Westminster Hall

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 29 October 2013

[Jim Dobbin in the Chair]

Hepatitis C (Haemophiliacs)

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Amber Rudd.)

09:30

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity once again to draw the attention of the House and of Ministers to the injustice that still faces those who in the 1970s and 1980s became infected as a result of treatment with contaminated blood products.

Let me say at the outset that, although I seek in this debate to highlight the particular issues and concerns of those with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C, I recognise, of course, that the issues affect others beyond that group. Many haemophiliacs received other infections, HIV in particular, and some were dual-infected with HIV and hepatitis C. Others were multi-infected by the range of other viruses to which they were exposed. Some haemophiliacs were treated with blood taken from donors who later died from CJD. Others did not have haemophilia, but were none the less infected as a result of their NHS treatment. I am sure that some who contribute to the debate later will refer to the experience of those who have been affected in those other ways, and a number of points I will make will have a broader relevance to those people’s situations.

The reason that I selected financial support for people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C as a topic for debate is simple: it reflects the specific concerns of three of my constituents with whom I have been campaigning on the issue for 16 years. They are Peter Mossman, Fred Bates and Eleanor Bates, who is Fred’s wife. I pay tribute to their determination and the single-minded way in which they have worked with other members of the haemophilia community in pursuit of justice and truth.

I am delighted that you, Mr Dobbin, will oversee our proceedings this morning, although given your keen interest in the topic, I suspect that a bit of you would like to participate.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate, which is one of many over the years. Does he, like me, think and hope that the Minister will give positive answers this morning, given the many debates in the past, so that the people affected can experience justice?

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes precisely the point I was moving on to. I welcome the new Minister, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), to the debate and to her new responsibilities. Whatever else she achieves in her time as a Minister—and I hope she achieves a great deal—nothing would be more important than bringing a measure of justice to those who have suffered from such injustice over so many years. Lord Winston described it as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.

I am delighted that we are joined this morning by so many hon. Members from both sides of the House—particularly the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who raised the issue again with the Prime Minister in a clear and determined way a few days ago. I am also pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is in attendance for the start of the debate. It is unusual for a Secretary of State, or shadow Secretary of State, to attend an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. His attendance is appreciated; he is keeping a promise made earlier this year. My constituents have asked me to thank him this morning for his willingness to listen—not only now in opposition, but when he was the Secretary of State.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Dobbin, for the fact that I cannot stay for the whole debate. I am here to show solidarity with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who has represented his constituents outstandingly, and with Peter Mossman and Fred and Eleanor Bates, whom I met in my office with my right hon. Friend when I was Health Secretary.

I want my right hon. Friend and his constituents to understand that the commitment I gave to them was not a one-off, convenient commitment, but a permanent one. If I were to find myself back in government, that commitment would remain. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a further process of truth and reconciliation, so that those concerned have all the answers for which they are still looking?

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I agree with him entirely. There needs to be not only a review of the current financial arrangements, but a deeper search for the truth, to bring justice, an explanation and a profound apology to those who have suffered. I will make some remarks about that later.

I will not dwell this morning on the long history of the injustice, other than to remind the House that of the 4,670 people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C or HIV, at least 1,757 have died from the effects of the viruses; I say “at least” because the number is almost certainly higher than that. Although it was recognised at the time that the use of imported blood products carried a very high risk, treatment continued and patients were simply kept in the dark. As people tried to get to the truth, they were met with a lack of honesty and deep disrespect. Their dogged persistence is remarkable.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech, the work he has been doing and obtaining the debate. I know that the debate and the figures he gave relate mainly to England. His late friend and mine—his predecessor, Alf Morris—would be proud of the work he is doing.

Would my right hon. Friend allow me to introduce one Scottish aspect to the discussion? In Scotland, the Penrose inquiry is taking evidence on a wider range of issues than has so far been possible in this House, including about what steps were taken to protect the public, given the clinical knowledge available at the time. Without delaying the action for which he urgently calls, would he take that on board and would the Minister reflect those views?

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. He is a fine campaigner on a range of issues, but on none more so than this. He did great work with my predecessor, the late Alf Morris. I referred to my 16 years of campaigning with Fred, Eleanor and Peter, but I was, of course, only picking up the baton; Alf had worked with them tirelessly for many years.

My right hon. Friend raises a pertinent point about Penrose, because when he reports no Government will be able sit back and do nothing. Profound questions will be posed by that report and they will apply every bit as much here as they do in Scotland. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his timely reminder.

In January 2011, two years after the independent inquiry led by Lord Archer of Sandwell, the Government concluded a review of the support available to those who had been infected with hepatitis C and HIV. Along with others, at the time I welcomed the additional lump sum and annual payments to those infected with hepatitis C who had reached the so-called stage 2—essentially, where cirrhosis has been diagnosed. Other improvements were made, but it was clear to many of us from the outset that for the vast majority nothing would change; they would continue to suffer without the help they needed and were owed. That suffering is deepened by the confusing arrangement of the funds that are meant to help them.

In April, the Minister’s predecessor attended a meeting of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. I see a number of right hon. and hon. Members here who were present at that meeting; they will remember that it was fairly stormy and that a range of views were expressed about the funds. Those present will remember what was said. I made a note of some of the comments: “It is utterly bizarre....so many funds”; “a nightmare of bureaucracy”; “something is badly wrong”; and “it is not acceptable to have to go cap in hand”. Those comments were all made by the Minister’s predecessor, leaving those who attended wondering why she had not come to the meeting with solutions rather than joining in the chorus of criticism.

My constituents want one fund for haemophiliacs with hepatitis C, essentially bringing together those parts of the Skipton Fund and the Caxton Foundation that currently administer the limited financial support available. They believe that that would reduce bureaucracy and, more importantly, enable those who manage the funds to increase focus on their specific needs. Although they acknowledge others’ needs, they want and are entitled to a better response than they currently receive.

Within the new fund, the immediate priority should be a complete overhaul of the stage 2 assessment. Currently, the lump sum and annual payments start only after hepatitis C has caused cirrhosis. Three out of four people registered at stage 1 do not progress to stage 2, even though they, too, experience extreme and severe symptoms, including great fatigue and often painful bleeds.

The discrimination between those at stage 1 and stage 2 has been brought home to me through my constituents’ experience. Over the many years I have known Peter Mossman and Fred Bates, I have seen them on good days and bad. I have seen them in pain and distress, but I am aware that their most painful moments have been at times when I have not seen them, because they have not been able to get out of bed and out of the house. They suffer similarly, but one of them is at stage 1 and one is at stage 2.

The discrimination is as incomprehensible as it is unjust, and it has enormous consequences. Those at stage 1 receive a one-off payment of £20,000; those at stage 2 receive an additional £50,000 lump sum plus an annual payment, which is currently £14,191. The Minister should scrap this crude distinction and urgently consider implementing a wider assessment of the health and well-being of each individual. The payments are intended to help people cope with the difficulties that they face, and more should benefit from them.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Like others, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. This issue started in the 1970s, so the problem has now been with us for 43 years. More than 80% of the individuals with a bleeding disorder did not benefit from any ongoing payments for a long time. That must be rectified. The Government must review immediately how the issue is handled.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for that argument. Differentiating between stage 1 and stage 2 creates a false and discriminatory division. It is not acceptable, and it does not help the many people registered at stage 1 who are not at stage 2 because they have not been diagnosed with cirrhosis, but who still often live in great pain and distress. It is vital that they get the financial and other help that they absolutely need.

Currently, the Caxton Foundation must try through discretionary payments to address the urgent needs of those at both stage 1 and stage 2. The fund simply does not have enough money, and as decisions are made about whose need is greater, recipients feel as though they must beg even for essentials. Ministers will need to obtain and share more accurate data, particularly to assess how many of those registered at stage 1 have died and what the likely financial costs would be of a revised arrangement between stages 1 and 2. That information is vital, but one fund with the resources to make lump-sum and annual payments to all those who need them is an essential first step.

Other issues must also be addressed. People with or without haemophilia who have been infected with hepatitis C should be exempt from the employment and support allowance work capability assessment and placed automatically in the support group. It heaps indignity on injustice to put them through the Atos back-to-work test when work is simply impossible for the vast majority of them. Will the Minister hold urgent discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with a view to creating that exemption? It would be compassionate, relatively inexpensive and a clear indication that she means business.

I also ask the Minister to consider the specific needs of those, such as my constituent Eleanor Bates, who care for their loved ones. The Caxton Foundation is meant to help them, but they frequently feel that they are last in the queue. Their lives have also been affected deeply by their partners’ infection, and their needs as carers must be addressed.

Reforming the funds and providing a fairer, more effective system of financial support would be an important step in the right direction, but no debate about the issue should omit the need for a proper acknowledgement of what took place and why, and a profound and sincere apology for the suffering created by the disaster. Campaigners still want a public inquiry, and I support fully their calls for transparency and accountability.

If the Government continue to set their face against a formal public inquiry, they should, in my view, consider other mechanisms established in the recent past to get at the truth of an historic wrong. Two years ago, the Prime Minister commissioned the highly respected lawyer Sir Desmond de Silva to undertake a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the Northern Ireland solicitor Pat Finucane in 1989. Although this approach was not welcomed by Mr Finucane’s family, Sir Desmond had access to all the intelligence files, Cabinet papers and earlier reports, and concluded that there had been what the Prime Minister described last December as “shocking” levels of state collusion.

In relation to another tragedy that took place in 1989—I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh is still here—the Hillsborough independent panel, which was welcomed by the families of the 96 people who died at the FA cup semi-final, also demonstrated a determination to get to the truth. As a result of the report, inquests have now been reopened.

Whatever Ministers decide to do in this case must, of course, be discussed with those whose lives have been directly affected. Continuing to do nothing is simply not acceptable. A serious Government-backed inquiry must be held, with access to all the remaining records and the power finally to get to the truth of what happened and why. In addition to fair financial support, those who have suffered so much are still owed a full explanation and a sincere, profound apology.

09:47

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on bringing this important matter to the House’s consideration. I will speak specifically on behalf of my constituents, as I think will everyone who speaks today, from a heartfelt understanding of the problems that those constituents have faced for a number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) illustrated the time scale. If ever there were a powerful case for the Minister to answer, this is one. Many of the speeches made today will be impassioned. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) to her position, and I look forward to working together on many issues in future.

The background to the case is clear. I have spoken to constituents of mine who are victims. Some of my constituents live daily with these illnesses through no fault of their own but rather as a result of the Government’s inaction at a time when action was important. My constituents have sent me a briefing, and I have relied on them for information as well as for the personal details that they have given me, although I do not intend to mention any names out of respect for confidentiality and personal issues.

The Archer inquiry investigated the fact that between the 1970s and late 1980s, 4,670 people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through treatment by the NHS that they loved and respected, which ultimately, unfortunately, let them down. Of those, 1,243 people with haemophilia were also exposed to HIV, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Almost half of those infected with hepatitis C and almost three quarters of those co-infected with HIV have since died and many have tragically left families behind. When looking at the impact on the individuals, we can never forget about the effect on their families; many individuals have experienced poverty and discrimination as a result of their infections. People, either through mistrust or lack of knowledge, sometimes unfairly discriminate against those with infections. The provisions recommended by the Archer inquiry would offer appropriate support and compensation to those affected and would ensure that steps were taken to improve blood safety.

The previous Government argued that the reason why financial support was not made available at comparable levels to those in the Republic of Ireland, for example, was that the disaster affected the two countries differently. I am unsure how that was worked out. Perhaps the disaster was measured in numbers, but the disaster is the same to each individual and each family. No-fault Government payment schemes were established to provide support to those affected. The Archer inquiry, which was non-statutory and funded from private donations, reported in February 2009 on the Government’s response. Among its recommendations was a call for reform of support for those affected in line with the scheme used in the Republic of Ireland. If we had had in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom a scheme similar to that of the Republic of Ireland, our constituents would have been much more satisfied. What does the Minister think about the Republic of Ireland’s scheme? Is it possible that we can try to match it?

Despite the Government’s announcing on 10 January 2011 an increase in payments to some of those infected with hepatitis C, what has been put in place is not adequate to support people through their illnesses. The Government’s scheme now has two stages, as outlined by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. A first stage payment of £20,000 is available to eligible people. Following that, successful recipients of the first stage payment whose hepatitis C infection has led to advanced liver disease can receive a second stage payment of £50,000. Those who have received the second stage payment are also entitled to additional annual payments of £14,000, paid monthly or quarterly. The money may look good and it sounds like a lot of support, but, as always, there is more than meets the eye to the press release. As the saying goes, the devil is in the detail, and that is clearly the case here. The Hepatitis C Trust supplied an interesting briefing and is calling for a rethink of the strategy and policy. The trust, with which I certainly agree, asks that the first and second stage categories be removed. As a constituent of mine said, the payment can never compensate for what has happened, but it can offer support and help people to adjust to and live a life affected by it.

People infected with hepatitis C can experience severe symptoms, including extreme fatigue, depression, aching limbs, headaches and abdominal pains, which may mean that they are unable to work for long periods of time. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East referred to Atos in his speech—I think it was also mentioned in an intervention. The situation of people who are unable to work for long periods of time needs to be understood. Symptoms can lead to difficulties in holding down a job and receiving an income. Sufferers rely on help from family and sometimes from other carers, and the fact that the annual sum starts only when a person’s hepatitis C has caused cirrhosis does not take any of that into account. Understanding the problem is the crux of the issue. The briefing I received from the Hepatitis C Trust put it succinctly:

“Some patients without cirrhosis are far more symptomatic than some who have reached that stage. Indeed, some patients die whilst still in stage 1. Therefore there should be no distinction between stage 1 and stage 2 payments for people who have been infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood. They should be entitled to the full and on-going support immediately.”

The second point raised in the briefing is that there has been no Government apology to date. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East referred to the Pat Finucane case and the apology that the Prime Minister made, so I urge the Minister to consider an apology for those infected, who have suffered many years of illness as a result. Having listened to some of the apologies, which should never have been uttered, that have rolled off Government Ministers’ tongues to pacify and placate people for political gain, I find it difficult to believe that there has been no Government apology. I have sometimes heard Members of this House and the Prime Minister apologising on my behalf when no apology was needed and yet here, when there clearly was a fault and when innocent people lost their lives following treatment by the NHS, mouths seem to be suddenly closed. I cannot understand that mindset. A mistake was made that has cost lives and has cost other people the price of living with horrific diseases, and if that does not deserve a heartfelt apology then I am at a loss to think what does.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that what sufferers and their families need are empathy, an apology, to which he has alluded, and a commitment to ongoing support for the remainder of their days? If they saw that coming from the heart of Government, we would have accomplished a significant amount of what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and his predecessor have sought to achieve.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, which refers to something that we would all want to see. I am reminded of what my mother told me as a child: “Compassion is your pain in my heart.” She was referring to an understanding of the problems facing other people, which, in a way, is why we are here. We are here not just because we want to be MPs, but because we are privileged to be elected by our constituents. We see their problems and we must illustrate and expand those problems in this great House, of which we are privileged to be a part.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing a debate on this important issue.

What are the thoughts of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the role of specialist hepatitis C nurses in providing support to sufferers who are haemophiliacs and more generally? The NICE guidelines suggest a minimum of one specialist hepatitis C nurse for every 40 patients in the community and one such nurse for every 20 patients in a hospital setting. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government’s plans to transfer resources through the clinical commissioning group allocations will help or hinder the improvement of support for hepatitis C sufferers?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for helpfully highlighting the role of specialist nurses. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an indication of the importance of the role of nurses and therefore the importance of retaining them and ensuring that the numbers are correct.

Just a few minutes spent reading the stories of victims and their families on the taintedblood.info website brings a lump to the throat. In this House, where we have the privilege to represent our constituents, we cannot continue to leave the families behind. I wholeheartedly support the removal of the two-tier system, which would entitle people to an annual sum to help them to cope with the side effects of this terrible disease and would take a little pressure off the families who are faced with watching their loved one fade away before their eyes. It is well past time that we do the right thing by those affected, and that will not be done by separating and segregating those infected by the same disease. I urge the Minister to take on board what is said today by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and others and to do the obvious and right thing by providing the apology and response that we need.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the shadow Minister at 20 minutes to 11 and five or six hon. Members want to speak, so I ask them to watch the length of their speeches before I have to impose limits.

09:59

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) and I think that this is the first debate on this subject since the death of Lord Morris of Manchester. It is therefore highly appropriate that the first debate since Alf’s death was proposed by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) to her new position as Under-Secretary of State for Health. Those of us who have followed her career for some time know that that is richly deserved. Perhaps the honour to set the seal on something that has been going on just that bit too long will fall to her.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and I had the honour of being in government more than 20 years ago. Looking back over those years, does he share my view—from our ministerial experience, although it was not in the Department of Health—that the outcome in this area has been less than satisfactory and that the issue should have been resolved a long time ago?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is right. Hanging over the issue, particularly for those of us who were Ministers in successive Governments, is a sense that not enough has been done. No blame can be laid at the door of Back Benchers who have campaigned and done so much, and in their respective ways, Governments have sought over time to do something about the issue, but we are still here because of the overwhelming sense that whatever has been attempted has just not been enough.

One reason I raised the matter on the Floor of the House with the Prime Minister the other day was to capture that sense. Let me say more about that, but I shall try to be brief. I had a meeting with the then Minister with responsibility for public health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), a few months ago. All of us have had meetings with the successive holders of that ministerial role over time. The history is familiar to us, but there is an overall sense that whatever has been tried—whatever honest attempts Governments have made—has just not been enough.

I supported the inquiry by Lord Archer of Sandwell, and in 2010, I seconded the early-day motion that called for the passage of the Bill that Alf Morris had introduced in the Lords to put into effect the recommendations of that inquiry. I was disappointed that those provisions were not put fully into effect, although the incoming Government made the changes mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. We all welcomed that at the time, while recognising that it was still not enough.

Why are we making another attempt now? As has been made clear by the presence here of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), there is now a different attitude towards uncovering past wrongs. The reason why I put the case so clearly to the Prime Minister is that his record in dealing both with the aftermath of the Hillsborough panel and with Bloody Sunday has demonstrated that he is a Prime Minister who is using his position and authority to right the wrongs of the past. Bearing in mind that he has a constituent affected by the issue, we know that he has a personal interest. That combination of circumstances perhaps means that the person in place has the determination to right the wrongs of the past. If information can be put together properly, something might therefore be done.

The sense of closure that must be achieved is palpable to all of us with affected constituents. I am here because of my relationship with a good—double-infected— friend, who has informed me about such matters over the years and for whom I desperately want to achieve something.

What has got wrong and what can we put right? The first point is that the process has taken too long: since the circumstances originated, it has all taken too long.

The second point relates to accepting that something has gone wrong. Undoubtedly, Ministers have said so and made that clear, but the Government’s acceptance of something having gone wrong has not been accompanied by the fullest disclosure of their full part. Even when the previous Government responded to the Archer inquiry— they published their response on 20 May 2009—they still, in relation to the release of documents on their website, stated:

“Further papers have been identified, which are being released today.”

In 2009, relevant papers were still being found and put in the public domain. The Government added the claim:

“We do not believe they add to our knowledge”.

Well, that is for other people to judge. All this is governed by a very real sense that not enough has been disclosed. The current Penrose inquiry, which has been mentioned, may provide an opportunity to revisit that matter.

The third point is that the process has been too divisive. Sufferers have been inadvertently set against other, being asked, “What have you got—hep C, or hep C and HIV, or some other variant?” It should not be like that. Everyone has suffered because they were all infected by the same process at the same time, and efforts should not be made to divide people.

The fourth point is that the premise has been wrong: it just does not work to use charity law to deliver support that ought to be the Government’s responsibility. Efforts made over the years to put matters right and make changes have not done the job. The premise needs to be scrapped—it should not be there—and colleagues have mentioned that the difficulties of separating stages 1 and 2 from hepatitis C only create new barriers and yet more unhappiness and anguish.

The problem about the Macfarlane Trust, which deals with double-infected patients, is that there is a conflict between whether it should act on behalf of the Government in disbursing funds or—as it should do—on behalf of the beneficiaries: arguing for as much support as possible and banging the drum for them. I sense that there is a conflict, because the trust is not doing that, so it is not doing its job.

Following up the Prime Minister’s response to my question, I will have an opportunity to meet him in a couple of weeks’ time, when I will be accompanied by my constituent. I hope to meet colleagues from all parties before that, just to get our lines straight, so that we can have a good go at this.

I say to those—the Minister and her officials—who will brief the Prime Minister, “Go for it this time. Don’t miss this opportunity.” There will be all the stuff in the Department about the difficulties and the things that cannot be done. They should not look at what cannot be done, but at what can be done. This is her and her Department’s chance, on behalf of those who did not get a chance in the first place, so let us go for it.

We need a proper apology and acknowledgment by the person from whom it will mean most, as well as some form of inquiry. I liked what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said about doing that differently. The Government have got to take part in it, and questions must finally be answered. There should be an acknowledgment that the compensation system and the various trusts are just not working and that there must be a new system.

It is not for me to say what the figures for compensation should be, but in recent years, we have learned that we live in an entitlement culture: if someone walks away from a major job in a big corporation, their wallet is well padded; if someone walks away from a public sector job in the BBC, or even in some local authorities and public bodies, their wallet is well padded. What has happened to those who were wronged by the state?

To conclude, the cost of caring for the needs of those affected by the worst treatment disaster in the NHS are quantifiable; the laying to rest of a tragic incident and the righting of a wrong are priceless.

10:07

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing the debate on this very important issue. As he said, he has campaigned for 16 years to bring justice to this community. He set out clearly the key points about the history of what has happened and the issues that are still outstanding.

As the co-chair of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I am delighted to see so many right hon. and hon. Members in Westminster Hall. I particularly welcome the Minister to her role. I am sure that, like her two predecessors as Minister with responsibility for public health, she will develop a keen interest in the issue and get to grips with the points that the community still want addressed.

Although health is a devolved matter, I hope that the Government will look at what is happening north of the border and the recommendations of the Penrose inquiry that are expected in the spring of 2014 and carefully consider the Scottish Government’s response to those recommendations and the lessons that we can learn in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I want to talk about four key issues that my constituent Glenn Wilkinson, the chair of the Contaminated Blood Campaign, has asked me to raise in this debate and that relate to the financial support given to this community. I want to pay tribute to his passionate commitment to seeing that justice is done. I agree with other hon. Members about the need for a much broader and deeper review of what has happened, including a public inquiry into the whole disaster.

The first of the main issues about financial support is the Caxton Foundation application process. There is general dissatisfaction with that organisation, which has been given responsibility for grants to people with hepatitis C who have received stage 1 payments from the Skipton Fund. The Caxton Foundation has given a number of assurances that the application process will become less complex, less stressful and quicker, but when we talk to the community, it says that the grant application is not improving and that, in some cases, it is becoming worse. I fully understand why many people feel that a grant-based body is not what this community deserves, but until we have a different approach, we must make the system work better for those for whom it was set up.

I have some suggestions for the Minister to consider. First, we need a clear list of what grants will be given for published on the website. The lack of clear criteria means that people feel that they are often begging. Secondly, we need a simpler application process. At present, people tell me that they believe they have applied for something only later to find that they have to fill in further forms. That feels like moving the goalposts mid-way through an application process, and it is not fair.

Thirdly, I want to see a clear statement on means-testing. At present, it is my understanding that the Caxton Foundation is not having to means-test most applications, and some payments, such as the winter fuel payment, are paid to everyone. Why is the foundation asking applicants to complete intrusive census forms, which ask for incredibly detailed information about the circumstances of an individual or a family?

Fourthly, we need decisions about applications to be reached in a timely fashion, and a clear target should be set. Possible further measures could improve the efficiency and functioning of all the funds. Will the Minister consider the staffing levels in the schemes, because there is a restriction in place? There is also a need to look again at the availability of financial resources. The Department could introduce some support in kind. It could offer to second a public health doctor to the funds, to complete an assessment of beneficiaries’ needs. That has never been done, and it would be helpful. The Department might also bring to bear its experience of procuring computer and telephone systems. The previous Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), agreed to review the grant-based system because she recognised that it was demeaning. Will the Minister comment on the progress of such a review?

Hon. Members have already mentioned the unfairness of the two-stage process. I wrote to the previous Minister, asking her to set out the evidence for separating people into the two stages. In particular, I wanted to understand

“whether the rationale for awarding payments to Stage 2 sufferers is based on a desire to support these with the increased costs incurred because of the disease or to compensate them for the increased risk of dying.”

In her letter back to me, she argued that the decision was based on an

“expert review of the evidence”

and that

“the decision was made not to introduce recurrent payments for all as there is a wide spectrum of illness associated with chronic hepatitis C infection.”

Let me put to the Minister three reasons why that argument does not hold up. First, the distinction is not a clear one; there is no blood test. It is a matter of progression, which is not easily determined. That issue is exaggerated by the fact that it requires a liver biopsy to ascertain the level of liver damage, and that, in itself, is potentially life threatening.

Secondly, there is increased evidence that hepatitis C is more than a liver disease. Other Members have already said that a range of symptoms have been identified including fatigue, joint problems and mental health issues. Thirdly, the fact that mortality rates are higher among stage 1 sufferers than stage 2 sufferers seems to be a compelling argument why such an artificial distinction should not hold.

The Contaminated Blood Campaign has committed many hours of research to get to the bottom of the expert evidence. When Professor Brian Gazzard, who is chair of the expert panel, was asked about the matter, he said that they had never discussed the two-stage system; in fact, the experts were expressly asked by the Department of Health not to discuss it. Charles Gore, the chief executive of the Hepatitis C Trust, who was also one of the experts used by the Department of Health, has stated that the two-stage approach is an arbitrary system and that he knows of people who suffer more in stage 1 than others do in stage 2. Will the Minister set out—if she cannot do it now, perhaps she could write to me—what the expert evidence is, so that we are clear about how the decision was reached?

I have two other matters to discuss briefly. On the number of people who are affected, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) asked a parliamentary question about the number of Skipton stage 1 beneficiaries, which is unknown. Will the Department of Health take the necessary steps to identify how many state 1 sufferers are still living? That could be done through contact information that is still held by the Skipton Fund and/or through information now held on census forms by the Caxton Foundation.

On hepatitis C and HIV, I absolutely agree with what the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said about how we set different parts of the community against one another. The list of anomalies between those infected with hepatitis C and those with HIV and their family members continues to grow. The imbalance of the system now operated by the schemes is such that some family members will get assistances and others will not. That area needs to be considered, especially because HIV and its treatment have changed considerably over the past 20 years. That needs to be recognised.

Finally, I would be delighted if the Minister accepted an invitation to come to a meeting of the APPG on haemophilia and contaminated blood.

10:16

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

It is good, Mr Dobbin, to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I applaud the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) for initiating it. It is also good to see the breadth of support from across the Chamber.

I represent my constituent, Sue Threakall, who has campaigned for many years with the Tainted Blood campaign and is currently the chair of that campaign. It has taken an awfully long time to get even as far as we have today. I very much support the comments that other Members have made about how unsatisfactory the situation is, even now.

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on a powerful but well measured and well judged speech. Health Ministers in Governments of each colour have, on many occasions, acknowledged that haemophiliacs are an exceptional and specific group of people affected by the contaminated blood scandal and that they merit special treatment in light of their tragic circumstances. As we know, with the passing of the years, those tragic circumstances mean that such sufferers are becoming fewer and fewer in number, and they deserve justice following a 30-year campaign, which has yet to achieve a full acknowledgement —let alone an apology—from the Government for what happened.

Today’s debate focuses on the haemophiliacs who were infected with hepatitis C—indeed, all but a tiny number of haemophiliacs receiving those blood products were infected with the virus. However, few, if any, haemophiliacs escaped with a single infection; most were exposed multiple times to multiple genotypes of hepatitis viruses, along with many other types of pathogens—hepatitis A, G, D and B for example. Many are super-infected.

It has been proved that infection with both HIV and hepatitis C exacerbates the progression of each virus. It is time now to look at the wider pictures. Haemophiliacs, many of whom have been infected by multiple viruses, desperately need additional support and proper needs assessments. As a community, they were, over time, knowingly exposed to such viruses, despite the growing warnings.

When we look back at what happened, it is worth remembering that the first warnings were given to the Department of Health in 1958 and yet, as late as 1984, we were still importing blood from America that we knew had been collected in American prisons. Even another five years after that, we were still importing blood supplies about which we knew very little. It is incredible that all these years later, in 2013, we are still having debates in Westminster Hall to try to bring about justice for this group of patients who were scandalously let down by our national health service.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made a good point in saying that there has been clear resistance for a long time to having a full-blown public inquiry. He also made good points about the opportunity to go about having one in a slightly different way, with an inquiry of some sort being given full access to all the relevant facts. Such an inquiry would stand a very good chance of getting to the truth of why the warnings were ignored for all this time.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is making some very important points, many of which I agree with. However, I seek his views on the privatisation of Plasma Resources UK, the UK’s plasma laboratory service. One of the reasons why that was acquired by the last Government was to ensure safe supplies of, among other things, factor 8. Does he think that there is a risk involved in that privatisation, particularly in light of the evidence of what has happened—tragically—to haemophiliacs?

[Sir Nick Harvey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and there will be anxiety on that front in many quarters. We have to hope desperately that what he is suggesting does not come to pass, because we are going to have to learn the lessons of the past. It is essential that we have proper controls over this sector for the future.

A number of hon. Members have referred to the means by which support is given to the sufferers and their families, and some good points have been made about the two-stage process effectively being a two-tier system. There were also some very sensible suggestions about Atos and the all-work test, because the fact of the matter is that the current system of financial support is patchy and insufficient. The Government need to revisit the issue urgently.

The challenge is partly for the new Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), whom I welcome to her post, but it is also a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions. It must recognise the unique circumstances of this community as a whole and come up with a comprehensive settlement once and for all, so that the victims, the widows and the families affected by the tragedy can get on with the rest of their lives.

I agree very much with those who have paid tribute to the current Prime Minister for having been willing to go into events of the past. He has not always been universally praised for doing so, but he has gone and tangled with some tricky issues from the past. This is another such case and he would be well advised to do the same with it. We have to learn lessons from these tragic events, put things right now and ensure that nothing similar can happen again.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

We have two speakers left and approximately 15 minutes for them both.

10:22

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Dobbin, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to be here in Westminster Hall under your chairmanship.

I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) for securing this debate and for his speech. I welcome the Minister, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), to her post. This is the second Westminster Hall debate in two weeks that I have taken part in and she has responded to, so she has a very full in-tray. Nevertheless, I urge her to study her brief on this issue and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, to meet the victims of the contaminated blood scandal and their MPs.

Most importantly, the Minister should come up with a proposal for resolving the remaining injustices on this issue. I am sure that she will; she has a reputation for being thoughtful and open-minded on such subjects, but she will have heard from right hon. and hon. Members today that this problem becomes more pressing with every year that passes.

I am afraid that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, the cause was somewhat set back by the meeting that the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), had with the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood earlier this year. It is no exaggeration to say that it is the worst meeting I can remember in eight years of going to such meetings. The previous Minister was completely unprepared in her brief; she shared the all-party group’s concerns but had no solutions whatever to address them. That meeting was attended by 20 MPs and peers, with 20 others giving their apologies. The number of Members who take part in the frequent debates on this issue shows the level of concern among all parties about it.

This is a great injustice, which successive Governments have failed to address; in so far as they have attempted to address it, they have done so in a miserly and bureaucratic way. An inquiry has been refused, and responsibility has been refused, by Government, and those things are to be deplored.

In the very few minutes that I have to speak, I wish to introduce one additional topic. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has rightly framed this debate in terms of contaminated blood and hepatitis C; understandably, the good briefing from the Haemophilia Society has done the same. However, the briefing also refers to co-infection with HIV.

When the Minister looks at these issues, I urge her not to forget those who have been infected, or co-infected, with HIV as a consequence of contaminated blood products. Of the 1,252 people who have been infected with HIV in this way, 932 have died so far. Among the 322 of those people who are still living, one of them is my constituent, Andrew March, who was contaminated at the age of nine. He is now 39, so his entire life has effectively been ruined. He has been a staunch campaigner. He was the applicant in the judicial review proceedings on this matter, and yet after 30 years he is still waiting for any proper redress.

I feel strongly that this issue is the responsibility of Government, and the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) was also clear on that. To some extent, the admission of liability is not the central question. The previous Minister wrongly said that the reason why proper payments were made in the Republic of Ireland was that there was an admission of liability. In fact, payments were being made there before the admission was made, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) pointed out very clearly, having a clear knowledge of what happened; the hon. Gentleman is not here today, but he has done a lot of work on this issue.

We do not need to get tied up in those matters of liability, but personally I would like an admission of responsibility from the Government, because, for some of the reasons that have already been given, much more could have been done. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a delay because of a failure to see what medical knowledge was showing about contamination. Even when that contamination was known, there was a failure to treat products so that they were no longer harmful.

My final point is about funding. Reference has already been made to the Skipton Fund in relation to hepatitis C, but there are similar problems with the Macfarlane Trust. I have been told that it is effectively falling apart; that the review of its probity, of its success, has been ignored; that there is very poor communication between it and sufferers; and that it is underfunded.

The result of all that is that people die. People die because they are not getting sufficient treatment or sufficient medication that they need to deal with their conditions. HIV is a treatable condition, but for those who have serious health problems it can still be fatal and that issue is not being addressed. In the short term, I ask the Minister to look at both the lump sum and ongoing support payments, but in the longer term what we need is a full and final settlement.

I suspect that many Ministers, particularly junior Ministers, wonder how much difference they have made on a lot of issues when they finally leave their posts. However, I also suspect that this is one discrete area, with a defined number of victims, where the Minister could make a difference if she chooses to put her mind to it, in a way that some of her predecessors have not.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

A Welsh member of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood recently told me that every meeting and correspondence that it has with the Government ends with the words, “The Minister will look into this.” Does my hon. Friend agree that a promise really to get to grips with this issue now would be incredibly important, not least for Colin—aged seven, from Newport—who died in my constituency from having contaminated blood? We must also remember the very young victims whom we are campaigning for.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that those views are shared by many Members on both sides of the House.

We are probably not looking for answers today, although we will listen to what the Minister has to say. She has heard clearly that we can do more than just look into the issue: we can achieve results for the remaining victims of these terrible diseases and their families.

10:30

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

I am grateful for this opportunity, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing this important debate. I know that many colleagues feel passionately about the issue. Indeed, one can feel little else when one realises what a long and painful shadow has been cast on the haemophiliac community. They are people who put their faith in a system that has let them down.

I welcome the points raised by other right hon. and hon. Members on the anomalies in financial support for those who contracted hepatitis C. Indeed, those issues have affected one of my own constituents, Mr Dennis, who was infected with hepatitis C in the 1980s and has since been diagnosed with polyarthritis and, most recently, with liver cancer. He has raised with me on a number of occasions the lack of additional support for those with tertiary conditions such as polyarthritis, as well as his difficulty in obtaining disability benefits, for which previous assessments have been based on his mobility rather than his ability to care for himself and to undertake everyday tasks. Although polyarthritis affects only some 4% of chronic hepatitis C sufferers, it has had a huge impact on Mr Dennis’s quality of life.

There is another group that warrants significant attention, however: those who contracted HIV through their NHS treatment. When we talk about financial support mechanisms, we should learn from their experience of the Macfarlane Trust, which sadly, is not a tale of best practice. One person said that the trust

“neither cares nor understands what we have been, or are, going through”.

Another said that the trust is:

“No longer fit for purpose”.

A third person said that the trust is:

“An embarrassment to the government that funds it”.

Those are just a selection of the damning descriptions of the Macfarlane Trust that I have received from both beneficiaries and, significantly, trustees. I know that Health Ministers have tried hard to regain the trust of the haemophilia community, but the sad fact is that their efforts are constantly undermined by the failings of the Macfarlane Trust.

We cannot turn the clock back and undo the damage done, nor can we pretend that we can wholly make up for the years of distress. However, we can, and must, ensure that the support provided by the Government is not administered in a way that serves as a further source of anger, upset and frustration. Yet I hear time and time again that that is the daily frustrating experience of many beneficiaries. The experience is that policies are created ad hoc with little continuity or clarity, that intrusive and personal details are demanded in response to the simplest of requests and that the attitude towards beneficiaries is one of arrogance. Beneficiaries feel at best confused, and at worst bullied, by the very organisation created to support them.

In preparing for this debate, I have spoken to two previous trustees, who both suggested that the management of the trust was completely out of tune with the needs of beneficiaries. They described an organisation that was completely unwilling to make the case for further funding from the Department of Health and that dismissed complaints without due care and attention. Although I recognise that the trust is independent of the Department, the Minister must recognise the harm that is being done and, in turn, how that reflects on her Government.

I know many of those concerns were raised with the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), during the recent AGM of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and I therefore hope that the Minister will continue with the internal review that I understand was subsequently initiated, and that she will agree to meet with representatives from across the community. The community do not want to be perceived as victims forced to go “cap in hand” to beg for support.

Clare Walton, another of my constituents, says:

“I want to be empowered, and have autonomy over my own life, rather than continue with this victim culture through charity.”

The sobering reality is that the Government cannot afford to wait another 20 years. The people who need support are dying in ever increasing numbers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) rightly commented, the Prime Minister has an outstanding record of seeking to address historical wrongs. Personally, I cannot think of a better time to address

“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.”

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members who have taken part for their time discipline in this extremely important debate.

10:35

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who was scheduled to respond for the Opposition. Sadly, St Jude’s storm meant that he was stuck in the wilds of Cumbria yesterday and was unable to travel down in time for this morning’s debate.

I echo the thanks given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) for securing this debate on an extremely sobering and important issue that has affected many people across the country. I also welcome the new public health Minister to her post, and I wish her the best of luck.

This has been a powerful debate, with many moving contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for contributing, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi).

We must remember that 4,500 patients contracted HIV or hepatitis C due to one of the gravest failures in modern medicine. That failure hit innocent and trusting people, and, to date, it has claimed thousands of lives. Members from both sides of the House will be well aware of how the rowdier moments in the House of Commons are perceived by our constituents, but I believe that debates such as this, conducted with great dignity while addressing serious failures and harrowing accounts, are a credit to the institution of Parliament, and I look forward to working with the Minister to help reach a speedy and satisfactory outcome for those who are campaigning for support to maintain a good quality of life.

The failures in our health system in the 1970s and 1980s, and the struggle for help and support fought by those affected, are a stark reminder of our responsibilities in this place. As we have heard today, progress has been painfully slow—that point was eloquently and powerfully put by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. The previous Government and the devolved Administrations established the Skipton Fund in 2004 to make ex gratia payments to those who were infected.

In May 2009, Lord Archer published a report on NHS-supplied contaminated blood and blood products. We implemented many of his recommendations, including giving the Haemophilia Society £100,000 for haemophilia doctors and committing to phasing out prescription charges for patients with long-term conditions.

In April 2010, the then public health Minister, Gillian Merron, decided to bring forward a review of the Skipton Fund—we had previously committed to reviewing the fund in 2014. Announcing that decision, she said:

“We have listened carefully to the views of those infected, their families, carers and many in this House, who have told us that our intended review date of 2014 will be too late for many of those affected.”—[Official Report, 6 April 2010; Vol. 508, c. 133-134WS.]

I welcome this Government’s work in continuing to build on the foundations laid by the previous Government. The issue must transcend party politics. Our focus from now on must be on what we can do to support those who bear financial burdens as a result of contracting hepatitis C or HIV.

I hope that the Minister is able to give us a comprehensive account of what the Government are doing to build on the actions set out by the Leader of the House when he was Secretary of State for Health in his statement to the House on 10 January 2011. He announced changes to the financial support schemes for those infected with HIV and hepatitis C, including the introduction of an annual payment of £12,800 for those with the most serious hepatitis C-related disease as a result of NHS blood transfusions and blood products, in line with payments received by people infected with HIV. Those groups need Government support more than ever, and I want the Minister to give assurances that work on this issue will not be undermined by budget reductions.

I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and suffering inflicted on the victims who received infected blood. To those who relied on receiving blood regularly as part of their treatment for haemophilia, only to have a life-changing diagnosis thrust on them; to those still facing daily challenges; and to the dependents of those who are, sadly, no longer with us, we owe help, support and justice.

I pay tribute to the work done by the many campaigners and organisations across the country, which is a credit to the tireless efforts of those affected and their families. Their efforts could have been no better espoused than by my right hon. Friend, who set out the experiences of his constituents. It is right that such people are exempt from the Atos processes, and my right hon. Friend’s points about the financial burdens that such things put on families were extremely timely. Changes to qualifying criteria for a range of illness-related benefits will unnerve those who depend on such income to make ends meet. I am sure that the Minister will welcome this opportunity categorically to state that the Government will protect payments to those who have been affected. Leaving aside the health issues caused by the transmission of infections, the stress brought on by worrying about bills and security can have an extremely damaging impact on the lives of those concerned.

On top of dealing with financial concerns, we must provide a health care system that makes it as easy as possible for people with hepatitis C to use the services they need to maintain a good quality of life. I therefore hope that the Minister can give us an indication of the reforms that are being made to support patients.

My right hon. Friend’s proposal to unite stage 1 and stage 2 under one fund warrants serious consideration, and I would welcome a pledge from the Minister seriously to look at it and to try to bring it about. My right hon. Friend was also right when he said that the Government must take any action in conjunction with those who have been affected.

As I said, this is not a debate for political point scoring, and I assure the Minister that the Opposition want to see swift action to ensure a good outcome for those affected—something eloquently pledged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, in an intervention earlier. We will therefore be happy to work with the Government to introduce proposals finally to achieve a good and proper conclusion for those affected and their families and, I hope, to draw a line under one of the darkest failings seen in our country.

10:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed. This is not the first such debate I have sat through; as a member of the Backbench Business Committee, I helped to allocate the Back-Bench debate in 2010. I sat through that whole debate, so I came to this post at least familiar with the strength of feeling on this issue and with the way in which so many hon. Members have worked so hard over many years to represent their affected constituents.

Inevitably, at the beginning of week four of my time in office, I must, I fear, disappoint those hoping for new policy announcements. The debate has perhaps been more useful for me, listening to Members’ contributions, than it will be for those listening to me. It has been incredibly helpful to hear the many comments that have been made, and I will try to answer as many as I can. If I do not have the knowledge or time to answer any points, I undertake to write to hon. Members about them. Let me also say straight away that I am more than happy to have the meetings that have been asked for. I have some thoughts about how we can get the most out of them and make sure they give us a platform on which to move forward.

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing it on behalf of those with haemophilia who were, sadly, infected with hepatitis C as a result of treatment with blood products before 1985. Many Members have talked about the impact on constituents, and that has come home very forcefully to me.

Members have given me much to reflect on, but I would like to take some time to lay out the current position. Everyone who has spoken has said they would prefer us to be somewhere different, but it is relevant to lay out the practical support that has been offered to date and where successive Governments have got to. Indeed, the presence of a former Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate rather underlined the fact that successive Governments have struggled to achieve a final resolution. I very much welcome the cross-party tone of the debate and the shadow Minister’s commitment to work with the Government.

The Government are fully committed to supporting affected haemophilia patients, by ensuring that haemophilia and hepatology services in the NHS are as good as possible and by providing direct financial assistance. There is the prospect of some good new treatments for hepatitis C, with fewer side effects than the current treatment and less of an impact on day-to-day life. We all welcome that, but I recognise that although these new therapies may treat the infection, they may not alleviate all the associated health effects. For many of those affected by hepatitis C, there is a continuing need for support.

In January 2011, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), then the Secretary of State for Health, informed the House that we would provide additional support for those affected. It is important to remember that that support was available to not just haemophilia patients, but any patient infected with HIV or hepatitis C by an NHS-supplied blood transfusion before 1991.

Although many who have spoken this morning are seeking a longer-term resolution, let me quickly go through the additional practical support that the Government have put in place. We linked the annual payment for HIV awarded by the previous Government to inflation, so it does not lessen in value. We introduced a similar payment for those most seriously affected by hepatitis C, and we increased the value of the lump sum for that group to £50,000. I very much hear the concerns some Members expressed about the divisiveness of separating different groups, but the lump sum for that group was nevertheless increased substantially.

A discretionary payment mechanism was also introduced to meet specific financial needs for all those infected with, or affected by, hepatitis C. None of those affected now have to pay for their prescriptions. In addition, £300,000 has been made available over a three-year period to provide counselling services to those affected by hepatitis C. All those payments are tax-free and are disregarded for the purposes of benefits and determining eligibility for social care services.

To pick up the point about the exemption regarding employment and support allowance, one of my predecessors made representations in that regard. The issue is not in my remit, and the decision is obviously for the Department for Work and Pensions, but I certainly undertake to raise the issue as a result of the debate and to revisit it with the appropriate DWP Minister.

A combination of fixed and discretionary payments was previously decided on as the best way of ensuring greater financial certainty for people facing the most severe consequences from infection. The idea was that it would retain a degree of flexibility so that assistance could be tailored to an individual’s personal situation, and the debate has clearly shown how different the situations of hon. Members’ constituents are.

The set-up put in place could also complement the other support people might receive, such as through the benefits system. The flexibility that gave was thought to be important, because an individual’s needs vary significantly. However, I know there is concern among haemophilia patients and others infected with hepatitis C that there is insufficient support—this has been the focus of much of the comment today—for those who have developed chronic infection, particularly Skipton Fund stage 1 beneficiaries, on whose behalf many Members have eloquently spoken.

The scientific and clinical advice that the Department received during the review did not support the case for making regular annual payments to all those infected with hepatitis C. I am advised that some people with chronic hepatitis C infection clear the virus, and that those numbers could increase with the new therapies that are emerging. Decisions on financial support have been informed by the evidence, where that is available.

The spectrum of possible consequences of hepatitis C infection appears to be wide-ranging, and, in many cases, causal association has not been established. That has been a problem in the past. Ministers were grateful for the advice of experts on that area—a complex one, obviously—ahead of the 2010 review. Following the review, the then Minister with responsibility for public health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), promised that new evidence would be assessed regularly. That challenge was put to me several times in the debate. Those assessments will help with future decisions whether to make changes to the payments system.

The advisory group on hepatitis recently completed its first assessment of the clinical and scientific evidence published since the 2010 review, and the Department has sought further detail from the group on some of the information in the report. Some people affected by hepatitis C dispute the expert interpretation of the evidence, so Department of Health officials have commissioned a systematic review of the scientific and clinical evidence on the natural history of hepatitis C. That will report in autumn 2014. I shall raise with officials the question whether that could be brought forward. An earlier report could be useful in the light of other events.

We hope that, in addition to providing a definitive analysis of the available evidence, the systematic review will be of value for service planning in the NHS. Several hon. Members have referred to other parts of the NHS and the provision made for continuing care, so I think that the exercise has additional value. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made the case, and although I cannot respond to her detailed points and questions about some distinctions that are made, we are aware of the dispute. I undertake to write to her if I can respond in more detail.

Several trusts have been mentioned this morning, but I understand that beneficiaries of the Caxton Foundation have not always found it responsive to their needs. This morning, hon. Members have expressed concerns about how it has operated since it was established in 2011. I have seen recent correspondence between campaigners and Caxton Foundation trustees, so I am aware of some of the unhappiness.

I want to give reassurance on one point: the foundation has £2 million for payments in England and has not yet spent all the money available to it. If it needs more money, it can make a business case to the Department. I understand that it will be doing so this year, and we shall consider that on its merits. It has been working hard to improve its services in the past year and has already established some processes to: reduce the time between application for and payment of straightforward grants, an issue mentioned by several hon. Members in the debate; make payments in the form preferred by the beneficiary; and continue to review where it can improve further.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North made points about published criteria for the application process, means-testing and specialist doctors. Those are all detailed points that I shall consider, and on which I shall respond to her, but I shall need to make contact with the foundation, because all decisions about payments are made by the trustees. I do not have the power to direct them on how to make decisions, but after the debate I intend to write to remind them that the trust deed enables them to meet any charitable need and not just those that arise directly from an individual’s hepatitis C infection. If hon. Members have other points that they want to raise with me, I shall be happy to put them to the foundation. Clearly, some of those that have been raised this morning are matters for concern.

Several right hon. and hon. Members have talked about public inquiries, or a process of truth and reconciliation. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made interesting points about different approaches in recent years. I shall reflect carefully on what he said, which I think other right hon. and hon. Members supported, about considering different approaches.

The Department of Health has put relevant facts for the period in question—1970 to 1985—in the public domain, on its website; however, colleagues have called for more material to be put in the public domain, and I shall reflect on that, as well as on what has been said this morning about the different models of truth and reconciliation processes. It was interesting, and it is something for me to reflect on.

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the Minister for what she has said about her openness with respect to the inquiry. I recognise that she is new to her post, but if there is one subject that the Department knows all about, it is the one we are debating. It has all the information it needs.

I do not expect the Prime Minister to come to a definitive decision at the meeting in a couple of weeks about what he or the Department can do, but I hope that the Department will give a briefing of the right tone, saying that there is an opportunity to settle the matter. Somewhere among the options—either the first or the last—is the one that settles things. It has existed for some time. I ask my hon. Friend to do all she can, using the same spirit as is in her response on opening things up through an inquiry, to point the Prime Minister in that direction, so that as he deliberates on the question and she finds her feet in dealing with it, we can, as the debate has urged, move towards finding a way to close the matter.

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend makes fair points. I spent much of the past three years chasing him in his previous role to put right a continuing historical wrong, and he is right to push me in the same vein. I take his remarks, as I have always taken his advice and thoughts, extremely seriously, and will reflect on them.

I want quickly to mention the Penrose inquiry, of which I am very aware. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, it will report in the spring. Right hon. and hon. Members may be interested to know that the Department of Health has provided all reasonable assistance to Lord Penrose, explaining what documents are held in the Department.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

May I continue, as I fear I will not get through the remaining points? I will be happy to speak to the right hon. Gentleman straight after the debate.

We have made available to Lord Penrose any additional documents that he has felt are necessary to his inquiry. While it is continuing, I shall not comment on the inquiry or evidence given to it, but I shall consider whether the Department will make a response. Given that Lord Penrose is considering pre-devolution matters, it is hard to imagine that there will not be implications to which I and the Department shall need to respond. We do not know the exact shape of things, but the inquiry is on my radar, and we shall be considering it.

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) made a point about specialist hepatitis C nurses. That is the responsibility of NHS England, and I undertake to write to that body to draw its attention to his comments.

I think that I have now covered most of the specific points that I can answer today; unfortunately, I cannot respond to some of the detailed points. There was a challenge about the number of Skipton Fund stage 1 beneficiaries; there are difficulties in identifying the numbers, but we will examine that issue and see whether we can respond in more detail to the challenge given by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North.

Inevitably the debate has been, for me, an invaluable opportunity more to hear some of the arguments than to give specific answers on the important points that colleagues have raised so well on their constituents’ behalf. I am happy to have the meetings that have been suggested.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Jane Ellison]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to conclude.

I have heard the big challenge that I have been set this morning. It is one that many of my distinguished predecessors have been set, and I do not underestimate its nature or scale. There is, and has been for a long time, great unhappiness about this topic; many people have wrestled with it. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that I will do my best to rise to the challenge.

Post Offices (Islington)

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have this half-hour debate on post offices in Islington. With the agreement of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) will also contribute, so we will divide the time up between us.

My borough, to describe it briefly, is one of fast-rising population, with a combination of employment patterns. Most people commute out of the borough to work in central London, or elsewhere; many work for the local authority or for education and health employers locally; and a very large number work in very small businesses, or work at home, and are therefore the kind of people who make a big usage of our local post office facilities. If people went from the debate to visit any of our Crown post offices, they would find large queues of people accessing a large variety of services, not necessarily postal-related, but some financial and other such services.

We value our post offices greatly. The local authority, my hon. Friend and I, the local representatives from the Communication Workers Union and Post Office management have had a number of meetings—round-table discussions—convened by the leader of Islington council, formerly Councillor Catherine West, now Councillor Richard Watts. There was also a public scrutiny committee on the issue, which is obviously a live one and heavily debated locally. It is of great importance to us.

I have a photocopy of a document, “Modernising the Post Office”, in which the Post Office discusses investment in, support for and the modernising of branches, to secure post offices and communities throughout the UK. The document also points out that the Post Office is the fastest growing financial services company in the UK, the No. 1 travel money provider and the sixth largest telephony provider, with almost 0.5 million customers, and talks about a sustainable Crown post office network. That all sounds fine until we get to the reality of the situation of local post offices in any one area.

We have Crown post offices on Upper street, Highbury corner and Holloway road, and in Archway. My hon. Friend will talk mainly about the ones on Upper street and Highbury corner, and I will talk about the others. The local authority has tried its damndest at every turn to co-operate with the Post Office to improve the services and to provide a better quality of post office buildings, to the extent of offering a site across the road from the existing Highbury corner post office, which is in an unsatisfactory temporary building—temporary for as long as I can remember, which is more than 35 years. That site is still available for development into a new post office, but the Post Office seems unable to take up what is an amazingly generous offer by the local council to ensure that there is a good-quality service.

I hope that the Minister, when she replies, will bear in mind what my hon. Friend and I have to say on such initiatives. Furthermore, the leader of Islington council, Councillor Watts, has written a letter to the Post Office—I will quote from the last part, although my hon. Friend may quote more—in which he stated:

“In addition, we are willing to work with Post Office Limited to find a home for the post office branch within one of the nearby council buildings on Upper Street.”

The local authority is as co-operative as possible, so tribute should be paid to it for that.

One problem is some dispute about the figures for losses or profits made by local branches. The Holloway branch, which is in my constituency, opposite the Odeon on Holloway road, at the end of Tufnell Park road—sometimes known as Tufnell Park post office—is a very busy building, and queues frequently come out of the door on to the street. Bizarrely, the Post Office claims that that branch loses money, which is hard to see when the building is completely full the whole time. The Post Office also claimed that the only way in which a post office could be retained on Holloway road—the Holloway post office—is if it is franchised out to someone else. In other words, it would become the rear counter of a supermarket, a WH Smith or someone else. There are, however, no WH Smith branches anywhere in the whole borough, so it is hard to see how it might want to be involved. Inevitably, that would mean fewer postal facilities, fewer staff available, even longer queues and much more business lost by the Post Office.

I have a constant frustration on meeting with the Post Office: a lack of imagination and ambition for the development of the post office network. It seems to have an agenda of closing down branches and diminishing the network, and there is the looming threat—in five year’s time—of what happens if the contract with Royal Mail is not renewed. I hope that the Minister, despite the Government’s default position that the Post Office is nothing to do with them—that it is someone else’s responsibility—will say that she or the Secretary of State is prepared to intervene.

To take the example of Holloway post office, as I said, it is a popular, successful and busy local branch. At the moment, it has seven full-time and seven part-time people working there, alongside two managers. They are paid according to the terms and conditions agreed nationally between the CWU and the Post Office. The local staff do a good job—they are very knowledgeable and popular with the local community. When we have had demonstrations outside the post office, the number of customers who come up to say thank you to the demonstrators for supporting their local post office is impressive.

What happens to the staff during the franchising process? They lose their jobs, or they get moved somewhere else. The Post Office keeps telling us that everything is okay and that all the staff have been moved to another, remaining Crown post office somewhere else. That seems to me to be a circle to nowhere, a descent from one Crown office to another, until there is none left and the staff have no choice but to go and work for a franchisee. The franchisees, however, pay staff much less than the Post Office. I have reports of some cases in which they are paying the minimum wage, or slightly above, for what is extremely skilled work at handling a variety of different transactions that the Post Office staff already do well. One can only form the impression that what is really happening is a race to the bottom—losing jobs, losing facilities and ending up with a post office counter at the back of a supermarket.

I will quote from a document given to me by the CWU:

“At the Communities Committee meeting”—

of the council—

“Simon Burman was asked about, but refused to confirm, property costs for Holloway Road. In 2011/12 the branch reported a ‘loss’ of £315,500…£215,000 of this came from property costs; we think these are excessive… To put these in context, property costs for London Bridge were £109,000, for Finsbury Park they were £107,000, for Highbury they were £68,000 and for Islington they were £40,000.”

It is strange to have that inflated loss figure being offered for the post office on Holloway road, with much different figures for other branches. Will the Minister look at the detail of the figures that we have been given?

Before I hand over to my hon. Friend, I want to draw attention to two other post offices and ask the Minister for confirmation about them. First, the Crown post office at Archway—as far as I am aware, the freehold of the land is in the hands of the Post Office, although that remains to be confirmed—is a popular, effective and good local post office. It does not seem to be in a radically different position from the other three Crown post offices in the borough. We have had confirmation that that post office is secure in the immediate future. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that and that there is no threat whatever to the Archway post office.

Secondly, the Finsbury Park post office, which is about 100 metres outside the Islington boundary in the borough of Hackney but clearly affects many people living in Islington, is incredibly busy, and we are all worried that it could be at risk in the closure and franchising programme. In short, we are speaking on behalf of the people of Islington who want to use, enjoy and support Crown post offices. I wish the Post Office would show the same determination by providing good-quality local services with dedicated staff who are paid at the proper rate to deliver those services, instead of reducing us to a counter at the back of a supermarket, which seems to be its current overall agenda.

11:10

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing this debate, which is important for Islington. I am delighted, Mr Dobbin, to serve under your chairmanship today.

What has been happening to our post offices in Islington is a sorry story, and I shall start with the Almeida street site. It is a large site in the heart of my constituency. It is bounded on one side by Upper street, and surrounded by Moon street, Milner place and Gibson square. It is a very large development area. The Post Office somehow managed to sell the site without securing a proper site for another post office. It kept the post office on Upper street, but is only renting it back. The post office does not have disabled access and its remaining time on that site is limited. It is a Victorian building; it has been there for ever; it is in the heart of my patch; and it seems that it will just go. That is the first problem.

The post office on the Upper street site needs to move. We accept and understand that, but the question is, where will it move to? The other big Crown post office in my constituency, which borders my hon. Friend’s constituency, is the Highbury Corner site. As hon. Members have heard, it is only temporary, so the council offered £2 million and a site for a Crown post office across the road. In its wisdom, Post Office turned that offer down. Having sold off one site and not secured another, and having turned down £2 million that the council had offered, it is telling us that it does not know where to move to or what it can do.

We are told that the post office can move to a site opposite the garage on Upper street by the town hall. I have said several times that one reason why it needs to move is the lack of disabled access at the Upper street site. Yet, I understand that on the site that it is moving to the door is of limited size because it is in a conservation area. It will not be able to have double doors that open electronically, which is the ideal for any new site, particularly when it serves a large disabled and elderly population, as it does. Thankfully, people today do not have ordinary wheelchairs; they have electronic wheelchairs and can get about. I have grave doubts about disabled access at the new site, which the post office is moving to, not least because of the lack of disabled access now, and I wonder whether there will be disabled access for everyone or only some people. If the Post Office expects someone in an electronic wheelchair to push open a door, it is on another planet; it will not work.

There has been one bad decision on the Almeida site and another on the Highbury Corner one. In addition, the council has not given up. It is saying, “Okay, you have refused our £2 million; we are now in a time of austerity and the £2 million has been spent elsewhere. But guess what? We are prepared to give you £750,000 for another site at Highbury Corner.” The gauntlet is down, but the Post Office will not accept that offer either. The council has also said. “In the meantime, if you are trying to build another post office, we can provide you with accommodation.” The council has offered accommodation near empty council buildings on Upper street, but the Post Office does not seem to want to move there either. How much more can it try to destroy its business than it has done over the past five or 10 years in Islington? If I sound fed up, Mr Dobbin, you should hear what my constituents have to say.

The situation is not hopeless. Some post offices work perfectly well. I fought hard to save Essex road post office, as some of the Minister’s officials know, and we secured its future. It has been refurbished and has just reopened with extended hours, five counters and disabled access. It will do very well and it is exactly the sort of post office we want. If that can be done in one corner of my constituency, why can it not be done in its backbone, where we need a Crown post office that will function properly.

My last complaint—I have more, but I am being selective—is that even if a new Crown post office is opened opposite the garage, whether it has disabled access is a moot point, and there will be only seven counters. There are seven counters at the current post office in Upper street and at Highbury Corner. The Post Office intends to try to put a quart into a pint pot with the same number of counters at Upper street. People already queue outside in the rain at both Highbury Corner and Upper street post offices. People do not go to the post office because they do not have 45 minutes to queue. The Post Office is cutting off its nose to spite our face. It must get a grip and show some leadership and vision. It must move on and build a proper Crown post office on Upper street that is worthy of the people of Islington.

11:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss post offices in Islington with the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North on securing this debate on proposals to change the Crown post office network and the impact on branches in Islington in both constituencies.

The hon. Gentleman eloquently set out his concerns and all MPs understand the real issues and worries that constituents feel when changes are proposed to the post office network because it is such a vital part of our local community infrastructure. That is why we want to ensure that it is preserved and looked after so that it has a positive and sustainable future. We all know that there is heightened local concern following the previous closure programmes in 2003 and 2008. That certainly affected my constituency, and those of both hon. Members, where four and seven branches respectively closed in Islington North and Islington South and Finsbury. That is why it is important to take a different approach and protect the post office network.

We have announced investment of £1.34 billion over the current Parliament to maintain the post office network at a level of at least 11,500 branches and to modernise up to 6,000 existing branches by 2015, ensuring that we improve the service that we offer to customers by addressing some of the issues that both hon. Members have raised, such as the size of queues and the time people must spend in them. As the hon. Lady rightly said, people do not have 45 minutes to stand in a queue at a post office. That is why some of the changes we are making, including longer opening hours, should help to put the Post Office on a much firmer and more sustainable footing. That will enable people to go to the post office at a time that suits them, and spreading the points at which people may go to the post office will have an impact on queuing times.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister confirm that there is no reason on earth why existing Crown post offices cannot open for longer hours and that the Communication Workers Union is happy to negotiate terms and conditions to accommodate that?

[Jo Swinson]

Obviously, all operational matters are for discussion between Post Office Ltd and the relevant unions, but longer opening hours are welcome and could be implemented in the existing Crown post office network. With the post office local and the post office main models, longer opening hours are being rolled out in the rest—and, by far, the bulk—of the network. The investment that is being put into those branches is being used to secure longer opening hours as part of an overall new negotiation and deal with those sub-postmasters. They will receive investment and a new way of working with their branch, but the quid pro quo for that has to be that the opening hours are enhanced, which has an additional customer benefit.

We know that customer satisfaction statistics for the new post offices that have been opened show that customer satisfaction is significantly increased. The hon. Lady mentioned the newly refurbished post office in Essex road, which she opened just last Friday. I am sure that she found—as I have, when I have opened post offices in my constituency and have been to others around the country—that the feedback from customers shows that they are incredibly welcome. What often happens is that a post office, which perhaps was dark, cramped-looking and not fit for the 21st century, is taken and turned into something that is much more akin to modern shopping and retail environments, and it will therefore attract more customers and be more successful.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister is right, and may I plug Essex road post office? It is a fantastic post office and well saved. However, why is the Essex road part of my constituency fit for a proper office, yet we cannot get one on the A1, which is the main street that goes through my patch?

[Jo Swinson]

Obviously, the post office network is complex, with a wide range of outlets across the country. In working out the best locations for all those post offices, Post Office Ltd has to take into account a wide range of factors. The post office that the hon. Lady recently opened in Essex road is under a different kind of model of ownership from those at Highbury and on Upper street, which are part of the Crown network. The Essex road post office, which has become a main office, is obviously not part of the Crown network.

Most customers would be blissfully unaware of the different structures of different parts of the network. However, of the some 11,800 branches that exist now, about 370 are part of the Crown post office network and therefore directly operated by the Post Office. The vast majority of post offices are run as sub-post offices either through franchise agreements, such as through multiple chains—WH Smith has been mentioned, but there are many convenience store multiples—and also by many individual, independent sub-postmasters who run their own post offices in their communities, effectively, as their small businesses. Trying to manage such a diverse network brings its own challenges.

In particular, I want to turn to some challenges facing the Crown part of the network. Numerically, about 370 post offices out of 11,800 is a small part of the network, but none the less, it has been responsible for a significant proportion of the network’s losses in recent years. Of the post offices that we are discussing today, those on Holloway road, Highbury corner and further down Upper street are in the Crown network. In the last full financial year, that part of the network sustained losses of £37 million, which is a third of the overall losses for the whole network. Those 370 branches are, by and large, in busy town and city centre locations, and that situation is unfortunately not sustainable. Ultimately, any retailer that was losing significant money on branches in such prime locations would be looking seriously at how to cut costs to ensure that that part of its network and operations were, at the very least, breaking even.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister is being generous in allowing me to intervene again. Is she able to inform us how much money the Post Office made when it sold off the Almeida site? Surely, that could subsidise post offices in Islington until the next century.

[Jo Swinson]

As I am sure the hon. Lady will understand, I do not have that figure in front of me, but I will endeavour to find that information out from Post Office Ltd and ensure that it is forthcoming to her, if that is possible within the bounds of commercial confidentiality. However, the overall picture for the Post Office in terms of revenue is that it is not possible to continue operating a Crown network that has the kind of losses that have been sustained over many years. That is why we are transforming the Crown part of the network with £1.34 billion of Government investment until 2015. We also want to ensure that we put the Post Office on a firm footing and eliminate the losses in the Crown network by 2015. That is only fair to the taxpayer, who is also providing significant subsidy, and it is also about good commercial practice.

The franchise plans are part of the overall plan to get the Crown network to break even. We have chosen 70 individual locations that Post Office Ltd thinks are less likely to be able to become commercially viable without franchising. Those proposals have been put out for franchise opportunities. The hon. Member for Islington North mentioned Archway, which is not in the list of 70, so there are no plans to franchise that at the moment. He also mentioned Finsbury park—I am not certain whether that is a Crown office or a different model.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is a Crown office.

[Jo Swinson]

In that case, it is also not on the list of 70, so, again, there are no plans to franchise Finsbury park post office either. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. On the point about Holloway road, he mentioned that nearby there are no WH Smiths, which is not the only possible franchise partner, but any franchise-specific proposal that will be undertaken in relation to the local situation will also be subject to a further six-week consultation period when a proposal is brought forward. The hon. Gentleman and his constituents will have the opportunity to contribute to that. If the proposal is not sensible for that location, Post Office Ltd should take that into account.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time. In the event that no franchisee comes forward for Holloway post office—I understand that none has come forward so far—will she guarantee that the post office will remain open and that the staff will retain their jobs at that post office?

[Jo Swinson]

I am not certain whether no franchisee has come forward—my understanding was that there had been interest in all the individual branches—but there will not be a sudden withdrawal of the service if a suitable franchise is not found. The Post Office has a responsibility to ensure that it continues providing the service where it exists, so it is looking for franchise partners to see whether something suitable can be found. However, if no suitable partner is forthcoming, the Post Office will not be able just to get rid of the existing post office. It would not be possible for it to do that. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

I turn briefly to the merger of the two Crown post offices at the Highbury and Upper street sites. I have seen photographs of them, and hon. Members have pointed out that the temporary portakabin nature of the Highbury site is not ideal. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury talked about disabled access issues for the existing—and very beautiful—old Victorian building in Upper street. Looking to merge those Crown services into a new, much more purpose-built facility elsewhere on Upper street and between the two—about 420 metres from one post office and 150 metres from the other—should provide much better customer service.

I highlight, however, that that is currently subject to a 12-week consultation, which opened earlier this month and closes on 27 December. I urge any relevant constituents or people who are interested to respond to the consultation. The fact that the lease for the building on Upper street runs out in March 2014 is relevant, because clearly, we want to ensure continuity of service provision. I understand that the council has made offers, but there is an issue about when some of those offers have been forthcoming. The information that I have shows that that has happened incredibly recently, and clearly, plans need to be put in place to ensure that the provision is ongoing.

I hope that people respond to the consultation and that customers in Islington have a new opportunity for better services from the Crown network, as well as from the other modernised part of it, such as in Essex road, where the change has clearly been shown to be very positive—actually, I think that I visited Essex road post office some years ago. I hope that my comments have been helpful to both hon. Members here today.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair ]

14:30

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

We are very proud of and grateful to the Royal Navy and to our Vanguard-class submariners, who are on patrol as we speak, for their service to our country. It is right to recognise that service, but there is a legacy from the dawn of our nuclear deterrent that has yet to be fully recognised and a debt of gratitude that has yet to be fully acknowledged—that is to our British nuclear test veterans.

The deterrent that this country now has would not have been possible without the efforts of 20,000 servicemen during the 1950s and 1960s at nuclear tests in the south Pacific and Australia. The science at the time was not well understood. Precautions, therefore, were primitive and inadequate, and they often failed to protect individuals from the effects of blast, heat and ionising radiation. Many test veterans believe that their health was adversely affected by their service. That view has been substantiated by scientific research undertaken relatively recently by Professor Rowland in New Zealand. That work was peer-reviewed and accepted by the then New Zealand Government.

Some years ago, I was contacted by a constituent about those issues. That initial contact spawned an association with the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, which is the largest organisation by far that represents both veterans and their descendents. I am pleased to say that I am its patron, and I take this opportunity to commend all those who work for the BNTVA, its membership and especially the chairman, Nige Heaps, and the vice-chairman, Jeff Liddiatt.

After a long campaign, the BNTVA, I and others in the House persuaded the Ministry of Defence, with the help of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), to undertake a health needs analysis of surviving veterans. Many helpful and practical measures are being introduced as a result, particularly in relation to a veterans pathway through the NHS. Our first priority was to focus on health, given the age profile of the veterans.

Following the success of the health needs analysis, over the summer, the BNTVA, I and others in this place launched the second and final part of our campaign, which essentially involves two main objectives. The first is official recognition from the Prime Minister—preferably orally, but in writing, if not—for the veterans’ unique service. The second part of that campaign, which we are presently in, involves the establishment of a £25 million benevolent fund administered by a board of trustees that would be distributed on the basis of need, not entitlement.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter—I apologise, but I will be leaving before the end of the debate, as I have other duties. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have at least five survivors and families of survivors from that time in my constituency, and I would be very interested to hear him flesh out more details about the potential funding pot. We have had numerous letters in and out of the MOD since I became an MP in 2010, and I am looking for a glimmer of hope that there will be practical measures as well as support, verbal apologies and congratulations to the servicemen involved at the time.

[Mr Baron]

The benevolent fund that we are discussing would be distributed on the basis of need and not entitlement, which is terribly important to understand. That is what differentiates this fund from other recognition or compensation elsewhere. There is often an automatic entitlement to compensation in other nuclear test countries if veterans can prove that they were there at the tests and have suffered ill health. The US is an example, as is Canada, and even the Isle of Man. I shall come on to the point in a minute that we are near the bottom of what I would call the international table of decency, in terms of how we treat veterans, compared with other countries.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He does a lot of good work for veterans, in relation not only to nuclear tests, but to reductions in defence forces in general. I welcome the proposal for the £25 million benevolent fund; I think that the suggestion is a practical one on the basis of need. These veterans made a major contribution to understanding the effects of nuclear war. That is very important, and to do that they often sacrificed their health, and they are still suffering for it today. I find it very strange that, in this country, we always have continual battles to get recognition for veterans. Some years ago, it was about getting recognition for the merchant navy during the war. I do not know what it is about this country, but we seem to be falling behind everybody else in recognising the contribution that people have made on our behalf. I hope that we do not make the same mistakes with the veterans of Afghanistan in future.

[Mr Baron]

Having served myself, I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand the campaigns that he mentions. This is one of the key points that we wish to make about the benevolent fund: if we look at other countries—I shall come on to this very briefly—and compare how they treat their test veterans, we rank very near the bottom. However, I suggest to the Minister—this is where there has been confusion in the MOD before—that the payment should be ex gratia; in other words, there would be no admission of liability. There has been some confusion within the MOD that the BNTVA, as an organisation, has been involved in litigation through the courts, when that has not been the case. If we look at other countries that have made ex gratia payments, we see that the case being made very much stacks up. There would be no admission of guilt or liability, but it would put right an injustice.

It is important to reinforce that point. The campaign organised by the BNTVA, other hon. Members and I has been very much focused on Parliament and not on taking this issue through the courts. Perhaps I should also add that the BNTVA has put in a submission to the medal review led by Sir John Holmes, and it is waiting for the outcome of Sir John’s deliberations. However, that is separate from the campaign that we are discussing today.

I return to both interventions, in a way, and to the point about how other countries treat their test veterans. It is clear, when looking at the comparisons, that we rank towards the bottom of what I would call the international table of decency. Let us take the US for example. Our campaign is about recognition, and all that people have to prove for compensation there is that they were present at a nuclear test—one is sufficient—and there they have a list of more than 100 illnesses. They do not have to provide a causal link between the two. Providing that someone can prove those two things, they will automatically get compensation—£47,000 for the first illness and £47,000 for any secondary attributable illness as a bonus. No causal link between service and illness is required; payment is simply automatic. That is in addition to the fact that veterans in the US have access to free health care.

Commonwealth countries played a great part in our nuclear tests. Canadians were there in large numbers, and Canada pays some £15,000 to each veteran, in addition to war pensions, and enjoys a health care system like the NHS—free at the point of use. Closer to home, the Isle of Man, which has been supportive of our campaign, makes an ex gratia payment of £8,000 to any resident test veteran, and 17 such payments have been made to date.

I stress that our proposals are different from the comparisons that I have just listed, because the £25 million would be distributed on the basis of need, not entitlement. That is why it is important to stress the ex gratia nature of the payment. There is no admission of liability; no admission of guilt. The benevolent fund would be there to help veterans and their descendants who need help with their care and treatment. The fact that someone is a veteran does not necessarily mean that they would gain access to the fund in question.

I urge the Minister, when considering the proposals, to look further afield again. I remind her that in the 1990s this country made an ex gratia payment to Australia that just so happened to be for the exact sum of £25 million, and that payment was made in compensation for having undertaken tests in Australia. It was the equivalent sum of money, and if it is good enough for Australia, I do not see why it is not good enough for our own test veterans. I remind the Minister that Australia already offers a generous pension to its test veterans.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I very much appreciate the work that my hon. Friend has put into this. Does he agree that the test veterans, by far and away, will be better supported by the £25 million fund that he has talked about than the Australian Government? In other words, their need is greater than that Government’s ever was. Does he also agree that, with ex gratia payments, far less administrative time, effort and money would have to be put in by the Ministry of Defence and other state bodies in disbursing that money than if compensation was based on a careful assessment of all the criteria implied by a strict compensation scheme?

[Mr Baron]

I agree completely. The benevolent fund would be administered by a board of trustees; it would be an established charity. It would be up to them to distribute the funds, as I said, on the basis of need, not entitlement, and the payments would be ex gratia. Therefore, there would be no admission of liability or guilt.

Perhaps we need to focus on progress with the Government to date, during the second phase of the campaign, which was launched only on 11 June here in Parliament. We also had a superb art exhibition on the theme of the veterans’ experiences during the tests. Some of the pieces were created by the descendants themselves. Progress since 11 June has been somewhat slow. I had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who was then responsible for veterans. I had a brief meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I wrote to the Prime Minister. I have now received a response, and there are warm words about the role of the nuclear test veterans, but there is no sympathy for the idea of a benevolent fund at all.

What the Prime Minister did mention was the war pensions scheme, and no doubt the Minister will address at length the generosity of that scheme when it comes to our veterans generally, but many test veterans—I must say this to her—have found the system not sympathetic to their cause. War pensions are fine on paper, but time and again, veterans find that the system is stacked against them. A recent questionnaire of BNTVA members revealed that 90% had seen their application for a war pension declined. For one thing, with claims made seven years after leaving service, the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that the illness or injury was caused by service; for another, the system is time consuming and complicated for these elderly veterans, even when successful. The perception is that they are still having to take on the system. As if to illustrate the point, a British lady received payment from the US for the role that her British husband played, while flying for the RAF, during one of the American nuclear tests. She had been repeatedly refused a war widow’s pension in this country, but managed to get a payment from the US authorities.

The Government, including the Minister, should be in no doubt that we will not walk away from this campaign. On 27 November, veterans and their descendants will march on Parliament to draw attention to the cause. We are determined to see this through. In welcoming the Minister to her new post, may I urge her to reconsider our campaign? After all, the Government have a very good record of recognising just causes and righting past wrongs—mesothelioma and thalidomide victims are just two examples. The nuclear test veterans fit into both categories. I suggest that we do owe our veterans a debt of gratitude for helping to ensure our safety. Many people would argue that they were instrumental in helping us to win the cold war.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his leadership of this campaign. While we are talking about the calibre of the individuals, I want to mention one gentleman in my constituency, who I suspect would prefer not to be named. When I went to see him, he outlined his service during the nuclear tests. He was obviously unaware of the dangers at the time, but he told me—this shows the calibre of individual we are talking about—that had he known the dangers, he would still have done it for the good of his country, because he thought that it was essential. That shows the calibre of these people. We can show that we have a debt of gratitude without, as my hon. Friend correctly said, needing to show a causal link.

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree. What has been striking in discussing this issue with test veterans has been their dedication to duty for their country, but also the fact that they have less concern about their own well-being and more concern about their descendants. That is an important point for the Minister to take on board.

We should never forget, either, that it was a unique service by these veterans in many respects. The science was unknown and the risks were unquantifiable, but the cost to the veterans and their descendants was very severe indeed. Official recognition—I stress that we are talking about recognition, not compensation, as I hope that I have made clear in relation to the second phase of our campaign—of this unique service and contribution to our defence is therefore only right. If the Government continue to fail to recognise that, they fail not only our veterans but their descendents, and they fail to lift the veil of shame that almost uniquely hangs over this country. The time for action is now. Warm words are no longer enough.

14:48

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate and on the way in which he has mobilised support both inside and outside Parliament for a very important cause: recognising the contribution of these professionals to this country’s safety—a safety that we continue to benefit from today.

At one of the first surgeries that I held when I became a Member of Parliament, two gentlemen who were nuclear veterans, David McIntyre and Peter Barnard, came to see me. They were concerned to press their case in the most modest way. They want no recognition in the sense of what we normally think of as recognition. They just want things to be put right and to be treated like anyone else who has served their country in the right way.

Mr Barnard described what it was like on Christmas Island observing the explosion and the scene. As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay described in answer to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), those men and women, service personnel at the time, did not realise the danger that they were in and it was not clear. It has become clear only later, as events unfurled.

What is being asked for as part of the campaign for recognition is only proper and correct. It would be a good statement if all parties in the House recognised the service that those men and women performed. Treating people who have served their country properly would begin to bring us into line with other nations that have tackled the same issue. It is merely a question of stepping up to the plate. I recognise and pay tribute to the leadership that has been shown, and I hope that Government and Opposition respond to the challenge.

14:51

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) not only on securing today’s debate, but on all the work that he has done in recent years on this important issue.

I recognise the vital job that all our armed forces do and that all our veterans have done for us and the country, including the nuclear test veterans. I recognise the unique nature of their service. I regret the worry and uncertainty that they have experienced in the years since their service. Whatever the facts, it is highly regrettable that we have ended up in the situation that we are in today. It is clear from the comments made that there is a lot of good will and a desire to see an outcome, but there is also frustration that it has not been achieved. I shall refer to that point in a few moments.

I was delighted to meet representatives from the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association earlier this year in Brighton. I am grateful to those from the group who took the time to host a reception and exhibition there. The art exhibition “Shadow of the Bomb” is extremely powerful and helps to convey the spectrum of emotion and feelings with which the test veterans and, indeed, their families live. It helped me to understand that the fear of what might happen, what might have happened and the fear of the unknown can, in a different way, have debilitating effects on some veterans, almost as great as a physical illness. That is also true for their children and grandchildren. We can all appreciate that those are horrible doubts and fears to have to carry around. We have to spend only a short time speaking to the veterans to get a sense of deep uneasiness about their experiences. One image that stuck in my mind was of those carrying out the tests being covered from head to foot in protective clothing, while the serving personnel, as the veterans were then, went about their work just in shorts.

The events took place in the 1950s, and just as they do now, service personnel signed up and did what was asked of them, without question and with 100% commitment. They did so alongside individuals carrying out their national service, who had not volunteered to be there, but they did what was asked of them with just as much commitment. Another difference between then and today is that there is far more scrutiny today of what we ask our service personnel to do and how they are treated, as shown by the recent discussions on whether human rights laws and the concept of negligence should apply to service personnel on operations and in what circumstances.

Times have changed markedly since the 1950s, when there was far less external scrutiny of the treatment of our forces and probably less awareness on the part of the serving personnel themselves about whether what they were being asked to do was unreasonable. We would now, rightly, find troubling the prospect of the deliberate testing of radiation on people who had signed up to protect and defend their country, who did not have full knowledge of the implications or the option to say no or ask questions.

As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay outlined, the BNTVA is looking for two things: recognition of what happened and their service; and the possibility of some sort of financial settlement. I hope that the debate today goes some way towards providing the recognition sought, but I appreciate that that desire is for recognition to come from a more high-profile source.

The proposed financial settlement is in the form of a benevolent fund. Members may be aware that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the former veterans’ Minister, authorised a financial settlement proposal. The nuclear test veterans involved in the case at the time were not made aware of the offer, and disappointingly, it appears that the lawyers acting on behalf of the veterans rejected the offer without putting it to them.

[Mr Baron]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady made that point about the lawyers. As I am sure that she is aware, she is referring to the legal proceedings outside this place, in which the BTNVA has never participated. It has been criticised for not participating by those outside. It is important to make the distinction.

[Gemma Doyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. It is important that we look at the issue, rather than at particular groups representing people. I appreciate the distinction, which is why earlier in my remarks I said that the situation is regrettable because we could by now have come to some sort of settlement or agreement. I fear that lawyers have prevented that from happening. If an agreement had been reached then, an agreement about the wider issues would also have been possible. I understand that the legal route has now been exhausted and no avenues to pursue remain.

I appreciate that the reins on the public purse are tightly held at the moment, but could the Minister look at whether it is possible to allocate money from the LIBOR fund, because that money is already set aside, to kick-start a benevolent fund? There are many demands on the fund and applications to it have been made, but it would be an obvious source of money that could be released quickly and easily. Nothing will ever take away the worry and uncertainty about the impact of the tests, but if something can be done to help to draw a line and help the veterans move forward, we should certainly consider it.

14:59

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed: the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell).

This subject evokes considerable passion among some, perhaps even many, people. We have heard the veterans’ cause argued with that passion yet again by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, and he is right to do so. Members should bring issues that are dear to their hearts to this place, so that we can debate them and causes and ideas can be advanced, only for Ministers then to say too often, unfortunately, “Well, it all sounds very good, but I am afraid I don’t agree with you, and I’m afraid that at the moment this proposal will not advance particularly far within Government. We’ve made our position clear.”

Before I explain why that is, I want to make something absolutely clear. It seemed to be suggested that the Government have not acknowledged the significant role played by the men and women who participated in the nuclear test programme. My hon. Friend quite properly mentioned a letter written to him by the Prime Minister. I repeat some of the Prime Minister’s words, because I cannot put it as eloquently as he did:

“This Government continues to recognise the servicemen who participated in the British nuclear testing programme. Their contribution ensured that the UK was equipped with an appropriate nuclear deterrent during the cold war, which thankfully we never needed to use.”

To be absolutely clear, I do not hesitate to acknowledge the hugely significant role played by all those veterans, and I pay tribute to all who participated in the programme. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

[Mr Baron]

I do not doubt the Minister’s genuineness on this issue, or indeed the Prime Minister’s. The letter that the Minister read out was a response to me. All test veterans would welcome a statement from the Prime Minister addressed to them, officially recognising their role and our debt of gratitude to them. We would prefer it to be given orally—perhaps in a statement in the House—but if not, a written statement would go a long way towards ticking that box, rather than just giving part of a response to me about a wider issue in the campaign.

[Anna Soubry]

It is not for me to say what the Prime Minister should or should not do, but he has written in clear terms to my hon. Friend, who I assume shared the letter with all those in the association. However, I understand—he will correct me if I am wrong—that not all those who participated in the test programme necessarily belong to the association. I am now putting it on record, in Hansard, for all to see and to broadcast to all veterans the Prime Minister’s clear acknowledgement and tribute to those veterans, as well as his acknowledgement of the great service that they did our country.

[Mr Baron]

That is very much my point. The Prime Minister’s response was to me. Not every test veteran is a member of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. Although I welcome the Minister’s warm words of acknowledgement and gratitude and I do not doubt her genuine intent, a statement to all test veterans from the Prime Minister, preferably orally but if necessary in writing, would cost nothing and would tick that box, and it would be gratefully received by all concerned.

[Anna Soubry]

I will ensure that the Prime Minister hears my hon. Friend’s words. He will then decide how he may or may not be able to advance the matter. However, I think that my having read out the letter so that it can be publicly recorded in Hansard goes a considerable way towards making it absolutely clear that the Prime Minister acknowledges the great work done and why it was so important.

As we know, for many years, veterans of the nuclear tests have claimed that their health has been damaged by exposure to ionising radiation. The Ministry of Defence has consistently rejected those claims on the basis of the findings of three comprehensive studies on cancer incidence and mortality among nuclear test participants carried out by the independent National Radiological Protection Board. The three studies were conducted and published over a 20-year period, beginning in 1983 and finishing in 2003. Overall levels of cancer incidence and mortality were similar to those in matched service controls, and death rates from all causes were lower than expected from national rates.

On specific cancers, there was some evidence of a raised risk of certain leukaemias, but the researchers concluded that it was due to chance rather than radiation exposure. The Government has every confidence in those independent studies. Accordingly, we believe that there are no grounds for paying compensation to British nuclear test veterans as a group.

In 2010, the MOD commissioned a health needs audit of all BNTVA veteran members resident in the UK. The survey, which had a return rate of 71%, asked respondents to self-report on serious illnesses and long-term conditions diagnosed by a doctor since their participation in the nuclear tests. Overall, the range and severity of problems reported was typical of older people in the UK in general. Whatever their health experience, most respondents indicated that, in general, they felt that their health care needs were being met very well by the NHS; primary care services were particularly well regarded.

My hon. Friend referred to the Rowland report. I am reliably informed that the report, published in a specialist genetics journal, concerned a laboratory-based study of peripheral blood lymphocytes—I apologise for my pronunciation, which may not be great—that were taken in the mid-1990s from 50 New Zealand naval veterans who had been on weather ships 50 to 100 km from the detonation centre of Operation Grapple in 1957-58. Dr Rowland reported the findings of three cytogenetic tests. Two showed no difference between the veterans and matched control groups. The third showed an elevated translocation frequency in the peripheral blood lymphocytes—I am more than happy to share that in plain English with my hon. Friend—of the veterans compared with the control group.

The sample size was acknowledged to be small, and there has been some doubt about the suitability of the control group. Known possible causes of increased translocation include ageing and cigarette smoke as well as ionising radiation. The report emphasises that the study makes no comment on the health status of the veterans. At this time, such cytogenetic tests are not in routine clinical use, because no relationship has been shown between any genetic abnormality and health effects or clinical state.

[Mr Baron]

May I return to the health needs analysis? I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has now taken his seat, as I paid him a compliment earlier by suggesting that he was instrumental in helping us get the health needs analysis, which was our campaign’s first objective. The veterans of the BNTVA have found it helpful as a pathway to guide them through the NHS.

To return to the science briefly, we can argue about it. Professor Rowland’s report was peer-reviewed and was accepted by the New Zealand Government of the time; the Minister should not skirt over that too lightly. The point that I am suggesting to her is that, compared with other countries that have test veterans, we are near the bottom of the table in terms of how we treat them. Surely, there is a moral obligation to consider where Britain fits in. In many other countries, veterans do not have to establish a causal link between being at the tests and ill health. Compensation comes automatically, although I stress once again that I am not arguing for compensation in this case; I am asking for recognition, as highlighted.

[Anna Soubry]

I am interested by that intervention. My hon. Friend now seems to be saying that we should put the science to one side, because it perhaps does not suit his argument, but the science is absolutely clear. However, I am more than happy to turn now to the comparison of international provisions for nuclear test veterans.

[Mr Baron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

I will deal with this first, and then I will be more than happy to give way. I hope that I can set the record absolutely straight.

Comparisons of provisions in the United Kingdom and other countries can be very misleading. We are not at the bottom, and I do not want these good people, who have served our country so well, to feel that they are in some way being short-changed and that an advantage is being given to test veterans from other countries. I will go through some of the other schemes.

Let us talk about America. The compensation scheme offered by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs must be seen in the context of the United States health care system, which, as we know, is not free. Access to veterans’ health care is for those with service-connected disability of a certain level, and it is means-tested for all veterans, including atomic veterans. I would therefore argue that is not as good as the scheme in our country.

[Mr Baron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

No. I am so sorry. I will be happy to give way at the end, but I want to go through all these other countries to put the record straight.

Let us look at the compensation scheme run by the Canadian Government. It was run for just one year—from 2008 until 2009—and it was principally designed for approximately 900 personnel involved in the clean-up of the Chalk River radiation leak, without reference to any illness or injury. If I may say so, therefore, its relevance to our nuclear test veterans is, at best, peripheral.

In France, nuclear test veterans have been eligible for compensation only since 2009, and they were not consulted on the design of the scheme now in existence. As a result, although it may appear more generous than the UK’s war pensions scheme, which I will describe later, the scheme in France demands a greater burden of proof of a link to service. If I may say so, it would do, because it was introduced only in 2009. As a result, we believe only one award has been made in France, which speaks volumes about that scheme.

It is a similar story in Australia, where the compensation scheme operates in part on the basis of a reasonable hypothesis. Again, that may appear, at first blush, to be more generous than the terms of our war pensions scheme, which demands only that a reasonable doubt of a link to service is raised on the basis of reliable evidence. However, in fact, nuclear test veterans in Australia face a tougher test, which is set out in the legislation. For example, for cancer of the bladder, veterans must have received a cumulative dose of at least 100 mSv of ionising radiation a number of years before clinical onset, while there is no such requirement in the UK scheme.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Isle of Man scheme. The Isle of Man decided to award £8,000 to nuclear test veterans, with no proof of medical causation required. That is, of course, a matter for the Manx Parliament. The UK Government rightly have an evidence-based policy. They also strive to provide value for money for the taxpayer, which the Isle of Man has less need to be concerned with, because it has made only two payments.

[Mr Baron]

Our central argument is not to put the science to one side, as the Minister suggested. We can argue about the science, and both sides will be able to draw justification for their particular line. The Rowland report was certainly peer reviewed and accepted by the New Zealand Government of the day, so it cannot be easily discarded by the Minister.

Let me return, however, to what I call the international table of decency. The Minister needs to check what happens with regard to US veterans, because those who turn up at a veterans’ hospital have access to free health care. In addition, there does not have to be a causal link between being at the tests and one of a series of illnesses—mostly cancer, but other illnesses, too.

The Minister also mentioned Canada; again, no causal link is required, but it is clear that the payment is there to be made. Likewise, the Minister is slightly incorrect, or disingenuous at least, to suggest that we can simply discard the example of the Isle of Man. She says that only two payments have been made, but she also needs to check that figure, because my evidence suggests that 17 have been made to date.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I repeat the obvious point that interventions should be brief?

[Anna Soubry]

That is what I am told. If my hon. Friend is saying that it is not true, we will get it sorted out and we will find out. My information is that there have been two payments. He misses the point about the American system, which is that it is means-tested, while ours is not. I have made my point about Canada, where the scheme applied to 900 personnel involved in a clean-up after a radiation leak. I would therefore suggest that there is no comparison to be made in relation to nuclear test veterans.

On the science, my hon. Friend relies on one report, and I have made my comments about it. I rely on three reports, which have been done over many years, and I know of no one who challenges their findings.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being here earlier, but I was in another meeting. Does the Minister agree that the issue with the Rowland study, which I have read on several occasions, is that although it found radiation could, in some cases, cause chromosome abnormality, it did not—this is the important next step—show that those chromosomal changes led to cancer?

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing that information. That is another compelling argument in relation to the science.

I want to make it absolutely clear that it gives no one any pleasure to stand up and to have to talk about these things, because it sounds as if no one cares. On the contrary, those of us who do not agree with my hon. Friend and the £25 million fund that he advances do so not because we do not care, but because we know what the science says and because—I certainly take this view—we have to set this issue in the context of all our veterans, so that we do justice by everyone. We must always be careful not to be seen in any way to single out one group and put it above another.

I really take issue with the idea that we are somehow being shameful, or that we are in any way wrong, in our attitude to our nuclear test veterans. That is not the case. The existing scheme is good, fair and, arguably, generous, and it is one we should be proud of. Of course one could always argue that anyone in receipt of any form of compensation or benefit should have more, but what we have at the moment is fair and generous.

Let me come on to our scheme, because it is important to put on the record that any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to service has the right to apply for no-fault compensation. We therefore have a no-fault compensation scheme under the war pensions scheme. Where there is reliable evidence that disablement is due to service, a war pension is awarded, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Nuclear test veterans are no different, and war pensions are paid to claimants for disorders accepted in principle as being caused by radiation, where the evidence raises a reasonable doubt of service-related radiation exposure. In addition, awards are made automatically to nuclear test veterans who developed certain leukaemias within 25 years of participating in the tests. For some, therefore, there is an automatic entitlement, which is absolutely right. Again, that begins to move us up that so-called league table, if, as some would argue, such a table exists.

It should be noted, however, that in May this year the first-tier tribunal, the war pensions and armed forces compensation chamber, delivered a decision in a group action of 14 nuclear test veterans’ war pension appeals. The majority of the appeals were rejected. The tribunal found material exposure where appellants undertook work in forward areas or otherwise came into contact with radiation, but not in relation to the majority of the bystander appellants. The decisions of the tribunal support the MOD’s current policy relating to claims for a war pension made by nuclear test veterans.

[Mr Baron]

The veterans have made it clear that they find the war pensions process time-consuming and arduous, even when they are successful. We talk about success rates, but 90% of the veterans membership have failed to get a war pension.

As for the international table, the compensation payments in the USA, Canada and so on—although I am focusing on recognition, not compensation—are made in addition to war pensions that are already given to veterans. We should not paint this country’s war pensions as doing anything special, when those are very much automatic in other countries, and there is compensation on top of that.

[Anna Soubry]

I have made my comments about the so-called league table, and have relied on the information I have been supplied with, but I do not believe that our nuclear test veterans are at the bottom of any league table. I certainly do not believe that our record is shameful.

The Government’s second reason for remaining unable to support a benevolent fund concerns the comparison that my hon. Friend has made with compensation packages provided abroad. I hope that I have dealt with all that. My hon. Friend mentioned the sum—it is actually £20 million—given by the UK Government as compensation to the Australian Government in the 1990s. We should be clear about why that money was made over. The £20 million was ex gratia and was given to the Australian Government to contribute to the total cost of rehabilitating the test sites in Australia. Payments were made in instalments, the last being made in 1998. I do not want it to be suggested that the Government somehow advantaged veterans or other people who served in the forces in Australia.

The Government hold the view that to create a benevolent fund would be tacitly to accept liability for which no legal grounds exist. That was demonstrated in the atomic veterans group litigation for damages against the MOD in 2006. In 2009, 10 lead cases were allowed to proceed to a full trial on causation, at the judge’s discretion, under the Limitation Act 1980; normally, there is a three-year statute of limitations on personal injury claims. The MOD appealed, and in 2010 the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling in all respects, except for one case. In arriving at its judgment, the court also considered the merits of the claims in terms of causation and concluded that their general merits were extremely weak.

[Mr Baron]

The Minister has been generous in giving way, which is appreciated in a debate of this sort. Payment to a benevolent fund would not necessarily be an admission of liability. An ex gratia payment makes no admission of liability or guilt. We need to make that clear. The Government have made ex gratia payments to other countries, as the Minister readily admits.

[Anna Soubry]

I must throw that back to my hon. Friend and ask him for what purpose he wants a benevolent fund. Is he saying that the nuclear test veterans’ need is greater than that of other groups of veterans? What would the payment redress?

[Mr Baron]

I am pleased that we are clarifying this. To repeat what I said earlier, the payments would be dispensed on the basis of need, to help with care and treatment, not on the basis of entitlement. Not all veterans would receive it, but it would be recognition of the fact that their service was in many respects unique, that the science was at the time unknown and that the risk was unquantifiable. Let us not forget that those servicemen were doing national service; that is an important factor. In many respects their service was unique, and we should recognise that.

[Anna Soubry]

I do not think that that is the strongest of cases. We know what the science tells us. If the view is advanced that the group of veterans in question—and I pay tribute to their service—should have the money just because they did that work on the country’s behalf, I can hear that being advanced by all manner of other veterans groups with equal force.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

When I was a Minister, I authorised a settlement proposal, because in my opinion large amounts of public money should not be wasted on lawyers when the case could be settled without the question of liability. Unfortunately, the settlement that I authorised was rejected by the lawyers involved. I am sorry, but I think that it was the individual veterans’ best chance of getting a large amount of compensation. The figure stretched to several million pounds.

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend—there is no harm in my calling him that—who raises an important point, which has already been explored, quite properly. I was shocked by it. I do not know the details, but I have experience as a criminal barrister and know that every lawyer is under a duty to consult the client first. No lawyer ever makes the decision—although, apparently, in the case in question, very unusually, that was what happened. The client provides the instructions and makes the decision. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should talk about those events after the debate. I should like to know more.

I was talking about a case that went to the Court of Appeal, where the general merits of the claims were found to be extremely weak. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in March 2012, on a majority decision, in favour of the MOD. Significantly, all the justices, even those dissenting, recognised that the veterans would face extreme difficulties proving causation. That brings us back to the science.

The MOD continues to recognise the concerns of nuclear test veterans—I am always prepared to listen and like to think that I have an open mind, although I have spoken frankly this afternoon. However, there is no medical or legal evidence to support calls for compensation of the veterans as a group—and I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay says about seeking a benevolent fund, not a compensation fund. Any veteran who believes that service has had an impact on their health can submit a war pension claim. Where the evidence supports their claim, we will provide financial compensation. However, recent legal cases have shown that the incidence of that is far lower than many veterans organisations claim.

The argument for a £25 million benevolent fund to compensate veterans and family members affected by ionising radiation is flawed. The UK’s existing health, social and welfare support for its citizens and the specific support for all veterans make it unnecessary. Indeed, when we consider the public investment in the NHS and in the social and welfare fields, it can be argued that the financial value of that support far exceeds the monetary value of any compensation payment that the Government would pay.

15:29

Sitting suspended.

Flood Defences (Thurnham, Lancashire)

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

15:49

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Streeter, to serve under your chairmanship and to welcome the Minister to his post. I congratulate him on his appointment; I am sure his response at the end of this debate will show him to be a wise and listening Minister.

Thurnham is a small part of the parish of Glasson Dock, on the edge of Morecambe bay. The sea defences are situated in the Cockerham and Thurnham areas of north-west Lancashire, running approximately 7.7 km from Cocker Bridge on the A558 in the south to Janson Pool in the north, south-west of the port of Glasson. They form an integral part of the west Lancashire coastal defences, providing protection against tidal inundation from what is essentially the estuary of the river Lune as it goes into Morecambe bay.

The area has been subject to flooding damage through overtopping and breaching of the existing defences in the past. The most recent floods occurred in 1977, when approximately 540 hectares of land were affected, and in 1983 and 1990, when approximately 50 hectares were flooded. As one can tell from the description, it is mainly a lowland mixed farming area, with sheep and some dairy. There are also important tourist facilities in the form of caravan parks, scattered residential housing and one listed monument in the remains of Cockersands abbey.

In 1999, Jacobs Engineering completed a business case for Cockersands sea defences, which proposed a “hold the line” option. In January 2004, a reappraisal of the economic business case to refurbish the existing defences was undertaken by Jacobs. It concluded that no capital scheme could be promoted, although it recommended that further options, including managed realignment or continued maintenance, could provide a better business case.

In November 2004, a further study was undertaken to consider the recommendations of the economic reappraisal, and that determined that a managed retreat scheme could be the right economic method, even when all the land and buildings were written off from tidal inundation and purchased at their market value. In arriving at the conclusions, Jacobs recommended that a physically based model to simulate onshore tidal inundation and onshore wave inundation for different return periods was undertaken as its conclusions were limited by the quality of the available flood spread information.

Consequently, maintenance activities continued, in line with the original recommendations from the shoreline management plan. In January 2008, Jacobs completed a technical report, investigating the effects of tidal flooding should the existing defences be removed, as well as the several managed realignment options identified in the 2004 studies. In 2009-10, the shoreline management plan was updated by Halcrow and recommended that a “hold the line” policy should be adopted for years nought to 20, followed by managed realignment for years 20 to 100. The shoreline management plan updated the economic appraisal in line with the latest guidance.

I have raised this debate because I am trying to establish something. Since 2010, there has been a series of meetings between Environment Agency officers on the ground and the Cockersands Forum steering group, which was established by the parish council. All those meetings have been open and transparent, and shared information has gone backwards and forwards, but we are now getting to the point where certain fundamental policy decisions need to be made by Ministers if we are to make any kind of progress.

The Cockersands Forum steering group, which is formed of residents, considered that the flood defence rebuild costs that were put in by the Environment Agency were inflated, and that the reports of the overtopping events from past flooding were inconsistent with their own knowledge of the history of what had happened. Interestingly, I understand that in the middle of the discussions between the agency and the local residents, through the forum, when the sea defences were looked at properly and people walked them, the agency was prepared to admit that the defences were in a better state of repair than was perhaps first apparent.

The discussions have got to the point where the Environment Agency has been prepared to say that it will hold the line for 30 years. That was something better. Clearly, however, the fact that the defences will be maintained for only that amount of time will have a significant impact on the value of residential homes and businesses. How can people in this area now sell or invest for the future, knowing that there is possibly a 30-year time limit, after which the defences will not be manned? The issue for them is this: how can any Government simply let good farming land, good housing and good businesses be slowly ruined, based on assumptions about possible sea levels in 30 years’ time?

It seems ridiculous that lives can be ruined on such speculation when there is no exact science, yet the plans in place already mean that there is blight in the specific area and particular residents are unable to sell their properties, despite wanting to move on because of age or family circumstances. In a sense, it is a death knell to Thurnham and the surrounding area that there can be no movement in and no movement out.

The residents are practical people; as you and the Minister well know, Mr Streeter, we are all practical people in Lancashire. So the residents took the matter further and looked at all the past evidence they had, in the form of photographs and written evidence, about the 1977 flood. They came up with an extremely sophisticated diagram of what had happened in that year. What they proved to the Environment Agency—to be fair, the agency accepted it—was that it was possible to see in some of the historical detail that the flooding covered a much wider area than was set out in the original Environment Agency plan. That, at least, is my understanding.

Now we are in a strange position. My understanding is that the Environment Agency has accepted that local residents, through their knowledge of history and what they have produced, have demonstrated that if the defences go down, a much wider area will be flooded than was set out in its original statement. However, strangely enough, that does not affect any of the agency’s cost-benefit analysis between its original assumptions and its present-day assumptions. It still wishes to stick to a policy of “hold the line” for 30 years and after that to manage retreat, leaving the area, as I have said, to the depredations of the sea and whatever we can predict about the sea and rivers in 30 years’ time. So the strange position is that although residents, to my knowledge and that of the Environment Agency, have demonstrated that a bigger area will be flooded in the future, that will not affect the cost-benefit analysis.

One of the key determinants appears to be the cost-benefit figure that the Treasury established in respect of losing farming land in particular. I understand that this is a long-established Treasury figure, which takes no account of rising population, both here and across the world, or of the increased concern that we all have—in whatever country we live—about food security.

I wish to ask a particular question of the Minister. If my assumptions are correct about this cost-benefit analysis, are his Department or the Treasury, or both, doing any work to look again at revising the old cost-benefit of farming land, given the national situation in terms of population growth and the political concerns among all parties about food security?

Secondly, let us take the boundaries of my constituency and that particular part of the west coast of Lancashire. At the end of my constituency is the town of Fleetwood, where the Government have just agreed—I am grateful for it—that £65 million is to be used to improve flood defences. The Rossall sea wall needs to be demolished so that a new wall can be put in. It will protect 12,000 homes.

However, from the outside it looks as if the Lancashire coast is being dealt with in separate sections. Fleetwood, quite rightly, gets £65 million; the sea wall there needs attending to. If anyone sees that sea wall, they will know that it is like the Berlin wall. The poor residents need something that might look better and might do a better job. However, just along the coast, there is another village called Pilling, where I have regular meetings. Again, that is a lowland area, next to Thurnham, where there are also concerns about flooding and land drainage. Yet at the Pilling meetings, there is no mention of what is happening next door in Thurnham. That might be because Thurnham comes under Lancaster district council and Pilling comes under Wyre district council. Nevertheless, it seems a bit odd, because my understanding of water is that when it comes through the dykes or over or through the sea defences, it does not worry whether it is flooding Pilling or Thurnham, which are next to each other.

One question that I have for the Minister has already been asked by people in local parishes—what happened to the old land drainage boards, which used to cover wider areas? Also, is there a bureaucratic impasse because of different council boundaries? Do we need to consider a better structure in the long term? That might not be the land drainage structure of the old days, which I understand was somewhat bureaucratic—but at least it involved local landowners, on a wider scale, in the nature of drainage and flooding of their areas.

Will the Minister consider looking at a different vehicle, which could involve, yes, the parishes, villages and local residents in some form or fashion and enable them to cut across the district councils and look at land drainage areas as they are—that is, as geographical drainage areas that do not respect council boundaries? Perhaps we could deal with some kind of operation in those terms.

My understanding is that there has been some discussion on the east coast of this country about such schemes, and that there are still some leftover remnants of the old land drainage boards around the place. They might give us some pilot schemes to see whether the boards could be revamped in the ways I have outlined.

What the people of my constituency, in my part of Lancashire, are looking for is a wider look at what the Government’s plans are for the future. How can a Government spend so much money—quite rightly, in the case of Fleetwood—to protect one part of the coast, and then leave another part to the vagaries of what the science presumes will happen in 30 years’ time: sea levels will be somewhat higher and farming land will not be as valuable as it could be? Farming land is not as valuable as people’s lives, of course; I accept that. Somehow we do not seem to see what the wider plan for the area is. If my residents were able to see and understand that wider plan, they might have a better way of grasping what the Environment Agency’s and the Government’s policies are.

I am particularly interested in learning what the new Minister—the new broom, as they say—might want to do to offer some succour to people across my constituency, whatever district council they belong to. Some have suggested that there is a deliberate attempt to carve off one village against another. I would never support such conspiracy theories; I simply think that it is good old bureaucracy again.

The third thing that I want to raise is a little blue-sky thinking; although we are practical in Lancashire, we can think outside the box. If the Environment Agency is going to hold the line and if the Government are going to supply the money to keep the sea defences going for 30 years and then make a decision—we have not discussed this with the parish council, although it has been talked about in the area generally—could there be a special levy in the area as part of the parish rate, which could go into a fund to be invested for 30 years? We wanted to describe it as a sinking fund, but since we are talking about flooding, let us talk about a floating fund.

If the levy was £25 a year, let us say, with 500 residents paying it, in 30 years there would be more than £300,000 before interest. Any parish or group of residents would be in a very strong position, whoever the Government were in 30 years’ time. If they had a body of money to contribute, it would make it much more difficult for the Government of the time to say, “We are still going to abandon the defences.”

I have discussed the levy with the district council. If there were such a charge, and if somebody wanted to buy a property, would it appear in the land charges office? If it did appear, would the fact that it was offering another stage of protection help to maintain the values? This is anecdotal evidence, but various estate agents in Lancaster feel that it would help to maintain values and keep that exchange of property and businesses going on, because there would be further protection building up over time.

Interestingly, the council said there was nothing in law that would allow it to specify such a measure on a land charge. However, that might not be needed. It might simply need a parish rate and a parish flood defence rate. I do not know. I assume that when searches are made, the council charge and parish charge come up, so perhaps we could come up with a flood defence charge.

As I said, this is blue-sky thinking. The residents have jobs to do, and we are all trying to find a practical way to assist Government and the Environment Agency. It would be really helpful if some of the experts, who I know exist in the Department, could look at the idea. It might mean talking to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The residents of Thurnham are trying to find a way in which they can be seen to be helping themselves, but, for 30 years—perhaps even longer—they need Government support to protect the land that they have bought, where they have built their businesses, or have retired to, or where they run their farms.

I did not secure this debate because of any angst with the Environment Agency. I can see an officer here from the Environment Agency; we have met on several occasions. The agency has dealt with the matter absolutely transparently in an up-front way and with a great deal of sensitivity and understanding. We are talking about people’s lives, businesses and properties, and I pay due credit to it. However, we have now hit an impasse and we need Ministers to start looking at the policy implications.

If the problem exists in Thurnham, which is a small part of Lancashire—obviously dear to me as part of my constituency, and even more dear to the people who have built their lives and businesses there—it must exist across the piece. It cannot be right for any Government to take a 30 or 50-year view that somehow, because it is mainly agricultural land, it will be worth less than it is today. If people are willing to try to find a vehicle to help themselves and to join with the Government in maintaining the sea defences, it cannot be impossible to find the time, effort and brains to provide them with a little extra help.

I will be delighted to hear the Minister’s comments about those three points. I understand that he cannot say yes, but if he could stand up and say that Thurnham will be protected for the next 100 years, I would be more than grateful. I understand his position. He might need to take the issues away, but Thurnham in Lancashire is willing to help and to offer ideas. It desperately wants to keep the livelihoods of people who have farmed there for generations. Generations of family life have gone into that particular area, and they simply want a future for themselves, their children and the people of Lancashire, and to keep a beautiful part of Lancashire safe from the sea.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I want to thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) for giving us the opportunity to explore the issues. I also thank him for the way in which he has approached the subject. It would be too easy for a constituency MP to come here and say, “There’s a problem. What are you doing about it, Government?” He is doing that to a certain extent, but he is also saying that the people in the communities that he represents are very open to being a part of the solution and to working in partnership with the Government and the Environment Agency to achieve that. I welcome the role that he has played in bringing the sides together and ensuring that we have a helpful way forward, and I really mean that.

As a Member of Parliament representing a coastal constituency, I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about in terms of discussions on managing the coastline for the future. I represent, among many other communities, the village of Boscastle, where, as the hon. Gentleman might remember, there was a horrendous flood in 2004, which also affected communities in Crackington Haven and Canworthy Water. The issues of flooding are foremost in my mind both as a constituency MP and as a Minister with new responsibilities, which I am trying to carry out to the best of my ability.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware—in fact, he pointed to this—of the national scale of the challenge that we face on flood management. In England, one in six properties is at risk of flooding. By area, 11% of the country benefits from flood defences, including some of our most important commercial and economic centres. This includes 1.3 million hectares of agricultural land—a point that the hon. Gentleman made. The majority of the most versatile and productive farmland in England is in flood risk areas. The soil is often productive because it is in a river catchment, and it is very fertile, but it is intrinsically vulnerable to flooding.

Flood management supports the Government’s primary objective to deliver economic growth and build a stronger economy, and it remains a top priority for the Department. The Secretary of State and my predecessor have both been very clear about that commitment. Proof of our commitment to flood management can be seen in the announcement this summer on long-term capital settlement to improve flood management infrastructure. This announcement set out a record level of capital investment of more than £2.3 billion in the six years to 2021.

However, we are not only increasing capital expenditure; we are providing an above-inflation increase of £5 million for the Environment Agency’s flood maintenance work in 2015-16. That is very important for schemes such as the hon. Gentleman’s, which have been there for some time, and we need to maintain them for the next few decades. As he has outlined, there is a potential plan, but we cannot guarantee that beyond 30 years. That is not to say that we will walk away after 30 years, but we will come back to such issues as I continue my speech. Although we have made significant commitments, I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the need to contain public expenditure. Central Government funding is simply not sufficient to pay for everything that would be worth while to some degree in flood management. As a result, there will continue to be stiff competition for Government funding, and we must ensure that we get the best value for money for the taxpayers’ investment.

The Environment Agency’s capital programme currently provides an average of at least £8 of benefits in damages avoided for every pound invested in construction of defences. However, the benefits realised are in fact even greater. Once the capital has been spent on construction, the routine maintenance of those defences can provide an even higher rate of return. The agency estimates an average benefit-cost ratio of 14 to 1 for its asset maintenance programme.

It is no longer the case that the Government fund only the cream of projects with the very best benefit-cost ratios, while leaving other worthwhile projects with nothing. In 2011, we introduced partnership funding to ensure that a fair portion of DEFRA funding can be made available for any worthwhile improvement scheme. That inevitably means that not all Government-funded schemes are fully funded. The new approach ensures that investment in flood management is not constrained by what the Government alone can afford, thereby increasing certainty and transparency on the level of DEFRA funding for projects, leveraging further investment towards worthwhile projects, allowing greater local ownership and choice, and encouraging more cost-effective solutions. That is just the approach that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are keen to see.

So far, partnership funding has brought forward up to £148 million in external funding over the four years to 2015, compared with £13 million during the previous three years. That huge increase in match funding is helping those projects, which were perhaps slightly less attractive initially, into development.

Early indications suggest that up to 25% more schemes will go ahead in the coming years than if project costs were met by central Government alone. That is relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s case because a partnership approach is clearly needed to manage the flood risk in such areas. The work of the Environment Agency and other risk-management authorities in the shoreline management plan has highlighted that issue. Further hydraulic modelling and more detailed economic appraisal commissioned by the agency has clarified the fact that the most effective option is not managed realignment but maintaining the existing line of defences for as long as it is feasible to do so. We are then back to the cost of doing that beyond the 30-year period.

The defences will eventually need to be rebuilt. They can be patched for only so long, and it seems unlikely that central Government funding will be able to meet the full cost of those projects. The Environment Agency has told me that it estimates that the defences will need to be rebuilt at the end of that period. In the meantime, I understand that the agency’s recommended policy is to continue to maintain the defences, subject to the availability of funding.

I have already explained the priority the Government place on flood management and the resources they have secured to demonstrate that commitment. However, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the funding situation will be in 30 years’ time. I have highlighted the competition that already exists for that funding. The geography of the area means that, although the maintenance and renewal of the defences is economic, the case for investment to improve the defences may not be so great as in some other areas, including areas elsewhere in his constituency that, as he points out, are about to receive significant investment. In such situations, the community cannot assume that the taxpayer will guarantee the full cost of maintaining and improving the defences, so there will need to be a partnership. Any local arrangements that reduce the cost of maintaining and improving the defences, or raise contributions from other sources, will help to deliver that.

The Environment Agency is undertaking local discussions on how best to manage flood risk, including the residual risks if flooding does occur. I ask only that the hon. Gentleman encourages all interests to work together, as he is clearly doing.

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a number of solutions suggested by the community. His first question was on why areas are considered separately. Bluntly, it is because there are different risks in different areas. Some flood risks are linked to river catchments, and some are connected to topography and its interaction with the sea, so there are a number of solutions for different areas. Cost-benefit ratios have to be considered in relation to the number of families and homes at risk. All of those things are considered alongside each other, so they are not held entirely in isolation. We have to consider individual schemes. In Thurnham, of course, there is an existing defence, which highlights the fact that we are looking at a particular catchment in relative isolation.

There are still many internal drainage boards doing great work across the country. They are established and have set procedures and set ways of bringing in the revenue they need to carry out the work that they want to do. We are very supportive of projects and innovation, so we have allowed seven pilots to proceed in which the maintenance of watercourses will be considered. The internal drainage boards and farmers are keen on that, and we will look at how those pilots go.

The hon. Gentleman’s constituency has a coastal situation. There may be a solution that we can move towards, although we will have to consider how that model might work in his case. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has previously said that he is happy for there to be new internal drainage boards if needed, so long as we are sure that they fit the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.

On the “floating fund” that the hon. Gentleman excellently outlines, it would be positive to see the community taking steps to prepare for what might happen in 30 years’ time. He has asked me to contact colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to consider what might be the best mechanism to achieve that, and I am happy to do so because we want to overcome any barriers to the local community starting that fund so that the contributions can begin to be built up ready for such an eventuality.

I will continue to ensure that flood management remains a priority and that Government resources are used to the best possible effect. We will continue to bear down on costs and to press the Environment Agency and other risk management authorities to look for better ways of working within available budgets. That will, however, need to be in partnership with local communities, such as those that the hon. Gentleman so ably represents today.

DEFRA is working to remove unnecessary burdens that might discourage farmers and landowners who want to undertake their own maintenance, and there may well be other approaches, too. On 14 October we launched seven watercourse maintenance pilots, and we will consider whether they achieve the outcomes hoped for by the IDBs in those areas. One of those pilots is in the Alt Crossens area of Lancashire, which is particularly relevant to the hon. Gentleman. He may wish to look at what is happening there.

Nationally, the Environment Agency is working with the National Farmers Union and other partners to improve communications and guidance for farmers who wish to undertake their own maintenance. Although I am focusing on those challenges, I do not underplay what is being achieved now and what could be achieved in future both in rural and urban areas. The agency is currently maintaining more than 97% of flood defence assets in high-risk areas in the required condition. Those defences help to protect more than 1.6 million properties and the vast majority of the most productive and versatile agricultural land.

Capital projects in the DEFRA-funded national programme completed in the past two years have provided improved flood protection to more than 150,000 hectares of farmland, as well as improving protection for more than 100,000 households. Protecting households and farmland from the risk of flooding underpins the Government’s priorities of delivering economic growth and building a stronger economy, and I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to deliver that.

North Liverpool Community Justice Centre

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

16:27

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.

When the North Liverpool community justice centre was opened in 2005, it was designed to be an innovative court and community resource, learning from the Red Hook community justice centre in New York. The centre serves the deprived area of north Liverpool, including Kirkdale, Anfield, Everton and County. The area has strong communities that face severe challenges, and there are many vulnerable people. Half the children in Kirkdale live in poverty. Male life expectancy is 72, which is 13 years less than in Kensington and Chelsea; women’s life expectancy is 76, which is 14 years less than in Kensington and Chelsea.

North Liverpool community justice centre has pioneered new approaches to offending. Restorative justice, conditional cautions and judicial oversight are distinguishing features of the centre’s work. They enable the court to consider individual circumstances, to relate crimes to those who have suffered from them and to consider the impact on the community. Key criminal justice agencies, including the police, probation, Crown Prosecution Service and youth offending teams, are co-located in the centre.

16:28

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

16:55

On resuming—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We will gently get under way again. We were very much enjoying Mrs Louise Ellman’s speech.

[Mrs Ellman]

Thank you, Mr Streeter. The co-location of key criminal justice agencies in the centre—the police, probation, Crown Prosecution Service and youth offending teams—is an important part of its approach, but there is more. Crucial support services—dealing with, for example, drugs, debt, financial problems generally, victim and witness support and antisocial behaviour—all working together are critical, as is vital family support. It is a uniquely holistic service.

The centre has been privileged to be served by two outstanding judges with their colleagues—his honour Judge Fletcher, and from December 2012, Judge Clancy. The writing has been on the wall for some time, before the Government’s hasty consultation on closure, which took place in six rushed weeks over the summer recess. The answer to my parliamentary question about the issue on 9 September showed that the centre’s fate was sealed, and the Government have now announced that it is to close.

The reasoning on which the closure is based fails in two fundamental respects. The Government’s key argument is that the cost of the centre does not justify its continuation. First, the Government’s claim that it has failed to address crime successfully is deeply flawed. Crime rates in north Liverpool, which is the area covered by the centre, fell by 7.2% between 2005 and 2010—much more than elsewhere in Liverpool, and much more than elsewhere across the country. It must be remembered that the centre hears a high proportion of serious crimes. Some 88.1% of cases involve violence against the person, while the national average for cases of that sort is 47.8%. That makes its success even more notable. Its important work in addressing antisocial behaviour—a demand of the local community to address that—is simply ignored in the assessment. That work is vital to the community, yet it does not feature in the judgment on the centre’s future.

Secondly, and inexplicably, there has been no assessment of the centre’s key aim of conducting preventive work and supporting the community through its inter-agency approach. That failure is incomprehensible, as prevention of crime and supporting the community was a major objective of the centre from the very beginning. Its outstanding work on victim and witness support has resulted in, for example, a 90% to 100% successful conviction rate in cases of domestic violence. However, that outstanding work has been ignored, and I understand that with the centre’s closure, the person who has been doing that work—someone who has received national awards for their success—will cease doing it.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

As we would normally expect, my hon. Friend is making a very powerful argument on her constituents’ behalf. However, the justice centre also serves constituents in my constituency, and the closure proves the point that the Government understand the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. The Merseyside police and crime commissioner, Jane Kennedy, has described the proposals as “unnecessary vandalism”, and she has suggested that such a cut would make the job of our police force

“more difficult as the reforming work with prolific offenders will lose its focus”.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we will see reoffending rates rising because of the decision?

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He makes very important points, and his comments have also been made by the mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson.

The centre conducts excellent work with young people in schools—it has been involved with 18 schools in the local area—and it works with colleges such as Rotunda college, helping to build the confidence of young people, yet that work is disregarded. Innovative links with mental health services make it a specialist centre, yet that work is simply cast aside. Many offenders suffer mental health problems that need to be addressed. The centre has been doing valuable work in that regard, yet even that is not worthy of assessment. Excellent rehabilitation projects such as the Turnaround project, supporting women, are considered to be unimportant. When I visited that project, I realised how important it was and how much those participating in the project valued it.

The crucial work of the citizens advice bureau, giving vital practical support to vulnerable adults and the community as a whole, is not considered worthy of consideration. The CAB is situated in the centre, and I understand that it will close when the work of the centre comes to an end. That will be a grave loss for the whole community; yet again, it has not been considered.

The failure to assess a key part of the centre’s remit is unacceptable. The Government even have the gall to criticise the centre for reducing its community involvement. That is hardly surprising when the Government themselves have cut funding so much that the community engagement team have been disbanded. The manager left last year and has not been replaced; the deputy is on long-term sick leave; and in the past three months the centre manager and district manager have gone.

What is to happen to these vital services? What assurance can the Minister give me? The North Liverpool community justice centre provides an important facility for the people of north Liverpool. It has a dedicated staff, committed to the local community. Its budget was cut dramatically, from £1.8 million a year in 2005 to £1.3 million a year in 2012, and a further £300,000 reduction was planned.

According to the people I represent, the centre has made a real difference to their lives. Yes, the centre is primarily about the court and reducing offending and it has achieved that, but it is also about working with the local community in this very deprived area, building links and developing community strengths, and people in the community value that. However, the assessment on which the decision to close is based ignores that vital preventive community work and dismisses the significant reduction in crime in the area.

[Steve Rotheram]

rose—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

A short intervention from Steve Rotheram.

[Steve Rotheram]

Once again, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, and she is very generous about giving way. Does she agree with me that the decision to make the announcement on the cusp of the parliamentary recess has meant that the ability to scrutinise the decision fully has not been afforded to local agencies and people who want to keep the centre open?

[Mrs Ellman]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. The consultation was carried out during the parliamentary recess. It was rushed. Many people did not have the opportunity to make a response, and many people did not realise that it was in fact taking place. It seems a very curious time in which to carry out a consultation on something as serious as this.

I am convinced that the decision is based on financial considerations, taking advantage of the break in the centre’s lease. We are told that the work will transfer to another court. Will that indeed be the case? What will fill the gap in terms of reducing crime, undertaking vital preventive work and supporting this resilient but deprived community? I hope that the Minister today can provide the answers.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister responds, it might be helpful to know that the sitting must end by 5.27 pm.

17:04

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

It is a pleasure that for my first speech in the Palace of Westminster as a newly appointed Justice Minister, I am serving under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this very important debate on the North Liverpool community justice centre. In her speech, she made a number of comments, and I hope that by the time I have finished my speech, I will have allayed some of the concerns that she and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) have expressed.

The decision to close the centre was an important one, based on the hard truth that the local drop in work load and the high cost of running what is a single courtroom centre have made it untenable. Following the public consultation on the centre’s future, I announced in a written ministerial statement last week the decision to close the centre. Currently, it is planned that the last sitting day will be Friday 28 March 2014. To keep the centre running would cost almost £1 million a year, and there is no evidence that that would be money well spent in terms of the results that it achieves compared with other courts.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not take the decision to close the centre lightly. He did so after a detailed analysis of the centre’s work and of all the points raised in the consultation responses. The consultation did not identify any single operational or efficiency reason why the centre should not close.

I stress that we are committed to continuing to provide court users in north Liverpool with effective access to justice, while seeking ways to do so at a lower cost and alongside our efforts to improve the efficiency of the justice system as a whole. In transferring the majority of the centre’s work load to Sefton magistrates court, we have been clear that the principles of the centre will be maintained and at a court that has modern facilities and a reputation for innovation.

The North Liverpool community justice centre was established in 2005 as a court and community resource, with criminal justice agencies co-located with other third sector services in a dedicated building. The centre serves an area with a population of about 60,000 people in the north end of the city of Liverpool. The original intention was to provide an intensive approach to the crimes affecting the community at a very local level for both adult and youth cases. When it was launched in 2005, the centre’s objectives included the provision of community justice in a deprived area of Merseyside and, through that, a material reduction in reoffending levels through the adoption of innovative approaches to the handling of offenders and very close cross-agency working with both public and third sector organisations.

There is no doubt that the centre rapidly built a good reputation, both locally and internationally, for developing a new approach to court-based problem solving for offenders. However, following an evaluation published in 2012, it is equally clear that the success of the centre in terms of results was at best mixed. There was no empirical evidence to show that the centre was any more successful at reducing reoffending levels than a mainstream magistrates court.

As a result, and given the financial climate, the then ministerial team questioned the value for taxpayers’ money that the centre provided and concluded that it should continue as a court for up to two years, but with a view to increasing its work load and remit. That was vital when the centre’s own catchment area work load was falling significantly, in line with that of other magistrates courts. The increase in work load has been achieved only to a limited extent, with the transfer of mental health cases from a wider catchment area to the centre. As a result, the number of cases heard at the centre has increased during the past six months. For the 12-month period to March of this year, the centre’s courtroom utilisation rate stood at 55%. Between April and July of this year, that increased to an average of 71% through the hearing of mental health cases. However, despite that increase, the actual work load in volume terms remains relatively low.

[Steve Rotheram]

According to “Doing justice locally: the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre”, a report published by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, on page 97:

“As a result of these innovations”—

of the centre—

“our assessment is that criminal justice is speedier, fairer, more efficient, more community oriented, more holistic than the traditional court model”.

Does the Minister agree?

[Mr Vara]

As I shall come on to say, Sefton magistrates court offers a number of the services that are provided at the centre. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside referred to various co-located agencies, and I assure her that Sefton magistrates court has probation services, a citizens advice bureau and victim and witness support services, among others. The services that are being provided are to be relocated 1.8 miles away to another centre, which will provide the same level of service. I will refer later to the extent that any difference is required.

As I was saying, despite the increase in utilisation, the work load in volume terms remains relatively low and would continue to be so as a single courtroom site. For example, since April the centre has dealt with an average of 168 cases a month, which compares unfavourably with Sefton magistrates court, where the majority of cases will go. Over the same period, Sefton dealt with 467 cases a month. Due to the limited cell capacity at the centre, it is not feasible to transfer in any more custody work to increase utilisation.

A key driver in the decision to close the centre was the fact that there are real limitations to the volume of cases it can deal with as a single courtroom site, and it is three times more expensive than other courts. Furthermore, it is not more successful at reducing reoffending than cheaper courts, so it simply cannot be seen to represent good value for money.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Minister claims that the centre is not more successful, but that is not the information that has been provided to us—I will get the report and dig the relevant section out. The Deputy Prime Minister, who talked about prisons being “colleges of crime”, and the Prime Minister, who talked about a “rehabilitation revolution”, should have been looking at the centre as a model to take to other areas. What will it cost the Exchequer to send the prolific reoffenders that the centre deals with properly back to prison, because they will no longer be benefiting from the innovative approaches of the North Liverpool justice centre?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman wants hypothetical answers for the future, but I am not delving into the realms of the future. I will, however, look at the facts as they are—as we have them—and if he disagrees with them, I am happy to give him the sources of my information. I repeat that the services provided at the centre will not be affected in any way—they will only be at a different location, some two miles away, nothing more.

[Mrs Ellman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

I would like to make a little progress, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady a little later.

The outcome of the consultation is to proceed with plans for closure of the centre, but the consultation response identified two areas in which the original proposals should be revised: youth and educational welfare cases. We have listened to those views and revised the proposal accordingly. Youth and education welfare cases will now be dealt with by the Liverpool youth court and the Liverpool and Knowsley magistrates court, respectively. Again, they are around two miles away—no more.

The points about work load and courtroom utilisation, plus the high running costs of the centre, were set out in the initial consultation document and in the consultation response document published last week. Moreover, the criminal justice agencies have reduced the number of people based at the centre, in line with the decrease in work and to meet their changing operational needs. For example, the Crown Prosecution Service has reduced its presence significantly and is now supporting the centre’s cases in the same way as it would in a mainstream court, as opposed to providing dedicated prosecutors and service levels, as it did previously.

As announced last week, the proposal to transfer the work from the centre to the nearby Sefton magistrates court will now proceed. Sefton has excellent modern facilities and good transport links. It has earned its own reputation for innovation, including a dedicated problem-solving court, and because of its efficient processes it was the first model court—subsequently, beacon office—in what was then known as Her Majesty’s Courts Service. Indeed, Sefton magistrates court’s problem-solving approach is built on the principles of the North Liverpool community justice centre, but is achieved at much lower cost. The principles and ethos of the centre will not be lost; they will be carried on at Sefton.

We have much for which to thank the centre. It pioneered a scheme to improve case management—to the centre’s credit, that scheme is now in place in all magistrates courts in England and Wales, reducing waiting times considerably, with the majority of cases completed within four weeks. The spirit of the North Liverpool community justice centre will move to Sefton, while allowing us to deliver cost savings of £630,000 per year.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister is being generous with his first speech here; I wish it were on a happier subject. Four weeks is an impressive turnaround time. What assurances will he give that it will be maintained when those cases are transferred to a much larger court?

[Mr Vara]

There is plenty of capacity at Sefton. It has five courts at the moment, and on any given day, two or three are being used. To the extent that more staff and the like are needed, provision for that has been taken on board. I am confident that the rate of processing cases will continue.

The Government published our consultation response on 22 October 2013. There were 18 responses. Five supported the proposal fully, three were neutral and 10 were opposed in some way to the closure of the centre, the choice of Sefton as the court to receive the centre’s work, or both.

The main issues recognised in support of closure were the financial benefit and the fact that the centre had moved away from its original community-focused role. Those opposed to closure focused on what they perceived as an adverse impact on the provision of justice within the north Liverpool community and raised concerns about youth and mental health cases at Sefton magistrates court. As I have said, we listened to those concerns and have acted accordingly.

Closure of the North Liverpool community justice centre will result in savings of £630,000 a year, whereas maintaining its operation would mean a continuation of costs of £930,000 a year, based on this year’s budget. The proposed savings outweigh any perceived benefits from continuing to operate the centre. That is particularly so given that I have been assured that the ethos and principles developed at the centre will live on at Sefton magistrates court, which itself has a reputation for innovative work, but will provide far greater value for money.

[Mrs Ellman]

Can the Minister give me an absolute assurance that the level of community support, particularly witness and victim support and the critical advice offered by the citizens advice bureau, and the centre’s holistic inter-agency approach will be continued in precisely the same way in those specific areas of north Liverpool?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady asks a good question, but she must be mindful of the fact that even at the north Liverpool centre, some of the other agencies were decreasing the support that they were giving. That is not to say that that may continue at Sefton, but I assure her that as we speak, other co-located agencies are present there, which I hope will continue to deliver services. However, it would be wrong for me to give a promise based on the declining number of people at the original centre.

As set out fully in the consultation response document published last week, it seems clear to me that the case for change is made and the decision taken is the right one. In conclusion—

[Steve Rotheram]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

No, I have concluded. I am aware that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside has visited Sefton magistrates court, but I understand it was not recently. I suggest that she and her colleagues visit as soon as possible. I like to think that the concerns that they have expressed today will be eased when they see what is actually on offer.

Question put and agreed to.

17:19

Sitting adjourned.