in question to complain to Monitor, which will be the adjudicator of any anti-competitive conduct.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, with reference to the last question, would it be possible to give voluntary and charitable groups that wish to provide services in some kind of consortia financial help and encouragement in order to help them form those consortia? These do not just happen because people want them; they need time and effort to be formed.
Earl Howe
My Lords, that has already happened to an extent, not least under the previous Government, who made sure that the nascent social enterprises that were formed out of transforming community services were set up on a sustainable basis. However, we have built into the 2012 Act a provision which prevents active discrimination in favour of one sector or another, so government help specifically for a particular sector is, I am afraid, not legally possible.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
Is the noble Earl satisfied that the commissioning processes under NHS England relating to the commissioning of highly specialised services will take full account of the important necessity of concentrating these highly specialised services in a smaller number of major centres? Is he also satisfied that the interests of the Rare Disease Consortium under the Rare Diseases Advisory Group of NHS England will be fully recognised in the processes to which he is referring?
Lord Naseby (Con)
Surely my noble friend can confirm that, broadly speaking, the tendering processes under the Act have gone well and are broadly within budget. Although there are various dimensions to the tendering process as raised by my noble friend from the Liberal Democrat Benches, nevertheless, in broad terms, we are well satisfied with the way that it has gone. If there are differences and small amendments are necessary, will my noble friend confirm that those will be looked at speedily?
Licensing Act 2003
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Falkland
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the aims and objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 have been adequately met with regard to the control of social disorder resulting from late night drinking in residential areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have rebalanced the Licensing Act 2003 to give local communities stronger powers to achieve the Act’s objectives, including reducing crime and disorder. For example, licensing authorities can now raise a contribution from premises that supply alcohol late at night towards the costs of policing and wider action. Newcastle is scheduled to be the first area to introduce a late-night levy, as it is called, on 1 November.
Viscount Falkland (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister; that was a more encouraging reply than I had expected. I am glad that the scenario that he describes is likely to cover all of England. The dossiers that have been compiled on matters that concerned both Houses of Parliament in 2003 are very surprising. It was a major concern of the two Houses that there would be proper protection for residents in areas where they might find their peace damaged as a result of late-night licences. In my area the offences have been quite extraordinary. If, when I spoke during the Bill’s passage, I had thought that there would be behaviour of this kind between midnight and 3 o’clock in the morning in my area in south London, I would have been much more active about it. Is there is a way to protect older and vulnerable people from the disorder that comes from late-night drinking, particularly after people come out of venues? People who live in almshouses near me tell me that their lives have been made quite impossible.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There may be particularly vulnerable people, of course, and old people are among them. One of the things that we have done with the existing licensing laws is to rebalance the Licensing Act so that there is a vicinity test; as long as evidence exists within a local community concerning the disruption that can be caused by late-night drinking, it is able to submit this to the licensing authorities. I can give the noble Viscount more encouragement: Milton Keynes has also voted in favour of a late-night levy, which is likely to come in next year. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will also encourage the noble Viscount it is making its way through the Commons and will shortly arrive here, and will greatly empower communities in this regard.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s alcohol strategy puts the cost of alcohol harm to the economy as a whole at £21 billion. That includes £3.5 billion for the health service, where overstressed A&E departments, for example, have to cope with an influx of people after midnight who have drunk far too much. Has my noble friend any estimate of the benefits, in terms of reduced costs, of the Government repealing the 2003 Act altogether?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, that calculation has not been made, but I can give my noble friend the figure for the cost to the health service: £7.3 billion for alcohol-related incidents.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I acknowledge that the Government have made some changes. However, is the noble Lord content that the rebalancing has moved sufficiently? Many people believe that it has not. During the debates in the Commons on the Bill to which he has just referred, there have been attempts to extend the way in which licensing authorities can take into account public health issues. Given the Government’s commitment to devolution on public health issues, why will they not move on this front, in the way that the Scottish Government are now moving?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord has taken a great interest in this subject. I have always valued his contributions and look forward to his contribution to the debates we are likely to have on this Bill. I am sure that these arguments will be presented when we have the opportunity. Meanwhile, I am grateful for his acknowledgment of the progress that the Government have made in this difficult area.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Will my noble friend continue to liaise with the Department of Health to ensure that we reduce the number of people admitted to A&E departments who are clearly the worse for drink—often as a deliberate ploy, having had what they regard as a good night out? If we could tackle it from that end, perhaps we could help to move the culture change on even further.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Noble Lords will know that there have been a number of ideas on this issue. Chief Constable Adrian Lee from Northamptonshire suggested the idea of drunk tanks, which I had to read about to understand. This has generated some public debate; it is the sort of thing which clearly the Government will look at, because anything that can relieve the burden on hospitals must be a good thing.
Lord Condon (CB)
My Lords, I declare my usual interest. Is the Minister aware of the excellent project in Ipswich, Suffolk, that has been going on over the past year? On a voluntary basis, retailers, major supermarkets and off-licences, working with police and others, have withdrawn the sale of the strongest canned and bottled beers and lagers. On that voluntary basis, it seems to have had a beneficial effect on the quality of life for people, particularly in the centre of Ipswich, and has reduced anti-social behaviour. Does the Minister agree that this should be encouraged in other city centres?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I would certainly vouch for that. There has been a lot of co-operation from the retail trade. I met representatives of the Association of Convenience Stores at the Conservative party conference, where they had a meeting. They are very supportive of retail initiatives of this sort. This morning I met Richard Antcliff, the chief anti-social behaviour officer in Nottinghamshire, and I went to Nottingham to see the work being done in that city to reduce alcohol abuse. Communities can do an awful lot on this issue and the Home Office would encourage any such initiatives.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the last question, does the noble Lord not agree that although there are obviously deficiencies in the way that the 2003 Act has operated, which give rise to some of these difficulties, one of the main problems is the enormously wide availability of alcohol at very low prices? Do the Government have any plans at the moment to address that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Licensing of alcohol in retail outlets is, of course, in the hands of licensing authorities, but the pricing has been challenged—and, indeed, I have been challenged by noble Lords in this House on this issue. The Government have announced the policy on this; there will be a policy whereby drink cannot be sold at cost plus duty plus VAT, which in effect puts a floor on cheap sales of alcohol. I think that that should be encouraged.
Housing: Under-Occupancy Charge
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Knight of Weymouth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to suspend the under-occupancy charge.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, there are no plans to suspend the removal of the spare-room subsidy policy. A formal evaluation of the policy is being carried out; this has already commenced and will be conducted over the next two years. To support people transitioned to this reform, we have more than trebled the discretionary housing payment fund to assist those facing extreme difficulties.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, two-thirds of the families affected are disabled—fact. Half of those in a recent sample are already in arrears—fact. Most local authorities are limiting discretionary payments to three months only—fact. Furthermore, there are no smaller properties to move to—fact. So disabled families cannot work, pay, obtain financial support or move. When will the Government have the guts to admit that their policy is impossible as well as cruel and follow our commitment to repeal it?
Lord Freud
My Lords, there were a lot of issues buried there. I will just point out that, when you look at the disabled figures, and if you look at the people on DLA, which is an independent measure, the figure comes down to 27% of the total. For those with the higher rate of DLA, it is 17%. I also remind the Opposition that this is a substantial saving measure. Some £500 million has to be found, and there is a degree of cynicism about whether you can find that through closing tax loopholes. I also ask the Opposition a question—
Lord Freud
I suggest to the Opposition that they think about the challenges that they will face when they extend their extra-bedroom policy to the private rented sector, which will cost them another £500 million and rising.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Will my noble friend explain why the Opposition are so opposed to the changes that are being proposed on the subsidy, when it will undoubtedly help people suffering from chronic overcrowding in social housing and will help young people who find it impossible to get single accommodation? Will not the effect of removing the subsidy be to correct the market failure in social housing?
Lord Freud
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I have talked before about the 250,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation, with 1.8 million people on the waiting list. But the economic signals going on in the social rented sector are very odd. The demand from single people and couples represents each year 61%, for the latest year we have—and it has not changed much. The number of homes provided that have single bedrooms comes to only 13%. Over the past decade, the social rented sector has built virtually no new single bedrooms, at 30,000; that compares with the private rented sector, which has produced in that period 280,000. There is a real economic mismatch going on in terms of what we are encouraging the social rented sector to build, and we need to make sure that we are building the type of accommodation that people in this country actually need.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is paying no attention to the effects on the people involved. Has he seen the report in the Daily Record, which says:
“The Tory minister in charge of the bedroom tax has told Scots with motor neurone disease to take in a lodger or have their benefits cut.”?
Will he apologise for this insensitivity and rethink this measure, that being just one of its many iniquities?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have not, of course, made any specific recommendations to people. Let me just go through the point. We are monitoring this change very closely. It is in its early stages as people start to adjust. We have put in a lot of discretionary housing payments; the total is £180 million this year. The early returns—and I stress they are early returns—show that local authorities are either managing those well or are underspending at this particular time.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that last week the courts ruled that a woman with multiple sclerosis was entitled to have a bedroom separate from her husband because otherwise her human rights were breached? The courts have now ruled that disabled children and disabled adults can have their own rooms. These savings are vanishing before our eyes, and there are no rooms for people to move into because there are no smaller properties. Do the Government accept that the National Housing Federation has described this policy on its six-month anniversary as being a “cruel failure”? Is that not right, and will the Government not change their mind now?
Lord Freud
First, I congratulate the noble Baroness on moving to her new position. I look forward to many constructive exchanges with her, although perhaps not this one. We are currently moving to ensure that disabled children who need spare rooms will have them, and regulations on that are going through consultation. In the case of disabled adults where there was a judicial review, the judges decided that the policy was appropriate and did not breach any equalities duty.
International Day of the Girl
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to promote the education of girls around the world ahead of International Day of the Girl on 11 October.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the UK Government place a high priority on girls’ education. In 2012-13 UK aid supported 2.8 million girls in primary education and helped 270,000 to go to lower secondary school. In addition, the UK’s flagship Girls’ Education Challenge will help a further 1 million of the world’s most marginalised girls to receive an education.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I thank my noble friend for the informative Answer. However, she will be aware that 67% of illiterate people in the world are women and girls. Many have been denied access to education due to forced child marriage. This is a violation of girls’ basic rights and can lead to terrible consequences, such as death in childbirth. What is being done to ensure that Governments, particularly those in the Commonwealth and those in receipt of aid, are working to eliminate this appalling practice?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend is right in what she says about child marriage. It is of course a reflection of the low status of women and girls, which is why investing in education and the long-term cultural changes that result from it is so important. Evidence shows that education may be the single most important factor in reducing child marriage. We address this explicitly, for example in our programme in Ethiopia, and we have other programmes in development in the DRC, Yemen and Zambia, because we recognise the importance of this issue.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
What is the Government’s ongoing policy on ensuring equal treatment of girls and boys a little nearer home, in our own state-funded free schools in this country?
Baroness Northover
As the noble Baroness knows, we have the Equality Act, by which the law protects the equal status of girls and boys in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Will the Minister tell us what measures are being taken in this country to make sure that girls under 16 are not removed from school and sent abroad during the summer vacation for arranged or forced marriages? Will there be check-ups on girls to see who has not returned to school in the autumn term after such a practice?
Baroness Northover
The noble Baroness is right to highlight this issue. This is something that has come increasingly to our attention. There have been programmes of engagement with schools—she may know of the one in Bristol—and there is engagement elsewhere. Teachers have been asked to look out for girls who travel in the holidays and may not return, because it is extremely important that this issue is tackled.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, perhaps the House would consider it appropriate to congratulate Malala on her extraordinary contribution to this debate. I would be grateful if my noble friend could update the House on the Girls’ Education Challenge, which is designed to help up to 1 million of the world’s poorest girls access education.
Baroness Northover
I echo the support for Malala. Friday is the International Day of the Girl Child. That is the day when the Nobel prize in question may be announced. Of course, many of us hope that Malala’s contribution will be recognised. She has been extremely brave in maintaining her position, and has done so very eloquently. My noble friend mentioned the Girls’ Education Challenge. In the United Kingdom we have the world’s largest global fund dedicated to girls’ education, which will reach more than 1 million girls in the world’s poorest countries. That is extremely welcome and shows that we recognise the importance of investing in girls’ education.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will accept that no one will have been unmoved by Malala’s address to the UN. Malala talked about the fact that she was not the only young girl who lacked education or who was campaigning for education. How far is the noble Baroness’s department working to ensure that Malala’s and other girls’ dreams are realised, particularly in Afghanistan? Is her department supporting two of the girls who were attacked at the same time as Malala Yousafzai?
Baroness Northover
Malala has, indeed, emphasised that there are many others in her situation. It is those girls whom we wish to help. The noble Baroness will be well aware of the investment by DfID in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, particularly in education and especially in girls’ education. Often in poor families it is the sons who are sent to school first, if anyone is sent at all. One of the areas that DfID has been working on is ensuring that girls, too, go to school; that there are bursaries; that girls are safe in school and on their way to school; and that their education is then supported.
Lord Loomba (LD)
My Lords, thousands of young girls are the victims of trafficking in south Asian countries. They miss out on school and never get the education that is their birthright. How can the UK Government help these poor and helpless girls?
Baroness Northover
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Loomba for his work in this area. He will know that DfID works particularly in fragile states where girls are most likely to be in marginal communities. Those countries are very much recipients of our assistance.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in England, as well as elsewhere in the world, girl pupils are not choosing science and mathematics for further studies? This is a new turn, and what is extraordinary is that it is usually girls from minority communities who prefer these options. Is there something about attitudes in the classroom and of those teaching science and mathematics that discourages girls?
Baroness Northover
We are very much encouraging girls to go into the so-called STEM subjects. It is extremely important both for them and for the future of the country that those subjects are supported. If there is a particular problem in terms of particular groups not heading in that direction, I will look into that and get back to the noble Baroness.
Badgers
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the extension of the badger cull licences in Somerset and Gloucestershire and how long they would anticipate such extensions to last.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, the Somerset pilot cull concluded on 6 October and current indications are that the pilots have been safe, effective and humane in delivering a reduction in the badger population of just under 60%. Natural England is considering an application from Somerset for a short extension of the culling period, as provided for under the agreement with the company there. In doing so, Natural England will take into account the practicalities on the ground. It expects to make a decision later this week.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I declare my interest as a resident of the cull area, where the excellent police force is hugely overstretched as a consequence of the cull. The House will be aware that the Government have been unable to see the wood for the trees on this issue, ignoring their own scientific advice that a cull would be both costly and ineffective in tackling bovine TB, and I dispute the Minister’s statistics. As we now have new evidence that this ill thought-through policy is not working, does the Minister agree that extending the cull will only compound the Government’s error of judgment?
Lord De Mauley
The purpose of the cull trials was to establish that this could be undertaken safely, humanely and effectively. The judgment on these will be made by an independent panel but our initial view is that they have been met. The contractors have worked under difficult conditions and considerable provocation and have been scrupulous in their attention to safety, which is the absolute number one priority. A figure of 60% is a significant achievement and the Chief Veterinary Officer endorses that this will lead to a reduction in the disease in cattle.
Lord May of Oxford (CB)
My Lords, this cull went ahead against the balance of advice from the scientific community, in particular that such a limited experiment was unlikely to yield much in the way of useful information. Does the Minister agree with me, however, that we have indeed learnt something important? We have learnt that those responsible for this so-called experiment are so incompetent that they could not even make a reliable estimate of the number of badgers.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I simply cannot agree. I repeat what I said in answer to a similar question earlier this year. The report following the visit to the United Kingdom by the European Commission’s bovine tuberculosis subgroup in March 2012 stated:
“It is however of utmost importance that there is a political consensus and commitment to long-term strategies to combat TB in badgers as well as in cattle ... There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that badger vaccination will reduce the incidence of TB in cattle. However there is considerable evidence to support the removal of badgers in order to improve the TB status of both badgers and cattle”.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, is it not very early days to be saying that this experiment is not working? The trial has only just begun. Surely we have to wait until some time after the cull has ended to see whether the incidence of TB in cattle has dropped. At that stage, will the Government also look at other forms of wildlife and see whether there is a recovery in the numbers of hedgehogs and ground-nesting birds which have been ravaged by badgers in the past?
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend makes an important point. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, these judgments will be made by an independent panel. However, as I also said, our initial view is that so far the humaneness, safety and effectiveness tests have been met. I am grateful to my noble friend for his suggestions.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Will the Minister give an assurance that hedgehogs do not encourage tuberculosis in cattle?
Lord De Mauley
That is an extremely interesting and important question, so much so that I will have to write to the noble Lord. I thank him for raising it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that the culls can be regarded as a success because they have met the criteria of being “safe, humane and effective”, but they have not been effective. The pilot culls have now failed one of those three in that they were set up within six weeks to meet the legal licensing target. What evidence do the Government have that any extension of the cull could increase TB infection, which would add weight to the calls to abandon these pilot culls?
Lord De Mauley
No, my Lords, I am aware of no such evidence. Indeed, as I said just now, the Chief Veterinary Officer endorses that what has happened so far will lead to a reduction in the disease in cattle, and that any more we can do will further contribute to a reduction.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I accept that badger-borne bovine TB is the despair of the agricultural industry, but has the ministry ever made any calculation of how much bovine TB is non badger-borne? If it has not, how can it possibly indulge in detailed experiments, including culling, unless this information is to hand?
Lord De Mauley
I am grateful for that question because it gives me the opportunity to say that work by Professor Crystl Donnelly has shown that as much as 50% of the incidence of TB in high-risk areas can be attributed to badgers.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, does not the Minister have to reflect on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord May? We were told by the experts that there were 2,700 badgers in the area concerned, and we are now told that the experts think there were actually fewer than 1,400. If the experts who supported the policy got the numbers so wrong in the first place, does that not undermine public confidence in the policy as a whole?
Lord De Mauley
I do not think that it should. Our policy is evidence-based and we have taken every opportunity to acquire the latest and most up-to-date information from the pilot areas to refine the estimate of the badger population. All wildlife population estimates have uncertainty around them. Appropriate steps were taken to audit the process, including data checks and independent audits of these figures.
Lord Rotherwick (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recognise the vulnerability of deer in deer parks? Does he agree that they have to be looked at separately from the way that you look at cattle that succumb to TB? You cannot lock up deer from a deer park in a shed and humanely shoot them; they have to be slaughtered by high-powered rifles. What is my noble friend doing about the situation regarding the vulnerability to TB of deer in deer parks?
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend asks a specific question and I will, if I may, take it away to consider the point about deer in parks. As regards the suggestion that deer may be a reservoir of TB in wildlife as well, we have established that badgers are a particularly good—if I may use that word—host for TB. They are the part of wildlife on which we really have to focus.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is general scientific agreement that the badgers that are left after a cull have a greater propensity to carry over and pass on TB to cattle and that it is a fine balance between the numbers killed and those that survive? Is he aware that there is deep concern that the figures we are provided with are not robust and that the result may be an increase in TB, not a decrease?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, with the greatest of respect, I do not think that the noble Lord’s proposition is correct. The randomised badger-culling trials showed something quite different, which was that above a certain percentage of badgers culled—indeed, the first-year trials in the randomised badger culls were in the 30s of per cent—there was nevertheless a significant effect on the incidence of TB in cattle.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, can we add the humble bumble bee to the list of animals and creatures that are being threatened by the badgers? Bumble bees nest underground, are a great source of delight for the badger to eat and are under threat.
Lord De Mauley
I am very interested in what the noble Earl has said because he will know that we will be launching a national pollinator strategy later this year. Perhaps we can discuss what he suggests in the context of that.
Cohabitation Rights Bill [HL]
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Care Bill [HL]
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:41 - Division on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 206 / Noes: 224 - Amendment 11 disagreed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) The Secretary of State in making regulations or issuing guidance under this Part must have regard to the general duty of local authorities, in exercising a function under this Part in the case of an individual, to promote that individual’s well-being.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the start of Report, I declare my interests as chair of an NHS Foundation Trust, a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections, and president of GS1 UK.
I am sure that the House would wish me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on her appointment to the Government and to the health team as a government Whip, and to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her services.
The Bill places a responsibility on local authorities to promote well-being in the way in which they implement the provisions of the Bill locally. However, if the Secretary of State were to issue regulations without regard to the promotion of well-being, there is a risk that such regulations—or indeed guidance—could conflict with that well-being principle. That would put local authorities in an impossible position. This matter was the subject of considerable discussion and report by the joint scrutiny committee and we also discussed it in Committee. The Government have now responded to the points put by many noble Lords and I welcome the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I also welcome Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I beg to move.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to add the words “and spiritual wellbeing”. This is an amendment that has been resisted in the past by my noble friend the Minister and I am somewhat confused as to why that should be. In 2002, the National Health Service was more than happy to add spiritual well-being as one of the conditions that should be applied to care that was given. I do not understand what has changed since. Has the NHS come to regret having these words in its remit? Does it find that spiritual wellbeing does not fit within the National Health Service today? Are people of faith who find that having an NHS that regards their spiritual well-being as important somehow more difficult to handle than atheists and people who have no faith at all? I should have almost thought that the reverse is true. When we come to what is euphemistically called end-of-life care, I should have thought that people of faith have something to look forward to, rather than atheists who, if they follow Richard Dawkins, are faced with a great black hole of oblivion. They might find that the end of life is rather more forbidding than do those who have faith.
I am very confused, therefore, as to why the Government find it necessary to resist this very minor and rather innocent amendment. It seems to merely add comfort to people of faith of all religions and could be inserted into this Bill without causing the Government any difficulty whatever.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I support what my noble friend has just said. I have to say to the Minister that this amendment is rather necessary because there is a generalised belief that forces in our society are determined to marginalise that which has actually made our society and has had such an influence on the provision of healthcare for our people. The history of healthcare in Britain shows that it was fundamentally founded by those of faith. That does not say anything about anyone else, but it does say that if we want holistic medicine—I am not a great believer in anything other than orthodox medicine, so I am not encouraging all kinds of what I consider to be alternatives, which are best left alone—we have to understand that it is about the whole person, and for many people this is a most important part of the whole person. For this not to be in the Bill will be seen by many as another example of society specifically seeking to marginalise an important section of our community on whom we depend widely for many of our voluntary activities, and certainly on whom we have depended and do depend for our health services. I hope very much that the Minister will take this point seriously.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I would like very briefly to support what my two noble friends have just said. Surely this is not the Government conceding to a secular society and surely they recognise that for many sick people, the spiritual dimension is extremely important. It is not a question merely of healing physical ills and curing physical diseases, it is a question of recognising that many people, particularly as they near the end of their lives, have a great need to fall back upon their faith, and that should be recognised and encouraged. For the life of me, I cannot see what the Government are doing here and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. I am only sorry that the Bishops’ Benches appear to be empty this afternoon because one would have liked to have heard a contribution from them.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, as someone who remains a Bishop, on behalf of my old friends on the other side of the Chamber, I would like to support this amendment. As the Bishop of Oxford, I remember visiting one of the brand new universities, which thought of itself in very secular terms. Nevertheless, the university was adamant that it should have a chaplain because it believed in whole-person care, and an essential element of whole-person care was the spiritual dimension. We need to take that into account.
We also need to take into account the fact that we now live in a multifaith society, and for those of some religions in particular, it is very important that they have someone with religious authority in contact with them in the final stages of their life. There are good reasons for supporting this amendment.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place for the start of this debate. As noble Lords will know, on these occasions such amendments are often tabled by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. We do so because we support the right of Christian Scientists to have their beliefs respected, in particular their right to refuse treatment. That said, when we discussed this matter in Committee, while at that point the Minister was as sympathetic as always, he failed to draw a distinction that is important to people of faith, which is that between the use of the words “emotional” and “spiritual”. People of faith believe that matters which are spiritual are of a different order from those matters which are emotional. I have a degree of sympathy with their view. However, I also have a degree of sympathy with the Minister, who does not wish to put things into legislation that are unnecessary. I hope that he will, in this case, perhaps be a bit more sympathetic to the arguments that are being put forward.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, is right that as a society not only are we becoming much more diverse, but in our everyday life we understand the importance of faith and spiritual matters to other people. For example, we would not for a moment think it acceptable to present somebody with a diet that was not reflective of their cultural and religious beliefs. In our modern day health and social care services we are increasingly adept at recognising people’s differences and accommodating them. All told, this is a small amendment which costs nothing but means an awful lot. I hope that the Government will be able to take it on.
Lord Warner (Lab)
My Lords, as the chairman of the All-Party Group on Humanism, I am not sure that I should actually be following the previous speakers. However, Amendment 5 in this group is in my name and I want to be nice to the Minister instead of telling him off. The Minister has listened to the concerns that we expressed in Committee about applying the requirement to pursue the obligation on local authorities in Clause 1 to the Secretary of State in his actions, particularly regulations and guidance, to promote well-being.
I congratulate the Minister on listening to those concerns and tabling government Amendment 138, which effectively meets the concerns that we have. I suspect that my co-signatories, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would say that the Minister’s amendment may not be quite as elegant as ours, but we are not going to have a competition about aesthetics; he has met the point and I thank him very much for what he has done.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I warmly support that. I am happy with the parliamentary counsel’s draft, which is what the Government are going to move, and we have to understand that some lawyers are better than others at making drafts.
So far as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is concerned, I hope that the Government will pay considerable attention to what has been said about it.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to government Amendment 2 on dignity and respect. I know that it was implicit in the well-being clause in the earlier versions of the Bill that we looked at, but I am very pleased that the need to ensure that all people are treated with dignity and respect has been brought out so explicitly. These are words that the man and woman in the street really understand; they get to the heart of some of the concerns about the type of social care that has sometimes been provided, which has fallen well below those standards, and caused some of the scare stories that we have heard so much about recently.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and I raised this issue in Committee, but as he is unavoidably unable to be in his place today, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on behalf of both of us, for listening and for bringing this amendment forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the opportunity to discuss once again this important new well-being principle set out in Clause 1. The amendments in this group cover three important issues. The first of these relates to the application of the duty to promote well-being to the Secretary of State. In Committee we debated the link between the role of the Secretary of State and the duty of local authorities to promote the well-being of individuals. There was clear strength of feeling in the Committee that the Bill should make explicit reference to the Secretary of State having regard to the duty on the local authority to consider the well-being of the individual. An amendment in this regard is not essential because the local authority well-being duty is in any event a relevant factor for the Secretary of State to take into account when issuing guidance or regulations. However, I do recognise the strength of feeling and I am happy to clarify the position.
In response to the concerns, I have tabled Amendment 138, which explicitly requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the local authority well-being duty when issuing regulations and guidance. This achieves, I hope, the same ends as intended by the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, and I trust that they will support the government amendment.
The second issue relates to the focus on dignity, to which my noble friend has just referred. In Committee, noble Lords expressed concern that personal dignity was not adequately reflected in the well-being principle, in spite of the change that the Government made to this effect following consultation on the draft care and support Bill. Let there be no doubt that the Government place the utmost importance on dignity and respect in care. These factors must be central to the well-being principle. In order to ensure that dignity is given due prominence in primary legislation, I am pleased to have been able to table Amendments 2 and 3, which give greater emphasis to personal dignity and respect as components of well-being.
The third issue in this group relates to another constituent part of individual well-being: spiritual well-being. My noble friend Lady Barker’s Amendment 4 would include an explicit reference to spiritual well-being in Clause 1(2). We debated a similar amendment in Committee. I said then, and I emphasise now, that the Government recognise the importance of spiritual well-being as a concept and understand the particular significance that it can have for some people, especially at the end of their life. We would absolutely not want an approach that excluded spiritual well-being from consideration where that was clearly of consequence to the individual concerned.
However, it is important to understand that that is not the approach which the Bill sets out. The factors included in Clause 1(2) contain high-level matters which should be interpreted broadly to fit the individual case. Spiritual well-being should be considered where it is relevant to the person’s overall well-being. Moreover, spiritual well-being is likely to be closely related to other matters, such as emotional well-being, which are listed in the clause.
In addition, local authorities must also consider the person’s views, wishes and feelings, as set out in Clause 1(3)(b). This provides a further clear direction to local authorities to have regard to personal matters, which could well include beliefs or other views that would promote an individual’s spiritual well-being. Although it is not explicitly mentioned, spiritual well-being is nevertheless accounted for.
I hope that I have reassured in particular my noble friends Lord Hamilton, Lord Deben and Lord Cormack, and indeed the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth—
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Will my noble friend explain why the NHS has actually changed its policy on this? In 2002, new Department of Health guidance on NHS chaplaincy said that all NHS trusts should make provision for the spiritual needs of all patients and staff from all faith communities. It strikes me that the NHS is now rowing back on a previous commitment.
Earl Howe
First, we are not dealing with the NHS; we are dealing with local authorities and adult social care. Secondly, the NHS has not rowed back on this. We have debated hospital chaplains on many occasions and I have made very clear the Government’s view that hospital chaplains perform an important role in the spiritual context. So on the NHS front, I want to reassure my noble friend that here we are dealing with local authorities and adult social care. I was trying to explain that the way in which this Bill is framed is perhaps different from how my noble friend has construed it.
Lord Deben
If it does not make any difference to add this to the Bill, why cannot the Government accept that many people would feel much reassured by its addition?
I have been in my noble friend’s position—and he knows with how much respect I view him—and I cannot remember an occasion when I have said, “This does not make any difference” that it did not quite mean that. What worries me here is that it does not quite mean that. I should be much happier if he would please look again at this, because it is a matter which does concern people. If it makes no difference, surely we can do these things in order that people should not be concerned? Their not being concerned would make a difference.
Lord Cormack
If this is explicit for the National Health Service, why can local authorities not be treated in precisely the same way?
Lord Warner
I am trying to help the Minister. If he does agree to provide the assurances sought by noble Lords to look again, could he see whether if he moved in the direction they suggest, he would be discriminating against humanists?
Earl Howe
I can do no other than to look at this again, but I want to reassure my noble friends that their concerns are groundless because of the way that this clause has deliberately been framed. It is framed in terms of high-level principles. It is not designed to exclude any form of well-being whatever. It is designed to look at the person holistically and to ensure that no aspect of well-being is overlooked. I shall of course have a fresh look at this question, but I ask my noble friends, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, to understand that this clause has been framed in a particular way quite deliberately, not to exclude any form of well-being but to encapsulate all forms of well-being.
In other words, the provisions allow consideration of this and indeed many other matters where relevant. I hope that with these assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and indeed to support the amendments which I have tabled.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, will respond to the point in relation to Amendment 4. Part of the confusion arises because the Department of Health seems to equate spiritual well-being with emotional well-being. I do not think that that would be generally held to be appropriate. Whether you have a faith or none, it does seem to me that by classifying spiritual belief within emotional well-being, the department has fallen into a pit of its own digging. I hope the noble Earl will indeed go back, and I assume that means this could be debated at Third Reading. Clearly noble Lords would wish to come back to it.
Whether this is for the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, or for the noble Earl, taking up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Warner, the chairman of the All-Party Humanist Group, my assumption would be that the duty on a local authority in relation to spiritual well-being would apply only when a person had a belief. Whether one defines humanism as spiritual I do not know—we are getting into deep waters here. I assume it is not intended that a person of no religion be required to be treated by the health service or local government as having a spiritual need.
We welcome Amendments 2, 3 and 138, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
“( ) personal dignity (including treatment of the individual with respect);”
Baroness Pitkeathley
“( ) For the purposes of this section, “an individual” includes a person with parental responsibility for a disabled child.”
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
In the unavoidable absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and at her request, I shall move Amendment 6 and speak to Amendments 8 and 9 tabled in her name and mine, and speak to my Amendments 46, 47, 48 and 58.
The first group of amendments concerns parent carers. The Care Bill is drafted to apply only to adult carers of adults. This means that the new rights for carers included in the Bill will not apply to adults caring for disabled children or to children caring for disabled adults. The Government have committed to address this disparity for young carers by bringing forward very welcome changes in how they will join up this Bill and the Children and Families Bill to meet the needs of young carers and their families. This is extremely welcome, but it will leave parents of disabled children as the only group of carers whose rights to assessments and support will be left behind.
Carers UK and other carers organisations have been deeply disappointed that parent carers’ rights are not being given the same recognition as other carers’ rights and that the legislative technicality of their rights falling under the remit of children’s rather than adults’ legislation risks them being left with inferior rights. These amendments include parent carers in three key places in the Bill in order to probe the Government’s intentions regarding parents of disabled children and how they intend to address the disparity with the rights of parent carers. The Government have put forward an approach which joins up the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill for young carers—which is very much to be welcomed and on which the Government are to be congratulated—and these amendments call for them to do the same for parents of disabled children. If nothing is done about this, parents of disabled children will be left with lesser and inconsistent rights to assessment and support. The rights of certain groups of carers will be left at different levels in different pieces of legislation, which will be confusing for many people, and parents of disabled children, who already have difficulty accessing support, will find it even harder to participate in work and their community in any way at all.
In this Bill, the Government are improving the rights of carers for adults by removing the need to provide regular and substantial care in order to receive an assessment, removing the need to request an assessment of their needs, placing a duty on local authorities to provide services to the carer following assessment when they meet the eligibility criteria, and introducing a new well-being principle. All this is very welcome, but parents of disabled children also need support. They have often struggled to establish rights as individuals on a par with other carers, and they are at particular risk of having their own rights overlooked as individuals. Too often, they are seen only as parents and their needs as carers are not identified or supported. This was summed up for me this weekend in a conversation I had with a parent carer known to me. He and his wife have been caring for their 30 year-old, very disabled son who is physically and mentally disabled. They have been caring for him for more than 30 years and have had the usual struggle in trying to find any support. When trying to access respite care when the wife, who has diabetes, was severely ill, they were told, “But you’re not carers. These rights don’t apply to you. You’re only parents”. They are not only parents. Normal parents do not have to look after their child and do everything for him for 30 years.
It is three times more costly to bring up a disabled child than a non-disabled child. Parent carers are more likely to be reliant on income-based state support, and 34% of sick or disabled children live in households where there is no adult in paid work. They are also more likely to suffer relationship breakdown and divorce, and they are three times more likely to suffer ill health and health breakdown than parents of non-disabled children. They are also commonly very isolated and unable to get support that fits the whole family.
The Law Commission, I remind the House, recommended that existing duties to assess parent carers should be amended to make them consistent with the adult social care statute. The Government, I am afraid, have so far failed to act on this recommendation. I tabled similar amendments during the Committee stage of the Care Bill and the Minister responded. However, the Government’s response did not address the disparity that will arise for parent carers, who will have lesser rights to an assessment of their need for support and will not have the same rights to support services as other carers.
These amendments try to address that. In brief, they include parent carers in the well-being clause. The intention of the first amendment is to include the parents of disabled children in the duty placed on local authorities by Clause 1 to promote the well-being of individuals. They also want to prevent parent carers’ need for support arising in the first place. Too often parent carers reach crisis point, leading to high-cost interventions. In addition to the negative impact on outcomes for the whole family caused by mental or physical breakdown in the parent, relationship breakdown and unemployment, there are also substantial costs to local authorities, commissioners and indeed to the economy. The costs of mental ill health, as we all know, are rocketing. The cost of family breakdown is estimated to range from £20 billion to £40 billion every year.
The other amendment includes parent carers in the duty to make the assessment. The Bill is making it easier for adults to receive a carer’s assessment by creating an automatic right to one and removing the requirement that they provide regular and substantial care. When I see that in legislation I want to stand up and cheer. That is a great development. However, unless similar changes are brought forward for the parents of disabled children, they will still need to request a carer’s assessment from their local authority and do not have a right to one unless they are providing regular and substantial care. This disparity means that parent carers will be the only carers to have these additional barriers to support in front of them. This amendment seeks to include parents of disabled children in the duty on local authorities in the Care Bill to assess carers, which creates a lower bar to assessment than the current legislation.
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these amendments. Will the Government give assurances that parents of disabled children will not be left with lesser rights? How will the Government ensure parity of rights for parents of disabled children and how will the Government act to join together the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill—being considered in the Moses Room as we speak—to ensure that the families of disabled children are able to access support? Will the Minister commit to working with the Children’s Minister to ensure that the rights of parent carers are not left behind? Will the Minister assure me that, having worked so effectively with the Department for Education to strengthen the rights for young carers, he will do so again to strengthen the rights of families with disabled children?
My Amendments 46 to 48 and 58 are about charging for carers’ services. They are supported by Carers UK and the Carers Trust. The current law includes the power to charge for meeting the needs of carers but very few local authorities use this power. As well as continuing to give local authorities the power to charge carers, the Bill includes a power to charge carers for arranging services for them. Local authority adult and social care budgets are under ever-increasing pressure and we must be concerned that carers may be looked to as a source of revenue. Carers already contribute a huge amount, often at great personal cost, as caring has a negative impact on their finances, health and well-being, and opportunities to engage in work and education. I make no apology for repeating the figure that I have quoted many times in your Lordships’ House—Carers UK has calculated that the contribution of carers is worth £119 billion a year in savings to the Exchequer. Charging a carer for support to meet their needs, often in order to help them continue in caring, risks being counterproductive by preventing carers accessing services and may even discourage carers seeking support. As a result, the adoption of charging policies would result in additional costs to local authorities.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to our Amendments 7 and 10 and will speak mainly about young carers, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley has spoken strongly on parent carers for disabled children and the other key issues covered in this group. In Committee, we were deeply concerned at the very real danger and risk of young carers’ rights and their need for support failing to be addressed in either the Bill or the Children and Families Bill, so it is with great relief that we will be dealing today, now and later, with significant amendments relating to adult care assessments and young carers, local authorities’ duties to identify young carers and ensuring young carers are supported and are not forced to undertake inappropriate caring roles.
On young carers, it is somewhat frustrating that the Government amendments, which are an integral part of the package on young carers that locks in the links between the Bill and the Children and Families Bill, are to be taken in a later group. We need to see the picture on young carers as a whole to be reassured and clear about how the two Bills interact to secure young carers’ rights on support and assessment. Under the two Bills, the Care Bill links adult assessment where a young carer is supporting an adult with the young carer’s assessment, which will be undertaken under the Children and Families Bill. The ministerial Statement on the latter from the Department for Education sets out how it sees this working in practice, and we broadly support this. Our Front-Bench team on the Bill will be probing this further in Committee, which, of course, commences today.
We welcome all these developments. We have worked closely with the excellent National Young Carers Coalition and it has led calls for key changes in the two Bills. I am sure the Minister will agree that the NYCC has done a great job of bringing the plight of young carers to the attention of the House and to Ministers. I am pleased that the Government have now taken steps to ensure a twin-track, joined-up approach between the two Bills.
As the Bill has progressed, we have heard extensively why children and young people caring for a family member, parent or sibling can be so vulnerable to losing out on their education and on the things that they want to do with their lives and how their health can suffer as a result of having to undertake significant caring responsibilities. However, it is a shocking fact that too often young carers do not get the help they need. One of the reasons for this is that, under the current assessment process, the person they are caring for does not receive enough support and the needs of the whole family are often not taken into consideration.
We must remember that this can have a devastating impact on both the young carers and the cared-for person. As a trustee of our local carer support group in Elmbridge, I can say that we see this from both ends. Many of our registered young carers are delivering hands-on support and may be the only other person in the house. For example, if their parent has mental health problems—very often the most hidden of caring roles—the child may have to look after themselves on a daily basis, make their own meals and get off to school, as well as being supportive of the parent and carrying out tasks for them. At the same time, a disabled parent does not want to see their child overburdened with caring duties; they feel desperate and guilty when they require care and support that is not forthcoming as part of the care package, and the child just has to help—and usually wants to anyway. That is a dilemma.
That is why we sought to amend the Bill in Committee so that adults with care and support needs are assessed in relation to the presence of a young carer, so adult needs are met sufficiently and children are prevented from undertaking levels of caring that put their well-being, health and development at risk. The government amendments now put this into effect in the Bill and we fully endorse them as part of the package of changes that are needed.
That is also why our Amendment 7 to Clause 2 must be an important part of the package. We believe that the Care Bill is the right place for the law to be clear that adult services need to assess and meet adult needs first, but with a view to whether a child may be caring for them and providing the support as required. Children should not be picking up the pieces and left to provide part of the care package as a result of the failure of adult services to see and support them alongside children’s services.
Our essential aim has been to ensure that local authorities provide or arrange services to prevent young carers from developing needs for care and support, as well as preventing and reducing needs for adults and adult carers. We cannot have a situation where people have unmet care and support needs, which results in children and young people having to meet those needs.
Our Amendment 10 specifically deals with the issue of local authorities’ duty to identify young carers. We know that currently, adult social care services and health services routinely fail to identify children who may be caring for an adult, even when the adult is assessed, and that also applies to schools. As a result, children can continue to undertake harmful caring roles and end up developing needs for care and support themselves. The lack of a co-ordinated response between children’s and adult services remains an ongoing difficulty for young carers and their families. I hope that the noble Earl will recognise the need to address this problem.
On the other amendments in the group, we strongly support the intentions of Amendments 6, 8 and 9, which seek to emphasise parent carers of disabled children, both in respect of the well-being principle and in terms of preventing them undertaking inappropriate caring. Amendments 46, 47 and 58, in the name of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, seek to address the very real fears of carers and their organisations over carers being charged for key services that they are not currently charged for. My noble friend’s amendments represent an excellent opportunity to put carers’ minds at rest on this issue once and for all, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this.
Finally, my noble friend’s Amendment 48 addresses the important issue of carers generally—not just young carers—being required to undertake inappropriate caring. We dealt with this issue in relation to the assessment process extensively in Committee and we strongly support this amendment. Support from family and carers should be considered as a way of meeting needs rather than as a reason for deciding that the person does not have needs or is not eligible for care. Carers must not be pressurised to provide care that they do not feel able to provide. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to Amendment 34 in my name. The purpose of this amendment relates to the definition of a carer, to ensure that it could include a young person as well as an adult. I wish to explain that I tabled the amendment before the extremely welcome Statement by the Secretary of State for Education earlier in the week, and the tabling of the new amendments on young carers. As other noble Lords said today in the Chamber, I very strongly welcome this. I know, from talking to both departments—the Department for Education and the Department of Health—that a lot of very effective work has gone on over the summer that has been very effective both at official and ministerial levels. I also very much welcome the fact that the National Young Carers Coalition has been very much involved in these changes, and I know that it has issued a statement welcoming them.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I particularly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. It is obviously important that the situation regarding children who are carers is properly focused. As your Lordships know, I am a vice-president of the Carers Trust and have an interest from that point of view. I have difficulty understanding exactly the scope of the clauses here, because the clause dealing with well-being talks about the “individual”. I assume that this includes the disabled child as well as the carer, and that the same is true even when the child is not disabled. If one has a carer, the child will be an “individual”, I assume. The adult definition comes in the next clause, Clause 2. Clause 1 refers to an “individual”, so I assume that children are included in that clause and therefore that the local authority, in performing its functions, has an obligation to have regard to the well-being of children.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Tyler said, Amendments 7, 10 and 34 in this group about young carers provide an opportunity within our debates to welcome the Written Ministerial Statement yesterday from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education about the Government’s proposed amendments to the Children and Families Bill on the assessment of young carers. They give effect to the Government’s stated intentions to consolidate and simplify legislation relating to young carers’ assessments, making rights and duties clearer to both young people and practitioners. In the Government’s view, these provisions sit most appropriately within children’s legislation.
The right to an assessment of needs would be extended to all young carers under the age of 18, regardless of who they care for, what type of care they provide or how often they provide it. Local authorities would have to carry out an assessment of a young carer’s needs for support on request or on the appearance of need. The amendments also enable local authorities to align the assessment of a young carer with an assessment of an adult that they care for.
I believe that the government amendment will achieve the desired effect of my noble friend Lady Tyler’s amendment to Clause 10 by putting a young carer’s entitlement to an assessment on a similar footing to the provisions in the Care Bill for an adult carer’s assessment. I have also tabled an amendment to Clause 12 of the Care Bill, which we will debate shortly, that makes it clear that a local authority may combine an adult assessment with a child’s assessment, including a young carer’s assessment, provided all parties agree. The government amendment to the Children and Families Bill will also achieve the desired effect of Amendment 10 by requiring local authorities to take steps to identify the extent to which there are young carers within their area who have needs for support.
Amendment 7 would extend to young carers provisions in Clause 2 that require a local authority to provide services, facilities and resources to prevent or reduce needs for support among adult carers. Prevention is an important matter to highlight, but the Bill already makes sufficient provision on this issue, as it requires local authorities to have regard to overall family circumstances when fulfilling their duties under the Bill.
Clause 1 requires local authorities to promote an individual’s well-being in exercising all their Part 1 functions, including those in Clause 2. Domestic, family and personal relationships are specifically included, and such relationships could encompass parenting responsibilities, the adequate functioning of the family and the household and the impact of providing care and support on other members of the family. We do not think that it would be appropriate to refer to preventing the needs of young carers specifically. One means of preventing their needs will be, of course, to meet or delay the needs of those whom they care for, and this is clearly covered by the existing provision. There may be other means, which could include the provision of services directly to the young carer. However, such routes would not be appropriate for adult care and support to take, and we do not believe that a duty should sit within adult legislation.
We will make it clear in statutory guidance that all these provisions should take into consideration family relationships and circumstances, and I am happy to make a commitment that such guidance will refer specifically to the importance of preventing children undertaking inappropriate or excessive caring responsibilities. In addition, in drafting regulations about an adult’s assessment under the regulation-making powers in Clause 12, we will make it clear that a whole-family approach should be adopted, where appropriate. An adult’s assessment should then take into account the functioning of the family and the household, and the impact of providing care and support on other members of the family, including children.
I turn to the position of those with parental responsibilities for disabled children, which is an important issue. However, we do not consider it appropriate to include provisions within the Care Bill about the assessment of parent carers of disabled children, as proposed in Amendments 6, 8, 9 and 35 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. In the Government’s view, the main provision for assessing and supporting those caring for disabled children should be in children’s legislation, so that the family’s need for support can be looked at holistically. In most cases, the best way of supporting a parent carer of a disabled child and other members of the family is by the provision of support directly to the child concerned. It would not be appropriate for adult care and support to be undertaking an assessment of those needs, when adult support is not best placed to meet them. The view of the Minister for Children and Families is that there is already sufficient provision under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to provide for the assessment and support of children in need, including disabled children and their parents.
I turn to Amendments 46 and 58 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, about charging carers for support. We remain of the view that local authorities should retain the power that they have now to charge carers for support provided directly to them. Many local authorities do not impose charges on carers because they, of course, recognise the valuable contribution that carers make to society. However, some may choose to impose a nominal fee to cover a proportion of the costs of providing a particular form of support for carers—for example, a relaxation class or gym membership—and we do not think it appropriate to remove that discretion and flexibility. Indeed, removing the ability to charge even a small amount could result in the withdrawal of such services altogether.
The noble Baroness argued that the cost of caring should not count towards the care account within the cap arrangement. Local authority assessments take the support provided by carers into account in determining the care package. We are clear that the care package should count towards the cap, because that should ensure that all people receive the support that they need. We have heard from the care and support sector that the cap will provide carers, as well as care users, with the financial support to help them decide on the right care for them to help provide, and to reassure them that their families will not face catastrophic care costs.
I have some concern about the noble Baroness’s Amendment 48, which proposes that the provision of intimate services to a person needing care cannot be provided to meet a carer’s need for support. This would create a legal barrier that could significantly hinder the provision of a much-needed type of support to carers. Let me provide one example. It may be appropriate to meet a carer’s needs by providing a service direct to the person cared for. If some type of replacement care is provided to allow the carer to take a break from caring, it may look like home care delivered to the adult needing care, even though it is provided to meet a carer’s needs. The amendment would seriously limit the ability of local authorities to make such arrangements because it would provide that the care workers could carry out some activities, but not others of an “intimate nature”. That could leave a situation where the care worker was able to sit with an adult needing care but not take them to the toilet. That is likely to lead only to confusion, I suggest. We accept that clarity is needed about when a type of support should be considered to be provided directly to the carer, and when to the adult needing care. We will produce guidance on this matter, but we cannot support an amendment that sets such an inflexible rule in primary legislation.
I also reassure noble Lords that the Bill is already very clear that carers should not be charged for any form of support that is provided directly to the person needing care. Clause 14(3) makes it absolutely clear that local authorities cannot charge carers for services provided to the person being cared for. This would include services of an intimate nature.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that, together, the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill provide a clear legislative framework to support local authorities to consider the needs of young carers and protect them from excessive or inappropriate caring roles. On the important issue of assessing those with parental responsibility for disabled children, we remain of the view that they are best supported through the provisions of the Children Act 1989. However, I have noted the concerns raised about those who care for disabled children having the same entitlement to a carer’s assessment as young carers and adults caring for adults will have through the respective provisions of the Children and Families Bill and the Care Bill. Department of Health officials will explore further, with officials at the Department for Education, the issues raised by the noble Baroness. I know that my noble friend Lord Nash is always willing to listen to the concerns of noble Lords on these and other matters.
I hope that I have also reassured noble Lords that the Bill is already very clear that carers should not be charged for support provided directly to the person needing care. However, I am conscious that I have not directly answered an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, about the need for identification of carers to ensure that there is no unmet need. It is important to support people to identify themselves as carers so that they can access information, advice and support in their caring role. My department is funding the Royal College of General Practitioners to raise awareness among health professionals. Health and well-being boards should also be identifying the numbers of carers in their local population through joint strategic needs assessments.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asked whether children were already covered in the scope of Clause 1. They are covered in terms of the functions set out in Part 1 of the Care Bill. The local authority must have regard to the well-being principle in discharging any function under Part 1 that relates to children. They would be “individuals” in the case of the exercise of that function—for example, in the provisions relating to the assessment of children in anticipation of their transition to adulthood. I hope that that is helpful.
I have taken a little while to reply to these amendments, but I hope that I have been sufficiently illuminating to encourage noble Lords not to press them.
Baroness Pitkeathley
As we were on a roll there with the Department of Health and the Department for Education working together so successfully on the young carers issue, I rather hoped that we might do it also with regard to parent carers. I am very grateful that the Minister has not entirely closed the door on that. I will read very carefully what he said, but I reserve the right to come back to this issue at Third Reading. I am very encouraged by what he said about taking a whole-family approach, but I believe that it should include parent carers as well as young carers. I am grateful to him, too, for saying that there would be more clarity in guidance about the charging issues. As I said, I will read what he said very carefully, but I reserve the right to bring some of these issues back at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) NHS bodies must exercise their functions—
(a) with a view to ensuring the integration of services for the purposes of enhancing the health and well-being of people, in keeping with the duty on Health and Wellbeing Boards enshrined in section 195 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012; and(b) without hindering the efforts of a local authority to fulfill its duty under subsection (1) above.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I wish to speak also to Amendment 30. I also support the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, but may respond to those later.
In Committee, we debated amendments promoting further integration of health and social care. As my noble friend Lady Wheeler said, we supported the view of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the Local Government Association that the Bill should include a specific duty on NHS bodies equivalent to the duty on local authorities to integrate services and that this shared involvement should be enshrined in the Bill. Joint strategic needs assessments and joint health and well-being strategies should provide a strategic overview of how the health and well-being of local communities can be improved and health inequalities reduced. ADASS has long maintained that local health and well-being boards are pivotal in the delivery model in this respect and that the Bill must reflect this to bring about a wholly integrated accountable system that meets identified local needs and objectives.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in Committee that he had no argument with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend and relied on Clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill and various other pieces of legislation, including Section 116 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, which requires local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to have regard to the relevant joint strategic needs assessment and joint health and well-being strategy in exercising any of their functions, which would include their duty to co-operate and promote integration. The noble Earl also prayed in aid the prominence of health and well-being boards being strengthened through their role in signing off joint plans required as part of the £3.8 billion pooled fund between local authorities and the NHS to support joined-up and integrated working.
I certainly accept and understand those points but I would like us to go further. I argue that the measure should be much more explicit in the Bill in relation to the National Health Service’s duty of co-operation. We know that the current crisis in accident and emergency services which seems to be extending through the early autumn period is symptomatic of a health and social care system that is under huge pressure. If reductions in social care funding and support for the third sector mean that patients cannot be discharged from hospital that has a knock-on impact throughout the whole system. This Bill places major responsibilities on local authorities. Without the full co-operation of the National Health Service they will be very hard pressed to discharge those responsibilities.
The noble Earl is relying on this Bill and existing legislation but the fact is that so far this has not been sufficient. I refer him to a report published today by the University of Birmingham and Birmingham City Council entitled Turning the Welfare State Upside Down? The report says that our social care system is broken and increasingly unfit for purpose and that we need a big and bold response to tackle the crisis and ensure a decent and fair system for the future. The report is right to emphasise the need for close co-operation between social care and the NHS and to shape services around the needs of the individual. The problem is that the Government through their 2012 Act have created a disintegrated system instead of an integrated one and a system where fragmentation is rejoiced at and where the operation of a market is meant to drive a wedge between people who ought to be co-operating together.
I do not want to go back over this afternoon’s Oral Question, but clinical commissioning groups would have been surprised to hear the noble Earl suggest that it was entirely up to them whether or not services were put out to tender. They have been absolutely pressurised by NHS England to do that. NHS England is clearly under the direction of the Secretary of State: how could it not be when, according to government briefings over the last two weeks, the appointment of its chief executive is going to be the Prime Minister’s decision?
There is real concern that we have conjured up a very fragmented sector. As the noble Earl knows, we already have a system where physical health, mental health and social care have found it very difficult to integrate their services. As we have more older people with vulnerabilities and co-morbidities, the need for the systems to work together becomes ever more paramount.
Amendment 11 would put in the Bill an explicit requirement for the NHS, through the health and well-being boards, to play its full part in the integration of services. In Committee, the noble Earl was sympathetic to these sentiments but not to the amendment. I hope that, in the spirit of accepting wise words in this House, he will be prepared to be more sympathetic on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the two amendments in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Barker. These amendments are carried forward from five which I tabled in Committee, all of which sought to give more prominence in the Bill to housing. I declare my interest as chairman of the Hanover Housing Association, which works exclusively for older people, and as president of the Local Government Association.
The overarching case for these amendments is that everyone's care needs are inseparably connected to the place where they live and where, for most older people, they spend all their time. The right accommodation can sustain our independence and well-being even if we face the illnesses or long-term conditions that afflict many of us in older age. The right accommodation can pre-empt and prevent the need for domiciliary and residential care and hugely reduce costs to the NHS and local authority social services. For younger adults with care needs, the right accommodation can enable a fulfilling life within the community, not hidden away in an institutional setting. The wrong accommodation can cause accidents and, indeed, mental health problems; keep people in hospital because their home will not have them back; and can force people into costly residential care.
This Bill is the chance to incorporate housing into the health and care equation so that these three interlinked dimensions can really work together. The noble Earl has worked hard over the recess to bring back improvements to the Bill. In relation to the housing issues, the noble Earl has noted that our concerns are shared by a number of Peers who feel that the Bill gives insufficient emphasis to the question of housing. He fully accepts the integral role of housing in helping meet care and support needs, and has told us that he sympathises with the arguments he has heard. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the two amendments he has tabled to give greater prominence to the link between health, social care and housing. His response will be greatly welcomed by the Care and Support Alliance and, within that group, the National Housing Federation, which drafted the original amendments.
Government Amendment 28 to Clause 6 extends the duty of local authorities to co-operate with partners so that this duty will encompass housing associations—registered providers of social housing—which is a very significant step in absolutely the right direction. Government Amendment 12 to Clause 3 ensures that, in terms of the integration of services, housing will be classified as “health related” and will therefore be taken on board by clinical commissioning groups and the NHS Commissioning Board, NHS England. Both these changes are really positive and I congratulate the noble Earl for his farsightedness, once again, in improving the Bill in these two ways.
At the risk of appearing slightly churlish, however, perhaps I could press the noble Earl on the two issues that remain outstanding and are covered by the two amendments in my name, which have support from all parts of the House. In relation to advice, Amendment 15 to Clause 4 would ensure that people have access to good information on the options available to them in relation to housing requirements, spelling out both ways in which their current home could be made more suitable and the choices that they could make about a move to supported or retirement accommodation, such as assisted living and extra care housing.
Although the Bill ensures that advice on care services will be made available, the Joint Committee on the draft Bill strongly recommended that advice on housing options also be included. So far, this recommendation has not been taken on board. It is not an onerous extra requirement to include housing advice in the mix, particularly given that many local authorities already ensure that people get this advice. Indeed, the Local Government Association supports this amendment. The Minister pointed out in Committee that information and advice on specialist housing options should be included when housing information is supplied. This amendment adds the prompt for such housing advice also to be included when guidance is given on care matters.
A move to a more suitable place can be suggested for a younger adult with care requirements. Sources of support for helping an older person to downsize, perhaps in decluttering the attic or sorting out the garden shed, can be recommended. For those who stay put, there is often so much to be done of a practical nature in making life easier for an older person and reducing their dependency on paid carers or family carers. From replacing hard-to-turn taps with long-handle lever taps for someone with arthritic hands, or fitting firm banister rails to the stairs, right through to converting the bathroom to fit a walk-in shower or installing a stair lift, all such adaptations can delay or prevent the need for more intrusive and expensive care provision. With good advice, paying for those adaptations can be covered by disabled facilities grants or equity loans, just as advice for a younger adult with care needs can be given on how the costs of renting a more suitable home can be covered.
Last Friday, I had the great pleasure of visiting the brilliant Centre for Independent Living in Knowsley, jointly funded and staffed by the health, social care and housing services in this borough. The centre brings together all the key elements of a truly holistic service. The occupational therapists are there, as are the care and repair team who can organise reliable builders and advise on grants, the wheelchair and aids teams, and the handy persons who do small improvement jobs. All the different disciplines and specialisms come together in Knowsley’s centre. It helped some 5,700 people last year. About half were referred by GPs, and health needs are therefore often the trigger, but the solution may well be in meeting the individual’s requirements within their home or, indeed, in pursuing a housing solution elsewhere, such as a move to extra care. So when a local authority gets it right, as in Knowsley, it really can do a fantastic, joined-up health, care and housing job. Good advice that covers the housing dimensions is the start of this process.
Amendment 23, the second amendment in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Barker, would complete the picture. This amendment again does not add significantly to the burden of responsibilities for local authorities. It falls within the “have regard to”, not the “must”, part of Clause 5, but would mean that in seeking to manage the market for care provision, local authorities should have regard to the housing situation facing those with care needs in their area. It raises the profile of housing in this context so that the different parts of local government all take it into account in their policies and strategies.
The amendment would mean that those within local councils responsible for social care would concern themselves with housing requirements, no doubt by feeding the necessary information into the planning system to influence future housing provision. In devising their strategies, health and well-being boards would consider whether more and better housing should be a priority, whether more disabled facilities grants or support for home improvements could play a greater part in preventing the need for intensive personal care, or whether extending a handy person service would not pay for itself almost instantly. This amendment would mean integrating housing considerations into the shaping of care markets, as well as integrating care considerations into the shaping of housing markets. That would benefit everyone.
I congratulate the Minister on the two important government amendments which give added emphasis to housing. I hope that he is able to go further and take on board these relatively modest but entirely sensible additional changes to the Bill.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 15 and 23. I would draw attention to a welcome tribunal judgment in Middlesbrough last week concerning the decision by Redcar and Cleveland Council on the under-occupancy charge. A woman, who is disabled, won an appeal against the decision of her local council which the council claims it took in line with DWP guidance. The tribunal concluded:
“In considering whether there is under-occupation of the appellant’s property, the local authority have not taken into consideration her disabilities and her reasonable requirements, as a result of these, to sleep in a bedroom of her own”.
Redcar and Cleveland Council said that it had properly applied the law as it stood when it decided this case but that the tribunal had introduced an additional test of reasonableness which did not appear in the Department for Work and Pensions guidance. Amendments 15 and 23 would remove a great deal of the doubt that has now been raised. Amendment 23, which refers to access to suitable living accommodation, must include access to suitable sleeping accommodation. That requires there to be a separate bedroom if reasonably required. Amendment 23 would also make it clear that there is a requirement on a local authority to provide access to suitable living accommodation for a person who needs a specific amount of accommodation to enable them to lead a full life.
There is now a great danger for the Government in a large number of tribunal hearings as a consequence of the decision that was made in Middlesbrough last week. One way of avoiding this is for the Government to give a clearer definition of what “reasonableness” is. Amendments 15 and 23 define what is reasonable. I hope that the Minister will agree to look further at this issue in order to ensure that adults who have care and support needs have access to suitable living accommodation. That is clearly not the case at present and it is unfortunate that a large number of people with disabilities are being placed in an impossible situation because of the under-occupancy tax.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 15 and 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Contemplating the need for changes in lifestyle, managing illness and losing the ability to live independently are very daunting and stressful experiences for many elderly people. The proposals in Clause 4 for local authorities to provide information and advice are crucial in enabling people to have the knowledge they need to make decisions with which they feel comfortable. It does seem that the Bill as drafted has a major omission—the absence of advice on housing options.
I worked as a councillor in a northern metropolitan area for many years. I noticed on many occasions that elderly people were totally unaware of some of the opportunities that were available to protect them. I will give the House one example. An elderly lady asked whether I could help her by getting the electricity board to repair the light on the other side of the footpath across her garden. When I pursued the case, it transpired that because this lady was physically infirm, she was unable to reach her bathroom and lavatory, so she was crossing her garden in the depths of winter to use an outside lavatory. The reason she needed the light was in order to get to it. She was totally unaware of the possibility of making adaptations, with help from the local authority, to provide her with a downstairs bathroom. These kinds of incidents reflect the reality of what elderly people know about in terms of services. It is not good enough to say, “They will find out about them somewhere”. If it was part of this provision, that would be a great advantage to all.
My elderly parents lived at home until they were in their 90s. My father was 96 when he died, and my mother was 95. They were fortunate because I was aware of the adaptations that could be provided for them—small things such as grips, handrails and the like. They enabled my father to cope with the infirmities of my mother and for the two of them together to enjoy independent living. But, as I have said, most elderly people are not aware of this provision. When looking at options for care, most people would not think of asking the local authority about housing options. As a local authority person, I am always cautious of giving extra tasks to local authorities, but I know that this part of the Bill would not create a huge burden because local authorities already provide information about the care-related housing options that are available in their area. The point is that those options are not joined up and they do not come under the provision that this clause as drafted would give. I strongly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Best.
The issue of the shaping of markets under Clause 23 is also important. We are always in danger of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Criticism is made of departments doing one thing on the one hand and another thing on the other. There is now a requirement on planners to look ahead and make provision for the numbers and types of homes that are needed. Surely the two things should be brought together as indicated and that health provision should advise and direct the planning process in terms of what will be needed in the future. I warmly support both amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for having only just come into the Chamber, but I have been at an important meeting with representatives from a children’s heart unit. However, this Bill is also important, particularly these amendments. What the Minister gives us assurances about in this House does not always happen on the ground. The matter of housing provision for disabled people has caused aggro up and down the country. People are worried about it. If the Minister can be helpful today, that will do a lot of good.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Best, in relation to Amendments 15 and 23. Obviously, we welcome the government amendments to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will speak shortly, but it seems that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, point to areas where the government amendments do not really meet the needs. Amendment 15, on making available information about housing adaptations and on specialist and accessible housing as a key requirement of a local authority’s information service, was a clear recommendation of the Joint Committee. The noble Baroness has just illustrated why making such information available is so important. It could be very helpful in terms of avoiding the need for people to receive long-term care. We should not underestimate the challenge people face when simply trying to find their way through the system. We find it complex, so how much more difficult must it be for those with little experience of the care sector and the housing system? I believe that Amendment 23 is critical to the success of the Government’s own housing amendment. It would ensure a three-way integration that would be an explicit part of a local authority’s duty to promote efficient and effective local markets for meeting care and support. It would particularly ensure that it has regard to the importance of adults’ access to suitable living accommodation.
We know that many local authorities are doing this without any prompting from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, or my noble friend Lord Beecham. I recently came across the housing for an age-friendly city programme. It seemed to be a really good illustration of how, if a recognition of the changing needs and support of older people is at your core, and you supply a range of care and support housing options as an alternative to residential care, it makes the essential connection between, for example, managing a long-term illness and living in the right accommodation, and the importance of extra care housing schemes that enable people to live independently for longer.
I also just came across a One Housing Group initiative in Islington. It is a scheme designed for 14 people who spend a maximum of 14 days in the centre as an alternative to acute NHS admissions. It has a drop-in centre and an emergency helpline, and this crisis recovery house helps 550 people a year. It keeps 87% out of hospital admissions. It was commissioned by the health service but it shows the interconnection between housing and health.
In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Best’s amendments, I hope that the Government might be prepared to reconsider this and come back at Third Reading with further amendments.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I am sorry that I missed the beginning of this debate but I was with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, listening to Sir Bruce Keogh explaining how the mess around paediatric surgery was going to be sorted out.
I lend my support to Amendments 11 and 15. I remind the House that many years ago, in the good old days, housing and health were together in the same ministry; there was a united ministry covering both health and housing. We have lost something by that separation. I think that the NHS needs to be given a push on integration, so I very much like the amendment of my noble friend. Too often the NHS forgets that it could help itself by working more closely with other interests, and it would be a timely reminder in this piece of legislation to get that message across. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said, we have missed many opportunities over a long period of time, to bring housing into the party as the population has aged. All it has done is increase the burden on adult social care and the NHS. It would be a missed opportunity if we did not rectify some of that now.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I very much agree with noble Lords that housing, along with health, and care and support, should be considered as the three legs of the stool. In relation to housing we are clear about two things: first, many types of housing can be provided as a means of meeting or preventing care and support needs—for example, extra care housing. That is why accommodation is listed as a way of meeting needs in Clause 8.
Secondly, housing is a wider determinant of health; simply having a roof over your head can have an enormous impact on your health and well-being. To reflect this, the “suitability of living accommodation” is listed as part of well-being in Clause 1(2). I hope that those two points in particular will serve to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Amendment 12 clarifies that housing is a “health-related” service, and that both local authorities and the NHS are required to promote integration between care and support, health and housing. This makes the importance of housing explicit not only in the integration duty in this Bill but in the comparable duties on the NHS in the 2006 Act. I hope noble Lords will welcome that.
In Committee, noble Lords also expressed the view that we needed to clarify that local authorities are required to co-operate with providers of services, including providers of housing services. Amendment 28, again in my name, does just this. The non-exhaustive list of the types of “other persons” we expect local authorities to co-operate with would now include certain providers of health, care and support, and housing services. However, we cannot add these bodies as “relevant partners”, as public law is limited in the extent to which it can place duties on such private bodies.
Baroness Barker
When would it be safe to anticipate the statutory guidance which he mentioned?
Baroness Masham of Ilton
Would Amendment 28 be more acceptable if “may consider” were replaced by “shall consider”? There is a big difference between “may” and “shall.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it is good to know that after due consideration the noble Earl is satisfied with his own amendment. On the housing amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Best, will make up his own mind, but it struck me that he is relying on the difference between the local authority as the local housing authority and the local authority as the care authority. He is of course right to say that in county shire areas in some places it is a different function. However, there remains a concern, given that in relation to care and support we are talking about difficult circumstances, often with vulnerable people, over whether the appropriate advice and support will be given. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Best, will reflect on that.
On my Amendment 11, on integration, the noble Earl relies on existing duties of co-operation on the NHS, and Clauses 3 and 6. Where I fundamentally disagree with him is on the impact of the 2012 Act. The noble Earl may not be aware of just how difficult it now is for the NHS to put a cohesive plan and programme together in every locality, because the current incentives do not encourage that integration. I know that he warns us against putting what he thinks is a superfluous clause in the Bill—but this Care Bill is vitally important. It revises social care legislation and adds the foundations of the implementation of the Dilnot commission. It would be very helpful if there were an explicit duty of co-operation on the National Health Service, because we will not bring about integrated care without the full support of the National Health Service. On due reflection, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) For the purposes of this section, the provision of housing is health-related provision.
( ) In section 13N of the National Health Service Act 2006 (duty of NHS Commissioning Board to promote integration), at the end insert—
“(5) For the purposes of this section, the provision of housing accommodation is a health-related service.”
( ) In section 14Z1 of that Act (duty of clinical commissioning groups to promote integration), at the end insert—
“(4) For the purposes of this section, the provision of housing accommodation is a health-related service.””
Baroness Greengross
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18 in this group as well. I have already expressed my support for the Bill, which will make a huge difference to the lives of users of social care services and their families. However, a little more can be done to reform the Bill in the areas of information and advice, and also complaints and redress. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised this issue and that the Minister has tabled amendments on their behalf. This shows that the Government accept the need for proactive engagement around information and advice, the importance of understanding when and how people access information, and the need for a focus on identifying those who would most benefit from it. These issues reflect exactly the thrust of my amendments except that, unlike the Government’s, mine relate to all information and advice about care and support, not just financial information and advice.
While I welcome the emphasis on proper access to financial advice, it seems a bit inconsistent not to apply this proactive approach to all forms of information and advice about care. For example, even when considering financial options, it is difficult to disentangle these from information that is needed about other aspects of care such as the choice of providers. It might even apply to housing, which was addressed in the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best.
At a time when local authority budgets are under increasing pressure, it is all the more important that people needing social care services are supported to efficiently access all existing sources of support fairly, equitably and transparently, and that local authorities are held to account for the decisions they make about distributing resources. Consumers have to feel that they are in control of their own care, understand what support they can expect and have the ability to speak up when they are treated unfairly. My amendments are designed to further these aims and I am grateful to Which? for assisting me in validating the consumer detriment aspects of this argument.
First, in Amendment 13 to Clause 4(1), as well as the local authority having the duty to,
“establish and maintain a service for providing people in its area with”—
care and support information, I would like to see the local authority having a supporting obligation to “facilitate access to” that service. Secondly, my Amendment 18 to Clause 4(4) would expand the local authority’s duty of information and advice provision beyond those to whom it is being provided to also include those,
“who would benefit from receiving it”.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. She is so right in saying that people very often have no idea what questions they need to ask and what services they may be entitled to and therefore this aspect of the Bill is far more important than it sounds.
However, I shall speak to Amendment 21 which, in a way, takes us a step further and would ensure that vulnerable people with current or foreseen complex needs receive information and advice in a way that they can understand; also that the information and advice takes full account of their complex personal position. This may sound simple enough, but, in fact, an untrained person with a leaflet on local services, probably including lots of irrelevant information, is quite likely to leave someone more confused than they were before the visit. In fact, if local authorities do not want people to find their way to services that they need, a rather weak and unstructured approach to information and advice is probably the best way to achieve that result, but in the longer run, such a cynical approach will be highly costly.
My few remarks are based on a briefing from the College of Social Work, which has had the benefit of input from front-line social workers, managers, recent directors of adult care and academics, all of whom are very conscious of and concerned about the efficient use of resources. They would not say lightly that one should be developing a service such as this for information and advice unless it were really important. For people without dementia or other disorders which make it particularly difficult to comprehend the world around them, information and advice can probably be provided by less trained people without any great loss.
As was said in Committee, the aims and principles of the Bill are welcome. The College of Social Work is concerned, however, that many of these principles will not be fulfilled in practice. We hope, with the aims and principles in mind, that the Minister will agree to some further clarification in the Bill, or in regulations, on the key role of skilled social workers in supporting and protecting some of the most vulnerable people in society through their involvement at the information and advice stage.
Key stakeholders were grateful that, in Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, recognised the point of this amendment. He said that,
“some authorities have also used qualified social care staff as the first point of contact and have found that this can be effective, efficient and timely, helping people to the care and support that will help them most”.
At that stage he envisaged that,
“guidance will set out the clear expectations of what the local authority’s service should cover or what it should seek to do in order to ensure that the information and advice is sufficient”.—[Official Report, 9/7/13; col. 216.]
The aim here is to ensure, by including the appropriate wording in the Bill or in regulations—I fully accept that having it in regulations would be perfectly satisfactory—that professionally qualified social workers will be deployed in sufficient numbers, including at the information and advice stage, for people who really need that level of expertise. As I have already said, those with complex needs may be a relatively small number of people. This should ensure that these particularly vulnerable people are put in touch with the most appropriate services for them. This could avoid the need for more intrusive and expensive interventions at a later stage.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
I shall make most of my remarks on the subject of advice and information on Amendment 20, which is a more broad-brush amendment, but I shall just comment on the government amendments in this group, on advice—that is Amendments 16, 17 and 19. I remind the House that I speak as the unremunerated president of SOLLA, the Society of Later Life Advisers, which accredits, to a gold standard, advisers who can help old people on financial matters.
It would be churlish not to say that the government amendments mark a small step forward, in that for the first time they represent a recognition that independent financial advice can be necessary. To that extent, I welcome them. However, I have to say right away that it is impossible to read the briefings we have had without realising that they have caused great disappointment, particularly among financial service people who are determined to get this right. The Equity Release Council says that the government amendments do not go far enough.
In trying to put my finger on the point, yes, they recognise independent advice and financial advice, but they do not recognise the need for that advice to come from people who are properly qualified to give it. It is not enough to have Tom, Dick and Harry advise in this field. It is not enough, even, for local authorities to send people to see people who they may think are quite plausible advisers, such as Citizens Advice: they do not know the complications involved in giving financial advice, particularly to people who have got some money and need to make sure that it will provide them with the care in a home that they want. They need proper, regulated financial advice, given by advisers who can be called to task by the Financial Conduct Authority if the advice they give is not sufficient, who have to follow the rules set by it and must have the kind of qualifications required by it. Therefore, in my view the Government are some way short of what is required in these amendments. It is to repair that lack that I shall later move Amendment 20.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that in the Inuit language there are more than 300 words for snow. I suspect that if historians were to go back through the annals of the British Civil Service, they would come across thousands of ways in which officials have briefed Ministers to say “no” to requests for advocacy. During the 20 years that I have followed these sorts of issues, during which advocacy has became part of social care, Governments have had to find ways to say, “It’s a very good thing, but we’re not going to fund it”. It was therefore a real joy to see the Government’s Amendments 118 and 119 in this group.
It is fair to say that the Government have taken on board the arguments that have put forward by a wide range of people. We know that the changes to the care system and the complexity of those changes, not least those stemming from the Dilnot recommendations, mean that we are now into a level of complexity which individuals on their own—even those who are fairly well informed—will find extremely difficult to manage. Therefore I very much welcome the Government’s Amendments 118 and 119, in which they recognise that there will have to be advocacy services. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to set aside funding for that.
The Minister will accept that his Amendments 118 and 119 fall somewhat short of my proposal in Amendment 38. I would therefore like to raise a few questions which result from the fact that the government amendments are of a much tighter scope than my proposal. I welcome the amendments, but there are several issues that I wish to ask the Minister about.
Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 118 states that independent advocates will,
“represent and support the individual for the purpose of facilitating the individual’s involvement”.
Advocacy in its truest sense is about much more than involvement—it is about enabling people who need help to achieve the outcomes they want. The word “involvement” is not defined, although it is used a lot in the Bill. Will the Minister say whether advocates will have a full advocacy role or whether this is just about securing the involvement of people?
Secondly, I come to individuals who qualify to have an advocate. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause is quite clear that that is reduced to people who have substantial difficulty in understanding and retaining information, in making judgments by weighing things or in communicating their views. What is not in the Government’s Amendment 118 is a right of access for the advocate to access those people. Under the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, where advocates are appointed they have a statutory right of access to people and a statutory right to interview those people in private. Given that we are talking about some fairly vulnerable people, would it be possible to ensure in regulations that advocates have a statutory right of access?
The third thing that is missing is that although the Government have taken this welcome step, there is absolutely no duty upon the local authority to listen to what the advocate has to say. That is a huge omission in the process; could it be dealt with in regulations? To echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, it is important that people are properly trained for the roles that they will undertake in this extremely complex set of conditions which they are dealing with. Again, under the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act advocates have to be properly trained. Can that be dealt with in regulations?
Finally, can the Minister say whether it will be possible to include a general provision that in future, if additional circumstances arose in which it would be to the benefit of a person to have an advocate, they could have access to one? I am sorry to sound less than pleased—I am, in fact, very pleased by what the Government have put forward—but with a few more minor adjustments in regulations we could have something that is a great step forward.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I will make a few remarks about three separate subjects that are covered in this group of amendments. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on her tenacity on the subject of advocacy. I very much support what the Government are doing to try to respond to that, because it is a view that many of us across the House have had for some time. The Bill was deficient in terms of advocacy for those who need that kind of help and support.
I will make one remark in relation to my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s remarks, which we will go into a bit more under the next amendment. I remind the Government of the mis-selling of pensions and insurance in the financial services sector. They would do well to dwell on that before they eliminate the idea of some regulation. I see the argument that not all types of financial advice need a regulated financial adviser. However, some types of that advice need a regulated financial adviser. My peace offering to the Government is the following. If they thought a bit more about this, given what happened in the financial services sector, it may be possible to separate out the types of financial advice and deal with it in regulation, where we need both regulated and unregulated people. At the moment, the Government are being too broad-brush in ignoring some of the complexities, particularly around equity release and deferred payments, which may be equally as complex as any of the pensions and insurance issues that were being rather gaily sold by untrained people in the financial services sector.
I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on Amendment 21, drawing on my six years as a director of social services. In the 1980s, we set up a care management system where care managers did not have to be qualified social workers. These people were putting together packages of care after an in-service training course, which enabled them to deal with some very vulnerable people with quite complex needs. It is not necessary to have a social worker. Many local authority departments over the years have developed benefits advice services that run alongside their social work colleagues, which give financial benefits advice to vulnerable people who need to be helped to find their way around the social security system. I caution the Government against not going down that path. With all due respect to the professional advice that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has had, qualified social workers are not necessarily very good at giving some of the advice that we are talking about.
Even more to the point, we should not divert a scarce resource such as qualified social workers into this area of activity when we do not need to. I remind the noble Earl that we are seeing, in the children’s services, a 50% increase in the number of children coming into care in a four-year period. The real need for social work skills and resources is in some of those other areas of work that local authorities have to deal with. However modest the numbers may be—and this amendment does not limit them that much—we do not need to divert scarce social work resources into this area. They need to go into some of their higher priority work, particularly in the area of children.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we shall come to Amendment 20, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey and that of other noble Lords, including me, in a moment. However, I want to ask the noble Earl about the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in relation to independent advocacy. The noble Baroness raised a pertinent point about what responsibility there is on a local authority to engage with the advocate. I hope that the noble Earl will provide the House with more information. Clearly, this is a step forward, which is to be welcomed, but one needs some assurance that the advocacy system will work effectively. It would be helpful to know what the noble Earl’s department thinks might be the appropriate response of a local authority where an advocate has come to the fore.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. It is one thing to provide information support grudgingly; another to be proactive in doing so. Perhaps the noble Earl would comment in particular on Clause 4, because there is a world of difference between Clause 4(1), in which a local authority must,
“establish and maintain a service for providing people in its area with information and advice”,
and Clause 4(2), which goes on to describe what type of advice. This does not assure us that a local authority will be effective in doing so. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would explain how this will be monitored. Will the Government have a role in reviewing the effectiveness of local authorities in providing that?
If one is resident in an area where the local authority does not seem to provide an effective information and advice service, what recourse does one have? I assume that there would be judicial review and the ombudsman, but those are heavy-handed approaches and it would be helpful to know whether the Government have thought through ways in which members of the public can draw attention to failures to provide effective information and advice in some local authority areas.
That might pick up on the amendment relating to the use of professionally qualified social workers. My noble friend Lord Warner, with a great deal of experience, has suggested that even in areas where there are complex needs, a qualified social worker need not necessarily provide this support. None the less, one wants some assurance that sufficient provision for support will be given. Again, it comes back to the issue of how we will monitor the performance of local authorities.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, perhaps as a point of information in response to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I should clarify that my amendment does not suggest that qualified social workers should provide financial advice, for example. The important point about the role of these qualified social workers is that they are used to co-ordinating services for people and would be well aware of the need for financial and all sorts of other advice. Therefore, in relation to people with very complex needs, they are in a good position to make sure that all the bits of the jigsaw are actually provided. That was the objective behind the amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, let there be no doubt at all that in the Government’s view high quality, accessible information is vital if we are to realise the aims set out in this Bill. We heard some excellent arguments in Committee about financial advice, advocacy, accessibility and signposting to other sources of information and advice. I hope that the amendments we are tabling today, and the commitments that we can give about our work with the sector on statutory guidance, will persuade noble Lords that we have listened to what we heard in Committee and have acted accordingly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has tabled two amendments, Amendments 13 and 18, which state that local authorities should facilitate access to information and advice and that they should be accessible to those who would benefit. Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, proposes regulation-making powers which specify when social workers should provide information in complex cases. Following consultation, we made clear that information and advice must be accessible to those who have a need for them in relation to care and support. It says exactly that in Clause 4(4). Local authorities will have to meet the information needs of all groups, including those who often find it most difficult to access information, such as those with sensory impairments, people from BME backgrounds, people who are socially isolated or who have complex conditions. We are absolutely clear about that.
“Accessible and proportionate”—the words that we use in the Bill—also mean ensuring that information and advice are available in the right format, in the right places and at the right time. A vital aspect of this is making them available face to face and one to one, by phone, through leaflets and posters as well as online. When appropriate and most effective, that advice should be given directly by a qualified social worker. There will be other occasions when information and advice are best and most appropriately provided by others. We are working with all interested parties on what this means in practice and on translating this into the statutory guidance.
Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, seeks to ensure that information should be accessible and proportionate to those who would benefit. We consider this amendment to be unnecessary. The duty to provide information and advice applies to a local authority’s whole population—including those who would benefit from that. Each local authority will need to tailor the service to its population’s needs. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the detail about how to do this will be covered in statutory guidance, and we are working with stakeholders, including carers and user groups, to make sure that we get this right.
The Government have also listened carefully to concerns expressed about the provision of information and advice on financial matters. We have in response tabled Amendments 16 and 17, which seek to make clearer the active role that local authorities have. Amendment 16 requires local authorities to have regard to the importance of identifying individuals who would be likely to benefit from financial advice. This encourages a more active role for local authorities to consider whether people would benefit from financial advice. Amendment 17 means that local authorities must seek to ensure that adults understand how to access information and advice on the range of financial options available to them.
There are various options for people who could benefit from financial advice relating to care and support, both regulated and non-regulated. Our amendments highlight the importance of ensuring that people understand how to access the variety of advice available independently from local authorities. They mean that local authorities must seek to ensure that adults understand how to access the different financial advice available to them, thereby supporting people to make informed choices.
A particular point that I want to bring out here is that the Government do not believe it would be appropriate to require local authorities to make direct referrals. For the most part, local authorities do not possess the necessary expertise, and there is a risk that a referral leading to poor advice could bring a significant burden of accountability on to the local authority. We will work closely with stakeholders as we produce the statutory guidance to understand how different types of financial advice, including regulated financial advice, might be of benefit for people in different situations, as well as the active role of local authorities within this.
Amendments 14 and 19 seek to simplify and clarify Clause 4 and to respond to specific concerns raised in discussion in Committee. Amendment 14 simply re-words Clause 4(2)(d) in a more concise and understandable way. This makes the clear and unambiguous statement that the information and advice service must cover how a person can access independent financial advice on matters relevant to the meeting of needs for care and support. Amendment 19 responds to concerns raised about the potential confusion, particularly in the financial services industry, over the term “independent financial advice”. The amendment clarifies that the term means financial advice independent of the local authority.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his very detailed response to these amendments. I am encouraged by what he said. I was, in my remarks, trying to broaden this issue so that integration is about the information and advice that people need and is not always restricted to financial advice and information. It is much broader. Obviously, the proof of the pudding in this is going to lie in what actually happens, and whether we get the sort of integrated approach to this that we hope underlies the philosophy of the whole Bill.
I am sorry that this provision cannot be in the Bill, but I am less worried about that than the eventual result of these measures. The slight muddling around the word “independence” will come out when we consider the next group of amendments and discuss the difference between regulated and independent. The two can be muddled, with regard to “independent” and “regulated”, when thinking of lots of different models for financial products, for example, and “independent” from the local authority. That all needs to be very clear in the minds of those who seek advice and those who are giving advice to very frail and vulnerable people to whom this needs to be clear, broad and helpful, and as well meaning as I know the Minister has in mind for it to be. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
( ) have regard to the importance of identifying adults in the authority’s area who would be likely to benefit from financial advice on matters relevant to the meeting of needs for care and support,( ) ”
(iii) to understand the different ways in which they may access independent financial advice on matters relevant to the meeting of needs for care and support.”
“( ) “Independent financial advice” means financial advice provided by a person who is independent of the local authority in question.”
Lord Lipsey
“( ) The Secretary of State—
(a) has a duty to ensure through national public awareness campaigns that there is a high level of public awareness and understanding of the terms and implications of the cap on the cost of care; and(b) shall publish annually a report on the levels of such awareness and understanding, including the results of a representative poll of adults.( ) Regulations must make provision for when a local authority must refer an adult with care and support needs, or who is making plans for meeting such needs, to a regulated financial adviser; and for when a local authority may refer such an adult for such advice.
( ) The advice and information made available to adults with care and support needs must include—
(a) advice on housing options; and(b) tailored information for individuals with specific medical conditions and complex individual needs.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, perhaps I may start with a procedural point. We have had these matters under discussion for quite some time, and the first three Peers named on the amendment—myself, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—had a most useful meeting with the Minister and Norman Lamb from another place on 12 September. There was complete agreement at that meeting that, if it was at all possible, we wanted to go forward on the basis of consensus on the matters of advice and information, and I am sure that that is right. However, I think it fair to say that we are not quite there yet.
The Minister very kindly agreed to share with us his notes for his speech in reply to the debate this evening in advance so that we could consider them, because many things that he might want to say are very relevant to whether we have a picture for advice that really does the job—sorry to mix the analogies. The Minister fulfilled his kind promise, but only at 2.41 pm this afternoon, and I have not had a chance to digest his words, nor to discuss them with my colleagues, whose names are on the amendment. He also suggested that we should have further talks if they would be helpful, particularly, he said, between Report stage days. Clearly we are not considering finished business here. All I am asking is that there should be agreement from him and from the House that if either he or we think that an amendment at Third Reading is appropriate and necessary—it may well not be—he will not resist it on the grounds that we have thoroughly debated it. This is open territory and we are trying to find a way forward. In that way we can avoid any Divisions this evening. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree.
Lord Lipsey
That is marvellous. That makes it much easier.
As I said, I think we are making headway, but I do not think we are necessarily there. There are three elements to this amendment: the information campaign, which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will concentrate on in his remarks; special groups and housing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will address; and I will concentrate on the issue of advice.
Why do I spend so much time banging on about advice? This is an incredibly complicated area. The financial products are very complicated, and many people do not have a natural understanding of them. We all sort of know what a pension is. How many people, even in this House, know what a point-of-use care plan policy is? Who would be able to evaluate whether it was good value for money or bad? There is a large gap in the degree to which people know and understand the kind of products that can be involved here and the issues that can arise.
There is not a lot of this advice about, by the way. Some 53% of councils did not even refer people in care homes for independent financial advice. Only 7,000 of the 53,000 self-funders in care homes have had appropriate financial advice. A point-of-use policy can ensure that they can go on paying for their care however long they happen to stay in the home. Their whole lives are at stake, yet hardly more than 10% have received the financial advice they need.
This is costly not just to the individual but to the councils. Nearly one-fifth of self-funders end up falling back on the state to pay. It costs councils £435 million a year, which is a substantial sum. Much of this could be avoided if people got appropriate financial advice. I do not think that this is not common ground with the Government, but it is, I think, a reason why the Government need to make absolutely sure that they get it right in what they do.
The need for financial advice has greatly increased as a result of the Dilnot scheme. The scheme has no stronger supporter than me, except possibly the Minister. I think it is a very good outcome to a very long and protracted debate. Nevertheless, it does make a lot of things more complicated. I will give an example that I gave in an earlier debate. You can apply for help under the means test and find that you are worse off if you get it because, although you get a little help under the means test, you lose attendance allowance if you get any means-tested support at all. I was amazed when I found that out, and I study this every day. How many people would know that unless they had the right kind of financial advice? That could come from citizens advice bureaux if their computer systems were up to it, but you really want an independent adviser to help you in the round. I do not think that is very controversial.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the first part of this amendment, but before I do so I will register my strong support for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, a moment ago, especially with regard to the provision of independent and regulated financial advice.
I think it is common ground that the Dilnot reforms will fail unless the public understand what they are and what their implications are. I think it is also common ground that there need to be vigorous communication campaigns to make sure people do in fact know about and understand the implications of the reforms. Where there seems to be a difference between the Minister and those who supported a similar amendment to this in Committee is over who should be directly responsible for ensuring that these campaigns take place and that they have an effective form, and over how their effectiveness is assessed.
The amendment before us gives the Secretary of State a duty to ensure through national public awareness campaigns that there is a high level of public awareness and understanding of the terms and implications of the cap on the cost of care. In his reply to a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister simply noted that the Bill as it stands places a duty on local authorities to provide information and advice, including on the cap system. In later correspondence, for which I am very grateful to the Minister, he expanded on the point. He noted that, first, the funding reforms create a shared interest on the part of local authorities, government and the financial services industry to make sure that people are aware of the reforms and have access to the right information and advice at the right time so that they can plan and be prepared to meet their care and support needs. Secondly, the Government want to act in partnership with these key stakeholders to get this right, building on the effective relationships already established. Thirdly, the Government are seeking views in a consultation on the design and technical implementation of the funding reforms, which includes addressing the best way to proceed to raise awareness of these reforms nationally and locally.
The Minister’s remarks make it clear that there are lots of interested parties in this communications endeavour, but they entirely overlook the question of leadership. A campaign as vital as this needs leadership. I maintain that that leadership can come only from the Secretary of State. Local authorities, almost by definition, cannot easily lead in any national sense. As for the financial services industry, it is convinced that the information campaigns need clear, well defined leadership, and is quite clear that it cannot come from that industry. Who would believe facts on the reforms presented by somebody trying to sell you something? In fact, the ABI has told me that it believes that the public information initiative should be led by the Government. That is what part 1 of this amendment would do—give the Secretary of State leadership and responsibility.
The other areas where the Minister may differ about a communications campaign are how high to set the bar and how to explicitly make it plain that it is not just the terms of the reform that have to be understood but the implications of the terms of the reform. It is not much good being aware of the facts if you cannot work out what the facts mean for you. However, the difference over how high to set the bar for a communication campaign is critical. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out a moment ago, the Bill states only that local authorities must establish and maintain a service for providing information and advice. The Bill does not set any measure for whether anyone actually receives or understands this information and advice. It does not set targets of any kind.
You can easily see a situation in which local authorities can, at least technically, fulfil a duty to provide advice and information without providing much of it, or knowing how many people are reached by it and how many of those reached understand it and the implications it has for them. That would be an entirely unsatisfactory outcome and certainly not what the Government intend. We need to make sure this does not happen and that is what part 1 of the amendment would do. It calls for,
“a high level of public awareness and understanding of the terms and implications of the cap on the cost of care”.
At Second Reading, the Minister said:
“The Government will adopt a strategic approach to maximising the public’s understanding of the new care and support system”.—[Official Report, 21/5/13; col. 827.]
The key word is “maximising”. The amendment gives written substance to the idea of maximisation.
The first part of the amendment contains a paragraph which would require the Secretary of State to publish annually a report on the levels of awareness and understanding of the reforms,
“including the results of a representative poll of adults”.
When we discussed this requirement in Committee and subsequently, the Minister felt that reviews of understanding and awareness would naturally follow in the normal course of things, and I am sure that is the case. However, the special nature of these reforms and the need to be able accurately to measure progress in informing people and keeping them informed calls for a more definite and more regular assessment. The Minister also felt that the kind of annual survey we proposed might be very expensive. I have had extensive experience of these surveys in business over the past 20 years and I can reassure the Minister immediately that the kind of annual survey this amendment proposes would have an essentially trivial cost. That is why, for the sake of clarity, the amendment makes reference to a “representative poll of adults”. This kind of survey would, in fact, cost very little, would be very easy to administer and would be exceptionally quick in delivering results.
I will close by saying that I strongly believe a large-scale national information and advice campaign is necessary for the success of our reforms. I believe that any such campaign must have appropriate targets and that we should see on a regular basis how these targets are being met. I believe that any such campaign must have clear leadership, and that direct responsibility for that leadership should be the duty of the Secretary of State, as the amendment proposes. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to agree with at least some of it.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I fully endorse what my two esteemed colleagues said regarding the need for appropriate financial advice. I am still of the opinion that people should be referred to regulated advisers, who are best placed to advise them on the full range of solutions open to them. However, to avoid repetition, I will briefly concentrate on the paragraph in Amendment 20 dealing with other areas of concern about which we have already talked in some depth, such as housing. People with specific medical conditions and complex needs are reliant on suitable housing provision. We should also not forget the needs of their carers in this regard. The local authority will need to engage with agencies and organisations such as the CABs and Age UK in an integrated way. This should be part of providing a relevant local advice and information envelope.
Plainly, there is no point in getting appropriate financial advice if, through no fault of the adviser, faithfully following that advice cannot be guaranteed to lead to good care outcomes. Those outcomes may be consequent upon ensuring that things such as the suitability of the individual’s housing and accommodation are included in any wider fact-finding conducted by the local authority alongside any care or financial assessments it performs. That housing suitability will probably depend on the complexity of the care package that the individual’s needs disclose. Those needs will probably derive directly from the specific set of conditions and symptoms that the individual faces.
No one would expect a local authority to be familiar with every possible combination of health and social circumstances that an individual may face, which is why close working alongside local agencies and organisations such as the CABs and Age UK in assuring the existence of a complete, competent advice and information envelope is so important. Indeed, it is my firm view that the quality of that integrated approach to care management may well be the key determinant on which successful outcomes depend. I urge the Minister to adopt our amendment, as we believe that it would go a long way to ensure more effective and efficient outcomes for both the service user and the taxpayer.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Professional Financial Advisers. One of the areas that regulated financial advisers are most concerned about is that they should be able to do the job that they are there for. I am concerned that recent “reforms” have meant that there are fewer people available to give advice and fewer people getting advice. One of our problems is that this means that people get bad advice. They say something to their friend round the corner, or somebody says “I think so-and-so’s OK”, or they have read something in the newspaper. One of our difficulties here is that the perfect gets in the way of the good. People are frightened to say things like, “here is a list of people” or “here is somebody I have used”, in case they then incur some kind of responsibility. Yet if we do not help people to find someone who can give them advice, the very people who most need advice do not get it. I am concerned that this is becoming almost a social problem in the sense that those who are best off and least need advice get the best advice while those who are less well off and need advice do not get it because we have got ourselves into this mess.
I am not in a position to say that this or that amendment is ideal, but I hope the Minister will accept that, in today’s circumstances, unless we give clarity to people and make it relatively easy and simple for them to go to get advice, they will not go and will not be able to.
I have two more short points to make. First, we have concentrated on the simplicity of the advice when you get it, which seems to me to be the wrong place. It is the simplicity of getting the advice that really matters. Very often, the advice that is given may not be all that simple, because the circumstances may not be all that simple, but if the simplicity of getting the advice is right then it can be moved through more effectively.
Secondly, in considering these amendments and, indeed the Bill—at this stage and going forward—I hope the Minister will realise that one of the problems about seeking advice is that the language used is incomprehensible to anybody but the professional. I find this embarrassing: I once sat on an FSA committee designed to try to make more people more financially literate and spent my whole time asking superior people in the finance world to explain to me what they meant. I discovered that they did not always know what they meant. There is a sort of language which is used and batted backwards and forwards between these people. There is a terrible fallout in this. I remember that a friend of mine was asked for advice—not about finance, but about how to buy a theatre ticket—by a man had never gone to the theatre before but whose wife wanted to go to something. She explained and dealt with it but a friend of hers said, very superiorly: “Of course everybody knows how to buy a theatre ticket”. My friend asked, very simply: “Could you buy a football ticket”.
That is one of the problems, so I hope we can try to do this in a way which is comprehensible and simple and which does not mean that the most needy are unable to get the service they need.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I rise to support this amendment and, particularly, to talk about the first two prongs of it. I do this partly from my experience as a member of the Dilnot commission. I remind the House what that commission said on the subject of an awareness campaign. We made only 10 recommendations, one of which was a very strong one because we had been incredibly depressed by the evidence given about people’s understanding of the present system, let alone the new one. When you have 60% of the population thinking that social care is provided by the NHS, you have a bit of a problem explaining to people how the system operates. Since they have not even mastered the existing system, you have to make a really big effort to get across some of the messages about the changes to it.
You could argue that it is a bit like Africa: if you have never had a landline and go straight to mobile phones it might be easier to make the change. Many people will not carry a lot of baggage about the existing system, but we do need to work really hard on this issue. That is why we said:
“To encourage people to plan ahead for their later life we recommend that the Government invest in an awareness campaign”—
we used the word “invest” very deliberately—
“This should inform people of the new system and the importance of planning ahead. This campaign could be linked into the wider work to encourage pension savings”.
Those three sentences were worked over very carefully and we said exactly what we meant on those issues. We said them as strongly as that because we thought that, to some extent, the success or failure of the changes encompassed in the Bill depend on that awareness campaign. I have not seen the Minister’s reply, but I have a suspicion—because I know how health Ministers get briefed—that there will be something about how this is not appropriate stuff to put in the Bill. I can see that there is some strength in that argument but if we are not to put it in the Bill then the Minister has got to start to tell us, in detail, what the Government are going to do.
The Government have had more than two years to think about this. We were made to produce a report very quickly indeed: within 12 months. It is now more than two years since it was produced and I should have thought we could expect a reasonably detailed plan from the Department of Health about how it is actually going to make the public aware. It would be nice if the Minister accepted the amendment, but if he is not going to, we need to know: where is the budgetary provision for the awareness campaign; what work has been done on the selection of people to help run the campaign; when it will start and how long it will go on for. How much are you going to pay for this? Do you accept the idea that all good awareness campaigns have some kind of follow-up arrangements? The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has suggested an annual survey and I would not disagree with that. As he rightly said, these surveys are, from my experience, relatively cheap to do. Given the sums of money we are talking about in the Bill, this would be a very modest thing to do and there is certainly no point in having an awareness campaign if you are not going to check up whether there has been any increase in awareness.
There is a raft of issues where we need to have some detail from the Government on what they have been doing on this recommendation for a couple of years. If we have not got a very convincing story, we have to consider putting this in the Bill, to generate some energy and action in this area.
I turn to the second prong, which we have already talked a little bit about under the previous group of amendments. I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, and I want to return to the issue of mis-selling. We have had some serious problems in this country about the way the public has been sold financial products and we ought to be able to learn from history over that. It is not any old Tom, Dick and Harry who can give sensible advice to people about complex financial issues. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is right: many of these issues are complex and you need a simple system to get to the advice, but the advice is not always going to be simple.
Let me illustrate that with the sort of circumstances that families and older people may be faced with. It is fairly common that an older person is going to give up their house; their spouse has died and they will have to give up the house. The family might well want to have a conference about what they do with that house. There are several options: they could keep the house and rent it for income; they could go for equity release; they could go for deferred payments; or they could go for a point of care plan, as my noble friend said. Choosing the best thing to do from some of those options is not straightforward; it will require someone who knows their way around some of these issues and can give advice to people and their families on how to make a sensible, good decision that fits their particular circumstances. The Government have to give more consideration to this.
I accept that not every issue will be complicated and there could be some circumstances in which the financial advice does not need to be given by a regulated financial adviser. However, the Government now have to do the legwork on separating the sort of situations where regulated financial advice is needed from those where one can be more relaxed about it. If we do not give guidance of some standing and credibility to local authorities, we put them in an invidious position because they will be damned if they do and damned if they do not. They need some advice on the sorts of circumstances in which they, to discharge their obligations under the terms of this piece of legislation, can point people clearly in the direction of advice that is likely to be appropriate to that person’s circumstances.
Lastly, I wish to make a point to the noble Earl about the Secretary of State’s new obligation under government Amendment 138 to have regard to the local authority’s requirement in Clause 1 to promote well-being. The Secretary of State is now pretty much in the same position as that of the local authority when he is producing guidance and regulations. It is at least an arguable case that he would not be fulfilling that requirement unless he put in place some credible arrangements for sound financial advice being given to people and he helped the public to understand the details of the arrangements of the new scheme that the Government were implementing. I am not a lawyer, but it would be worth a punt by going to lawyers to argue that the Secretary of State would be in breach of his new obligations if he took a cavalier approach to financial advice and awareness of the new scheme.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for giving us an assurance that this matter can be brought back at Third Reading, which is very helpful to our debate.
As several noble Lords have said, many people find dealing with financial products very complex indeed. They also find the system of social care funding to be complex. How much more complex will it be when the Dilnot provisions in the Bill are introduced? My noble friend made the point that many people misunderstand the current system. Many people think that social care is free at the point of use until they suddenly reach a situation where either they or their relatives are faced with catastrophic issues around long-term care. Even in relation to Dilnot, my noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed out in Committee that many people think there is this cap of £72,000 but, as we know, it is much more complex than that. The £72,000 cap is based on the fee that the local authority will pay for people who are not self-funded, but we know that self-funders, in essence, subsidise those who go into care that is in one way or another funded by the local authority because they meet the means-test requirements. Of course it is not free because there then have to be hotel costs, which Dilnot estimated to be about £12,000 a year. This matter is therefore very complex and many people find dealing with financial issues very difficult.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for the amendment, which covers a number of distinct issues relating to information, advice and awareness of the reforms to care and support funding. I am grateful to them all for meeting me over the summer to discuss these issues so constructively.
A number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, stated that public awareness of these matters, particularly on the potential cost of care, is woefully low and that this needs to be addressed. My noble friend Lord Deben made some telling points in that connection. The Government agree that if we are to realise in the fullest sense the benefits of these reforms, it is critical that people are made aware of them and what the reforms mean for them. There is absolutely no dispute on that point. I explained in Committee that Clause 4 requires local authorities to provide information and advice on care and support, and that this must be accessible to their whole population. This will need to include information on the capped costs system.
However, we accept that local awareness-raising alone might not be sufficient. Furthermore, we accept that the department has an important role to play at the national level. For an awareness campaign to be successful it needs to be delivered in partnership—national and local government working alongside the wider care sector. We do not believe that a specific duty in the Bill would achieve this and we do not think that it is necessary. It is not necessary, for one thing, because we are already building a partnership without legislation. We have embarked upon a joint programme with local government to implement the reforms, and I can assure my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in particular, that awareness-raising will be a part of this. We are engaging with the voluntary sector, care providers and the financial services industry to make sure that we all play our part in communicating these reforms effectively. It is a joint effort and a joint responsibility.
To answer my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the public awareness campaign will be timed to coincide with the coming into force of the key elements—that is, April 2015 for most; April 2016 for the capped costs system. I can assure him, too, that the Government do not intend to shy away from the need to raise public awareness.
Turning to the second limb of the amendment, the Government are not convinced that it is proportionate to require the Secretary of State to conduct a poll and publish a subsequent annual report on awareness of the capped costs system. However, we do agree with the need to monitor the effectiveness of the reforms and the Government have committed to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of all new legislation. Moreover, recognising the need to improve data on public understanding of care and support, we have also taken steps to develop and include new survey questions for the annual Health Survey for England. The new questions will be used to monitor and track public awareness over time. If questions are included, fieldwork will be conducted throughout 2014, and the report will be published at the end of 2015. These data would provide us with a baseline against which we can evaluate changes in public awareness. The survey is conducted annually, so there is scope to include the questions in subsequent years. Additionally, there are already questions in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing— ELSA—which capture public awareness of care and support and expectations of how it is funded. Some data are already available and the next set will be available at the start of 2016. Together, these steps will inform the ongoing implementation and policy development process that will take place in the years to come. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend and provides him with some reassurance.
We are currently consulting about the design and implementation of the funding reforms. Through this we are seeking views about how best to raise awareness of these reforms nationally and locally. We will consider the responses carefully before deciding on the way forward. I can assure the House that this will include a role for the department nationally.
The next part of Amendment 20 would introduce a regulation-making power to specify circumstances where local authorities must, and where they may, make referrals to financial advisers regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Given that quite a bit of the ground covered in this amendment was discussed at length earlier in the debate, and relates to a number of government amendments which have been accepted by the House, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not rehearse all the arguments they have already heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, emphasised the importance of people understanding the various products that are available. We agree that, in some instances where someone is considering a financial product such as a care annuity, financial advice should be regulated through the Financial Conduct Authority. However, there are many sources of valuable financial advice that do not need to be regulated and can be provided free of charge—such as advice on managing money from the citizens advice bureaux or from the Money Advice Service. In addition, the fact that financial advice is regulated does not mean that it is appropriate for care and support purposes. Very few regulated financial advisers currently have a qualification or expert knowledge of care and support, though we hope that this sector will develop over the coming months and years. In this context, the term “independent financial advice” covers both regulated and non-regulated advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, also asked about the regulation of advisers in this particular field and what we are doing about this. The regulation of financial advisers comes within the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority. We have opened up discussions with the authority and with the Association of British Insurers on the regulation of financial products and advice.
From the comments of the noble Lord, I took it that he accepted that it would be inappropriate to require local authorities to make direct referrals where, for the most part, they do not possess the necessary expertise to judge between advisers. Requiring them to do so would present a significant burden and could result in a local authority making an unnecessary or inappropriate referral. There is the further risk that a referral leading to poor advice could be seen as the fault of the local authority, a point he acknowledged, bringing yet more of a burden of responsibility in increased disputes, and even legal challenge. We believe that the decision to take up financial advice, of whatever form, and the choice of adviser, should belong to the individual and not to the local authority.
In respect of the third limb of the amendment, about housing, this is very similar to Amendment 15 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which we have already discussed. If the noble Lord has any further concerns, I should of course be happy to speak to him separately.
With regard to the provision of information and advice to people with specific health conditions, this is primarily the responsibility of the NHS. For example, there is a wealth of tailored health and social care information on the NHS Choices website that is public-focused and available to local authorities to use however they see fit. Health and housing are, of course, vital for people using care and support. Clause 3 puts local authorities under a duty to promote the integration of care and support with health and health-related services. The House has accepted Amendment 12 to clarify that this incorporates housing, which includes joining up the provision of information and advice. We will address this in detail through statutory guidance.
I hope that this persuades at least some noble Lords that these issues are all being considered very seriously by the Government, as we work with local authorities and others to implement the reforms. On that basis, I hope that they feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the positive things that he said from which we can draw encouragement. I was particularly pleased to hear him talk about the national role of the department in information provision and confirm that there will be campaigns around landmarks in the Dilnot report to carry that forward. Equally, there are some things on which, if I may say so, he still is not quite there. Nobody advocates direct referrals—nobody. I accept his argument—everybody does—that you cannot just send people to say, “You have to go and see so and so”, or, “So and so is your man”. The other extreme is to say that you do nothing. You provide, for example, a list of suitably qualified advisers within the local authority area; you tell people how to get hold of them. We should not set up straw men, whom nobody is advocating, in order to fend off suggestions that need to be acted upon.
Some things the Minister said would be valuable to follow up in writing. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will agree with me that it would be fascinating to see the monitoring suggestions as a substitute for the poll that he suggested, because if they work, that is fine and we will not press it, but if they seem to fall short, that would be different. I think that there will be room to ask the Minister for further discussions with the movers of this amendment so that we can narrow even further the ground before us. I do not pretend to be fully satisfied as I stand here tonight. I gave my reasons earlier why I do not think that the Government’s amendments to the Bill complete the picture, but we are making progress, as we all want to, and we are having a good dialogue. With the Minister’s help, I want to carry that forward before Third Reading, at which stage we will see whether an amendment is needed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EUC Report: Court of Justice of the European Union
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Corston
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Report of the European Union Committee on Workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union: follow-up (16th Report, Session 2012–13, HL Paper 163).
Shortly after the report was published, the president of the CJEU put forward a series of proposals designed to increase the efficiency of the court. Most notable were the proposals to increase the number of judges in the General Court by 12 in order to tackle the increasing number of pending cases before the court. The Commission thought that increasing the number of judges in the General Court would be the only possible solution to the court’s workload problems, stating that,
“only by immediately increasing the number of judges . . . will it be possible to stem the flow of new cases and effectively tackle the backlog of cases”.
Member states generally agreed that the number of judges ought to be increased. However, agreement proved elusive, principally over the method for appointing the additional judges. In May 2012, the aspects of the president’s proposal dealing with increasing the General Court’s judiciary were dropped in order to facilitate agreement by the member states to the other parts of his proposals.
Subsequently, a Friends of the Presidency Group was established by the Council, comprising representatives from all member states with a view to examining the case for increasing the number of judges in the General Court. However, the group failed to reach any conclusions and the presidency put forward a proposal for consideration at the General Affairs Council on 11 December 2012 which included the appointment of nine additional judges appointed through a rotation system. The proposal was rejected by the member states.
At this point, the sub-committee decided to conduct a follow-up inquiry to determine whether the adopted proposals were having an impact on the workload of the court and whether there was still a case for increasing the number of advocates-general in the Court of Justice and increasing the number of judges in the General Court. The sub-committee wrote to the witnesses who had participated in the original inquiry and asked them to provide written evidence. Evidence was also heard from the Minister for Europe, the right honourable Mr David Lidington, in March. Shortly after we published our call for evidence, the CJEU requested that the number of advocates-general be increased by three, and after debates in both Houses of Parliament, as required by the European Union Act 2011, the proposal was agreed by the Council on 25 June. The first of the new advocates-general will be from Poland and is due to take up the post shortly. In line with the existing rotation, the other two will be of Czech and Danish nationality. They will take up their posts in October 2015.
In our follow-up inquiry we concluded that there was still a case for increasing the number of judges to the General Court. The latest statistics from the court indicate that there has been a reduction in the number of pending cases due to a fall in the number of new cases. The average time that it takes the General Court to dispose of a case has fallen by 1.9 months to 24.8 months. The sub-committee welcomed the decrease in the number of new cases but considered it a temporary respite. It argued that little could be inferred from the decrease in the number of new cases brought before the court as the long-term trend was clearly upwards. The sub-committee called on the Government to make the case strongly in discussions with member states to increase the number of judges and to urge member states to find a system of appointment of additional judges that safeguards the stability of the court and the quality of the judiciary. The Government responded to our follow-up report in July. They agreed with most of the conclusions in the report and appeared to be more positive about appointing additional judges to the General Court as a means to deal with the court’s backlog of cases. They also seemed to favour a merit-based selection process to appoint additional judges. The Commission also agreed with the follow-up report’s conclusions. It stated that “an overwhelming majority” of member states and MEPs supported the appointment of more judges to the General Court. However, the Commission cautioned that it is up to the member states to agree, by what is called “common accord”, a method for appointing additional judges.
Given the inability of member states to reach agreement on a method for the appointment of additional judges to the General Court, the Commission appears to have lost interest in the issue for the time being. However, the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, the JURI committee, continues to push for an increase in the number of judges. In June 2013, it agreed a report on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union by increasing the number of judges at the General Court. The report states:
“As a consequence of the progressive expansion of its jurisdiction since its creation, the number of cases before the General Court is now constantly increasing . . . resulting over time in an increase in the number of cases pending before that court and an increase in the duration of proceedings”.
It concludes:
“The General Court—in spite of its substantial efforts—can no longer handle the growing workload”.
The JURI committee has proposed a number of amendments to the draft legislation governing the statute of the CJEU which include an increase in the number of judges in the General Court by 12; that the additional judges should be appointed,
“exclusively on the basis of their professional and personal suitability”;
that there should be no more than two judges per member state; and that during a procedure to appoint one or more of the 12 additional judges, member states may submit nominations, and judges retiring from the General Court may nominate themselves. The report appears to be sound. It follows months of work by the rapporteur, Alexandra Thein, meetings in Luxemburg with officials from the General Court and the president of the CJEU, and discussions at five JURI committee meetings.
The proposals safeguard the geographical balance and representation of national legal systems as there will continue to be one judge per member state and no more than two judges for any member state. Appointing additional judges on the basis of their professional and personal suitability, as assessed by the Judicial Appointment Commission, seems quite sensible and hard to refute. However, Ms Thein proposes that the European Parliament should be receptive to compromise proposals from the Council or the CJEU. She considers that, given the urgency in appointing additional judges to the General Court:
“Any agreement is better than further delay.”
The report is due to be considered in plenary by the European Parliament on 10 December 2013.
The questions that arise for the Minister are: can the Government confirm whether they support appointing more judges to the General Court? If so, would they support a system for appointing those judges based solely on merit? Will the Government make representations to the Commission and the Council to adopt the JURI committee's report?
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I wish to do little more tonight than support the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, in her plea to the Government for answers to those questions and particularly that they ensure that additional judges are indeed appointed to the General Court as soon as possible. As the noble Baroness has told the House, the committee concluded that this was necessary some time ago while I had the pleasure of serving on that committee and nothing, to my knowledge, has changed. I am pleased to say that, from the Government’s response to the follow-up report, they now appear to agree that the case for increasing the number of judges has been well made. If that is indeed the case, I am pleased that they have been converted to the idea. As I have said on previous occasions, I trust that resources will not again be considered the problem.
A robust functioning legal system is invaluable. The rule of law in the widest sense is perhaps the greatest bulwark against bad government, and preserving the quality and effectiveness of the European Court system is important. The court is a vital institution for the proper functioning of the Union. Without the court we have nothing to buttress the operation of the single market which is so much more complicated than a trade deal and is, we are told and all agree, essential for our interests.
The question of resources should be put in the context of the sums involved. From an overall EU budget of the cost of the court is just over 0.25%. It is difficult to know how much the United Kingdom contributes to that because statistics do not give a breakdown. However, on the basis that we contribute something like 11.5% of our share to the overall EU budget, our share of the court budget would be £32 million.
Put into context, we are quite happy to spend some £25 million, if a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in July of this year is correct, on various international tribunes, all of which are very worthy, but are certainly no more important than the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, has indicated, is how we appoint these additional judges. I am rather disappointed that paragraph 10 of the response says:
“The Government looks forward to examining detailed proposals in the Council”.
We all look forward to something coming; the question is, what are we going to do about bringing it forward? I understand and, to some extent, support the principle of a merit-based system, but if not, I am at a loss to understand why the procedures for the appointment of the advocates-general cannot be used.
I am sure that we are all delighted to see my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench replying to this short debate on what, in the scheme of the many things with which she is concerned, may appear a small matter. It is nevertheless an important matter for the European Union. I will therefore perhaps trespass upon her good will to seek assurances from her that the Government will keep this matter, and other important matters within the European Union, at the forefront of the agenda at European Union meetings, taking positive steps to ensure that they are considered.
The United Kingdom could have great influence. Indeed, we often speak of our worldwide influence, so it would be good to know that that influence can be brought to bear within the European Union. There are matters which are not for the grand world stage, not the material of headlines but important nevertheless. If I may stray slightly from the topic, there are problems such as progress on the admission of Macedonia, Moldova, Transnistria, Serbia and Kosovo to name but a few. Of course, there is also the problem of more judges for the General Court—another kind of problem but one that needs a solution.
I believe that a British lead on such issues would be both welcome and constructive, and a change—if I may say so—from our apparent obsession with our relationship with the European Union.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and I very much agree with the content of his remarks. Not wishing to embarrass my noble friend in any way, or cause him any difficulties, I will also add that there have not been many occasions when I find myself strongly disagreeing with what he says on all sorts of different kinds of European matters. He has the reputation of having been an excellent chairman of the sub-committee before the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and we were grateful for his guidance on many matters, particularly those in more recent times.
We are now coming to an important moment in the development of the European Union, albeit with at least one member Government who seem hesitant on a number of aspects. That is disappointing to the observers of the general scene in Europe. I hope that that attitude will change over time. The Government face enormous complications about how they will handle these matters in the UK’s political cockpit between now and the next general election, either with or without a change of Government, and with or without a coalition.
Under the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, the Court of Justice of the European Union, by the beginning of December next year, will undertake a much greater, with widespread consent and enthusiasm, and will need extra resources. Although there was a temporary dip, the workload is already showing signs of renewed increase and that will become a major element of its work in future as it deals with all aspects under the treaties—the contents of the two main treaties and dealing principally with the single market and all the things of greater complexity that flow from that as time goes on. One thinks of all the possible cases that will arise over trade marks, patents and intellectual property, as well as more mundane disputes that will arise between corporations, and between Governments and corporations in different member states, as the single market develops. There is still a lot of work to be done in the single market context. People tend to think that it is mostly completed, but that really is not true; it is an ongoing situation and the Court of Justice is going to be a vital part of that.
On the Government’s side, there seems to be a psychological reluctance to show any enthusiasm for these matters at all, which is a great pity. I am sure that that view is shared be members of the main European Union Select Committee, of all parties and backgrounds, as well as the sub-committees. Although scrutiny means the right to be critical about things that are either manifestly not in our national interest or against the practical interest of a particular piece of policy formation or political decision, the general picture should be more positive. As my noble friend Lord Bowness quite rightly said, the amount of money involved in making sure that this court works efficiently and properly on an expanded basis with additional judges—who, I personally hope, will be chosen on their merits, as has already been enunciated; we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, for her opening remarks—is so minuscule as to be within any of the foreseeable elements of the European Union budget totals anyway. I think I am right in saying that year in, year out, the actual expenditure outlays of the European Union budget are below the allocated amounts from the previous decision-making period.
Although the idea that there should be hold-ups because there is an austerity programme that should affect everybody is right in terms of many other aspects of the Commission budget—the big stuff in the budget and the modernisation of that budget—it cannot be right to harm the effective functioning and future efficiency of this important body, which will be much more influential and powerful, quite rightly, in future in adjudicating on legal matters affecting all the member states and the various parties involved in those cases.
I share the disappointment that the indication in the debate on 23 July that this had to be done under the European Union Act was not greeted with much enthusiasm in this House, as we recall; indeed, there were members of the coalition who were very strongly opposed to it and thought that it was the wrong kind of procedure to bring in at this time on treaty-based matters, which are international treaties and should be treated on that basis in the future. Be that as it may, I was particularly pleased that one of the report’s main suggestions was:
“The Court should take further steps to encourage national courts requesting preliminary rulings to include a provisional answer”.
I think that is a very practical suggestion.
As has already been mentioned, the Government’s response was very unenthusiastic, which we found disappointing. The report states:
“On the most important reform, namely the increase in the GC’s judiciary, the Government ‘noted’ the recommendation while pointing out that they were seeking significant cuts to administrative spending over the following years and that any budgetary implications relating to proposals for reform of the CJEU would have to be consistent with their position”.
Bearing in mind the minuscule amounts of money involved, it seems to be more of an ideological reluctance to show any enthusiasm for the Court of Justice because of the very nature of the institution itself. That cannot be right, when it has been agreed under the Lisbon treaty as a vital part of the future development of the European Union, and is supported overwhelmingly by the other member states, including of course with great enthusiasm by the new member states, which do not fear this magical loss of pretend national sovereignty which seems to be an obsession of at least one of the political parties, or a good segment thereof, in this country. I cannot understand that.
I hope, therefore, that the Government, in the form of my noble friend Lady Warsi, whom we thank for coming to conclude this debate, will give us an encouraging answer on these matters. It is time to face up to these things. Time is short between now and the beginning of December next year for these matters to be resolved. The sub-committees are going into other areas, too, where the Government need to show greater enthusiasm: the big stuff in policy, the opt-outs and all that, which is a continuing saga to which I will not refer any longer.
The European Commission letter of 17 September says that,
“in line with the view of the House of Lords, the Commission is of the opinion that it is too early to tell to what extent the amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union which, together with changes to the Rules of Procedure of the Court, only entered into force last year, will lead to a decrease in the number of pending cases”.
That means that it did not really feel that that was going to be so in the future, as has been suggested. The letter goes on to say that,
“the Commission is pleased to see that an overwhelming majority both amongst the Member States and within the European Parliament support the idea of additional judges”.
The letter concludes:
“The Commission agrees with the House of Lords that an increase in the number of judges should be preferred over the creation of specialised courts”.
That is an extremely important point. I hope that the Government tonight will agree.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is somewhat paradoxical that this is the fourth time in the past two years that I, as European spokesman for the Opposition, have had to speak on this matter. I cannot think of any European topic on which we have had so many debates, other than our membership of the EU itself. Some people might say that to have four debates on the European Court of Justice in the space of two years shows that the House of Lords has got its priorities wrong in timetabling its business. That may be a true general point but in this case it actually demonstrates the persistence of your Lordships’ European Union Committee and the quality and commitment of its members to see that its recommendations are acted on by the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, are to be greatly praised for the determination they have shown in making this case for Court of Justice reform.
We last debated this in June, when we had to approve the Government’s support for three new advocates-general. There was a bit of self-congratulation that we had at least achieved something. The Polish advocate-general takes office this year and there are to be another two advocates-general by October 2015. This seems to be reform at a snail’s pace. There are very strong reasons why that pace should be quickened.
First, there is already a backlog. Secondly, it is overwhelmingly in our national interest. The coalition has made one of the prime objectives of its European policy the deepening of the single market in the areas of digital economy, energy and services. I can tell your Lordships that in all these three areas progress will be very dependent on the court and its judgments. The digital area is full of competing vested interests. The energy area is full of strong national incumbent companies that want to hang on to their monopoly positions. We had the services directive in 2005 and there has been a great deal of foot-dragging by some member states in its implementation. If you are to achieve your objective, all these things require a much stronger court that is able to deal with these issues in a more speedy way.
Thirdly, there is in 2014 the “communitisation”—in the European parlance—of justice and home affairs as a result of the Lisbon treaty, which means that vast areas of what has been intergovernmental legislation will come under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, increasing the workload again. Of course, we are going to be participating if we get our opt-ins in some of those areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, have said, the argument about cost is really absurd. The court is 0.26% of the EU budget —one-quarter of one-hundredth of the EU budget. The EU budget itself is only 1% of EU GDP. If my arithmetic is right, and it may be wrong because I am getting a little rusty, the cost of the court is one forty-thousandth of Europe’s GDP.
In terms of Britain’s national interests, which ought to be at the forefront of this Government’s policy for Europe, there is indisputable academic evidence that the single market has permanently added 1.9% to British GDP. That is a result of our being members of the single market. Potentially, if we get what we want, it could be much more. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, calculated that the cost of the court is roughly £30 million. That addition to our GDP is worth over £30 billion. When one thinks about the importance of the single market to our economy, it is absurd to allow some ideological points about the jurisdiction of the court to get in the way of sensible moves to strengthen its efficiency.
I hope that the Government will support the case for more judges. I should like to make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, answering the debate in June on behalf of the coalition, said:
“We are strongly in favour of additional members—not another 27 but another nine or 12”.—[Official Report, 10/7/13; col. 1484.]
We very much hope that will be agreed. It will be a pleasure if the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, will reiterate that firm commitment given by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that British policy is to press for an increase in the number of judges in the court.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, went on to say that the problem lay in the difficulty of agreeing how the extra judges should be chosen: which member states would have them and which would not. This raises a difficulty of fundamental importance to the Government’s ambitions to see reform in the European Union. For instance, if we are to have a more efficient European Commission that does not over-regulate, we have to get away from every member state having a commissioner of its own, each with a portfolio of their own. That inevitably results in an extension of European action. We want a much more focused Commission. At the very minimum, there has to be some system of senior and junior commissioners. The equality of member states will have to be addressed in that case.
Similarly, if the costs of Europe are to be cut, it is absurd that there is a Court of Auditors in which every member state has an auditor with their own cabinet system. To cut the costs, it is necessary to move away from the principle of every member state having its own person. The question of reconstituting the court on a basis where not every member state gets an additional judge is at the heart of the reform agenda for Brussels. It is a fundamental point. The Government have to seize this and elevate it if they want reform to the top political level of the European Council. I urge the Government to press on and to pursue a genuine reform strategy for Europe. If they do that, they will have our full support.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, for opening this debate, and also to all members of the sub-committee on justice, institutions and consumer protection—both for their report and for their continued interest in this matter. I am also grateful to members of the European Union Committee. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her detailed opening remarks, some of which I may repeat for the record.
A well functioning European Court is in the interests of all EU member states. I accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that it is in our national interest too. The Government have consistently supported efforts to reform the court to uphold the integrity of EU law and to increase the capacity and efficiency of the court. We all benefit from effective EU law—including British businesses operating within the single market. I accept the views of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on that. In evaluating any proposed reforms, the UK has been keen to ensure a number of things. First, reform should promote the effective passage of justice. Secondly, it should be based on clear evidence of need. Thirdly, it should not place additional burdens on the EU’s budget. Fourthly, it should avoid full-scale treaty change; and fifthly, it should be acceptable to Parliament.
Since the European sub-committee’s initial report in 2011, several useful reforms have been implemented. These include increasing the number of judges in the Grand Chamber from 13 to 15; streamlining procedures by, for example, abolishing the requirement to read the report for the hearing in full; allowing for the appointment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal and establishing a new office of vice-president in the Court of Justice and the General Court. In the debate of 23 July 2012, when this House agreed to support these changes, my noble friend Lord Howell noted that they were fairly modest. The Government agree that their impact on the processing speed of the court is also likely to be modest. However, we believe that even a modest impact is to be welcomed. Given that these measures came into effect only towards the end of last year, it is too early to assess their substantive impact. We will monitor their effect over the coming months.
Moving to more substantive reforms, your Lordships will remember that earlier this year, the Government received the approval of both Houses to agree to increase the number of advocates-general at the Court of Justice to nine from 1 July 2013, and to 11 from 7 October 2015. The Government share the belief of the sub-committee that this reform will help the court to handle cases more quickly and improve the quality of decision-making. At the Council of Ministers meeting in June, the Government agreed to this reform. We expect the first of these additional appointments—a permanent Polish advocate-general—to be made soon. This appointment will bring Poland into line with the other “Big Six” member states, including the UK, all of which have permanent advocates-general. The two other additional advocates-general will increase the existing rotation system from three to five. Under the current arrangements, we expect that the first two, due to be appointed in October 2015, will be Czech and Danish.
In its request, the court sought to have the first additional advocate-general in post from 1 July 2013. Since this request was made only on 16 January 2013, and as the Council agreed to it only in June, this was always an ambitious timetable. The Poles estimate that their nomination process will take four months. We therefore expect that we will shortly be presented with the Polish nomination. The court and other member states are keen for the Polish advocate-general to be in post as soon as possible. The UK therefore stands ready to approve any suitable candidate.
Most of these reforms have concentrated on the Court of Justice, so there is now a need to focus on reform to the General Court. The Government share the European Union Committee’s eagerness for a resolution to the question of additional judges for the General Court. These negotiations have continued since March 2011, and still seem some way from a successful conclusion. While there is a case to be made for additional judicial appointments, the questions of how many more judges there should be, and how they should be appointed, remain open; as does the question of cost-effectiveness. In particular, the debate on selection method has reached an impasse. The political reality is that there is currently no agreement on any particular system.
The Government have a set of key priorities. Among other things, we want to ensure that the legal expertise and judicial memory of the court remain strong, that there is an appropriate balance in terms of the representation of common and civil law and that reforms are cost effective. Within this framework, the Government are maintaining a flexible stance in negotiations to help to facilitate an agreement. We are working hard to find a solution, and I assure my noble friend Lord Dykes that we are committed to finding a solution on which necessary agreement can be reached.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, the Government believe that increasing the number of judges in the General Court could form part of the solution to the problem of the court’s backlog of cases but, alongside this, we think that the court must also review its working practices and processes to ensure that they are as efficient as possible. In this context, we are expecting the court to publish a recast of its rules of procedure later this year and to submit it to the Council for approval.
A merit-based system would better meet our priorities than the rotation-based systems previously discussed, and I should like to think that UK judges would have a good chance of nomination under those circumstances. The problem, however, is that there simply is not the consensus in the Council that would be needed to move towards a merit-based system. Many details still need to be worked out, and many states have strong objections in principle. That said, we are encouraged by President Skouris’ comments on the benefits and feasibility of a merit-based system, and we look forward to negotiations continuing.
I hear what my noble friend Lord Bowness said on budgets. In the current economic climate, there is an imperative on all the EU’s institutions to reduce their administrative costs. The Government have been clear throughout that any additional advocates-general or additional General Court judges should not result in an increase to the EU’s budgetary demands. We believe that the relatively small additional financial pressures of appointing the advocates-general can be met from within the court’s existing budget, which was more than €354 million for 2013, and which the court has underspent in previous years. When we agreed to these appointments at the Council of Ministers meeting of 25 June, we submitted a statement noting this expectation. Likewise, we will continue to emphasise that any additional reform costs must not create pressure for an increase in the EU’s administrative budget. During discussions on the annual budgetary framework next year, we, alongside like-minded member states, will press very firmly for costs to be met from within the court’s existing budget.
I note what my noble friend Lord Dykes said, but in the current economic climate there is an imperative to find ways to reduce administrative costs. In the same way that we have asked our domestic institutions to do more, we look to the EU to do likewise. I also assure him that we are heavily engaged on a wide range of European issues. My honourable friend the Minister for Europe regularly updates Members of your Lordships’ House on the broader issues raised by my noble friend Lord Bowness.
The Government are committed to promoting the effective passage of justice by the Court of Justice of the European Union. We believe that the appointment of additional advocates-general, alongside the reforms that the court has already made, will contribute to this goal. The Government will continue to work closely with the court, the Commission and other EU member states to identify and take forward both long and short-term solutions to the General Court’s backlog, and we will continue to explore the full range of options for structural reform in order to find a solution that meets the objectives I have outlined today.
Lord Bowness
When does my noble friend anticipate that this matter will next be before the Council?
Baroness Warsi
I do not have that information to hand, but I will write to my noble friend with full details.
Care Bill [HL]
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher (CB)
“( ) the need to adhere to specific minimum quality standards and requirements in the commissioning and provision of services to adults, as regulations may prescribe;”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 25 and 26 in this group and acknowledge the Government’s Amendments 24 and 27, which I will mention later. I start with Amendments 22 and 25. As many noble Lords have said, the Care Bill has the potential very significantly to improve the care of elderly and disabled people. However, there is also the possibility that only a part of that potential will be realised, particularly in the face of significant cuts to local authority budgets. Amendment 22 therefore places in the Bill a requirement for there to be regulations about how services are commissioned to ensure that they offer at least a sufficient level of quality to the individual. Amendment 25 ensures that home visits are not normally commissioned for less than 30 minutes. The amendments provide for a service of at least minimum quality, as I said, which will ensure the dignity of each elderly or disabled person. They also allow flexibility—which is important—for short visits, for example for the delivery of a meal or for giving an injection, and also for longer visits.
This became very clear to me when I met the director of the Bikur Cholim social care organisation, which has been in operation for many years looking after people in the Jewish community. The director told me that for a disabled, doubly-incontinent client, a morning visit cannot be completed in less than one hour. Dealing with the incontinence—and one does not want to go into too much detail about that—can be time consuming. A bath or shower is essential for a doubly-incontinent person; they need a change of clothes, possibly a change of sheets, to have food provided and help to get dressed.
When you think about all that, it is fairly obvious that you could not possibly do it in half an hour. However, in our financial context there is an increasing tendency to commission ever-shorter home visits, many lasting only 15 minutes, as has been well publicised on the “Today” programme twice this week. Indeed, a survey by the UK Homecare Association found that one in 10 visits already last only 15 minutes and the proportion of 15-minute visits has increased by 17% over the past five years.
Leonard Cheshire Disability has seen tenders for visits of only 10 minutes and, according to the person on the “Today” programme, these carers tend to take 10 minutes to take off what they describe as “their hat and coat”. I am quite curious about carers arriving in a hat and coat, but there we go. It means they would then have to shoot out of the door without their hat and coat. The mind boggles. This is a very serious issue and a tragic quote from a disabled client makes the point better than I can: “By the time they have got me to the commode and helped me to change, the time is up. I end up choosing between getting my meal prepared or having my commode emptied. Do I get a drink or do I go to the toilet?”.
Imagine having to make those kinds of choices. The public do not support depriving elderly and disabled people of a dignified service. Some 96% are critical of these very short visits for personal care; people understand about an injection, I think. Will the Minister clarify on the Floor of the House that a visit to deliver personal care, including, as it will inevitably, dressing, taking the client to the toilet or bathing, within a timeframe of 15 minutes is simply impossible and always will be. Therefore, one can say something pretty firm about it.
From the point of view of the carers too, workers complain that they have had to stay longer than 15 minutes in almost every visit, even though they are paid only for 15 minutes and they are not paid for their travel time either. As one said, “You just cannot possibly do this job in that length of time”. The question is whether we are giving sufficient priority to elderly and disabled people living at home. I think we have to answer, “Surely not”. The Minister, Norman Lamb, has very publicly criticised 15-minute personal care visits, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this practice from continuing and, indeed, from spreading further. The government amendments do not really tackle the problem, although I know that the Minister always tries very hard to do what he can. He will be aware of the 2,000 plus e-mails that have landed—not necessarily on his desk but in the office—within the past few days expressing concerns about this issue. It has concerned people very deeply.
I hope that the Minister can assure the House today that the Government will guarantee that our most vulnerable people can rest assured that their needs will be met and their dignity will be protected. This means, I fear, carers having enough time. I know, of course, that this means resources, so we are here coming down to priorities and where they really lie.
Amendment 26 is supported by the Care & Support Alliance of 70 organisations representing old and disabled persons, those with long-term conditions and their families. Clause 5 acknowledges the benefits of quality services but only requires local authorities to,
“have regard to … the need to ensure”,
that sufficient services are available. I am not quite sure how one has regard to those matters and then disregards them, so I am genuinely not sure what that means. The amendment would “require” local authorities to ensure that sufficient services are available to meet the needs for care and support of adults and their carers in their area. We are talking here about good planning of services over time, and also the planning of a comprehensive range of services for people with very different disabilities and needs being undertaken.
We take the view that the social care system is in crisis, too often leaving older and disabled people and their families without essential care and support; certainly, I take that view. Indeed, I emphasise that I fear that abuse of elderly and disabled people is very likely to be the next national scandal. We have had physical abuse of children; we have had sexual abuse of children. One has only to think about the love of parents for children to wonder, if parents are doing that to their children, how many elderly and disabled people may face abuse? I say this with the greatest possible sympathy and understanding for carers. How many of us can honestly say that we could live with, say, a dementing parent—I have had a dementing parent, so I have an understanding of this—year after year, without sufficient support, and always find the emotional, physical and every other kind of energy to provide that care, and often to give up your life to do so, without being reduced to behaviours of which one would be profoundly ashamed? If abuse occurs, we cannot blame the overburdened carers. It is up to us.
Meeting short-term needs is essential. This is not straightforward for people with fluctuating disorders. Somebody with multiple sclerosis, for example, can from time to time need full-time, 24-hour care. If that is not available, that person will have no option but to be moved into a residential home. Very often, the only space is in a residential home for the elderly. For, say, a 25 or 30 year-old, that is a deeply distressing experience, apart from being very expensive.
On the range of quality services, a tragic story about a deafblind man says it all. Some unqualified person delivered his breakfast but never told him where it was, so he went without breakfast for days. It was sitting on the fridge, but you have to have the training to tell you that you need to be very good on your communication. You could say that it is all very basic stuff, but this poor chap went hungry.
I very much welcome the Government’s amendments in response to these concerns but, unless I have missed something important—I confess that I may have—they do not seem to ensure that sufficient appropriate services are made available for vulnerable people. I am confident, nevertheless, that the Minister well understands the importance of this issue and very much hope that he can assure the House this evening. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 22 but am concerned about Amendment 25. Is it wise to mention 30 minutes? I declare an interest as president of a spinal injuries association. Some of our members have broken their necks and are paralysed from their neck down. To get a paralysed person up, to do an evacuation of their bowels and to wash and dress them, using a hoist, might take at least three hours. Surely it is better to stress the individual’s needs rather than to set in stone half an hour. Providers of care may use that as a marker.
A visit taking 15 minutes, as has recently been in the headlines, is totally ridiculous. Having the choice of whether a carer takes someone to the lavatory or gives them a drink is unacceptable. If stress is put on the carer who cannot do the job in that time, they will leave and not do the job at all. The person needing care is left in a dangerous position if adequate care is not given. The amendments need to be flexible and aimed at an individual’s personal needs. I hope very much that the Minister will look at this and will do something to make it acceptable.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I was the lead commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission during a big inquiry looking at home care for older, frail people. We found that half of the people receiving such care were satisfied with it. Half were not. Mostly, the complaints were about breaches of their human rights. This is a terrible indictment of our care system: to be able to say that because of the care that is regularly given to people, their human rights are breached is absolutely unacceptable.
We know that the number of 15-minute care visits, as Leonard Cheshire Disability discovered this week, is going up: 60% of local authorities commission them and the number has risen by 17% in the past five years. I do not want to delay colleagues in the House for very long; it is just that you cannot do the sorts of jobs that the majority of people need in 15 minutes. Of course, one needs flexibility: to give somebody a dose of medicine does not take very long, but to really care for someone, which involves all the tasks that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned so lucidly and clearly, takes much longer. We need some way in the Bill of making absolutely sure that this cannot continue. It is absolutely disgraceful that we have to have this conversation at all.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, on reading carefully the amendments in the name of the Minister, I hope that he will be able to provide reassurance that his amendments will go further than Amendments 22 and 25 to which I have added my name and that they will be much more about the whole person and the whole person’s needs. I recognise that there are dangers in putting a timeframe around anything; there is the danger that it will be used as a so-called minimum standard, down to which people will drop. I initially wanted to support these amendments and I suppose, if I had a choice, I would have added my name to those of the Minister now, because there is a real problem if care is not adequate in quality and promoting well-being in that it creates dependency rather than reablement towards increasing independence. There is a sense of personal worth that goes along with being able to do things, however slowly, rather than having to accept somebody doing them for you because they are in a terrible rush. I hope that the Minister will provide us with a much wider reassurance than the words suggest at first glance.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I was most interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and I agreed with every word, but I do think the time limit specified would not be right and I strongly support Amendment 27. However, there are other aspects of this care issue that we have not really thought about.
One that is covered in Amendment 27 is about the well-being of carers. I find it very disturbing that a woman I know who lives in with a person needing pretty comprehensive care every Saturday and Sunday and stays overnight on both nights, is appallingly paid for this because she is self-employed. I said to her that I could not believe she was earning so little when it is such a very important job and so very time consuming. I told her I would look on the internet to see what she is entitled to as a minimum wage. It turns out that there is no minimum wage for a self-employed person. That quite stunned me; there is a great reservoir of people who would be willing to take on self-employed caring positions and do them for quite long periods, not rushing people, but not at her rate of pay, which worked out at a little over £2 an hour for all the hours she was there. I suggested that, since she had done training in care, she should work instead for the people who provide a service for the local authority. She followed that up and it turned out that she would not earn much more, because they are not paid for travelling time. Unless the organisation improved so that her two, three, four or 10 jobs—whatever it is—were almost next door to one another, the unpaid travelling time would constitute much more of her day than the time actually caring for people.
The other point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is that it is more than just physical care. We have heard much in recent days about people’s extreme loneliness, how they can go almost for days with hardly a word with anyone. That is a most essential thing in life, to feel that you have not been abandoned. The woman in the television report talked about taking your coat off, making your booking and going through it all, and how you are left with 10 minutes in the middle and then you book in a final 10 minutes to reverse everything. That is exactly what I remember from when I was chairman of local social services 30 years ago; that was exactly the same problem then.
These are not new problems; because there are so many more older people who need more care, and there is more awareness, with people wanting to stay in their own homes, this problem has grown, and we do not have the solutions to match the need. I strongly support the emphasis on the well-being of carers, which is mentioned in Amendment 27—that is important. People should feel that they are doing a worthwhile job and that what they are doing is helping other people. They should also be reasonably remunerated for it. There is so much that we would all support; I feel that all noble Lords in this Chamber want to see more help and more efficiently used help. Amendment 27 in particular covers a lot, but whatever offers can be made, so much the better.
Baroness Emerton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not having heard the first part of the speech made by my noble friend Lady Meacher; I can only say how much I agree with her. In the past nine weeks, while the carer was away, I had the personal experience of doing two weeks’ full-time caring. I timed waking up, giving the medication, getting breakfast, rushing up to do my post while she was having her breakfast, and then attending to her personal care and getting her dressed. It took an hour and a half, every day, and that was just the morning.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the minimum quality standards in the noble Earl’s amendment set a good standard. However, that needs to be supported by an assessment and care programme. There needs to be a proper assessment of what is required in terms of the total care, not just the minimum. We have a system for some of our residents in the retirement development where I live, where prevention to admission to hospital is done by an assessment of how much time care is required. Two people come from the unit—a nurse and a physiotherapist—and fully assess the patient. If there is a proper care programme, that gives the time element. Amendment 25 says “excluding travel time” and that a visit should not take less than 30 minutes. It is difficult to be so prescriptive, but if that was according to the care plan, it might go a long way.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 151 is in my name. This is a very important group that goes right to the heart of our debates about the quality of care that is being given to many vulnerable people. You cannot distinguish the quality of care from the way in which care workers themselves are treated. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on that.
In Committee I quoted from a Unison survey called Time to Care, and I will quote one or two statistics from it. In this survey, 79.1% of the staff surveyed said that they had to rush work or leave one care visit early to go to another. Some 56% earned between £6.08 and £8 per hour. The majority do not get set wages. Their turnover is very high: 57.8% of those surveyed were not paid for travelling time between visits. That is not the foundation for providing good-quality, comprehensive and continuous care.
We know that many people on these so-called zero-hour contracts have had to sacrifice time with their children in order to be available when their employer requires them to be—even if there is no work. Others are required to work exclusively for one employer with no guarantee that they work enough hours to pay the bills. The Opposition believe that employers ought to be banned from insisting that zero-hour workers be available even when there is no guarantee of any work. We should stop zero-hour contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one business, and we should end the misuse of those contracts where employees in practice work regular hours over a sustained period.
The issue of how care workers are treated and employed is directly linked to the arguments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Greengross, about 15-minute care visits. There is no doubt that there is widespread concern about the impact of local authorities setting what can seem to many to be arbitrary limits in the time allowed for care. I do not necessarily go along with the amendment sponsored by the Leonard Cheshire organisation, but the argument that it raises about care workers being asked to provide personal care, including supporting service users to dress, bathe, eat and go to the bathroom in a timeframe that simply does not allow dignity or respect, seems powerful.
Equally, I have noted the comments of the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, who cautions against taking a broad-brush approach in terms of the time that should be given to each client. The association agrees with Leonard Cheshire Disability that 15 minutes is not long enough to allow some homecare tasks to be done, but it says that there is a need for some flexible and truly personal approach, so that each person can be assessed and provided with the appropriate care. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made a powerful point that if one seeks to place in legislation a minimum number of minutes, the risk is that it would not meet some people’s needs. However, the problem is that if one starts to define it in legislation, it might become the maximum. That seems to be one of the great dangers.
That is why we need to look carefully at the noble Earl’s two amendments. I appreciate the fact that he has come back to your Lordships’ House with some amendments which seek to deal with the substance of the issues that we are talking about. In essence, they say that local authorities, in promoting the effective operation of a market, must first have regard to,
“the importance of fostering a workforce whose members are able to ensure the delivery of high quality services”,
which is in Amendment 24; and in Amendment 27 they must have regard to,
“the importance of promoting the well-being of adults … with needs for care and support and the well-being of carers in its area”.
The question for us is whether that is enough. I rather doubt it. That a local authority “must have regard to” does not seem a particularly strong message to local authorities. Where is the beef in that? Where is the leverage to make local authorities do the right thing in a context, which we must recognise, where they are extremely pressurised in relation to resources?
The reason why I tabled Amendment 151 is that, given that it is difficult in legislation to prescribe the kind of behaviour that we want from local authorities—for the reasons that we have already debated and which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, illustrated effectively —one way to deal with this issue is through the regulatory system, as I said in Committee. Noble Lords will know that later in the Bill we will discuss the Care Quality Commission and already in the current Bill it states:
“The Commission must, in respect of such English local authorities as may be prescribed … conduct reviews of the provision of such adult social services provided or commissioned by the authorities as may be prescribed”.
There is an opportunity for the Government to say that the CQC will take this on as a major responsibility, to review, monitor and, in some cases, take effective regulatory action, if they believe that the action of those people providing care, either in terms of how they have been commissioned by local authorities or by self-funders, is inadequate. However, the problem with the clause is that there is no guarantee that that is going to happen, because all we are doing is essentially giving the Government regulation-making powers. There is no certainty that this approach will be prescribed.
Lord Warner (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak to all the amendments in this group—and, in doing so, I have tried to take myself back in time and then, like the Doctor in “Doctor Who”, come forward again quickly. How would I deal with this set of circumstances if I was a director of social services today, as distinct from the late 1980s and early 1990s? I do not envy them because I think that they have a very difficult job to do in balancing the resources available with the expectations of the public, which this Bill will increase. I am not sure that we crack the problem with any of these amendments, on their own. I remind the Minister that in Committee I tabled an amendment, so that we could debate this, which gave the Secretary of State powers to make regulations when there were unsatisfactory employment practices. I deliberately drew that amendment widely, because I do not think that we should just concentrate on the 15-minute visits. That is today’s problem—but we have a series of problems, and there could be another lot of problems with employment practices coming along a few months or years down the track.
At the moment, we have four areas in which there are concerns about employment practices. We have zero-hour contracts with exclusivity and no guarantees of working, 15-minute visits and unpaid travelling time, which I would suggest are all incompatible for the most part with the ambitions of this Bill. I am not saying that my previous amendment was perfect or right—and I am pleased that the Minister has come back with some attempts to grapple with these problems. I do not dismiss his attempts, because these are intrinsically difficult problems, but we need to future-proof this Bill against new practices that may creep up.
What I like about Amendment 151, in the name of my noble friend, is that it puts things very clearly in the court of the regulator, and enables the regulator to look at both providers and commissioners. On some of this, providers are doing only what they are asked to do; they are responding to what the commissioners are expecting of them. So we cannot just blame the providers, although I would like to blame some of them, when local authorities are engaging and encouraging them, in some parts of the country, to engage in practices that are totally incompatible with the aspirations of this Bill.
Where do we go from here? I still think that the Minister might be wise to consider the idea of taking a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State, but I equally accept that that may not produce change fast enough. I found Amendment 27 noble in spirit but a little unclear about what its effect would be. Therefore I come back to Amendment 151. Of all the amendments, I think that is the one that gives me more confidence that there is a capacity to respond to concerns about commissioning practices and provider practices. I do not like the idea of a time limit for visits being set in this Bill because I would not want to be running a social services department with that kind of limitation on my ability to deploy my staff in a sensible way and in the best interests of the service users.
I do not think that we have cracked this problem fully. I think my noble friend has come forward with a better way of getting a grip on these issues, where the regulator picks up noise in the system about these unsuitable employment practices and can take some action both on the commissioning side and on the provider side. My only concern is that there is a later amendment that slightly moves the CQC away from intervening in local authority commissioning, which I think would be incompatible with what we need to do to tackle some of the problems covered by this group of amendments. I hope the Minister can tell me that I have got that bit wrong, but my reading of a later amendment is that it removes the CQC from actually monitoring the commissioning of adult social care.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I might be permitted a word before the end of the debate. I supported these amendments in Committee and am happy to do so again this evening, though I take the points that have been made about being too prescriptive about time limits in Amendment 25. I think the essential point is that the Bill introduces a number of important new duties and responsibilities designed to enshrine the right values at the heart of our care system—for example, the primacy of the well-being of the individual. However, these values are only as good as the services that are put in place to give effect to them. It is not enough simply to put empty principles into legislation. The Bill needs to contain concrete requirements that will help to guarantee quality in the services that are delivered.
The Government’s amendment requiring local authorities to have regard to the well-being principle when commissioning services is welcome, but I do not feel that it is clear or specific enough to underwrite even the very modest guarantee of quality sought by the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. It provides no assurance that the practice of commissioning very short personal care visits will stop. It also fails to commit the Government to producing regulations that set out in greater detail what should count as quality commissioning. From those points of view, I still feel that the amendments of the noble Baroness are in every way to be preferred.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords for the excellent debates that we have had on these topics in Committee and again this evening. As the report by Leonard Cheshire Disability highlighted earlier this week, we need to move away from overly prescriptive commissioning, which focuses on price and time slots, to consider how local authorities can deliver better outcomes and quality care. I therefore fully agree with the principles behind the amendments that noble Lords have tabled with regard to poor local authority commissioning practices. Of course, noble Lords will be aware that Clause 5 requires local authorities to promote a market in high-quality services and specifically requires authorities to consider this duty when arranging services to meet people’s needs. This would make it very difficult for local authorities to commission services in 15-minute slots where doing so undermines the quality of those services.
Clause 5 also requires local authorities, in fulfilling this duty, to have regard to the need to ensure there are sufficient services available to meet people’s needs. With regard to Amendment 26, it is important to recognise that local authorities can achieve this only through working with providers in their area. We therefore do not believe that it would be appropriate to require local authorities to ensure sufficiency of services independently. This could lead to local authorities finding themselves forced into providing services where a market had not developed otherwise. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. She asked me to clarify what “having regard to something” means. Where that duty is present, it is not something that local authorities are able to ignore. In other words, if they have to have regard to a particular thing, that is not something they can disregard. Rather, the clause as drafted is intended to recognise, as I have said, that sufficiency of services can be achieved by local authorities only when working with providers and not by local authorities alone.
It was clear in Committee that, in the view of many in this House, the Bill as it stands does not go far enough in relation to poor local authority commissioning practices. We have reconsidered our position and developed our own amendment, Amendment 27, in the light of the concerns raised. This amendment would require local authorities, when commissioning services, to consider the effect of their commissioning decisions on the well-being of the people using those services. Our approach has some significant differences from and, I would argue, three clear advantages over, the approach suggested in Amendments 22 and 25, which seek to prohibit specific commissioning practices and in particular to require homecare visits to last at least 30 minutes. The first advantage is that our approach sends a clear message on the face of the Bill that commissioning services without properly considering the impact on individuals’ well-being is unacceptable. We believe, in the light of the arguments expressed in Committee, that it is important that we are able to send this message on the face of the Bill.
Secondly, our approach also explicitly prevents local authorities making decisions about how they commission services without giving due regard to the impact on individuals’ well-being. This goes a long way towards achieving the objective we all share of tackling poor commissioning practices while maintaining local authorities’ ability to decide the most appropriate approach to commissioning services for the people in their area, and acknowledging that the underlying issues here are cultural and cannot be tackled by legislation alone.
Thirdly, our approach has a singular focus on the outcome that we all want to achieve of promoting individuals’ well-being. Consequently, our approach is holistic of all poor commissioning practices and future-proofed against new practices that could emerge without risking the creation of perverse incentives through taking an overly prescriptive approach. Moreover, our approach is also holistic of commissioning for all types of care and support, not merely focused on one area: that is, not just on personal care.
In contrast, there are three reasons why I cannot support the approach set out in the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. First, it is important to recognise that local authority commissioners do not act in ways that undermine well-being because they want to, but rather because they do not recognise the effects of their decisions or feel unable to commission in other ways. As the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has argued, we should be careful of assuming that,
“simply by abolishing 15-minute slots a magic wand will have been waved, and improvements automatically achieved”.
It is important to recognise the limitations of legislation in tackling this issue. We have heard during this debate some appalling examples of people having to choose between being fed and being cleaned as a result of homecare visits being commissioned for too short a time. Local authorities that commission such services are palpably failing in their duty to meet people’s needs. That they still commission such services demonstrates the fact that the underlying problems here are cultural and cannot simply be legislated away. Banning specific poor practices will only lead to other poor practices emerging. Instead, I strongly believe that we need to work with authorities to enhance commissioners’ understanding of the effects of their commissioning decisions on individuals’ well-being and of how they can commission more effectively.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that the commissioning policies of some local authorities are called into question. However, are there some issues here regarding the resources they have available? Is the overall reduction in local authority expenditure not also responsible for some of these policies?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we certainly know that the reduction in resources has had some effect. However, it is interesting that the feedback from local authority chief executives and directors of adult social services suggests clearly that the detrimental effect on the provision of adult social care is not as dramatic as one might suppose from the drop in local authority budgets. This is partly because of the funding provided by my department to local authorities to make up some of the gap. I would not wish to say that there has been zero effect. We think, from the feedback, that the volume of services has diminished by about 5%. This is 5% too much, in most people’s eyes, but may not be as significant as some have feared.
My second point is that central prescription risks prohibiting practices that may, in some circumstances, be consistent with high-quality care. For example, 15-minute homecare visits could well be appropriate in some situations, for instance for helping people to take medication, which is not a process that takes very long at all. Further, using legislation to ban specific processes may result in perverse incentives arising, without addressing the actual problem. A number of noble Lords made that point.
Thirdly, legislating for a specific period of time for which homecare visits must last risks reinforcing one of the key problems here: inappropriate use of time and task commissioning. Instead, we need to move away from overly prescriptive commissioning practices which focus on—
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I want to make clear that there is absolutely no prescription: there is flexibility. It is simply saying that you cannot do a personal care visit of less than 30 minutes.
Earl Howe
I do understand that and apologise if I implied anything different. I was seeking to make the point that once you specify a period of time in a Bill it starts to look prescriptive, even if that is not the intent or the effect.
As I was saying, we need to move away from overly prescriptive commissioning practices that focus on price and time-slots, to consider how local authorities can deliver better outcomes and quality care. None the less, there is more that we can and will do to tackle poor commissioning practices. There is a role for regulation. We are therefore proposing an amendment that will make it clear that the CQC may, with approval from both Secretaries of State of DH and DCLG, undertake a special review of local authority commissioning of adult social services in cases of systematic failure. Subsequent to any such review, CQC could issue an improvement notice in the event of a non-substantial failing and recommend special measures to the Secretary of State in the event of substantial failings.
We also intend to issue statutory guidance specifically on local authority commissioning. This will be a valuable opportunity to influence local practice. In particular, we will include in this guidance clear examples of high-quality and poor-quality commissioning practices to support local authorities to develop and improve their own approach.
As well as tabling Amendment 27, we have also, in response to points raised in Committee, tabled Amendment 24, which will require local authorities to consider through their commissioning decisions the importance of fostering a workforce able to deliver high-quality services when shaping local markets. This amendment is, of course, not just about local authority commissioning practices but more widely about how the local authority can work with the market in its area, including with providers from which it does not commission services, to foster a high-quality workforce. This reflects our strong belief that the characteristics of the workforce, including opportunities for learning and skills development, have a direct relationship with the quality of the care that individuals receive. Improving the capability of the workforce through continued skills development and appropriate working conditions is therefore a key component of market shaping.
I therefore fully agree with the intention behind Amendment 151, but I note that the CQC already has powers to take into account standards of employment as part of its inspection of providers. A separate duty on the CQC to undertake periodic assessments of employment standards would duplicate what the commission is already able to do and compel it to undertake assessments of a very specific nature. For that reason, I cannot support Amendment 151, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is vital that we give the commission the time and freedom to develop its own performance-assessment methodology. In the fullness of time, this may mean that ratings consider employment standards, but this should be a matter for CQC to determine after considering the views of key stakeholders.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way and I imagine that we can debate this more fully when we come to his amendments around CQC independence. However, there is surely a distinction to be drawn between the way that the commission does its work and the overall strategic framework in which it does it. I should have thought that it would be appropriate for Parliament to lay down that it would be right for the CQC to focus on standards in the care sector. Does the noble Earl agree that you can draw a distinction between the framework that is set out in legislation and the way in which the CQC does its work—and I very much support the idea of its independence?
Lord Warner
Can I be clear about something arising from what the noble Earl said? I am struggling with whether the CQC can look at these employment practices only as it plods its way around the country, one authority at a time, or whether, if it starts to pick up something—either from looking at one or two authorities or from public reactions—it can commission a generic review or study of commissioning practices across the country. I am not clear what the noble Earl is saying about this—whether the commission has to work its way through authority after authority, or whether it can make a generic review of particular practices.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I was distinguishing between providers and commissioners. The CQC can do thematic reviews under, I believe, Section 48 of the Act, but we are talking there about providers. As regards commissioners, we are proposing in a later amendment to give the CQC powers to conduct special reviews where concerns have been raised about a particular local authority or NHS commissioner; there would not be periodic, regular reviews. However, the CQC will be looking at every provider over a period of time. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, specifically addresses the ability of the CQC to examine providers. I was saying earlier that it already has the necessary powers to do detailed work in whatever area it chooses.
I return to the issue of local authority commissioning practices. As I argued, the underlying causes of poor commissioning are cultural, and we need to work with local authorities to tackle these issues. We are therefore undertaking a number of non-legislative activities, including the development in co-operation with ADASS of a set of commissioning standards. These standards will enable individual authorities to gauge their own effectiveness, and will support the LGA and ADASS to drive sector-led improvement.
In addition, we are working with the Towards Excellence in Adult Social Care initiative to support local authorities to seek continuous improvement in their adult social care functions, and in the outcomes achieved. This programme brings together local, regional and national stakeholders, and is focused on providing peer support and interventions by local government to share learning, find new ways of engaging local people, and use knowledge of what works, data and innovation to drive improvement in the quality of services.
I hope that these arguments, and the amendments we have tabled, are sufficient to demonstrate to the House that we understand and agree with the strength of feeling around these issues. For the reasons I have set out, I cannot support the amendments tabled by noble Lords, but I hope that the arguments I have made today will be sufficient for those noble Lords to feel able not to press their amendments. I do not yet know what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, intends to do with her amendment, but it may be helpful for noble Lords to know that the Government do not consider that a decision on Amendment 25 is consequential on Amendment 22.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his thoughtful response and also all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It has been very considered, and the points raised have been very important. These visits can require three hours of work, or one and a half hours—all sorts of different lengths of time. Whatever is decided ultimately must enable those visits needing that length of time to be undertaken in that way. I welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I am sure that the CQC has an enormously important role to play in this. I wonder whether the Minister would think it appropriate to require a thematic review of this issue to be undertaken by the CQC, bearing in mind the level of concern across the country about what is happening at the moment, which clearly is not acceptable in terms of these very short visits for personal care.
The noble Earl mentioned the 5% reduction in the budget for adult social care. It sounds small, but we all know that the adult social care budget has always been incredibly low—way below what it should be. Priority has never been given to this area of work, so a 5% reduction is pretty serious. There is a lot to be done. The noble Earl referred to guidance, regulations, and so on. I personally would welcome an opportunity to have a discussion with him about how, in the guidance and regulations, it might be possible to ensure that adequate priority is given to this area of work. This is really what we are talking about here.
My amendments are aimed at stimulating the debate. They are also an effort to draw out some commitments from the noble Earl, and to some degree I think we have achieved that objective. I do not know whether the Minister would be willing to have a conversation about what might be included in the guidance and regulations.
Baroness Meacher
With that assurance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) the importance of fostering a workforce whose members are able to ensure the delivery of high quality services (because, for example, they have relevant skills and appropriate working conditions).”
“( ) In arranging for the provision by persons other than it of services for meeting care and support needs, a local authority must have regard to the importance of promoting the well-being of adults in its area with needs for care and support and the well-being of carers in its area.”
“( ) The following are examples of persons with whom a local authority may consider it appropriate to co-operate for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) a person who provides services to meet adults’ needs for care and support, services to meet carers’ needs for support or services, facilities or resources of the kind referred to in section 2(1);(b) a person who provides primary medical services, primary dental services, primary ophthalmic services, pharmaceutical services or local pharmaceutical services under the National Health Service Act 2006;(c) a person in whom a hospital in England is vested which is not a health service hospital as defined by that Act;(d) a private registered provider of social housing.”
Baroness Greengross
“( ) ensuring that consideration of the early and co-ordinated assessment of an adult who may have care and support needs, following discharge from hospital or other acute care setting, is initiated upon admission to that acute care setting.”
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, this amendment concerns discharge plans for people in hospital. I shall start by saying that, in response to my Amendment 87ZA tabled in Committee on this issue, the Minister was understandably reluctant to specify the particular circumstances in which the high-level aims of the general duty to co-operate, as set out in Clause 6(5), should apply. He felt that there should not be an exhaustive list of circumstances, such as discharge plan management, in which the power should be used, and said that he expected authorities and their relevant partners to co-operate when an individual was discharged from acute care under this clause. He asserted that Schedule 3 to the Bill sets out clear steps to ensure the safe discharge of a patient from an acute care setting, and that an assessment for care and support should be made before the patient is discharged, not afterwards. Clause 12(1)(b) already allows for regulations to specify other matters to which the local authority must have regard in carrying out an assessment. Given that this involves setting out procedural detail and related matters, he felt it more appropriate to set out such detail in regulations rather than in the Bill.
While I agree with much of that, my main point regarding the importance of discharge being included as part of admission planning into an acute care setting may have been misunderstood. The subject of discharge should be considered as part of the admission process, long before the actual discharge is instigated. That is the important point here, and I remain firm in my belief that it should be included in the Bill. The most important thing is the idea that discharge planning should be part of the admission process. We have all heard a large number of stories of people who have been discharged inappropriately because everything is decided too late in the day and no one is ready for the discharge. I personally could talk about two or three relatives aged 80 to 90 who have been dumped out of hospital in the middle of the night. Such instances are horrific, but I am afraid that they will continue unless we get this right.
Clause 12 is not relevant here because it refers to a need for a care assessment as being an essential part of the discharge process from an acute setting into either supported home care or longer-term residential care. I want to ensure that it will be facilitated by eventual discharge being part of the admission assessment, which is a very different process that is gone through at a different time by different clinical staff. Including such a duty in Clause 6 would ensure that this happens, so that the eventual discharge stands more of a chance of being successful. The Royal College of Nursing has expressed the view that:
“We are currently seeing far too many people trapped in a ‘revolving door’ between community and hospital services”.
Ensuring a suitable discharge founded on appropriate admission from acute care would, in my view, go a long way to reducing this terrible waste of resources and its associated human misery. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for allowing this debate. This is an important question and I agree that ensuring that an assessment is made around the time of the admission of a patient to a hospital or other acute care setting would help the process of the appropriate discharge of that person when the time comes for them to leave. One has to say that the context in which we are debating this is one in which the health and social care system is under extreme strain. The Minister will know that the accident and emergency performance, and the issue of the four-hour target, is proving to be problematic for a number of trusts, including my own, in September and October. Clearly, if the health service is having difficulties in September or October, in pretty clement weather, it does leave one with some foreboding about what is going to happen later on in the winter.
The Government have injected a certain amount of resource into the system—I think it is £250 million—which is labelled on the tin “to A&E departments”. The Minister will know that the money has not gone to A&E departments; it has tended to go to the clinical commissioning groups. While limited amounts have gone to A&E departments, in the main, this has been dealt with through urgent care boards. My understanding is that in a lot of areas they still have not decided how to spend the resources. This is partly because CCGs seem to be slow to make hard decisions, and partly because some are not spending the money because they say that they have not received it yet. The problem is this: if by the middle of October you still have not spent or committed yourself to those additional resources, it could take another three months. If, for instance, it was a series of care packages or it was extra resource for employing more nurses, it could take an awfully long time from the decision to spend the money to it actually being in place, and then for the money to be spent.
I am really using this as an opportunity to say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there is a real issue at the local level of actually getting all the partners together and to agree the actions that need to be taken to ensure that we do not get the kind of discharge problems that we are seeing.
What is the cause of the issue of A&E performance? There has been some debate about whether it is partly due to the lack of accessibility and primary care. No doubt, there are serious issues involved which would suggest that that is a problem. However, the noble Earl may have seen some work undertaken by Matthew Cooke, who used to be the adviser to the Government on urgent care and was a consultant in my own trust at Heart of England. His work would suggest that the problem is discharge; that there is simply not the capacity in the community or among personal social services departments to provide the support that is required. However much the Government want to beat up A&E departments, unless we can sort out the capacity in the community, these problems will continue.
The noble Baroness’s amendment is really trying to get to the heart of this. She is saying that it is a real problem—not just for older and more vulnerable patients, but it is probably more directed at those patients—if the first time you start to worry about discharge procedures is when they have spent quite a few days in hospital. First, it takes a long time for the system to intervene; and secondly, it may mean that the patient stays in hospital too long. We know all the problems of institutionalisation, when people have greater difficulty in going back to their own home or into low-level community provision as opposed to having to go into care homes.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will no doubt say that this is not the stuff of legislation. However, because of the seriousness of the current problems in our health and social care system, it would send a very powerful signal to people working at local level about the absolute importance of starting discharge planning almost as soon as a person comes into A&E, and of the need to have an integrated approach. It would also give a signal to local authorities. At the moment there is a real problem because local authorities often play around with discharges by saying that they are not convinced that a person is ready for discharge. That is simply trying to ration expenditures. A signal to local authorities that that is also unacceptable would be very helpful.
I am glad that the noble Baroness raised this problem. It is a very important issue. I hope that the noble Earl may be able to help us with it.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I care passionately about hospital discharges. In 30 years of working with older people and older people’s organisations, we have never managed, under any structure or formulation of the National Health Service, to get right the system of discharging people from hospital. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right that the Minister will resist attempts such as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to address the issue through legislation.
From my work with voluntary organisations, and some work that I have done over the summer, talking to CCGs, there are two things that could have a direct impact on this. The first is to work with people in the acute sector, to get them to understand that very often voluntary organisations are and can be the answer to managing people’s admission to A&E and their return from hospital. At the moment, many CCGs do not see that voluntary organisations have any role to play in their work. As long as they are of that opinion, frankly, the position is not going to change.
Secondly, there are examples of very good hospital discharge planning. A number of Age UK branches have take-home-and-settle schemes. There is a hospital, I think it is in the Midlands, where a housing association has taken over a ward and turned it into a discharge facility.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness has mentioned that. My own trust, the Heart of England, has an agreement with Midland Heart to do that. It shows that you can create capacity. My point is, that was negotiated four or five months ago. It is far too late for clinical commissioning groups to be messing around in mid-October, still pondering how they are going to spend the money. It will be January or February before they are going to be able to spend it.
Baroness Barker
I did not know it was the noble Lord’s hospital. I met the housing association a couple of months ago. Good examples of integrated systems that work include Torbay. The key is getting that information into CCGs. The sooner we do that, and the sooner they see that they have to be part of an integrated health and social care system, the more likely we are to be able to stop older people being, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, very accurately put it, dumped.
Lord Warner
I support the important amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I want to do so by telling a story and then putting a suggestion to the Minister. Like my noble friend Lord Hunt and me, he will have done his time touring hospitals as a Minister. We are usually shown the high points of the hospital’s achievements. Life changes a bit when you cease to be a Minister and you visit your friends and relatives in hospital. On visits to hospitals to see friends and relatives, because I am a nosy sort of person I have always looked to see whether there is a date for discharge on the charts. Some of these discharge dates are great works of fiction. When I have asked nurses about these discharge dates, quite commonly they say that managers have told them they have to have a discharge date—so it is something they have done for internal compliance purposes.
Although the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, may not be right for the Bill, it is at the very least important for guidance. Planning on admission for discharge is needed. Present arrangements fail to communicate that to the social care world. It is now an internal mechanism for the NHS, not a mechanism designed to get people out of hospital into an appropriate placement as soon as they are ready to go. It would be a good idea to put this in the Bill, but at the very least this issue needs to be covered in some detail in guidance so that the NHS and the social care world are clear beyond peradventure what they are supposed to do when a person comes into hospital. If we went along that path, the world would be a better place and we would deliver some of the objectives of this legislation.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I shall be brief since the hour is getting late. This amendment makes a very important point, though it may be better in guidance. One of the problems is that the pinch point is always A&E, and getting patients out is really difficult. At the moment, there is tokenism in planning discharge. It needs to be much more embedded in trying to predict people’s needs and having things in place. Until discharge planning really is part of looking ahead at the aims for the patient we are still going to have backlogs, because we are still going to be waiting for somebody to come in and do something.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for tabling Amendments 29 and 125, on what is undoubtedly an extremely important issue, not just for the system but, most importantly, for the patients themselves. When someone is discharged from an acute care setting, care and support must be joined up to prevent unnecessary delays and readmissions that can be distressing to patients and their families and carers. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was absolutely right on increasing pressure on acute trusts, not least in A&E.
There is a mixture of reasons why this is occurring: the weight of patient demand; the acuity of patients who present at A&E, more of whom have to be admitted; workforce issues in some A&E departments; hospital discharge practices that may not be as efficient as they should be; an absence of follow-on care in certain locations or, indeed, adult social care services; and delays in installing home adaptations. One cannot generalise about this problem. One can say only that in many areas it is very real.
I will just correct the noble Lord on one issue: the £250 million that we have allocated to ease the pressures on A&E. Those moneys went to 53 NHS trusts before the end of September. They went to trusts that were most at risk of breaching the A&E standards. They were not chosen by Ministers or the Government. The process was led by NHS England and Monitor, so it was done on a structured and objective basis.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The point is that the chief executive of each of those trusts had to sign, if you like, for the money, but they did not get all the money. Most of the money went to clinical commissioning groups. Some of them are still meeting to discuss how to spend it, which is the worry.
Earl Howe
At least we have given them more notice this year than they have had in previous years. Quite often, winter pressure money has been released into the system only around Christmas. We have consciously tried to do it several months earlier. While I acknowledge the truth of what the noble Lord said in certain areas of the country, I hope and believe that by the time the pressure becomes significant, those crucial decisions will have been made.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
As the Minister has brought this matter up, I shall ask about the hospitals that got the money. York and Leeds got extra money, but Hull did not. Hull is one of the most deprived and difficult areas in the country. Will he look into it and let me know?
Earl Howe
I will happily look into it, because I do not have with me the complete list of trusts and the factors that lay behind the decision that was taken by NHS England. I will certainly write to the noble Baroness about that.
Delivering joined-up, person-centred and co-ordinated care in a way that stops patients falling through the gaps in the system is of key importance to improving their outcomes and experiences. I believe it is incontrovertible that local authorities and relevant partners must co-operate in order to ensure safe and timely transfers of care. Indeed, the Bill already requires that. Clause 6 requires that local authorities and relevant partners co-operate with one another where this is relevant to care and support. Subsection (5) of the clause sets out some key examples of when this duty should be used. There can be no question that this duty would apply also to ensuring safe and timely discharges, and we do not see the need to add further detail to such broadly worded provisions. New guidance on discharge planning and on how local authorities should perform co-operation duties under Clauses 6 and 7 will be issued following the passage of the Bill.
Further, Schedule 3 to the Bill sets out a process around ensuring the safe and timely discharge of acute hospital patients. This not only requires the local authority, following notification from the responsible NHS body, to assess a patient who it appears may have a need for care and support before they are discharged but requires the authority to have the necessary care and support package in place before discharge takes place. The duties to co-operate apply to that process as well. In fact, to come back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, raised about guidance, the current discharge guidance, Ready to Go, makes it clear that discharge planning should start before or on a patient’s admission to hospital. We know that that does not always happen, but it is best practice, and has been best practice for some considerable time.
Amendment 125 would allow the Government to specify what the authority and its partners must have regard to when performing that assessment. Surely this is right. I reassure the noble Baroness that, as the assessment required to be carried out by this schedule is the same as the one in Clause 9, we already have this power in Clause 12(1)(b) of the Bill, which allows for regulations to,
“specify other matters to which the local authority must have regard in carrying out the assessment”,
and in Clause 12(6) which allows for an assessment to be carried out jointly.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that the Bill already requires local authorities and “relevant partners” to co-operate in the safe and timely discharge of patients and contains sufficient provisions to make such regulations and to issue guidance on this matter. With those reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reassurance. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and I worked together for many years and she is desperate as I am to get this right because it has never yet been achieved. The stories are horrific about poor hospital discharges that have not been adequately planned from the time of somebody’s admission into an acute hospital. We really have to get this right now if we are to be in any way a civilised society.
I thank the noble Earl because he obviously has the same commitment as do many other noble Lords to whom I am very grateful for supporting this amendment. If the regulations are firm enough and closely followed, perhaps this time we will get it right. I hope so, and thank the noble Earl very much for his attention and interest in this matter, which is of very great importance to many of us. I also thank all noble Lords who have supported me.
“( ) the Minister of the Crown exercising functions in relation to social security, employment and training, so far as those functions are exercisable in relation to England;”