House of Commons

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 7 January 2015

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

1. What plans he has to reduce the number of London-based civil servants; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

As part of our long-term economic plan to save taxpayers money and to pay off the deficit, this Government have reduced the size of the civil service like for like by 21%—that is after adjusting for machinery of government changes. That has increased productivity and saved the taxpayers £2.4 billion last year alone compared with spending in 2009-10. The reduction includes a substantial cut in the number of London-based civil servants.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister for his positive answer. Given the pace and scale of devolution in the UK, is there not more scope for merging and moving London-based Departments?

[Mr Maude]

There is a lot of scope for us to get out of properties that we do not need and we have done that already. We have released a huge amount of property into the private sector where it can be used for the purpose of creating jobs, and there is more that we can and will do in that respect.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an outstanding example of civil service dispersal is the Department for International Development in East Kilbride. As long as Scotland remains in the UK, which I believe it will for a very long time, can such an example be emulated?

[Mr Maude]

I completely share the right hon. Gentleman’s hope about the United Kingdom, and wish to add my thanks and congratulations to the civil servants at DFID who do such a fantastic job in Scotland. There is scope for civil servants to work in many places other than central London and we will continue to pursue that.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Although transferring civil servants to other locations and downsizing are necessary, do they not make the whole business of managing the personnel in the civil service much more difficult? Will my right hon. Friend give full backing to the new chief executive of the civil service to strengthen the data held by the Cabinet Office on the skills and capabilities among civil servants so that we do not disrupt the training and career paths of the people on whom we depend?

[Mr Maude]

As my hon. Friend well knows, the quality of data in central Government that we inherited was not good. It is getting better, but there is much more that needs to be done. The new chief executive of the civil service, who has got off to a terrific start, has a lot of experience in the management of big, complex dispersed organisations from his business background and I am sure that he will want to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Minister not aware that there is a great deal of disillusionment in the civil service? Is it not our job in this House to support really good people with the highest level of skills coming into the civil service so that they are happy and motivated in their job? What will he do about morale in the civil service?

[Mr Maude]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to support the development and skills of civil servants and to provide them with rewarding jobs. Obviously, the purpose of the civil service is not to provide jobs but to serve the public. I am happy to tell him that morale in the civil service, as measured in the annual people survey, has held up very well—it has certainly not fallen since the last year that his Government were in office—despite the very considerable demands made on it and the downsizing to which I have referred.

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

Jobs are lost from rural communities under the shared services project, as has happened at Alnwick. Can we have a more determined cross-Government effort to relocate out of London work, such as archives, that could be done in rural communities?

[Mr Maude]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that in the Chamber before, and I completely understand his concern, particularly about the shared service staff in Alnwick. The machinery is not always as simple as it might be, but there is more that we can and should do to ensure that jobs are located in places where they can be undertaken efficiently and effectively with good results for the taxpayer and the citizen.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

2. What progress his Department has made on releasing outstanding documents relating to the miners dispute in 1984-85.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

The documents, other than sensitive or personal papers, were released in the usual way under the law that was passed by the previous Government.

[Ian Lavery]

What have this Government got to hide with regard to the miners strike, because only 30 out of 500 digitised documents relating to the strike were released last week? There was no mention of Orgreave, but there was an admission that the Government tapped National Union of Mineworkers members’ phones. When will the documents that have not been released be released, and will they be released unredacted?

[Mr Maude]

I really have nothing to add to what I have already said and what has been said on previous occasions. The same considerations were applied to these papers as apply to the release of Government papers generally, which means that those that are personal or sensitive are not released in the normal time scales. I know that there are very strong feelings about this. I was a Member of Parliament for a coal mining constituency during the mining strike, and the mining community was deeply divided during that period. I am well aware of the sensitivities of that period.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend note that the appetite for everything to be disclosed is shared by some Government Members, most particularly because I can recall the unlawful killing of the taxi driver David Wilkie and the recent revelations from the former right hon. Member for Pontypridd that following the event a number of papers at the NUM offices in south Wales were deliberately burnt and destroyed?

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am a strong supporter of transparency and am proud of what this Government have done to make us the most transparent Government in the world. There is a concern, and that was a very bitter period in our nation’s life, but the normal considerations about the protection of personal papers must be followed in this case as in others.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is not the whole subject of these papers embarrassing to the Government and to the Minister? At the beginning we argued that 75 pits were to be closed, and the Thatcher Government said at the time that there were only 20. They lied continually in the House of Commons, repeating that figure, and then the Cabinet papers revealed that it was 75 after all and that the miners had been right. He is embarrassed to reveal other papers simply because that Government decided to attack the NUM and Britain’s manufacturing base, and that has been carried on by the Tories ever since.

[Mr Maude]

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s case would be stronger if at that time he had made the case for the National Union of Mineworkers to have a proper ballot of all its members so that they could decide whether they wanted to be brought out on strike, rather than being bullied and intimidated into it.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I was elected in the middle of the miners strike in 1984 and know exactly what happened: we were lied to by those in authority. They said that our pit, Tower colliery, was uneconomic. We kept it going because the miners put their own money into it for another 10 years. There are lots of things that have not yet been revealed publicly, and I think that it is high time the truth came out.

[Mr Maude]

As I say, the papers have been released, subject to the normal considerations about protecting sensitive and personal documents. Again, I do not recollect—the right hon. Lady and I were elected on the same day and were Back-Bench Members of Parliament during that period—hearing her voice being raised to support a proper ballot of mineworkers on whether they wanted to go on strike at all.

[Mr Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East) (Lab)]

Why have not all the papers and memos between the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, and the chief constables and magistrates courts been published?

[Mr Maude]

I can only repeat what I have said already: the papers have been released, subject to the normal considerations about protecting sensitive and personal documents, with the same considerations that are applied to all Government papers.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the findings of the report from the National Audit Office entitled “Follow-up: grants to the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation”, HC 840.

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I welcome the NAO report into the matter, which found that there were no issues with Cabinet Office processes and, as a result, did not make any recommendations. Therefore, I do not feel that there are any wider implications for the policies of my Department.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister clearly must have read a different version of the report. Voluntary sector organisations in my constituency tell me that they are struggling to maintain vital services for the most vulnerable as a result of this Government’s polices, yet the NAO report shows that millions of pounds of public money was wasted on failing projects as a direct result of prime ministerial interference and ministerial decisions taken despite

“concerns raised about financial sustainability and weak performance”.

Is not that truly shocking? When other charities are struggling to survive, how does the Minister justify it?

[Mr Wilson]

I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I disagree that we should avoid funding new and innovative approaches, despite the risks that come with doing so. I note that according to the Charity Commission, the number of registered charities went up from 162,000 to 164,000 between 2010 and 2014, and the total income of all registered charities has grown from £54 billion to £64 billion in the same period.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

One of the lessons for us all to learn is the transformative potential of social enterprises encouraged by the Treasury—social enterprises such as the Cinnamon Network, which does everything from running food banks to helping people when they are released from prison. Social enterprises have the potential to make a real change in our society.

[Mr Wilson]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Supporting social enterprises has been a huge priority for this Government, which is why in the autumn statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased social investment tax relief, raising the cap to £5 million. We are the party of small business, but we are also the party of social enterprises.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain why his Department, which is supposed to be responsible for Government transparency, has refused to release any minutes or attendance lists of meetings between his advisers, the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation, and why over six months he has refused to answer 76 parliamentary questions on the subject? Some £3 million were wasted, there were two damning reports from the National Audit Office, thousands of charities are in crisis, and the only beneficiary from the big society has been a Tory donor’s bank account. Is it any wonder that the Minister does not want to answer questions about it?

[Mr Wilson]

As the hon. Lady knows, it has long been the convention in this and previous Administrations that the minutes of ministerial meetings are not routinely released, but all the information pertinent to this issue was shared with the NAO in the course of its investigations. As for the Tory party donors that she mentioned, it is not the case that any of the trustees gained financially from the Cabinet Office funding. The matter has been investigated by the Charities Commission and the NAO twice, and which both found no evidence of what she suggests. Furthermore, the trustees of the charities have invested significant personal resources into them.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the use of trade union facility time by civil servants; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

At the time of the last general election there was no proper monitoring of trade union facility time in government. We now have controls in place that have saved taxpayers £25 million in the last rolling year to date, and have reduced the number of taxpayer-funded full-time union officials in central Government from 200 in May 2010 to fewer than 10 now.

[Mr Robathan]

I am sure everybody in the House believes that employees in whatever sector should be given both the right and the opportunity to be properly represented with their employers, be it by trades unions or others, but the majority of my constituents and, I suspect, the majority of people in this country would still be quite shocked and unhappy to discover that we are still funding public servants, who should be working for the public service, to support trade union activity that has nothing whatever to do with what they are paid for. Will my right hon. Friend bear down on the remaining members given facility time in the public service?

[Mr Maude]

As I say, the amount of facility time has been reduced significantly. There is a perfectly proper use of facility time for trade union duties in resolving grievances and dealing with disputes locally and effectively, and we support that, but there was also a huge amount of unmonitored and out-of-control, paid-for activity supporting trade unions, including in many cases paying for civil servants to attend seaside conferences of trade unions at the taxpayers’ expense, and that seemed to us to be wrong.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

When he carried out an assessment, did the Minister consider speaking to Opposition Members who have experience of being employed under facility time arrangements, where we spent the vast majority of our time helping management to manage the service we were working in, particularly when management was faced with cuts, redundancies and redeployment forced on it by central Government?

[Mr Maude]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the proper use of a trade union presence and the use of facility time on trade union duties, as defined by law, can be very beneficial, and we support it, but what was going on went way, way beyond that. It was completely out of control, and it was quite right that we should bear down on it by first monitoring it and then reducing it. We have now reduced the amount of money spent on it to less than 0.1% of the pay bill in the civil service, and that was quite right.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

5. What future plans he has for the National Citizen Service in Colne Valley.

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

Next year will again see NCS programmes taking place in every local authority across England. I know that my hon. Friend has seen at first hand the transformative effect that the NCS has had on participants in and around Colne Valley, where about 500 young people took part in it last year. The NCS will continue to grow this year, and I urge all MPs to visit a programme near them.

[Jason McCartney]

As the Minister said, I saw at first hand the benefits of the NCS when last year I attended a tea party with Moor End academy students at Astley Grange nursing and care home that brought together many different generations and people from different ethnic backgrounds. Does he agree that the NCS has also been very effective in promoting community cohesion?

[Mr Wilson]

Yes. Independent evaluations of the NCS have shown that participants feel more positive about people from different backgrounds and have a greater sense of responsibility to their community. The last evaluation also demonstrated that parents believed their children had a better understanding of their local community after taking part.

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

Will the Minister agree to hold discussions with relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to see whether there would be an appetite for extending the National Citizen Service there?

[Mr Wilson]

Of course we would welcome discussions. This is a devolved matter and it will be for local devolved Assemblies to make a decision on it. We are already pursuing increased numbers in Wales and having discussions there, so further discussions with other countries, including Scotland, would be welcome.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

6. What future plans he has to achieve efficiency and reform savings by digitising Government services.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

As part of our long-term economic plan, we are moving a first wave of 25 public services online. Our future plans are to secure further savings by digitising more public services and moving to a “Government as a platform” model, building common digital infrastructure for services that improves the user experience and saves money by building common services only once.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

How are the Government working with the private sector and voluntary sector in Thurrock and Basildon to ensure that my constituents have the relevant training to be able to access these services?

[Mr Maude]

Britain already has a high level of digital inclusion, and it is rising, but we are determined to go further and get more people online. We are working closely with almost 70 organisations from the private and voluntary sectors that are signed up to our digital inclusion charter. I have no details of exactly what is going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I would happily share them with him.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Digitising public services creates vast amounts of data that can be used further to improve services and accountability, transforming the relationship between citizens and Government—a subject dear to your heart, Mr Speaker. However, each Government Department has a different approach to handling data, and there is total chaos among officials and Ministers about what is allowed, with, consequently, deep distrust among the public. In government, we will instigate a review to set out a coherent and ethical approach to data sharing. Will the Minister join us in committing to the principle that people own their own data and it is for them to say what happens to it?

[Mr Maude]

I am happy to welcome the hon. Lady to the movement for open data. Under the coalition, the UK Government have become the world leader in open data. There is more that can be done with sharing data, but it is very sensitive and difficult. We are determined not to make the mistake that her party made in government when it had a train wreck in trying to move data sharing too fast. We have a lot of ongoing work on this, and I would be very happy to share the thinking with her.

[Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

My responsibilities are for efficiency and reform, civil service issues, public sector industrial relations strategy, Government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.

[Douglas Carswell]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office stated in October 2010 that public bodies would be made more meaningfully accountable. Specifically, what new mechanisms has he put in place to make public bodies more meaningfully accountable to this House and, indeed, to the public?

[Mr Maude]

Our concern with public body reform has always been to ensure that accountability is improved. A number of functions have been brought within Government to make them directly accountable to this House through Ministers. A number of other activities have been discontinued completely. The number of public bodies has been reduced by about a third. When we came into office, there were no data about the actual number of public bodies. In addition to increasing accountability, we have also saved the taxpayer very considerable amounts of money.

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

T3. Given the recent cyber-attacks on the United States, what strategies are the Department and the Government putting in place to protect Britain and Britain’s corporations from cyber-terrorism?

[Mr Maude]

This is a very real and live concern. Our cyber-security strategy—I reported to the House on its third year of operation in the last month of the year—has been backed with £860 million of new money. We take this very seriously, but much more will need to be done because the threats are moving on very quickly, as well as the need for the defences.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In February 2010, when he was shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to complain that in asking Treasury officials to cost Conservative party policy, Labour had

“compromised the impartiality of the Civil Service and used the taxpayer funded service for political attacks.”

What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about special advisers using civil servants to propagate political smears and fiction this week, and has he redrafted his letter to the Cabinet Secretary?

[Mr Maude]

I am confident that the permanent secretary to the Treasury, who was the permanent secretary to the Treasury at that time, has followed exactly the same practice as he would have done then.

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

T4. Does my hon. Friend agree with Lord Winston that Labour’s mansion tax would have a devastating impact on the ability of charities to raise money from legacy giving?

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

Yes, I do. This real concern is shared by many in the sector. Most notably, the Wellcome Trust has voiced fears of the impact it would have on legacy giving. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations reckons that 10,000 charities get legacies each year, to a value of about £2 billion. Lord Winston, who is a widely respected Labour peer, has been joined by Charles Clarke, the former Labour Home Secretary. As they have both added their voices, I hope that the shadow Chancellor will rethink this wrong-headed policy.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T2. Earlier in this Parliament, Ministers flirted with the possibility of a politicised senior civil service. That danger seems to have receded, but will the Minister now reaffirm a Government commitment to the historic principle of political impartiality in the civil service, specifically in matters relating to the European Union?

[Mr Maude]

I did not catch much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I will happily look at the transcript and come back to him with a detailed reply.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a commentary on the amount of noise. Let us have a bit of order for Mr Adam Holloway.

[Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

T5. Will the Minister update us on the timing of the publication of the Chilcot report?

[Mr Maude]

I cannot really add to what Sir John Chilcot has said. That independent inquiry is under the control of the inquiry members. I can say that we have responded to every request for extra resources; none has been turned down. I would just add that if the previous Government had launched the inquiry at the time it was requested, it could have been finished and could have reported long ago.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T8. In the debate on food banks just before Christmas, the Minister for Civil Society kept saying that the reasons for food bank use were complex and overlapping. He would not go beyond that. Will he join me in condemning the Tory councillor who said that the only people who use food banks are those with drug, alcohol and mental health problems, and will he acknowledge that the top two reasons for food bank use are due to the failings of this Government’s welfare system?

[Mr Rob Wilson]

I think the thing to say about food banks is that I and Government Members commend Britain’s very strong tradition of volunteering and community action, which sees people coming together to support those in need. Food banks are just one example that I come across on a daily basis.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 January.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure the whole House will want to join me in condemning the barbaric attack this morning on an office of a magazine in Paris, in which it is reported that 10 or more people may have been killed. While details are still unclear, I know that this House and this country stand united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism, and we stand squarely for free speech and democracy. These people will never be able to take us off those values.

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

[Martin Horwood]

I saw the problems at Gloucestershire hospitals last week at first hand after an elderly relative phoned 111 and we ended up waiting more than four hours for her to see a doctor in Cheltenham A and E. Then she was promptly discharged. The local trust seems to be blaming patients for making bad choices, but will the Prime Minister find out why so many 111 calls end in A and E, why trusts such as ours route so many unplanned admissions through A and E and why emergency doctors cannot be provided at night in Cheltenham, all of which seems calculated to make normal winter pressures worse?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the last quarter, the NHS has faced some unprecedented challenges. There have been more than 5.5 million people going to accident and emergency units, which is an increase of a quarter of a million on the previous year. Gloucestershire has had £3.6 million of the £700 million of winter pressure money that we have produced, and it should use that money to make sure it provides the best possible service it can.

On the NHS 111 service, it is important to see what is actually happening. The number of people using it has almost doubled over the last year. Of those who use it, 27% say that had it not been there, they would have gone to accident and emergency, but in the event of using 111 only 7% are going. So I think it is a good service, but I am sure it can be further improved.

Recognising the pressure on the NHS, I am sure everyone in this House will want to say a thank you to our hard-working doctors and nurses and other hospital staff for all the work they do this winter.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in expressing horror and outrage about the unfolding events in Paris. We stand in solidarity with the people of France against this evil terrorist attack by people intent on attacking our democratic way of life and freedom of speech. We are united in our determination to defeat them.

Doctors, nurses and other NHS staff are doing a valiant job, but over 90,000 people in the last quarter waited on trolleys for more than four hours, at least 10 hospitals have declared major incident status in recent days, and one had to resort to Twitter to appeal for medical staff. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that our NHS is facing a crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

Our NHS is facing huge pressure this winter, particularly on its A and E units, but the point that it is important to make is this: the NHS is facing this winter with more doctors, more nurses and more money than it has ever had in its history. What is important is that we recognise the pressures that are there and put in place plans for the short term, the medium term and the long term, and that with the massive increase in the number of people going to A and E, any health system in the world would struggle to cope with some of this pressure.

[Edward Miliband]

In June 2011, this was the Prime Minister’s solemn promise:

“I refuse to go back to the days when people had to wait for hours on end to be seen in A&E…So let me be absolutely clear: we won’t.”

Will he now apologise to patients across the country for having broken that promise?

[The Prime Minister]

I deeply regret it when any patient does not get a good service, but let us be absolutely clear about the numbers of people accessing A and E. Today, compared with four years ago, over 2,500 more patients are seen within four years—within four hours compared with four years ago. That is what is happening. We knew there was pressure on our NHS, and that is why, over the last year, we have seen 1,800 more doctors in our hospitals, 4,700 more nurses in our hospitals and 2,500 more beds in our hospitals. There is more that we need to do, but let us recognise that the health service in every part of our United Kingdom faces these challenges. We must go on giving it the money, the resources and the people so that it goes on providing a great service.

[Edward Miliband]

As far as I can see, the Prime Minister is not apologising to patients; he is blaming the patients. The pressures on A and E are not just happening on his watch, but are a direct result of decisions he has taken. When he decided to close almost a quarter of walk-in centres, was it not blindingly obvious that if people could not go to a walk-in centre, it would have a big impact on A and E?

[The Prime Minister]

We have 1,000 more doctors in A and E, and we are spending £13 billion more on the NHS, when four years ago the shadow Health Secretary said that it would be irresponsible to spend more money. What is interesting is that here we are, question No. 3 on the NHS, and the Leader of the Opposition has no solutions to put forward. That only says to me that while the Government are interested in improving the NHS, he simply wants to use it as a political football.

[Edward Miliband]

This is about politics—it is the Prime Minister’s politics, and they have failed. No answer on walk-in centres, so let us try him on another decision he has made that has been a cause of the crisis. When he decided to reduce the availability of social care services, so that 300,000 fewer older people are getting the help they need, was it not blindingly obvious that if people could not get the care they needed at home, it would have a big impact on A and E?

[The Prime Minister]

Again, absolutely no solutions—presumably, if the right hon. Gentleman had any solutions, he would have implemented them in Wales. He raises the importance of social care, and I agree. That is why from 1 April we are putting £5 billion more into social care via the better care fund. Up until now, the Labour party has told us not to introduce the better care fund. I assume that it now supports that important investment.

[Edward Miliband]

There is one very simple solution: get rid of this useless Prime Minister. No answer on care for the elderly, so let us consider the next thing he did. When he decided to ignore the pleas of doctors, nurses and patients, and plough ahead with his damaging top-down reorganisation, was it not blindingly obvious that if £3 billion is diverted out of patient care, it will have a big impact on A and E?

[The Prime Minister]

Our changes have cut bureaucracy and saved £4.9 billion. That is why there are 9,000 more doctors, 3,000 more nurses, and 6 million more people getting in-patient appointments—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber from both sides of the House. The Prime Minister’s answers must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

You can see this as plain as you like: the Leader of the Opposition apparently said to the political editor of the BBC, “I want to weaponise the NHS.” That is what he said, and I think that is disgraceful. The NHS is not a weapon, it is a way we care for our families, it is a way we care for the elderly, it is a way we look after the frail. Perhaps when he gets to his feet he will deny that he said he wanted to “weaponise” the NHS—a disgusting thing to say.

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell the Prime Minister what is disgusting—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister’s answers must be heard. The Leader of the Opposition’s questions must be heard as well. It is very simple.

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell him what is disgusting—a Prime Minister who said that people could put their trust in him on the NHS. He has betrayed that trust. He is in denial about the crisis in the NHS. This is a crisis on his watch as a result of his decisions. That is why people know that if they want to get rid of the crisis in the NHS, they have to get rid of this Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

If ever we wanted proof that they want to use this issue as a political football, we have just seen it. If Labour has an answer to the NHS, can it explain why it cut the budget in Wales by 8%? That is where Labour is in charge. All parts of the United Kingdom face a health challenge, but the real risk to the NHS is the risk of unfunded spending commitments bringing chaos to our economy, which would wreck our NHS. That is the risk and that is why the choice at the election will be to stick with the people with a long-term plan, not a Labour party that would wreck our economy and wreck our NHS.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Q2. Does the Prime Minister agree with my constituent, who contacted me at the weekend asking to join us, who said that the only people fit to run our economy are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor? The surprise was that the gentleman was the ex-chairman of Ilford North Labour party.

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that that is the first of 4 million conversations my hon. Friend will be having at the coming election. It sounds like this one is going quite well. There is an important point here: there is no strong NHS without a strong economy. With our economy, we can see the deficit cut in half, 1.75 million more people in work and the fastest growth of any major economy in the west. That is the record, and that is what will enable us to fund our NHS, to fund our schools and to provide the public services our country needs.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

Q3. With patients being told to pretend that they are camping, the symbol of the Prime Minister’s NHS is of patients being treated in tents outside accident and emergency. When he promised a bare-knuckle fight against accident and emergency service closures, did he intend to mislead the electorate?

[The Prime Minister]

All our health services right across the United Kingdom face a challenge. Actually, the English NHS that I am responsible for is performing better than the Welsh NHS, the Scottish NHS and the NHS in Northern Ireland, but the facts are these: compared with four years ago there are 2,500 more people every day seeing a doctor or a nurse within four hours. Why is that happening? Because we put the money in; and when we put the money in, the shadow Health Secretary said it was irresponsible. Presumably that is why Labour cut the NHS in Wales.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir David Amess.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I thank the House for that reception, which more than compensates for my having been made neither a duke nor an earl.

Later today, the second edition of the booklet, “The Party of Opportunity” will be launched. Does my right hon. Friend agree with what the former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John Major, has written in the booklet, which is that national wealth eases poverty, pays for social care and creates jobs? That is exactly what this Conservative-led Government have been doing.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first duty of a Government is to produce a stable, strong and growing economy that can fund the defence and the public services we need. On this side of the House, we understand that. On the Opposition Benches, they have learnt absolutely nothing in the past four years. They would borrow and spend and tax, and put us back exactly in the position of crisis and chaos in which we found the country in 2010.

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

Q4. The one thing that was clear about the referendum in Scotland was the amount of young people getting involved, not just in voting but getting out there campaigning and being part of it. Is it not time that we got the rest of the country on board and got votes for 16 and 17-year-olds?

[The Prime Minister]

The referendum campaign in Scotland did switch a whole lot of people on to politics and political issues, because the question being asked was so important. We have said that we should respect the views of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament, and we will devolve powers on voting age. In this House, I am very happy for us to have a vote. Personally, I think the right age is 18, but I am very happy to listen to the debate, to listen to the arguments and to put them forward.

[Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)]

For more than 50 years, thalidomiders have been campaigning for justice, particularly from the German manufacturers Grünenthal. Now that more than 150 MPs have signed an open letter to the German Chancellor, would the Prime Minister add this to his busy agenda today so that we might get a decent and fair settlement for all concerned?

[The Prime Minister]

I have raised this issue on behalf of a constituent, not only through the European Parliament but with the German authorities, and I shall certainly reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman says.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Q5. The price of oil has now fallen to $50 a barrel. While this is good news for motorists, it is bad news for Scotland’s oil industry and thousands of workers. It comes just weeks after Nicola Sturgeon said we were on the verge of a second oil boom and after the independence White Paper said the price would be $113 a barrel. This is a serious issue—jobs depend on it—so will the Prime Minister agree to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), a cross-party delegation, industry leaders and workers to see what support can be provided?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on all three grounds. First, North sea oil is a vital industry for the UK and one of the biggest investors in our country, so we should do everything we can to help it. Secondly, and for that reason, we took steps in the autumn statement to improve the taxation regime for North sea oil. Thirdly, as we said during the referendum campaign, it makes the case that North sea oil is better off with the broad shoulders of the UK standing behind it, because we never know when the oil price is going to be more than $100 a barrel or, as it is today, around $50. It makes the case for the strength of the UK and the utterly misguided nature of the SNP, which thought it could base its entire budget on such a high oil price.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Q6. The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that youth unemployment in Crawley is at its lowest level since records began, but of course we need to do a lot more. What further policies are the Government pursuing to ensure that businesses in Crawley and across the country generate even more employment as part of our long-term economic plan?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. The youth claimant count in Crawley has fallen by 42% in the last year alone, and the long-term youth claimant count—long-term young unemployed people—is down by 71%. He asks what more we can do. We are cutting the jobs tax on small businesses and charities by £2,000; we are abolishing national insurance contributions for those who employ under-21s; we are extending the doubling of small business rate relief; we have cut corporation tax, including for small firms; and start-up loans are being offered right around the country, including to those in Crawley, who are taking them up. This Government can claim to be the most friendly to start-ups, entrepreneurs and small businesses this country has ever seen.

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

Q7. Throughout the Christmas period, NHS staff worked tirelessly to see as many patients as they could, but increased waiting times at GP surgeries have forced more and more people to use A and E. Why does the Prime Minister not accept that Labour’s plan to employ 8,000 additional GPs is desperately needed and would make a real difference to the lives of my constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

From what I have read over the past 24 hours, Labour’s plan is to tax people in London and spend all the money in Scotland. I look forward to hearing how he explains that to his constituents in Ealing. There is a serious point to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The health service has changed in Ealing: Hammersmith and Central Middlesex hospitals both have GP-led urgent care centres that are open 24 hours a day and are seeing more than 400 patients a day, 99% of whom are seen within four hours; and we also have the expansion of the A and E unit at Northwick Park hospital. We need to ensure that the 111 service is helping to spread the information so that people who need care know where they can best get it.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Q8. The Government have repeatedly highlighted the importance of northern Lincolnshire and the wider Humber area to the offshore renewables sector. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent announcement of the establishment of a national college for wind energy, a university technical college in Scunthorpe and further expansion of existing local training facilities cement the opportunities for local people to benefit from the industry, boost the local economy and highlight the importance of northern Lincolnshire to the northern powerhouse?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a real champion for north Lincolnshire and for Humberside in general. We are determined that this recovery is going to be different from previous recoveries and that we are going to see growth in jobs and investment right across our country. That is why he and others with me have been working hard to bring investment to the Humber, including of course the vital Siemens plant, and why we have seen employment go up and unemployment come down. Because of the local growth deals agreed in July, the Humber local enterprise partnership has over £100 million for local projects, which should create up to 9,000 jobs and allow more than 5,000 homes to be built, so we are determined to see recovery embedded right across the country.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Q9. I am proud of the NHS in the north-east, but not one hospital trust is meeting the Government’s own scaled back targets for treatment in A and E—not one—yet the Prime Minister prefers to focus on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, breaking it up for the benefit of his buddies and putting competition before care and profit before people. Does he really imagine we will trust him with our NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the hon. Lady what is actually happening in the NHS in Newcastle. Since 2010, there are 191 more doctors and 698 more nurses. Last week over 3,000 patients went to A and E, and all but 190 were seen within four hours. If getting rid of the bureaucracy in the NHS, which we did in England, was such a bad idea, why is the NHS in England performing better than other parts of the country that did not take those steps?

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Q10. The recent final report of the Alderley Park taskforce highlights how around 300 jobs have been brought to the site in the last 18 months, with a healthy pipeline of new businesses looking to locate there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this helps to highlight why the Government are right to put in extra growth deal funding to help further strengthen the life sciences sector in the north-west, which is vital?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has been a real champion for life sciences in general and for life sciences investment in the north-west of England, which is an absolutely crucial part of the improvement and expansion of that part of our country’s economy, and that obviously includes Alderley Park. The local growth deal announced last July is going to establish a £40 million joint life sciences fund across Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Warrington, which will support the sector right across the north-west. That will include Alderley Park. This is the first Government to have a proper life sciences strategy, because this is a vital industry for our country’s future.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Those of us who opposed the Iraq war, for very good reason, and many, many other people outside this place are very concerned about the inordinate delay in publishing the findings of the Chilcot report. May I please ask the Prime Minister: where did this bizarre notion that if it is not published before the end of February, we cannot see it until after the election come from? What about the month of March?

[The Prime Minister]

In many ways I share the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration: I would love the report to have come out already. Indeed, he and I voted together against the last Labour Government over and over again, saying, “Please can you get on and set up the independent inquiry that’s needed?” If they had got on and set up the independent inquiry, it would have been published, debated and dealt with by now, so I find it immensely frustrating, but it is not a matter for me. I am not able to order the publication of the report. It is independent: it is up to Sir John Chilcot when he publishes his report. He will make the decision, not me.

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

Q11. Youth unemployment in Skipton is down by over 70% since 2010. City growth deal funding for the Skipton flood alleviation scheme will unlock a further 500 jobs. Is there anything the Prime Minister can do to make that happen?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look very carefully at this, because, as my hon. Friend says, not only the claimant count but the long-term youth claimant count has fallen—it has fallen by 50% in his constituency in the last year alone. I know how much his constituents want to see work on the Skipton flood defence project, which is a very high priority for York, North Yorkshire and the East Riding local enterprise proposal. We will make an announcement about this in the coming weeks.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Q12. In Wigan recently, my local nurses granted a dying grandma’s fairly remarkable last wish when they wheeled her hospital bed into the car park so she could be reunited for one last time with her much loved horse, just hours before she died from cancer. Those brilliant nurses sum up everything that is great about our national health service, but in a recent poll only 4% of them said they thought the Prime Minister was doing a good job. Can he tell us why?

[The Prime Minister]

I am full of praise for nurses in Wigan. I think they work extremely hard to provide a good service. I particularly applaud the nurse in Wigan who chased the Health Secretary down the corridor and told him a thing or two about how to run the health service. If we are judged on our record, however, there are 9,000 more doctors and 3,300 more nurses in our NHS because we made the decision to protect the funding of the NHS, which Labour told us was irresponsible.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Q13. Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting the Perpetuus tidal energy centre, a public-private partnership that will, from the Isle of Wight, give the world its first grid-connected tidal array test facility? This will put the UK at the forefront of tidal energy technology, protect existing jobs and create several hundred new ones.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, because the UK is now the most attractive market in the world for investment in offshore wind and marine renewables. We want to maintain that world-leading position, harness the economic and environmental benefits it brings and see local centres of expertise. From what I can see, the Perpetuus tidal energy centre sounds exactly the sort of exciting initiative we should support.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Q14. Nearly half of all London ambulances called out to critical cases do not arrive within their target eight-minute response time. Is that what the Prime Minister had in mind when he told us that the NHS would be “safe in his hands”?

[The Prime Minister]

The NHS would not have been safe if we had followed Labour’s proposal to cut the NHS. We rejected that advice and put more money into it. The London ambulance service has launched a national and international recruitment campaign and has already hired 400 new members of staff. We are providing £15 million of extra money for the NHS ambulance service in London. That is why it met its target in 2013-14, attending over 460,000 patients with life-threatening illnesses. That is what is happening in our NHS because we made the decisions to reform the NHS, cut its bureaucracy and put the money in—decisions opposed by the Labour party.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Reverting to the subject of the Chilcot report, about which I have questioned the Prime Minister in the past, did my right hon. Friend note that our distinguished colleague Lord Hurd said in the House of Lords yesterday that it was an absolute disgrace that it had not been published—a view that I certainly hold? Since it is absolutely well known by the cognoscenti that the report was completed many months ago, who—if the Prime Minister is helpless on this subject—is blocking it? Is it the Cabinet Secretary or Sir John Chilcot, or is it the White House?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the Father of the House that I understand that the report is largely finished, but with every report such as this there is a process: we have to write to the people who are criticised and give them an opportunity to respond. This is now the process for all these reports, irrespective of which Government they are launched under. It is known as the Salmondisation process—although I am not quite sure why, as I do not think it has anything to do with the former First Minister of Scotland. It is not within my power to grant the publication of this report. It is independent and under Sir John Chilcot, and the process has to be finished—then the report will be published.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Q15. I ask the Prime Minister once again: will he apologise to all those who have suffered and continue to suffer in A and E departments across the country, due to his mismanagement of the national health service?

[The Prime Minister]

I could not have been clearer. I regret it when every single person who goes to hospital does not get the treatment they deserve, but our responsibility is to put in the money, which we are doing; to provide the extra staff, which is happening; to have a proper plan for joining up health and social care, which we are doing; and then to fund the Simon Stevens plan, which is the right long-term answer for our health service. People around the country will have been able to see that there is one part of this House of Commons working to improve our NHS for all its users, but that another part wants to “weaponise” the NHS—the most disgusting phrase I think I have heard in politics—and treat it like a political football. I know that they will reach the right conclusion.

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Home care workers do a fantastic job in caring for some of the most frail people in our society, yet more than 200,000 of them are not even paid the national minimum wage. Will the Prime Minister talk to the Chancellor about ensuring that HMRC properly pursues and prosecutes the cowboy care agencies that are exploiting those people?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is far more that we can do to prosecute and chase down organisations that do not pay their staff properly. That is why we are bringing into the Home Office organisations that can help to make that happen. Whether the organisation concerned is the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or, indeed, the National Crime Agency, all the powers are there to enable us to go after those who do not pay the minimum wage when they should.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

On Monday I listened to residents of Mendell Court, an extra care facility in Bromborough in my constituency, as they told me of their serious worries about social care. For the good of all who need care and all NHS patients, will the Prime Minister go further to integrate health and social care?

[The Prime Minister]

Through the better care fund we are producing £5 billion, which is money that health authorities and local authorities can spend together. Up to now, the Labour party has opposed that fund and said that it should not be established; but I am afraid it is worse than that. The shadow Secretary of State for Health has been wandering around the television studios today, telling anyone who is prepared to listen that he would increase funding for social care. There is only one slight problem with that. The shadow Chancellor said on the news as recently as 5 January that

“there will be no additional funding for local government unless we can find money from somewhere else”—[Interruption.]

Ah—we are! If Labour Members had waited until the end of the quotation, they would have heard this:

“but we have not been able to do that in the case of local government.”

So there we are: total and utter chaos. One of them is going around saying that there will be extra money, another is saying that there will not be any extra money, and there are £20 billion of unfunded commitments that would lead to total chaos in our economy and a total breakdown in our health service.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister update the House on the future arrangements for the upkeep of the Royal Air Force memorial chapel at Biggin Hill, the iconic former Battle of Britain airfield?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely confirm to the House that that chapel will be preserved for future generations, as we have always recognised its importance and its rich heritage. I think it possible that of all the great moments in British history, the Battle of Britain 1940 stands out as one of the most important times that there have been. So we will protect the chapel, and will do all that we can to protect it for future generations.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister take action immediately to clear up the shambles at the Home Office? A constituent of mine who applied for a fast-track passport before Christmas was promised that it would be delivered to him by courier on new year’s eve, but has still not received it. As a result, he has had to cancel a trip that he was due to make yesterday, at great personal cost and great damage to his personal life. Will the Prime Minister ensure that that man is able to travel this week, and will he clear up this mess?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall be happy to look at the individual case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. However, I think that we have made huge strides in dealing with potential passport backlogs, and I think that the Home Secretary is doing a fantastic job.

A and E (Major Incidents)

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

12:35

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the major incidents that have been declared at a number of hospitals and on A and E performance in England.

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

Mr Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to come to the House and make a statement on accident and emergency services.

First, we must recognise the context. The NHS always faces significant pressures during the winter months, but, with an ageing population, we now have 350,000 more over-75s than just four years ago. As a result, we are seeing more people turning up at our A and Es, with 279,000 more attendances in quarter three of this year as compared with last, and a greater level of sickness among those who do arrive, leading to an increase in emergency admissions of nearly 6% on last year. This picture is reflected across the home nations, with A and Es in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all missing key performance standards as a result.

A number of hospitals have declared major incidents over the past few days, in what is traditionally a particularly busy time in A and E. A major incident is part of the established escalation process for the NHS, and has been since 2005. This enables trusts to deal with significant demands, putting in place a command and control structure to allow them to bring in additional staff and increase capacity. It is a temporary measure taken to ensure that the most urgent and serious cases get the safe, high-quality care they need.

The decision to declare a major incident is taken locally—there is no national definition—and we must trust the managers and clinicians in our local NHS to make these decisions, and support them in doing so by making sure there is sufficient financial support available to help deal with additional pressures.

I chaired my first meeting to discuss that support on 17 March last year. On 13 June, we gave the NHS an additional £400 million for winter pressures, topped up in the autumn by £300 million to a record total of £700 million, ensuring local services had the certainty of additional money and time to plan how best to use it.

The NHS started this winter with 1,900 more doctors and 4,800 more hospital nurses than a year ago. This planning and funding has been widely welcomed by experts in the system, including NHS England, NHS Providers, the College of Emergency Medicine and the NHS Confederation. The funding the Government have put in, which is on top of the year-on-year real-terms increases in funding, is made possible by a strong economy, and will pay for the equivalent of 1,000 more doctors, 2,000 more nurses and 2,000 other NHS and care staff including physiotherapists and social workers. It will fund up to 2,500 additional beds, both in the acute and community sectors, and also provide £50 million to support ambulance services.

But the NHS also needs longer-term solutions to these pressures. We are providing £150 million through the Prime Minister’s challenge fund to make evening and weekend GP appointments available for 10 million people, with over 4 million already benefiting. Our better care programme integrates, for the first time ever, health and social care services in 151 local authority areas, with plans starting in April to reduce, on average, emergency admissions to hospitals by 3%. And we have funded the NHS’s own plan to deal with these pressures, the five-year forward view, with an additional £1.7 billion for the NHS in 2015-16 and £1 billion of capital over the next four years to improve primary care facilities.

Mr Speaker, let me finish by thanking hard-working NHS staff across the country for the outstanding care they continue to deliver under a great deal of operational pressure.

[Andy Burnham]

All over England, the NHS is stretched to the limit—and in places is at breaking point. Staff are working flat-out and we thank each and every one of them for all they are doing, but the situation is now serious and getting worse. Right now, too many vulnerable people are exposed to too much risk, waiting hours for ambulances to arrive, and held in the back of them outside A and E or on trolleys in corridors. This cannot be allowed to carry on. Patients and staff deserve better answers than they have had to date about what is being done to address this issue, and that is why, faced with this complacency, we have again had to force the Secretary of State to come here today.

Fourteen hospitals have declared major incidents. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain clearly what this means for services in those areas? What is the official advice to people living in those areas? Is he providing any central support and advice to those hospitals? If a number of major incidents are declared in the same area at the same time, what contingency plans will be put into place to protect the public? More broadly, what new measures does he have under active consideration to ease pressure at all hospitals?

The Secretary of State mentioned resources. When he allocated additional resources for winter pressure, what assessment was used to determine how much was needed? Clearly, it is not working. Does he now plan to reassess the situation and perhaps allocate more? Ministers keep blaming unprecedented demand, but the question is this: why is there such unprecedented demand? Could it have anything to do with the difficulty in getting a GP appointment, the closure of walk-in centres or the cuts to social care?

Let me turn to ambulance services. There are alarming reports of people waiting hours for ambulances to arrive. This is because ambulances are trapped in queues outside A and E departments. We are hearing that at least one service has implemented a policy of leaving patients at the door of A and E without handing them over to A and E staff. Is the Secretary of State aware of this practice, and is he satisfied that it is not putting patient safety and care at risk?

The last time we had to drag the Secretary of State here, he failed to inform the House that he had approved a proposal to relax 999 response times. So will he today tell the House what the current status of those plans is and whether they are still going ahead this winter? I have real concerns, which I have relayed to ambulance leaders, about making any such change without proper consultation and evidence. There are also reports of police and fire vehicles being used to carry people to A and E. What discussions has he had with police and fire service leaders about this practice? What training or advice has been given to front-line police and fire staff? Is he fully satisfied that patient safety is not being compromised?

Finally, cuts to social care are a root cause of the pressure on hospitals. A record number of elderly people are trapped in hospital beds, and any solution to this crisis must involve councils and a solution for social care. So will the Secretary of State now act on our constructive proposal to hold an urgent summit of all the public services affected—councils, police and fire services—and to develop a co-ordinated plan to ease this crisis? NHS staff deserve it. Safe patient care demands it. When will he deliver it?

[Mr Hunt]

First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for this opportunity once again to go through the plans that we have in place to support the NHS and to reiterate the gratitude of the whole House to NHS staff for what they are doing under huge pressure at the moment. Let me start by telling him where I agree with him. I agree that what happens in the social care system is closely linked to what happens in the NHS. That is why, from June last year, meetings have been happening in 140 local authority areas between the local NHS and local authorities to work out how best to plan for winter. The result of that planning process, which is funded by £700 million of Government support, is extra doctors, extra nurses, extra beds and new plans in every area. I am absolutely satisfied that that money is making a difference. Every day in our A and E departments, 2,500 more people are being seen within four hours than was the case four years ago when the right hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary. The local structures worked last year, and they are working now. Now is the time to get behind them and to support the local NHS.

In a letter that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me yesterday, he talked about Government failure. This is not the time to play politics—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members will listen to this. The head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, a former Labour special adviser, said yesterday

“the NHS, the Department of Health and local clinicians have done everything that could reasonably be expected”

to put in place plans over the last weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to that, perhaps he will listen to Rob Webster, who runs the NHS Confederation, a representative body of all NHS organisations. He says that we should be grateful for the huge effort NHS staff have put in over the past few weeks and that it is not the time to play political football.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about ambulances, where we are putting in £50 million of support this winter, and some changes proposed by the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, which he was informed about three months earlier than they came to public light. This is what the AACE said:

“We have been surprised by some of the reaction today given that over the last three months the principles of what we are proposing…have been shared with Labour…and we have received no negative feedback”.

What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said it was a panic decision to relax 999 standards. There was no panic, no decision, no relaxation of 999 standards; I did what any Health Secretary should do: I simply asked for clinical advice on what would be best for patients. He chose to frighten the public, to scaremonger for party political purpose. Is it not time the Labour party, for once, thought about the impact on patients of the kind of things it is saying in the press?

The right hon. Gentleman then talked, and the Leader of the Opposition has talked, about the causes of these challenges being the reforms this Government introduced in this Parliament. Let me say to him that the one part of the UK that introduced these reforms, England, happens to have the best A and E performance and the one part of the UK that has most set its face against these forms, Labour-run Wales, has one of the worst performances. If he wants to do something about A and E pressures, instead of trying to make political capital in England, he should be getting Labour to turn things round in the one place it does run the health service—Wales. He should be backing this Government’s support for the NHS in a difficult period that has meant more doctors, more nurses, more people being seen quickly, more operations, long-term support and a plan for our NHS; it should not be politics and scaremongering ahead of an election.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

May I join the Secretary of State in warmly thanking NHS staff, who are stepping up to meet the extraordinary increase in demand for their care and expertise? Will he reassure the House that in meeting this extraordinary, complex challenge, they will not be made to chase targets, as we know that that was distorting clinical priorities in Mid Staffs, and that clinical staff should always feel absolutely confident that they have his support to place clinical priorities first and foremost?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and it is very important. Targets matter, but not targets at any cost. It is worth remembering that, over the four years we were seeing the tragedy unfold in Mid Staffs, it was meeting its A and E target the majority of the time. So it is very important that patient safety is the priority. That is why we have to support NHS trusts when they have major incidents and why we have to make it clear that, although targets matter, trusts need to be sensible and proportionate in their efforts to meet those standards.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept the truth of the assertions by A and E doctors and nurses that the call handlers working for the 111 service are referring far more patients to A and E than happened when NHS Direct was staffed by nurses, who exercised professional discretion?

[Mr Hunt]

It is always important to keep the algorithms used by call handlers—111—under review. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that 111 is part of the way we have been able to relieve pressure on A and E departments. Calls to 111 doubled this Christmas, and 27% of the people who called it said that they had been planning to go to an A and E department but did not do so following the call. That is a very important way of relieving pressure on our A and E departments.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State share my recollection that five years ago no political pundit of any kind predicted that the welcome ageing of the population and the ending of the 24 hours a day, seven days a week commitment of general practice would produce the quite extraordinary surge in demand that we now have to cope with? Does he therefore agree that instead of wild criticisms of local crises he needs to persist in the short term by providing resources and improving co-operation between social services and health care, and in the long term by implementing the changes necessary in response to demand, as set out by Simon Stevens in his report, which our reforms have enabled NHS England to produce?

[Mr Hunt]

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks with a great deal of wisdom as someone who has occupied this post and he is absolutely right. All Health Secretaries face pressures of the kind we are going through now and face difficult winters. Winter is always a difficult time for the NHS and, as the Prime Minister said, we need a short-term plan to help—that is what our plan of creating about 5,000 extra front-line clinicians this winter alone is doing—but we must also consider the long-term plan. That involves finding a better way of looking after vulnerable older people other than through A and E departments—that means better care in the community, better support from GPs and better community services—and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Bolton Royal hospital is one of the hospitals declaring a major incident. The context is as follows. The Little Hulton walk-in centre was closed, when it saw 2,000 patients a month. Salford city council had £100 million cut out of its budget, so 1,000 people this year are losing care packages. I have an elderly constituent who was admitted to Bolton Royal following poor care. It is obvious that those things are causing the problem. When will the Secretary of State take responsibility?

[Mr Hunt]

We take responsibility and I take responsibility for everything that happens in the NHS. Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are actually doing, because there have been some serious bed capacity issues in Bolton. Bolton has had £3 million this winter to help deal with those pressures, which has included £340,000 to spend on additional beds in the hospital supporting the A and E department and more than £100,000 to pay for additional staff in A and E. Overall, compared with in 2010, there are 114 extra doctors and 571 extra nurses. She should welcome that, rather than trying to make a political issue of it.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

May I remind the House that the private finance initiative, which expanded hospitals to 100 from zero after 1997, created at least £2 billion to £10 billion, and possibly even £20 billion, of additional costs that could now be used? In Hereford, the hospital is too small because of PFI. I have estimated that £30 million could have been spent on the hospital if contracts had been properly implemented in the first place. That is why my hospital, which declared an incident this week, has been struggling and it is quite wrong to suggest otherwise.

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate the doctors and nurses who are working very hard in his local hospital and point out that there are a number of historical problems. The £71 billion of PFI debt is one of those and it means that more than £1 billion every year is diverted from the front line. We have done something about the top-heavy management structures and, as a result, across the NHS we have 9,000 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses. It is very important in this debate that we focus not only on short-term pressures but on dealing with the long-term issues in the NHS. That is what we want to do in his area and in every area.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

On 9 December, a member of my family was admitted to Rotherham hospital through A and E after a fall at home. She was told two days later by a doctor that there was no medical reason she should be in hospital. She spent her 93rd birthday, on 24 December, in Rotherham hospital and was discharged on Monday of this week, having at last got a care package together. Does the Secretary of State think that the cuts to Rotherham borough council’s social services have helped or hindered the situation?

[Mr Hunt]

We need to have much better working between the health and social care systems. If the right hon. Gentleman supports that, he should support the better care programme, which from April of this year will see co-operation between the local NHS and local authorities in 150 local authority areas for the first time. Instead, Labour is calling for that plan to be halted.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend thank the staff of the NHS at Harlow Princess Alexandra hospital for their passion and commitment? Although the Government have invested £5 million in our accident and emergency services, issues in nearby hospitals mean that the pressure on our A and E has been immense. Princess Alexandra hospital is one of the busiest by far for attends by bed and one in five ambulances arrives from out of the area. The PAH is now admitting four more patients a day than it was this time last year. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and the chief executive of the Princess Alexandra hospital, and will either he or the Minister responsible for hospitals visit the hospital to see what can be done to help the situation?

[Mr Hunt]

I am very happy to do that and I am aware of the significant pressures at the Princess Alexandra. I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he is supporting staff in his local hospital, getting behind local plans. It is a mistake to say that there is always a new national initiative. Lots of people in the NHS have been saying over the past few days that they do not want new national initiatives. They want exactly what my hon. Friend is doing; they want people to support their local NHS and not to turn it into a political football.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

On Monday evening, the trust of Salford Royal hospital, which, as the Secretary of State knows, is an excellent hospital, declared a major incident. I am pleased to say that the pressure has been dealt with and it has now been lifted, but it is clear to me that many of the thousands of elderly and frail people in hospital have dementia, which means that they stay longer and are readmitted more often. I welcome the better care fund, but it will not be enough. There needs to be a whole systems change to prevent people from being admitted in the first place, with better support and more action by GPs. We need to get on with that urgently.

[Mr Hunt]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady. The better care fund is a first step, but it is only a first step. It is happening from this April, but we have the NHS England five-year forward view, which is the long-term plan to improve community care. I agree that Salford Royal is an excellent hospital. It had £3.5 million to help it deal with winter pressures this year, but it is also a good example of how integrated care between the acute trust and local community services can make a real difference, and it is delivering some of the safest care in the country.

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

May I pay tribute to the accident and emergency staff at my local hospital, St Helier, whom I met on Monday? One thing they made clear to me is that although there is no single cause of the pressures on A and E at the moment and there is therefore no single solution, they want certainty about the long-term plans for NHS funding. Although the down payment of £2 billion announced in the autumn statement was very welcome, will the Secretary of State say whether the Government or any Government in whom he might participate in the future will deliver the additional £8 billion necessary to secure the closing of the funding gap that Simon Stevens identified?

[Mr Hunt]

When we did the autumn statement last year, we asked Simon Stevens and NHS England how much they needed for their plan next year and they told us it was about £2 billion, so we made that commitment. We also said that that was a down payment on delivering the entire plan, not a one-off payment. I agree about the importance of long-term certainty over funding, but the most important thing in that regard is to have a strong economy that can deliver the money that will support our NHS. It is only Government Members who have shown that they are capable of delivering that strong economy rather than the instability that would come from disastrous economic policies.

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

The Secretary of State and Prime Minister accuse the Labour party of using the NHS as a political football and as a weapon. May I advise the Secretary of State that the NHS is a weapon—a very powerful one—for the treatment of illness and the relief of disease and suffering, and that it is being blunted by this Government and his Department under his stewardship? I met the chief executive of City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust about the NHS crisis and the A and E crisis, and one of the problems he identified was the lack of sufficient staff and the need to recruit locums. What is the Secretary of State doing about recruiting more staff and how many vacancies are being carried?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree that we need more staff, but the hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that under this Government there are 9,000 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses. Such an increase was made possible by a reorganisation that took money away from bureaucracy and management and put it on to the front line. What is wrong is for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he wants to weaponise the NHS—turn it into a political weapon. The NHS is not a political weapon; it is there for patients. Labour should be ashamed of trying to turn it into a political football.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the declaration of a major incident by Addenbrooke’s hospital has caused concern among my constituents whose non-urgent admissions have had to be postponed? Is he also aware that the hospital is currently looking after more than 300 people aged over 85, which is in itself a remarkable tribute to the NHS? However, such a figure underlines the fact that we have to give more attention to the integration of health and care issues.

[Mr Hunt]

I am aware of the problems at Addenbrooke’s. Indeed, the main issue, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is delayed discharges relating to care. The chief executive is running the command and control system and working with the local authority to facilitate the discharges that are necessary and to de-escalate the situation. The hospital has £2.2 million for its winter pressures support and 185 more doctors than four years ago.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The national health service in my constituency is under immense pressure, as are the adult services. It has been known for some months now that the number of acutely ill people coming into hospital has been growing. Has the Secretary of State investigated the reasons for that significant increase, which I am hearing about from the chief executives of the hospitals? If he has, what are those reasons? Is it to do with access to primary care, or problems with adult social services? Will he tell the House now?

[Mr Hunt]

We have looked into that matter in huge detail. There are probably three broad factors that are behind the increase in demand. One is the ageing population. There are 350,000 more people over the age of 75 than four years ago. The point is that if someone of that age goes into A and E in the winter, there is an 80% chance they will be admitted to hospital and quite a large chance they will stay in hospital for some time. The second factor is changing consumer expectation among younger people who want faster health care—[Interruption.] That is what Professor Keith Willett, the director of emergency care at NHS England, said, and Opposition Members should listen to what our clinical leaders are saying. The third factor is a refusal by NHS trusts to do what they were pressurised to do in the past, which is to cut corners to hit targets.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there have been significant changes to hospital services across north-west London. There is considerable concern from some of my constituents that the closure of A and E departments at Central Middlesex and Hammersmith hospitals has led to some of the increasing pressure elsewhere. Will he tell me whether there is any evidence of that?

[Mr Hunt]

I am aware that there have been particular pressures at Northwick Park hospital, but I am also aware that a plan is in place in north-west London to have weekend opening of GP surgeries to improve out-of-hospital provision. The pressures that are faced there are like those in the rest of the country—very severe. We are doing everything we can to support the hospitals in that area with our winter pressures plans.

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

The Secretary of State spoke about the algorithms used by 111 call handlers. Does he appreciate that a frightened mother with a sick child is not really interested in algorithms? What she wants to know is that her child can get the medical help that they need promptly. He has told the House that he has been having meetings on this winter crisis since March. Is he not a little bit embarrassed that we now have people queuing to see their GPs first thing in the morning, ambulances queuing outside hospitals, people being treated in tents outside hospitals, and old people staying in hospital longer than they need to because there is a lack of funding and no proper co-ordination between health and social care?

[Mr Hunt]

Of course I regret any individual incidents where people do not get the care they need promptly. The hon. Lady will know that the solutions to such problems are not always things that can be done overnight. If she looks at the record of joined-up care over the past few years, she will see that this is the first Government to encourage 150 local authority areas to sit down with their local NHS and jointly plan care for the most vulnerable people in the social care system. That is a very big step forward. We are also doing nearly 1 million more operations every year across the NHS. In accident and emergency, the number of people being seen within four hours has gone up by nearly three quarters of a million since the start of this Parliament. That is real progress, but of course there are long-term issues, and we will focus on those as well.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I congratulate Goole hospital on hitting its target 99.7% of time, and the trust as a whole on hitting its target 93% of the time. I spent my Christmas volunteering in the NHS at A and E and with the ambulance service. Staff repeatedly told me that as first responders what they see are more old and frail people needing to be admitted to hospital. That situation was not helped by 50,000 hospital beds being cut by the previous Government. One way of dealing with the problems would be to move to a community paramedicine model and to use the skills of our ambulance services more. I encourage the Secretary of State to ensure that NHS England is seriously looking at that option.

[Mr Hunt]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the shining example he gives to everyone in this House by being a first responder? I do agree that one thing that we could do in the next year is to integrate better what happens in the ambulance services, out-of-hours GP services and 111. Individually, they are all doing a good job, but they could do a much better job if what they did was integrated.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Facts are important in this debate. There is now good evidence to show that overcrowding in emergency departments increases mortality and length of stay. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the figures for hospitals are available in the House of Commons on a monthly basis, so that we can correlate spikes following emergencies with what happens to mortality rates? If mortalities increase, the problem is even more serious than we think it is.

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with the hon. Lady. It is critical that we look at the data carefully. I will see whether the data on mortality rates are available on a monthly basis. I will be as interested as she is to see it.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have just been visiting a much-loved elderly relative in hospital and I have seen what a wonderful job our nurses are doing and the pressure that they are under, but may I tell the Secretary of State that Huddersfield and Calderdale used to have an amazingly good partnership of people in the health service working together. The antagonism now between trusts and commissioning services has destroyed that partnership. All we have now is tension and stress. We no longer have a partnership delivering health care in our country.

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the hard work of the doctors and nurses at his local trust, but the feedback I get from the front line is of closer partnership working than has ever happened before, with the local authorities and the local NHS sitting down together planning what they will do for the most vulnerable older people through the better care fund. I want to encourage that everywhere I can.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I join the Secretary of State in praising Croydon University hospital staff who have been working their socks off in recent days, but is he aware that CUH has a recently modernised subsidiary in Purley with a minor injuries unit, which is open only in the afternoons, and an under-used X-ray department? Will he explore with Croydon commissioning group whether those facilities can be used full time, because that would take the load off the A and E department at Croydon University hospital?

[Mr Hunt]

I am happy to explore that. All these suggestions need to be considered very carefully. That trust has had 40 extra doctors and nearly 300 extra nurses and £4.5 million to help with its winter pressures this year. Perhaps some of that money could be used for that purpose. I am happy to look into it.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

As the Minister who introduced the precursor A and E target, may I say that the Secretary of State was right to continue with the target? Making the target work was dependent on NHS Direct, delayed discharges, the integration of social care, and targets in the rest of the hospital, particularly on cancer. He has demolished that whole system. Will he now apologise for the absence of those targets, the problems in delayed discharge and the scrapping of NHS Direct?

[Mr Hunt]

I am afraid that what the right hon. Gentleman says is simply not correct. We have continued with key operational targets. A number of them are under pressure, but when we look at each of them we see that the reason is that the NHS is treating more people than ever before but demand is outstripping supply. For example, nearly half a million more people visited A and E in the most recent quarter than in the last quarter of the previous Labour Government, and we have 1,000 more doctors in our A and E departments. That tells us that, along with short-term help with these pressures we need a long-term solution, which is what this Government are committed to.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

This is a serious and complex issue, and one of the factors causing it is that many seriously ill patients cannot be admitted to acute hospital wards because there are insufficient beds. In the light of that, I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to an NHS Confederation report from May 2006, “Why we need fewer hospital beds”. I cautioned at the time that it would be unwise to pursue such a policy without first front-loading primary and social care. Will he look at enhancing acute hospital beds until primary and social care have the capacity to help out the acute sector?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In fact, I was talking with someone senior at the Royal Cornwall hospital on Monday about the particular pressures there. Indeed, some of the funding that we allocated to the NHS in the autumn statement for next year is designed to do precisely that—to allow hospitals to maintain bed capacity while we ramp up facilities in community and primary care. It is very important to get the timing absolutely right.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Yesterday the emergency department at Nottingham’s Queen’s Medical Centre faced such intense pressure that the trust was forced to enact its internal incident plan and cancel planned operations and out-patient clinics. Higher than expected admissions and delays in discharging patients who are well enough to leave hospital have been creating problems for many months. How can we resolve what is now a crisis if the Secretary of State will not even acknowledge that his Government’s deep cuts to social care are undermining the efforts of our dedicated NHS and social care staff?

[Mr Hunt]

We are doing an enormous amount to support social care. Some £3.9 billion of NHS funds has been given to the social care system over this Parliament, and we have strongly encouraged local authorities to ensure that any savings they have to make are done through efficiency savings, not cuts to front-line services. The hon. Lady’s local hospital has received £11 million in funding to help it through the winter. We are doing a huge amount to support the NHS through a difficult period, and she should support those efforts.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

It is obviously important that those who need to be treated in A and E are treated there and that those who do not go to those parts of the NHS where they can be treated best. Does my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that the initiatives taken by clinical commissioners in Oxfordshire where, for example, they are trying to triage patients essentially at the door of A and E so that those who need to go in can do so and those who need primary care get it, will help reduce pressures on A and E and ensure that people are treated in the right part of the NHS?

[Mr Hunt]

Those are exactly the kinds of initiatives that can make a big difference—indeed, they are recommended by the College of Emergency Medicine. Of course, the long-term solution is to ensure that people are better looked after at home so that they do not need to end up at the door of a hospital. That is why more proactive care by GPs—we plan to recruit 5,000 more GPs over the next five years—should mean that that becomes less of a pressure point.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

The Royal Bolton hospital in my constituency yesterday declared a major incident. As of 1 pm yesterday, there were 53 people in the A and E department, 15 waiting for a bed, some for more than 12 hours, and a number of non-urgent operations were cancelled. I thank the hospital for all its hard work, because there have been problems for the past few weeks. I would like the Secretary of State to deal with the crisis by immediately reopening walk-in centres, because their closure is the reason so many people are going to A and E, and have proper funding given to local authorities so that they can put in place a proper health and social care budget for the elderly and vulnerable.

[Mr Hunt]

There have indeed been pressures at the Royal Bolton hospital, particularly in relation to bed capacity and intensive care unit capacity. All patients on the wards have been reviewed and discharges have been created—the plan was to discharge between 30 and 50 patients before the end of yesterday. We are doing a lot to support the hospital. It has been given £3 million in winter money, £350,000 to create extra bed capacity and £100,000 for extra A and E staff.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. As always, I am keen to accommodate as many as possible, but I simply point out to the House that there is a statement to follow by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other business. I therefore appeal to the House to help me to help individual Members. That is to say, prolonged statements prior to questions are undesirable. Pithy and succinct questions are the order of the day, in which important exercise I think we can be led by an illustrious parliamentarian, Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Kettering general hospital is experiencing its busiest winter on record. The three hon. Members for north Northamptonshire, the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and myself for Kettering, are working together to attract extra investment into our A and E. When we go to see the Secretary of State’s colleague, the hospitals Minister, next week, will he encourage the Minister to receive us warmly and favourably?

[Mr Hunt]

I think that my hon. Friend should always be able to count on being received warmly and favourably. There are particular pressures in Northamptonshire. I am planning to have a conversation with the chief executive of Northamptonshire county council in the next week to see whether there is anything more that can be done to facilitate discharges and relieve the pressure at Kettering.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

I greatly welcome the £13.4 million of investment recently signed off for Medway hospital’s A and E department. Does the Secretary of State also understand the hospital’s need for a further £20 million of capital for medical wards around the A and E department to support integrated care and improve the throughput of patients to assist in turning around Medway hospital?

[Mr Hunt]

I am aware of those proposals, which we will obviously look at carefully. I am also aware that there are big pressures in the A and E department at Medway, but there are also other, more profound issues to do with the leadership at the hospital. The hon. Gentleman should rest assured that we are taking every step possible to try to turn things around.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I recently spent a shift at the Royal Cornwall hospital’s A and E department and saw at first hand the fantastic work it is doing. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the clinical team and with Mr Virr, who leads the department so well, that people need to remember that A and Es are for life and limb emergency treatment on the day and that they should consider the excellent alternatives, such as minor injuries departments and out-of-hours GP services, before automatically going to A and E?

[Mr Hunt]

I commend my hon. Friend for her tremendous interest in the Royal Cornwall hospital and for her campaigning to support its efforts. I spoke with the chief executive earlier this week about the particular challenges with discharging patients. I also spoke with the deputy chief executive of the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust about the dramatic increase in 999 calls this winter. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the public can help us by ensuring that they use alternatives to A and E wherever possible.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I led an integrated health and social care team 20 years ago, we found that carers no longer being able to care was a key reason why people went into hospital and into care. Will the Secretary of State now look again at the eligibility criteria introduced under the Care Act 2014 and ensure that a much greater number of carers can get support, because at the moment the number is being reduced?

[Mr Hunt]

Under that Act we introduced national eligibility criteria to try to remove the postcode lottery that had existed previously. We have also introduced new rights for carers that require local authorities to take account of the pressures on them. I think that we are going in the right direction, but I accept that there is always more that can be done.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Some 92.6% of patients in England are seen within four hours, as opposed to just 83.8% of patients in Wales. If Labour wants to make this a political football, why does it not play an away game down in Cardiff, where it is in charge and responsible for the disgracefully lower standards that we receive there?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully, as ever. The rhetoric that we have heard from the Labour Benches today is interesting for its absence when we have debates on Wales. It seems to the public watching this that there is one rule for England and one rule for Wales, and that Labour is satisfied with lower standards in the parts of the country that it runs.

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

The NHS is in financial crisis, with more money needed for A and E, yet we are spending £10 billion a year on diabetes because people are consuming twice the daily amount of sugar that they should be consuming—nine teaspoonfuls for men, which is equivalent to a can of Coke, or six for women, which is equivalent to a light yoghurt. Does the Secretary of State agree and will he support my Bill, which is published today, which requires manufacturers to express sugar content in teaspoonfuls on products to empower consumers to make rational choices in order to manage down overall obesity—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. These are extremely important matters, but their relevance to the question of A and E was not immediately obvious to me, added to which, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No. I am not debating with the hon. Gentleman; I am telling him. His inquiry suffered from one little disadvantage: it was too long.

[Mr Hunt]

I have spoken to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) about his Bill. Part of the long-term solution is to give people better information about sugar consumption. We will certainly look at what the Bill proposes.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), and I were very unhappy that the A and E was closed and moved to Watford. Since then Watford hospital has had a turbulent time. This morning the chief executive resigned, having got part-way through a process of consultation. May I ask for the consultation to be put on hold until the new chief executive is in place and has their feet under the table? We do not need more turbulence in our hospitals in west Hertfordshire.

[Mr Hunt]

I am sorry to hear the news about the chief executive at Watford. I am aware of the pressures there and I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for stability in management as much as possible over the next few months.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

One of my constituents wrote to me about her elderly mother who faced a wait of many hours for an ambulance to A and E. My constituent told me that at A and E she saw patients on trolleys backed up through the corridor to ambulances waiting in the car park. Meanwhile, patients were waiting at home, unable to get those same ambulances. She described the scene as “a war zone”. Is it not the case that A and E is unable to cope, the ambulance service is unable to cope, and patients who need to go to A and E are suffering?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree that there are real pressures in A and E across the system, but it is important to remind the public that even under that pressure, nine out of 10 people continue to be seen, treated and sent home within four hours. That is an extremely impressive record for the people working very hard in our A and E departments.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

The Norfolk and Norwich hospital declared a major incident. Its medical staff say that care is safe. Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting Norwich NHS staff and their innovative urgent care unit, will he urge Norwich GPs to apply to the access fund, and will he condemn some of Labour’s political leaflets in Norwich which carry fake NHS stories, as told to me by NHS workers?

[Mr Hunt]

It is important for all parties to behave responsibly when the NHS front line is under such pressure. My hon. Friend might want to remind her Labour opponents locally that in Norwich there are 97 more doctors than four years ago and 145 more nurses, all possible because of a strong economy.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Last week 1,631 people visited Plymouth A and E. One in 10 of them waited more than four hours. Staff are showing great dedication and doing extra shifts, but that is not sustainable. Will the Secretary of State please take his head out of the sand and, if he is serious about depoliticising the issue, will he take up the shadow Secretary of State’s offer of a cross-party summit to look at all the issues behind the crisis?

[Mr Hunt]

I was talking to a doctor at Plymouth last night and I recognise that there are real pressures there and staff are working very hard. The long-term solution is to back the non-party political plan that the NHS itself has put together under the leadership of Simon Stevens—the “Five Year Forward View”. We made the big call in our autumn statement to find £2 billion, which is what he said the NHS needed next year, and I hope Labour will support that. Then we can have the kind of consensus that the hon. Lady asked for.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

In 2003, a dozen years almost to the day, I accompanied my grandmother to A and E. We arrived at 8 o’clock in the morning. She was not allocated a bed until 9.30 that evening. May I impress upon my right hon. Friend that money alone is not the issue? It is important that we push ahead with the long-term plan and do not adopt a short-term opportunistic approach.

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important to say that lots of people in the NHS have been asked in the past few days on the media what the issues are, and they have not been saying that it is about money. They have been saying that it is about reforming the structures. That is why, as well as the money that is available for this winter, we need to look at the plans that we can put in place to improve access to GPs, to improve the co-ordination between the health and the social care systems, to deal with issues that prevent people from going to hospital in the first place. That is what this Government want to do.

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

Many of my constituents in Feltham and Heston have raised with me their concerns about being able to access GP services, some having to wait weeks and in the mean time having to seek emergency help. Does the Secretary of State now regret the Government’s decision to axe Labour’s guarantee of a GP appointment within 48 hours?

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Lady regrets that, she might want to ask her Labour colleagues in Wales why they also axed the 48-hour target. We do need better access to GPs. That is why we are funding the training of 5,000 more GPs over the next five years. With targets, we must be careful of unintended consequences. When we had that target in place, a quarter of people who asked for an appointment in more than two days were told that that would not be possible, because we found that people played the target. That is why we do not want to go back to that system.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

As set out in the College of Emergency Medicine’s 10-point plan to improve A and E, co-location of GP surgeries is key. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with pretty much all the College of Emergency Medicine’s 10-point plan. That has very much informed our approach to helping the NHS over this winter. Co-location of GP surgeries on hospital sites is very helpful, but we also need more proactive care for the most vulnerable older people before they feel the need to go to hospital. That will be at the heart of the changes that we want to see.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The reason that west London now regularly has the worst waiting times for A and E, with up to 50% of patients waiting more than four hours, is a direct result of the Secretary of State’s decision to close the Hammersmith and Central Middlesex A and E four months ago. These are sick people who need A and E, not GP services. We have GP services at those hospitals. What we need is for him to cancel or at least review the downgrading of the A and E departments at Charing Cross and Ealing hospitals to GP-led emergency centres. Will he at least do that?

[Mr Hunt]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if we are to solve the problems in his area and others, we should listen to the doctors about the structures that will work best. The structures that we put in place are the structures that doctors advised us to set up. That is why we are supporting them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Mrs Bone would like to offer best wishes for the new year to the Secretary of State. The reason she can do this is the excellent health care provided by the NHS in both Kettering general hospital and Northampton general hospital. Locally, the commissioners and the acute hospitals are together working out a plan to deal with accident and emergency. Is not that the way forward?

[Mr Hunt]

Indeed. I pass on my best wishes for the new year to Mrs Bone. Like many people, she has benefited from superb NHS care. A million more people are having operations every year under this Government, and 700,000 more people are being seen within four hours at A and E under this Government.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The NHS is a system, which is why cuts to social care and other parts of the system affect A and E. With that in mind, and with 14 hospitals in a state of emergency, will the Secretary of State review the plans that are in place should a winter crisis of cold weather come along at this very vulnerable point?

[Mr Hunt]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not want to talk to the House about his own local hospital, which is performing extremely well for A and E. It would be good if more of those on the Opposition Benches talked about the good things that are happening in the NHS, including nine out of 10 people who go to A and E being seen within four hours.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for the £13.4 million given to Medway Maritime hospital’s A and E department. Will he assure me that everything that can be done is being done to turn around hospitals in special measures such as Medway, which had the seventh highest mortality rate in 2006 yet nothing was done? Will he also join me in paying tribute to all the front-line staff who do a fantastic job at Medway?

[Mr Hunt]

I am happy to do that. One of the things that this Government are most proud of is what we have done to turn around hospitals with entrenched low standards of care following the terrible tragedy at Mid Staffs, with 18 hospitals put into special measures and six of them turned around. Despite all the pressure on me and on this Government to hit targets, we are sending out signals to the system, loud and clear, that targets matter, but not at any cost, and that we do not want corners cut when it comes to patient safety.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Last weekend at Royal Blackburn hospital’s A and E, which I have been concerned about for quite a while, 18 ambulances were waiting outside. That was revealed not by the NHS but by a whistleblower, who described the situation as “chaos”. Is it happening because there are too many patients putting too much pressure on the NHS or because of mismanagement of the NHS by the Conservatives?

[Mr Hunt]

It is because of unprecedented demand caused by a range of factors. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, he will see an NHS that is treating more people more quickly, with more doctors, more nurses and more operations than ever before. Sometimes, though, as I said yesterday, people on the front line feel that they are running just to stand still because there is so much pressure. That is why the £700 million in our winter plan and the money we are putting in to back the five-year forward view next year are so important.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not be playing party politics with the NHS in the way that my opponent in Redditch is by putting out leaflets saying that I am systematically voting against the NHS, but that we should be working together with our trusts and partners in ensuring that we get through this problem, as we are trying to do in Worcestershire?

[Mr Hunt]

I absolutely do agree. Labour Members should talk to some of the front-line NHS workers in their own constituencies, who will tell them that the last thing they want at this time is for the NHS to be a political football.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that major incident status was declared at Leicester hospitals this week for the seventh time in three months. In the week before Christmas, just 67% of patients at Leicester Royal Infirmary in my constituency were seen within the four-hour target, and clinicians, who are working flat out, expect pressures to increase over the next three months. What is he now going to do to support clinicians in Leicester and get a grip of this situation?

[Mr Hunt]

I am aware of the situation in Leicester. The hospital has had significant space pressures in its emergency department, and a couple of nights ago it had a high in-flow during one night, but it is absolutely on the case in trying to resolve this. What are we doing? We have put in £9.2 million of winter pressures money to make sure that whatever people decide the right solution is, it is not through lack of resources that they cannot do it.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Last Saturday night, while I was visiting my wife’s family in Leicestershire, my baby daughter suddenly became quite ill. Rather than going to A and E, we rang the 111 service and were quickly referred to Loughborough urgent care centre, where we had fantastic treatment; I pay tribute to the staff. Does this not go to show that we need to prioritise new models of urgent care, as set out in Simon Stevens’s review?

[Mr Hunt]

We absolutely do that. Telephones and the internet provide different ways to get the right advice to people quickly. The 111 service is taking a considerable amount of strain at the moment, and we have put in more money to support it. We are investing a lot more in tele-health and tele-medicine, and a lot more to help GPs who want to give people out-of-hours appointments. In the long run, that is the way we will reduce the kinds of pressures that my hon. Friend talks about.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Over three years ago, I raised with Ministers problems about the North East ambulance service that had been pointed out to me by the paramedics, but unfortunately they were brushed aside. My constituent, Violet Alliston, had the terrible experience of her partner ringing for an ambulance three times in the course of an hour before the ambulance came. She then died. This is obviously completely unacceptable. Why will not the Secretary of State look again at the resources he is taking out of the North East ambulance service, the skills base of the call handlers, and the triage system?

[Mr Hunt]

I am extremely sorry to hear the story that the hon. Lady talks about, and I know that the NHS will investigate it fully. We are not cutting resources to ambulances, though. We have 2,000 more paramedics than four years ago, and £50 million is being put in this winter. Of course, we need to look very carefully into the particular case that she mentions and make sure that any lessons are learned.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I really am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues, because I understand the interest in this subject. May I appeal to colleagues to put single, short supplementary questions without preamble? Now, who might be a master of the genre—Mr Richard Graham?

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I will seize the moment.

Part of the long-term solution is attracting and retaining more nurses. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the National Health Executive to allow the university of Gloucestershire to run pre-registration training courses for nurses so that we can attract and retain more local nurses?

[Mr Hunt]

I am happy to do that, and also to welcome the 80 new nurses in my hon. Friend’s local area over the past four years.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that there are particular issues at Kettering General hospital’s A and E unit. It has improved its performance, but it has been described, to the shock of all the MPs in the area, as the worst seen in the country. We have done an awful lot of work. On Tuesday we are bringing the local health organisations together to the Department. Will he encourage his ministerial colleagues to give the green light to our plan for our area?

[Mr Hunt]

We will look at that very carefully. Of course, anything that can help to relieve pressure on A and E departments is our top priority at the moment.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

My constituent, Mr J. Hollinshead, rang Ashfields surgery, Alsager, for an appointment at 8.30 am on 2 January. He was given one for 10.30 am, when his doctor referred him for three tests to be done with the practice nurse at 11.30 am, then on to Leighton hospital for an X-ray, and he was home by 1.30 pm. His response: “How good is that?” Is not that a truer picture of the NHS under this Government than the negative messages coming out from Labour Members?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree that we need to recognise the successes of the NHS, and there are many of those successes. The reason we need to do that—I urge Labour Members to remember this—is that it is very important for the morale of people working in the NHS that we publicly recognise where they are being successful.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Is it not true that this Government set out with a plan to close nine out of 31 A and Es in London, including the one at Lewisham, as directed specifically from the Secretary of State’s office? Does he regret that? What state does he think the A and E services in south-east London would be in if he had been successful, in the face of public opposition, in closing that A and E?

[Mr Hunt]

First, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there were never any plans to close that A and E, and he should desist from scaremongering about what was happening at Lewisham hospital. He should also remember that when this Government came into office—[Interruption.] The plans—

[Clive Efford]

You idiot—it went to court!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First of all, it is unseemly to squawk, and I think it would be accurate to say that what I heard was a squawk. I am not sure if there is a verb “to squawk”, but there was a squawking sound. What is worse, it was unparliamentary language, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman used a word that he will now wish to withdraw.

[Clive Efford]

I withdraw it unreservedly, Mr Speaker, but the public out there will draw their own conclusions.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his withdrawal and I note what he says.

[Mr Hunt]

The plans were to continue to have an A and E at Lewisham but to take some of the higher-risk patients to another hospital. Those are the plans that we originally had that have now been changed. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman, though, is that there were problems with South London Healthcare Trust for years and years. This Government dealt with them and sorted them out, and that means that his constituents are getting better care than they otherwise would have done.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff at Royal Lancaster Infirmary on meeting their A and E targets in November? Will he also share my revulsion at the Opposition putting out a leaflet saying that there are all kinds of things wrong with the A and E and that it is going to close?

[Mr Hunt]

That is exactly the kind of scaremongering, frankly, that is incredibly demoralising for those who are on the NHS front line right now. I urge Labour Members to think before they start doing things that make a difficult situation even worse.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The South Western ambulance service came close to declaring a major incident on 27 December, and local hospitals warned of unprecedented demand last weekend. What is the Secretary of State doing specifically to help hospitals and the ambulance service in the Bristol and Avon area to survive the winter?

[Mr Hunt]

As I mentioned earlier, I have talked to the chief executive of South Western ambulance service about the particular pressures it has faced, such as the 25% increase in 999 calls. We are doing a lot of things, including helping to recruit more paramedics. We have 40 more paramedics starting for the London ambulance service this month, and we are doing what we can to help the South Western ambulance service as well.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

About a third of the patients attending A and E at the Countess of Chester hospital are from the Welsh side of the border. They choose to go there because they know they will get treated a lot quicker in England than they will in Wales. Why is that the case?

[Mr Hunt]

The main reason is that Labour in Wales chose to cut the NHS budget, whereas in England we chose to protect and increase it.

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

Before a major incident was declared yesterday morning, 76 patients were awaiting transfer to social care in the Royal Bolton hospital—nearly four wards-full—so when is the Secretary of State going to do something effective about the crisis in social care that is causing mayhem in our accident and emergency department?

[Mr Hunt]

I recognise the pressures that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but last year, for the first time, the local NHS and the local authority in Bolton sat down together to plan social care for the most vulnerable people—his constituents—who need such joined-up care and have wanted but not had it for so many years. With the better care programme from this April, we will start to see some real improvements.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

In 2005, the Labour Government closed the accident and emergency department at Crawley hospital, but services are now returning to the urgent treatment centre. Does my right hon. Friend believe that such centres play an important part in relieving pressure on emergency services?

[Mr Hunt]

They absolutely do. One thing we must do better is signpost people to the different parts of the NHS, such as walk-in centres, urgent treatment centres, GP surgeries or A and E departments. That is why the 111 service is so important in giving that advice at the earliest possible stage.

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

Does the Secretary of State now regret the cuts inflicted on Southampton social care provision—they were draconian, disproportionate and possibly motivated by political football—given that Southampton city council has been unable to support the Southampton general hospital by moving people into social care and away from accident and emergency? Will he have a word with Communities and Local Government Ministers to get that put right?

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about that he might want to talk to the shadow Chancellor, who this week publicly ruled out any extra funding for social care.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I was at Ipswich hospital this morning to talk to the senior clinical team. They have exceeded their targets in A and E—it is the fifth best performing hospital in the country—and they have done so because of their work. Will the Secretary of State congratulate them, and does he regret the politicking that undermines their incredible efforts in the service of my constituents?

[Mr Hunt]

The services that the Ipswich team have been delivering are absolutely brilliant, and I congratulate them. I thank my hon. Friend for his support for their work, which I know is so important for the people of Ipswich.

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

The Secretary of State said that 14 major incidents have been declared. I am told by a senior front-line worker that many hospitals are declaring internal major incidents—they have done so for some time—because that is more politically expedient and does not get into the press. How many internal major incidents have been declared in the past month?

[Mr Hunt]

To my knowledge, over the past few weeks there have been 15 major incidents, including internal ones. Three have now been stood down, making a total of 12 at the moment.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

The Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle is coping and improving. However, to improve more quickly, it needs to conclude the acquisition by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State do everything he can to help to achieve that, as I believe it will lead to better health care, both in A and E and generally, in Carlisle?

[Mr Hunt]

I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s view. Indeed, I have spoken to him about it on several occasions. I very much hope that the merger can go ahead as soon as possible.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

What is being done to address staff well-being during this exceptionally pressured period? Repeated pressure on A and E—with staff being required, or volunteering, to do extra shifts—does in the end put pressure on staff, and may cause burn-out and risk to patients. What is being done to attend to that issue?

[Mr Hunt]

There are two things. First, as I am sure the hon. Lady does, I take every opportunity to praise the work being done by staff through a very difficult and challenging period. Secondly, the practical way in which we can most help them is to try to recruit more staff where we possibly can, and to make sure that resources are not a barrier to recruiting more staff. We have about 5,000 more nurses in hospitals compared with 12 months ago, and that has made a difference.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State stood up and said that he takes personal responsibility for everything that happens in the NHS. Given that his Government undertook a costly and time-consuming reorganisation, does he now regret that people took their eye off the ball in relation to the highly predictable population shifts that have led to the pressure on A and E?

[Mr Hunt]

I am afraid that that is an example of the politicisation of the NHS that people find so distressing. Those reforms were not enacted in Wales, which is run by the hon. Lady’s party, and A and E performance there is significantly worse. It does not make any logical sense to blame A and E performance on those reforms.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Royal Bolton hospital says that it is in crisis because it cannot discharge patients. The Secretary of State says that the hospital and local authority in Bolton are talking to each other, but Bolton council has had £100 million-worth of cuts. What will he do to reverse the cuts in social care that have created the crisis in our hospital?

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Lady is making a criticism, I would ask her what she is going to do, because the shadow Chancellor confirmed this week that he will not find extra money for social care. I will tell her what we are doing. We are merging the social care and local NHS systems to try to stop people being pushed from pillar to post, and to give them the joined-up, compassionate, safe care that we think is an absolute priority. That is happening in Bolton—I have visited facilities in Bolton that are displaying excellent care—and we should support such efforts, not criticise them.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

In January 2013, I raised with the Health Secretary the incident in which an 84-year-old lady had to wait 11 hours for an ambulance. This Christmas, a 101-year-old lady had to wait six hours for an ambulance, and an 89-year-old pensioner also had to wait 11 hours for an ambulance. When do individual incidents of failure become a pattern, and is the Health Secretary himself an individual incident of failure?

[Mr Hunt]

I take huge interest in individual examples of where things have gone wrong, and that has informed a lot of my approach to the job. Just like A and E departments, when ambulance services get calls, they have to triage them and deal with the highest-priority calls quickest. The calls they get can sometimes be dealt with after a period of hours, but other calls are much more urgent. The important thing for ambulance services is to know that we are backing them with more paramedics, more investment and more ambulances, and that is what we are doing.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

One of my constituents, an 80-year-old woman, collapsed at home over the weekend. She had to wait an hour for an ambulance to arrive, and she then waited 10 hours in A and E before being treated by medical staff. For most of that time she was on a trolley in a corridor. Will the Secretary of State apologise to my constituent? Does he not regret wasting billions of pounds on a top-down reorganisation of the health service, instead of using the money to fund the additional doctors and nurses who could have treated my constituent and thousands of others like her across the country more quickly?

[Mr Hunt]

Management costs in the NHS doubled under the hon. Gentleman’s Government; under this Government, they have been cut by £1 billion a year, which is paying for 9,000 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses. That is the reality of the NHS under this Government—1 million more people are getting operations every year—and if he really believed in the NHS, he would support and welcome that, rather than criticise it.

Stormont House Agreement

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

13:49

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the political talks in Northern Ireland, which culminated in the Stormont House agreement on 23 December. When I last had occasion to update the House, after the visit to Belfast of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Taoiseach Enda Kenny, I reported that 10 weeks of talks had so far failed to deliver consensus on any of the key issues. I made it clear that the stakes over the coming days were high, and that without an agreement before Christmas we were unlikely to get so close again for months, or even years.

Further intensive discussions duly took place on Wednesday 17 December and continued on Thursday and Friday of that week. Resuming on Monday 22 December, the negotiations continued overnight, concluding some 30 hours later at around lunch time on the 23rd. At that stage, we presented the parties with a final heads of agreement, reflecting the many weeks of discussion and with the input of both the UK and Irish Governments, in accordance with the three-stranded approach. Key issues covered included the finances of the Stormont Executive, reform of the devolved institutions and the legacy issues of flags, parading and the past. I will take each in turn.

The agreement sets a path for the Executive to put their finances on a sustainable footing for the future, averting the impending budget crisis that was threatening the stability and credibility of the institutions. That includes the implementation of welfare reform, with certain agreed adaptations to be paid for out of the Northern Ireland block grant, alongside efficiency measures and reforms to the public sector. Measures to improve the way the devolved institutions work, including provision for an official Opposition, a reduction in the number of Government Departments and a cut in the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly by 2021 are also part of the agreement. A commission on flags, identity and culture is to be established by June and, based on the party leader discussions in the summer, proposals set out by the Government will open the way for a devolved system of adjudicating on parades, to replace the Parades Commission.

Crucially, the agreement also sets out broad-ranging new structures to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. They include an oral history archive, a new historical investigations unit to look at the deaths that occurred as a result of the troubles, and an independent commission for information retrieval to be established by the UK and Irish Governments. All those bodies will be required to operate in a balanced, proportionate, transparent and accountable way, preventing any group or strand of opinion from being able to subvert the process or try to rewrite history.

The new system puts the needs of victims and survivors at centre stage and has reconciliation as a key goal. Consensus on how to deal with Northern Ireland’s past has eluded successive Governments since the Belfast agreement was signed 17 years ago, so the significance of the progress that has been achieved should not be underestimated. The Government have agreed to contribute £150 million over five years to help fund the structures dealing with the past, meaning that the Police Service of Northern Ireland can devote its efforts to policing the present rather than the past. That funding forms part of a wider package of significant financial support from the Government amounting to about £2 billion of additional spending power. That is made up of a combination of new funding and important flexibilities in relation to existing resources, and it is targeted at Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances—the legacy of its divided past, its divided society and its overdependence on the public sector.

Last, but certainly not least, the agreement paves the way for legislation to devolve the power to set the rate of corporation tax for Northern Ireland. A Bill will be presented to the House shortly for First Reading. If the Stormont parties press ahead on agreeing their final budget and on delivering welfare reform legislation, the Government will use all their best endeavours to get the corporation tax legislation on to the statute book before Dissolution. The parties in Northern Ireland have made it clear that they believe that corporation tax devolution can help them rebalance the economy and attract investment, not least because of Northern Ireland’s unique position of having a land border with the Republic of Ireland. I welcome the fact that it is this Government who are delivering that momentous and transformative change, subject to the important conditions contained in the agreement, and I call on the Opposition today to commit to supporting the Bill as a key part of the Stormont House agreement.

The agreement involves compromise on all sides, and it has been widely welcomed. First Minister Peter Robinson hailed it as “a monumental step forward” for Northern Ireland. Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness called it “a remarkable achievement” and

“a fresh start we need to seize with both hands”.

President Obama said that Northern Ireland’s political leaders have shown that

“there is a way to succeed for the benefit of all”,

and Secretary of State Kerry called their actions “statesmanship, pure and simple”.

Securing an agreement is not the end point—far from it. There is much work ahead on implementation for the Executive, for the UK Government and, where appropriate, for the Irish Government. However, I give this assurance: if the parties in the Executive press ahead on that, the Government will implement our side of the agreement, and we will do it faithfully and fairly. There are no side deals.

In closing, I pay tribute to Minister Charlie Flanagan for his crucially important contribution to the process. I would also like to thank the United States Administration, and in particular Secretary Kerry’s special representative, Gary Hart, for their support. I thank all the officials at the Northern Ireland Office who worked so hard on the process. Above all, I would like to record my appreciation for the leadership and determination shown by Northern Ireland’s Executive parties.

In the Government’s view, the Stormont House agreement represents a genuine and significant step forward for Northern Ireland, offering the prospect of real progress on some of the most intractable issues faced there—problems that have defied multiple attempts to resolve them over the years. This agreement gives the five parties in the devolved Executive the chance to refocus and work together with renewed confidence for a more prosperous, more stable, more united and more secure future for the people of Northern Ireland. I urge them to seize the opportunities it presents to build a brighter future for Northern Ireland, and I commend the agreement to the House.

13:56

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Opposition welcome many aspects of the agreement that she has outlined to the House. It is not perfect, but it is a genuine advance on the stalemate of the past two years. I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State and their counterparts in the Irish Government on their painstaking and, I am sure, at times painful facilitation of the talks. I also recognise the contribution of US Secretary of State Kerry’s special representative, Senator Gary Hart.

Throughout the political impasse of the past two years, we have repeatedly called for the Government to play a more active role. We hope that the right lessons have now been learned about the consequences of disengagement for political stability and momentum in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that there is no room for complacency. As we have seen in the recent past, unresolved issues such as parades and flags have the potential to fuel public concern, disorder and, ultimately, political instability.

I want to pay tribute to Northern Ireland’s political leaders for stepping back from the abyss and restoring some level of public confidence in their capacity to move Northern Ireland forward. It should be acknowledged that they face unique challenges in managing the transition from a society scarred by conflict and sectarianism to a more normalised society. However, that acknowledgement does not mean exemption from difficult political choices about priorities, or an expectation of blank cheques from this or any future Westminster Government.

Turning to the agreement itself, we welcome the adoption of a viable budget for the next financial year. It is right that it includes some elements of welfare reform while excluding the pernicious bedroom tax, which an incoming Labour Government will scrap. However, we remain concerned by the Government’s rush to introduce legislation on corporation tax devolution, a decision that will have profound implications for Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We believe that there should be a proper consultation process, including an analysis of the financial impact of significant reductions in corporation tax on Northern Ireland’s block grant, before legislation is introduced in this House.

It is good news that a comprehensive system for dealing with the past has finally been agreed. It is to be hoped that, over time, victims and their loved ones will develop confidence in the integrity of the new architecture and get the truth and justice that they have been denied for too long. We also strongly support the Government’s decision to make new investment available to boost integrated education. That is one of the most powerful manifestations of what a shared future can mean for Northern Ireland.

I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on the block grant if Northern Ireland reduced corporation tax to the levels of the Republic of Ireland? What criteria will be applied to determining whether penalties will be levied by the Treasury next year in connection with welfare reform? What is the time scale for the creation of the new system to deal with the past? What negotiating process will be put in place to deal with unresolved issues such as parades, flags, and other identity issues such as the Irish language? Finally, what process has been agreed to monitor the implementation of the agreement? I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that it is one thing to reach an agreement, but for the sake of credibility, it is incredibly important that that agreement is now implemented.

[Mrs Villiers]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expression of support for much of what is in the agreement, and for his kind comments about the work in which I and Minister Flanagan took part. As ever, I refute his allegation of a period of disengagement. At no stage have this Government been disengaged from Northern Ireland. We have actively worked throughout our time in office, not least in agreeing an economic pact that saw us working more closely with the devolved Executive in Northern Ireland than ever before, in addition to bringing the world’s media to Northern Ireland for the tremendously successful G8 conference.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about progress on budget matters. Those on both Front Benches are united on the point that there will be no blank cheques, and the Government have put forward a significant and important financial package, reflecting Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances. I was disappointed to hear his comments on corporation tax devolution, because I think that change could have a significantly transformative effect on Northern Ireland’s economy. Northern Ireland is in a unique position in the United Kingdom, because it shares a land border with a jurisdiction that has a much lower rate of corporation tax. I urge the hon. Gentleman to urge the shadow Chancellor to allow Labour to support that change, which I believe is good for Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the implications for the block grant. The Azores criteria mean that any future reduction in corporation tax in Northern Ireland needs to be funded from the block grant. Various estimates have been made of what that might look like, but at this stage it is impossible to be certain, not least because no final decision has been made on what the rate would be reduced to.

On the criteria for calculating welfare shortfall payments, the £114 million due in financial year 2015-16 is dependent on progress on implementing welfare reform. The quicker welfare reform is introduced and is up and running, the lower the shortfall payment will be. The time scale on the past is a key point, and the Government are keen to start working with the Northern Ireland Executive on the work needed for those institutions. They will certainly need Assembly legislation and in all likelihood they will also need Westminster legislation, and we are getting on with those matters.

The agreement sets out provision for a commission on flags to be established by June, and it is important that we press ahead with that. There is clearly more work to be done on that issue and on parades, and the agreement provides for further work by the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Executive, bringing forth options that can then be consulted on for reform of the parading system. The process for monitoring will start with its first meeting between the Executive and the Government by the end of January. The final paragraphs of the main part of the agreement set out a system for monitoring implementation, and that will be taken seriously by the Government. It will, of course, involve the Irish Government, where appropriate and consistent with a three-stranded approach, and we look forward to getting down to work with the Executive on those matters.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for providing an advance copy of her statement. What discussions has she had with the parties in Northern Ireland about moving the Assembly and the Executive towards becoming a more efficient decision-making body?

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend will find a section in the agreement on that. There is a commitment to draft a protocol on the use of the petition of concern, and to set out more clearly the sorts of issues on which it should be deployed. There are important changes to the way the Executive work, so that Ministers from the smaller parties can get business on to the agenda. There are proposals for reform of the MLA expenses system, and a commitment to a future reduction in the number of MLAs. I am sure that more could be done in terms of institutional change, but the agreement is a real step forward. In particular, I draw the House’s attention to the provision for an official Opposition for the first time in the history of the devolved institutions.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and all the party leaders on reaching an agreement, not least in view of the Prime Minister’s astonishingly premature exit from the previous summit, and his lack of engagement, which has been greater than that of any Prime Minister for more than 20 years. How can the Secretary of State be sure that this process will not long-grass the key flashpoint issues of parades and flags? On corporation tax, is she aware of Sir David Varney’s 2007 report to the Treasury, which showed that 95% of businesses in Northern Ireland do not pay corporation tax? That is not a silver bullet; it will leave a £300 million hole, or 3%, in the block grant, if there is equalisation with the Republic of Ireland.

[Mrs Villiers]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister has been closely engaged with this process, and the visit he made along with the Taoiseach was significant in moving things forward. The financial package that he was able to agree with the Treasury was a crucial part of our progress. This Government have delivered significant achievements on some of the most difficult issues that Northern Ireland faces, and that is in large part due to work done by the Prime Minister.

I have acknowledged that there is more work to be done on the difficult issues of parades and flags, and no one would say for a moment that this agreement is the last word. I will be working, as will my officials and colleagues in government, to find a way forward on those matters, and ensure that they are not long-grassed and that we make real progress. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, those issues can cause huge disruption in Northern Ireland and poison the political relationships that are crucial to making the Executive work effectively. He says that corporation tax devolution is not a silver bullet. I agree that on its own it will not transform the Northern Ireland economy, but combined with other economic reform, a focus on skills and competitiveness, and economic reform across the board, it can have a significant and transformative effect. That is why I am disappointed that Labour is not supporting it.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her statement, and all parties involved on showing real perseverance through some intractable negotiations. On the past, I pay tribute to all those at the Historical Enquiries Team who produced reports on cases that may have been low profile but nevertheless presented a real agony to relatives and friends of murder victims. I hope that the successor organisation will continue to publish such reports as they are of immense importance to those individuals. Looking to the future, the decision to introduce a Bill on corporation tax is tremendous and a tribute to all parties—the Opposition should remember that all political parties wish for it. Grow NI has overwhelming support from the business community in Northern Ireland, and estimates a cost of £200 million to £300 million if the tax were dropped to the level of the Republic. That is a very small investment in total Government spending of £23 billion in Northern Ireland. What issues does the Secretary of State believe might impede the progress of that Bill on to the statute book before March?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of reports by the HET. Paragraph 30 of the agreement provides that the historical investigations unit will continue to provide those types of reports to families as part of its work. I pay a warm tribute to the work my right hon. Friend has done on corporation tax. He championed it alongside Grow NI, business groups and Northern Ireland’s political leaders, particularly the Democratic Unionist party, and it is a tremendous achievement that the Bill is now so close to being presented to Parliament. That is a real tribute to my right hon. Friend’s work as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Chair is obviously keen to accommodate everybody, but can I please appeal to each colleague to put one pithy question, not a miscellany of inquiries for which, frankly, we do not have time?

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

On 15 December, the Secretary of State told this House:

“the north Belfast panel”—

on parades—

“will be constituted shortly.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1136.]

The Secretary of State knows that we did not negotiate on the issue of parades in the talks and that, of course, the Ligoniel parade was outside the ambit of those talks, but can she tell the House why, eight days later on 23 December, she went back on her word, did not consult the Unionist parties, did not consult this House and has not made any further statement other than to retract and give to Sinn Fein the opportunity to announce that the panel was not going ahead? Why did she do that? Is that not an act of gross bad faith? Is it not something that will cause immeasurable trouble in the days, weeks and months ahead? The festering sort of the denial of human rights to the people of Twaddell is not going to go away. If she does not intervene and do something—it is her responsibility; it is not devolved—it will get worse and worse in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mrs Villiers]

I fully appreciate how strongly the right hon. Gentleman feels. I am absolutely determined to continue to work with him and with Northern Ireland’s party leaders to find a way forward to ensure that we find a way to resolve the parading impasse. As we have had the chance to discuss, the trouble with the panel was that it did not have enough support. It never had nationalist support. The Unionist coalition that had called for it to be set up in the first place could not produce a public statement in support and had actually broken up—some of the smaller parties had walked out. None of the smaller parties were making the case for the panel publicly, and there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm among the smaller parties. I regret the way the news came out. I have apologised to the right hon. Gentleman for that, but now we need to move forward and find something that will work to try to resolve the impasse in north Belfast.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and all the staff who worked on this. It is a real achievement. My right hon. Friend knows that I am not much given to flattery, but it is a real achievement for which she deserves congratulations. She said that this is not the end. Going forward, will she ensure that those who were perhaps stumbling blocks—I understand Sinn Fein was a little bit difficult about welfare reform—are not allowed to stop this process in its tracks, and that we all work towards an Northern Ireland that is exactly like the rest of the United Kingdom, where people can go about their daily lives without fear, without corruption and without criminality?

[Mrs Villiers]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind comments. I echo his praise for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who worked with great assiduousness and devotion on these matters alongside, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, many of the civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. It is a tremendously important step forward that the political parties together were able to find a compromise on welfare reform. It does involve a top-up from the block grant to reflect Northern Ireland’s circumstances. Agreement on welfare reform was essential to putting together a sustainable budget. The important thing now is for a final budget to be agreed by the end of January and for progress on a welfare Bill passing through to consideration stage in the Assembly before the end of February. Those are the next steps.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Can she possibly give us a little more detail on the specifics for the implementation of the legislation in the Chamber here in Westminster and in the Assembly? What particular legislation will apply to both? In relation to victims and the past, the detail is quite light. Many people will believe that the information sought in relation to inquests by those who have been deliberately affected—the victims and survivors—will not be met, because it falls far short of Haass and Eames-Bradley.

[Mrs Villiers]

I expect the House to receive news on legislation on corporation tax in the very, very near future. We are working on how the structure of legislation in the Assembly and Westminster on the rest of the package is precisely to be formulated. The procedures for review and monitoring are set out in paragraphs 73 to 75. In relation to inquests and the provision of information to families, it is crucial that we all work on this. The agreement has a commitment to reform. There is an acknowledgement that the current inquest system is not meeting the needs of the families effectively enough and not delivering the Government’s obligations under article 2 effectively enough. That will be a hugely important priority for the UK Government. We hope to work closely with the Department of Justice in the work that it will no doubt be doing on this.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that an agreement was reached, but will the Secretary of State set out exactly how much extra money has been given to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make the deal happen? Does she regret that, yet again, we have shown that if the parties of Northern Ireland hold out for long enough, Westminster will eventually cave in and send more money over?

[Mrs Villiers]

I can outline the financial package, but it is a fair one. It was not a blank cheque. It recognises that Northern Ireland faces specific problems that the rest of the United Kingdom does not. In outline, it involves £150 million over five years to help to fund work on the past; flexibility to use £700 million of capital borrowing to fund a voluntary exit scheme for four years; a contribution of up to £500 million over 10 years of capital funding for shared and integrated education; £350 million of borrowing for capital infrastructure projects; and the flexibility to use the receipts from asset sales and capital funding to repay the welfare shortfall payments.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I welcome the replacement of the Parades Commission, which in my view has done more harm than good. May I take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)? There is one parade that is causing huge long-term problems in north Belfast. Will the Secretary of State get involved personally? Will she talk to the Orange Order directly? Will she visit Twaddell avenue camp, as many of us have, and actually talk to the people there to understand why they feel so strongly about this very small amount of road that people are deliberately trying to stop them going back along? Until that is sorted, none of this talk about parades commissions or new bodies will work. She has the power to get this solved.

[Mrs Villiers]

I assure the hon. Lady that I will certainly be meeting the Orange Order and others who have a very strong interest in these matters. I fully appreciate the huge importance that both sides of the dispute place on them. I have been actively involved, and I will continue to be actively involved to try to find a way forward. This dispute is in nobody’s interests and we need to find a way to solve it.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and I pay tribute to all the party leaders, and the Prime Minister, who helped to make it happen. I am disappointed that there was not more progress on the Parades Commission. We have kicked it back to June and to the middle of the marching season, which is going to be rather difficult. I would also like to pay tribute to the decision to have an independent audit on the cost of division. That will be terribly important to help us move forward. My question, however, relates to paragraph 69 and shared and integrated education. The Secretary of State knows there is a world of difference between shared education and integrated education. I would be grateful for her take on what she believes that means and what impact it will have on education in Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Villiers]

Clearly, there is much work to be done on parades. Whatever had gone into the agreement, there were always going to be decisions to be made on the implementation process. I agree that the proposal to have an independent audit of the cost of division is very important—a point championed in particular by the Alliance party. There is obviously a slightly blurred division between integrated education and shared education, but what they both have in common is that they ensure that the children who go through those schools have the chance to get to know and learn alongside children from other community backgrounds. That is a crucial means of helping to deliver a shared and united future for Northern Ireland. That is why the Prime Minister has given a substantial commitment to supporting integrated and shared education through funding.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

With so many people throughout Northern Ireland feeling profoundly disillusioned with the performance of the Northern Ireland Assembly, will the Secretary of State accept that it is imperative that the political parties make the agreement work this time and that they do so with a generosity of spirit? I speak as someone who absolutely loathed direct rule and who is passionate about devolution and ensuring that the Assembly survives and succeeds to serve the whole of Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Villiers]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s sentiments. She is absolutely right. This is an opportunity for Northern Ireland’s political leaders to make it work. Anyone who thinks the agreement takes us in the wrong direction needs to reflect on the alternative: increasing chaos over the budget and increasing tension over a range of issues. This is an opportunity. There is work ahead of us all to implement the agreement, however, and I hope that everyone in the House will urge the Northern Ireland parties to seize the opportunity and make the agreement work for all of Northern Ireland.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recall the behaviour of the Democratic Unionist party over the vote on 42-day detention in the last Parliament, the deal for which cost this country about £1 billion. From the numbers she just gave my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), it would seem that this latest deal has cost the taxpayers of Great Britain another £1 billion. Does she, like me, fear for the fate of this country if, by some mischance, there is not a clear Conservative majority at the next election and the Administration has to rely on that lot over there?

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Conservatives are campaigning for a majority Conservative Government at the general election, not for coalitions of any sort. I will not comment on the history of the 42-day vote. I am keen to emphasise the crucial role played by First Minister Peter Robinson and the DUP in delivering a significant package of reforms for Northern Ireland.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and her team and to the Irish and American Governments, who were involved in the talks over a protracted period. On many of these issues, the Stormont House agreement provides a road map for Northern Ireland, particularly around finances, but much deeper reform is needed than simply filling the holes. I also believe in dealing with the past. However, on other key and volatile issues, such as parading and flags, this has simply become a parking garage where things will be left to sit until the difficult period over the summer. What will she do personally to remain engaged on those key issues? It is clear that there is not the will across all parties to come to a mature resolution on them.

[Mrs Villiers]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments and pay tribute to the sterling work done by her and her party in moving things forwards on all these issues through the cross-party talks and in other ways. She is right to describe the agreement as a road map. As ever with agreements in Northern Ireland’s history, this is a further staging post, and the next journey along the road will be implementation. Of course, I will be directly involved in keeping everything moving on implementation. Given the comments we have heard, I will no doubt be spending a lot of time on parading matters over the coming weeks.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her hard work and all the political parties in Northern Ireland on delivering this agreement. However, may I press her for a little more information about how we can rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland? As I understand it, 80% of the economy there is dependent on the public sector. I am keen that there is not a significant impact on taxpayers in my constituency.

[Mrs Villiers]

On rebalancing the economy, as I have said, the devolution of corporation tax—assuming that the conditions are met—could have a transformative effect. In addition, the economic pact sets out other means to deliver the competitiveness that Northern Ireland needs to rebalance its economy. It will require reform of the planning system—that was proposed in the Assembly, but has not progressed as yet; crucially, a strong focus on skills and education; and measures to reduce red tape, which is why the pact contains a commitment by the Executive to a reduction of red tape. The Enterprise Minister has followed that up with some important work.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the advance copy of the statement that the Secretary of State gave us, but I am rather perplexed at the attitude towards corporation tax of the Labour Front-Bench team. We have worked hard to achieve this, and for it to be delayed would be a shame.

On the financial agreement, the Secretary of State said that she would allow the proceeds of specific agreed asset sales to be retained entirely by Northern Ireland. What are those assets? Will she confirm whether they include the port of Belfast, Translink, the water service and/or Northern Ireland car parks?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is important that the Executive give proper consideration to those and all other assets of a similar nature, but it would not be right for me to prejudge what sale proposals the Executive might develop. Each asset will be considered in relation to the provision in the agreement’s financial annexe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I add my voice to those who are congratulating my right hon. Friend, her team and everyone involved in getting agreement at Stormont House? It is fantastic.

I am pleased that there is to be a new historical investigations unit. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the investigation will continue into what happened to the late Captain Robert Nairac GC and where his body might be located?

[Mrs Villiers]

I reiterate my sympathies and condolences to Robert Nairac’s friends and family, who must feel the pain of their loss even after so many years. Of course, a process is already in place for seeking the remains of the disappeared, and I do not think it would necessarily be impacted on by the HIU’s work. However, as part of the implementation process, we will work out how it will interact with existing bodies.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about the achievement of this agreement. There were many people who said a Conservative-led Government could not do this kind of thing. Well, they have been proved wrong.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

On corporation tax, I am quite happy for the north to adjust its corporation tax to compete with the south, but this is also a Westminster Government, so we need to be clear that doing that will not disadvantage other parts of the UK, including places such as the one I represent.

On the demise of the HET, the Northern Ireland Committee heard just before Christmas that because of budget cuts to the police, the work of the HET, which we thought would end in three years, will not end for nine. We have been told today that there will be legislation in this House and Belfast. When does the Secretary of State envisage the legislation going through and the HIU being put in place? What does she think the time scale for concluding all those investigations will be? Will it be shorter or longer than we thought?

[Mrs Villiers]

Obviously, the PSNI has made some difficult announcements in recent weeks in seeking to absorb budget reductions, but the funding package and agreement, when implemented, will provide some relief. I hope that means that the work the PSNI indicated would take much longer than it had originally expected can be completed more quickly. We have put forward our proposal, and we hope that the HIU will complete the bulk of its work within five years.

On corporation tax, it is key to recognise that Northern Ireland is different and that there are specific reasons to justify its devolution in Northern Ireland that do not apply to the rest of the UK.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the patience and resolve she has shown in helping the parties reach an agreement, particularly on the milestone of establishing an official Opposition in Northern Ireland, which is an important step forward in the normalisation of politics in the Province.

On the past, it is great that we have seen a degree of agreement between the parties, but does she agree that nothing in the agreement should imply an amnesty for the criminal gangs who preyed on the people of Northern Ireland for so long?

[Mrs Villiers]

Absolutely not. There are no amnesties in the agreement. This Government do not support such things, and they would not be justified in this instance.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State mentioned parades a number of times, and those will be a problem in the future. Does she therefore understand the frustration of my constituents at the Drumcree protest, which has been ongoing for 16 years? The panel gave us the possibility of finding a model to deal with that parade, but the rug has again been pulled from under us. Does she understand the complete frustration?

[Mrs Villiers]

I do, and the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the Drumcree situation on many occasions. It is important in north Belfast to focus urgently on finding an inclusive process to bring the two sides together. That is why I will be meeting many of the different groups involved in the next few days and discussing these matters with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the First Minister tomorrow.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her role in securing the agreement. Does she agree that the proposed independent commission on information retrieval should attach the same importance to requesting information from the British Government as is attached to pursuing the cases of the disappeared people who were victims of IRA murders during the troubles?

[Mrs Villiers]

Certainly, and it is crucial that the work on the disappeared is allowed to continue. Thankfully, it has been possible to find answers in relation to a number of cases. Sadly, many have so far not been resolved, but the good work done by the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims Remains is a good model on which to base the ICIR’s work for the future.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

Let me say to the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) that if he is faced with the choice of the Scottish nationalist party or a Unionist party, he may have cause to think again about the comments he just made.

The Secretary of State will join me in welcoming the progress we have made on dealing with our troubled past in Northern Ireland. She knows the hard work that was put in during the talks to achieve this outcome, which is a victim-centred outcome. However, many of those victims were victims of people operating from the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic; indeed, some were murdered in the Irish Republic. Will she ensure that the Irish Government hold good to the commitment and obligations they have undertaken in the agreement to co-operate fully with all the institutions dealing with the past and release all papers, documents and files held by Irish state forces that will assist in the apprehension of those responsible for those murders?

[Mrs Villiers]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his hugely important work in the cross-party talks and for delivering what I believe is a good agreement overall, although his input on the past has been particularly highly valued. It is important that all participants—the UK Government, the Irish Government and the Executive parties—play their part and live up to the obligations they have undertaken. Minister Flanagan has repeated on many occasions that his Government would co-operate with those institutions; I have every confidence that they will do so.

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

I commend the statement and acknowledge the comprehensive efforts made by all involved in reaching the agreement. The Secretary of State alluded to the need to ensure that the process did not become a rewriting of history. Will she go further and indicate to the wider public in Northern Ireland that there has to be a distinction between the genuinely innocent victims in the past who were murdered and butchered, and those who caused that murder and butchery and happened to be caught up in violence of their own hand?

[Mrs Villiers]

Of course there is a very clear distinction between those two. I know that there continues to be controversy around the way that the law defines a victim, which has been the barrier to taking forward the proposal for a pension for severely physically injured victims. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the agreement commits to there being further work on whether we can find a way to enable that pension to be taken forward without raising those problems around the definition of “victim”. It is a difficult issue, but one that we should all continue to try to find an answer to.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

Failure to agree on contentious issues such as flags and parading has led to violent protests, as we all know. What additional steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that the PSNI has adequate resources to guarantee security for the people of Northern Ireland and the capacity to police public events?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. The agreement will help partly by providing extra funding for institutions that are doing work on the past that is currently done by the PSNI, but the financial annex attached to the financial package also contains an obligation on the Executive to do what they can to minimise reductions in police funding. Given the financial realities, it seems inevitable that there will be reductions in PSNI funding to some degree, but the UK Government would certainly like these to be kept to an absolute minimum, which is why it is in the financial annex to the agreement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for all the hard work that she and many others did to achieve the Stormont House agreement. We in the Democratic Unionist party ensured that the bedroom tax would not be implemented in Northern Ireland thanks to the flexibilities and the top-ups that we secured through the Northern Ireland block grant. Sinn Fein, of course, opposed that, but they never turned up in this Chamber to vote against it. However, this time Sinn Fein have joined with the DUP to agree a deal, which means that there is now no obstacle to a revised welfare reform Bill for Northern Ireland. Can the Minister set out the time scale for welfare reform in Northern Ireland and the legislative process through this House?

[Mrs Villiers]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. It is a hugely important step that the five parties reached an agreement on a way forward on welfare reform. It is indeed a matter for the Northern Ireland parties that they have applied the top-up in relation to certain matters, including the spare room subsidy, which they are funding through their block grant. It is now vital that progress is made on implementing welfare reform as soon as possible, so that we can press ahead with the rest of the agreement.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State will be glad that I will not rehearse the issues of welfare and finance that many of us concentrated on in the negotiations. She is right that we should not understate certain aspects of the agreement. However, it would also be wrong to oversell other aspects, where we have superficially strimmed the long grass, not least in respect of parades. Does she now regret her misadventure in proposing a panel on north Belfast, believing that that would somehow assist the talks, when we now know from the Unionist parties that their position was that, on the expected promise of the panel, they were not going to negotiate on parades in those discussions?

[Mr Dodds]

Rubbish.

[Mark Durkan]

We heard it from them today and we heard it from their leaders this week. That is why we had all the nugatory discussions in Stormont House about parades, and therefore ended up with no negotiations on parades, and those who wanted a panel have now ended up with no panel. That is the Secretary of State’s fault.

[Mrs Villiers]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and the Social Democratic and Labour party for the work they did on welfare reform and, in particular, the past, where their ideas have been highly influential. I think everyone would acknowledge that there is more work to be done on parades, and that it will be crucial to take that forward for the good of all in Northern Ireland whose lives are potentially disrupted by parades and for those who want to conduct their parades and express their culture in the way they have for hundreds of years.

As for the panel, as I said to the right hon. Member for Belfast North, unfortunately there was just not enough support for it. It was well intentioned, and I still believe that we need to find a way to mediate between the two sides and find an inclusive process that can engage as widely as possible. It became apparent that the panel would not be able to do that. We need to find a way forward, and I will be working with the Northern Ireland Executive and their parties to seek to do that.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State mentioned the establishment of a commission to consider flags and emblems. Does she agree that it is absolutely outrageous that the people of Northern Ireland are not permitted to have their flag, the flag of the United Kingdom, displayed on their driving licences like everywhere else in the United Kingdom—the SDLP is trying to out-green and out-Sinn Sinn Fein—especially bearing in mind that people in Northern Ireland died to keep Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom and beat the provos?

[Mrs Villiers]

These are hugely sensitive issues and these matters have been under discussion in various forums for many years, and the proposal to have a broader civic conversation and debate about finding a way forward is a good one. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was first proposed by Dr Richard Haass in the work that he and Meghan O’Sullivan did. We simply do not have all the answers on how all these matters need to be resolved. Including as many people as possible in finding a way forward on these sensitive and crucial questions of identity is an important step towards that.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The additional money made available to Northern Ireland through flexibility and borrowing, and the extra money for the additional institutions, will be welcome. Despite what the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said in his little Englander outburst, which helps nationalism more than the nasty nationalists of this House do when it comes to the break-up of the Union, this is something that Northern Ireland needed.

The important thing is to rebalance the economy as well. Will the Secretary of State spell out for us what exactly she means when she says that the Government will use their “best endeavours” to get the legislation on corporation tax through Parliament? Does that mean that that might not happen, and if not, why can she not give total clarity that the legislation will go through before the end of this Session?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said before, the reality is that introducing legislation at this stage of a Parliament runs the risk of running out of time for it, in which case we become dependent on the Opposition for getting it through. We will try to speed it through as best we can, assuming that the Northern Ireland Executive do their bit. We had hoped to introduce the legislation in December, in which case we would have been pretty confident of getting it through on time without the support of the Opposition. Given the delay of a few weeks, it is more uncertain. That is why I put the question I did to the shadow Secretary of State, but we will certainly try our very best to get this legislation on the statute book.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate all the parties involved in enabling the statement to be made and in achieving the agreement, which is a significant step forward for Northern Ireland. The rising inequality and rising child poverty that we have seen under this Government and their hostility to public sector work have had an impact on Northern Ireland, creating a potential breeding ground for paramilitaries and political extremists. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Chancellor about the impact on Northern Ireland of the decisions this Government have taken and of increasing poverty? What is she going to do to support a peaceful future by ensuring that Northern Ireland, and the rest of the United Kingdom, is able to have a more equal future than it has had in the recent past?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have had many discussions with the Chancellor on Northern Ireland matters. This Government’s economic plan is working for Northern Ireland. There has been significant inward investment and a significant number of jobs created, and the Northern Ireland economy is predicted to grow at a faster rate than the economies of many major developed economies around the world. The economy is turning around in Northern Ireland, which is a result of the work done by this Government.

Points of Order

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

14:43

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 4 December in answer to written question number 216656 about cuts to the east coast main line by the new operators Virgin and Stagecoach and the reduction in the number of stops, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport with responsibility for rail franchises, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), replied with a list of stations that would receive a reduction of one daily stop. This included Dunbar station in my constituency, and as you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, it caused great upset and distress for many of my constituents. However, today I was contacted by Stagecoach which informed me that my constituents and I have been misled. What assistance can you give me to ensure that the Under-Secretary corrects her answer, provides more accurate answers in future and apologises to my constituents?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise a point of order. Unusually, it seems that she has had better news than she expected. The hon. Lady is well aware that the content of a ministerial answer is not a matter for me, but I am quite certain that if the Minister has inadvertently given a wrong answer, she will take the first opportunity to correct it. I have every confidence that those on the Treasury Bench will convey to the relevant Minister the points that have been made.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question on A and E, I challenged the Secretary of State to say whether he regretted the Government’s recommendation to close the A and E at Lewisham hospital, and he accused me of misleading my constituents and therefore of misleading the House. I have in my hand the recommendation of the special administrator’s report, published on 7 January 2013, which recommends closure of Lewisham’s A and E and its replacement with an urgent care centre. Given that the Secretary of State accepted that recommendation and was then forced to rescind it after a judicial review in October 2013, can you give me some guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can get the record put straight and bring the Secretary of State back here to correct what he said because I was not misleading the House or my constituents?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point of order, but as I said to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), the contents of what a Minister has said at the Dispatch Box or elsewhere is not a matter for me. He asks how he might draw attention to the facts, but he has just done so. Once again, I am confident that those on the Treasury Bench, from whom I am receiving nods of agreement, will make sure the Minister is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s point. No one wants the record of this place ever to be wrong, and it is important to correct it at the first opportunity.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Monday this week, the Prime Minister chose to make only a written statement on the European Council meeting instead of his customary oral statement during which Members can question him on the issues raised. Given the intensification of the eurozone crisis and its implications for Britain, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, to which there has been much opposition, and the many other important matters that have been raised, it was vital for the Prime Minister to report to the House in person and submit to questioning from Members, even if on a later day than usual. Will you use your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, to seek to persuade the Prime Minister to make his European Council statements orally on all occasions so that all Members have an opportunity to question him personally and in public?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I might have any influence whatsoever over the Prime Minister. I can assure him that of course I do not. But he does, and it is open to him, as indeed it is to any Member, to submit an application for an urgent question, which Mr Speaker would consider. If the urgent question is truly urgent, the Prime Minister or another Minister would be obliged to come to the House. I can also advise the hon. Gentleman that if he wishes to debate the matter, he can apply to do so through the good offices of the Backbench Business Committee.

Alcohol Labelling (Pregnancy)

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

14:48

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require establishment of a statutory scheme providing for clear and consistent labelling of alcoholic beverages as they relate to foetal health and safety and that of pregnant women; and for connected purposes.

Seven thousand children a year are born in the UK damaged by alcohol. That is one in every 100 births. Mild brain damage can be caused to children by even small amounts of alcohol at the wrong time during pregnancy, especially in the early stages when an embryo does not have the protection of a bloodstream. Much scientific evidence suggests that there is no safe limit when it comes to drinking in pregnancy, but sadly not everyone is aware of the dangers. The chief medical officer says:

“Women who are pregnant or trying to conceive should avoid alcohol altogether. However, if they do choose to drink, to minimise the risk to the baby, we recommend they should not drink more than one or two units once or twice a week and should not get drunk.”

She goes on to say:

“There is uncertainty about how much alcohol is safe to drink in pregnancy”.

The CMO also says that if a low level is consumed, there is no evidence of harm to an unborn baby. However, this view is not universally shared.

The National Organisation for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome UK tells us that there is no way to know for sure what impact drinking alcohol might have on an unborn baby. The same point is made by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. According to NOFAS, a similar amount of alcohol might affect one baby but not another. We know that heavy drinking and binge drinking during pregnancy increase the risk of foetal alcohol syndrome, which is characterised by physical deformities, but there is a lack of consensus on the effects of smaller amounts of alcohol during pregnancy, as is shown by the apparent contradiction between that advice and the advice given by the chief medical officer.

The effects on a child can range from reduced intellectual ability and attention deficit disorder to heart problems and premature death. Many children experience serious behavioural and social difficulties that last a lifetime. In fact, what most of us take for granted is a lifelong struggle for them, and the damage that has been caused cannot be reversed. Not everyone whose mother drinks during pregnancy suffers damage that affects his or her life chances, and this is certainly not an attack on women, but the damage that is done by alcohol to too many children shows the need for action, and it shows that too many of us do not understand the potential risks of drinking alcohol at any point during pregnancy.

In 2007, Lord Mitchell introduced a private Member’s Bill which led to a voluntary system of labelling in the UK, but not all alcohol containers feature a warning, and there is also the vital question of how effective the labels are. The label that is used is only a few millimetres high, and is supposed to show a picture of a pregnant woman taking a drink with a line crossed through the picture to suggest that the woman should not be drinking alcohol. However, many people do not notice the symbol or realise what it is. The fact is that the labels in this country are inadequate, as well as not being universal. However, labels on containers are not the only way in which awareness needs to be increased. In Canada, four to 11-year-olds learn about the dangers of drinking alcohol during pregnancy, which ensures that awareness is ingrained in the minds of the new generation. Posters about foetal alcohol syndrome are displayed in railway stations, airports, surgeries and shops.

I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), is present. During my Westminster Hall debate on 14 October, she referred to the review by the chief medical officer. That review appears to be taking a very long time to complete. I hope that the chief medical officer will listen to the British Society of Gastroenterology, which wants to see a decent-sized warning message in writing rather than just a symbol on labels.

The president-elect of the British Medical Association, Sir Al Aynsley Green, told me that he thought there should be a much fuller debate about the risks to children from drinking alcohol during pregnancy. He suggested that the Government should examine the evidence from Canada, where education and awareness of the risks are combined with support for children, families and professionals who are dealing with the effects of foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. In the United States and in Canada, labels on all containers of alcohol include the message “Women should not drink alcohol while pregnant or trying to conceive”. In the United Kingdom, symbols are more common than warning messages, and when a written warning is used, it is so small that, like the symbols, it is hard to read. However, improving labelling is only part of the answer. We also need to help the children who are damaged, and those who are trying to support them or live with them.

My Bill is about making sure that all the facts are available, and about avoiding confusing or conflicting advice, whether it comes from the Government or from other sources. The existing labels are inadequate, which is why I am calling for a mandatory system of labelling that is clear, cannot be easily missed, and gives the best advice. That advice must be for women not to drink at all while they are pregnant or trying to conceive. Such a system of labelling should be designed to reduce the number of children who are damaged at great cost to themselves and to society.

I invite those who say that my Bill will make no difference to meet some of the children who have been damaged because their mothers did not know of the dangers and continued to drink. I invite them to talk to carers, to teachers and to NHS staff who are trying to help the children who are struggling to deal with a world in which their brains do not function properly as a result of damage caused during pregnancy. I invite them to say what they would do to reduce the number of children who are damaged during pregnancy as a result of the drinking of alcohol. If improving labelling is not part of the answer, then what is?

To the drinks industry I say, “Consider the content of the labels now, look at what happens in Canada and the United States, and make the necessary changes without legislation.” Some children will continue to be born suffering permanent damage from the effects of alcohol consumed by their mothers during pregnancy, but evidence shows what is needed if we are to reduce the number of children who suffer in this way. So to the Government I say, “Update the guidance, and support my Bill.”

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Bill Esterson, Rosie Cooper, Tracey Crouch, Nia Griffith, Julie Hilling, Kelvin Hopkins, Barbara Keeley, Tim Loughton, Lisa Nandy, Jim Shannon, Sir Andrew Stunell and Dr Sarah Wollaston present the Bill.

Bill Esterson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed (Bill 147).

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in Committee of the whole House

Clause 24

Power to issue guidance

14:57

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

I beg to move amendment 7, page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

‘(5) Before giving guidance under this section, or revising guidance already given, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—

(a) the proposed guidance or proposed revisions; and

(b) a draft of an order providing for the guidance, or revisions to the guidance, to come into force.

(6) The Secretary of State must make the order, and issue the guidance or (as the case may be) make the revisions to the guidance, if the draft of the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(7) Guidance, or revisions to guidance, come into force in accordance with an order under this section.

(8) Such an order—

(a) is to be a statutory instrument; and

(b) may contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.”

This would ensure that statutory guidance produced under Clause 24 was subject to an affirmative resolution of each House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in clause 29, page 17, line 29, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

‘(7) To support panels exercising their functions under this section the Secretary of State must—

(a) provide guidance on the exercise of those functions;

(b) provide a list of approved providers for de-radicalisation programmes that may be referred to under subsection (4); and

(c) ensure that the providers listed under paragraph (b) are subject to monitoring.”

This would give a greater role to the Secretary of State in supporting the role of local support panels. The Secretary of State would have to provide guidance (rather than it being optional) and she would also have to provide a list of approved providers for de-radicalisation programmes and ensure they would be subject to monitoring.

[Diana Johnson]

Let me begin by expressing my horror at the terror attack that took place in Paris today. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the family and friends of the victims of that attack, and, of course, we all stand in solidarity with the French people at this time.

Part 5 of the Bill contains measures to counter extremism in communities and to deal directly with vulnerable individuals. As Ministers will recall, it was the last Labour Government who introduced both the Prevent agenda and the Channel programme, and we remain absolutely committed to supporting and, indeed, strengthening both policies. Obviously the Government reviewed Prevent when they came to office, and it is important for us to view the measures in the Bill in the context of the changes that they introduced. I think that those changes are a rather mixed bag, and I am not sure that they were particularly successful.

Both Prevent and Channel require a partnership between central Government and local agencies, and amendments 7 and 6 are intended to ensure that the Government support local bodies in the delivery of both programmes. While we agree that Prevent should involve local delivery, it seems to us that the recent problems stem from central Government. There has been a marked decline in Prevent’s funding, which has fallen from £17 million a year to just £1 million. Some of that clearly resulted from a conscious decision, but there also appears to have been mismanagement. Every year £5.1 million has been allocated for local delivery, but I understand that over the past four years more than 60% of it has gone unclaimed.

In Committee, I raised a number of concerns about the delivery of Prevent at national level, and about the monitoring and support supplied by central Government to local agencies. I am sure that the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—although I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) in the Chamber today—recalls that I spoke at length about my concern about the performance of the Department for Education. I do not want to go through all that again, but I think that the Government’s role should be formalised in the Bill so that we know what is expected of them.

15:00

So, we have no problems with the principle of the general duty on public bodies to prevent terrorism, but this could mean a number of different things, and it is therefore important that the guidance is as full and effective as possible. In Committee, we tabled an amendment to mandate the issuing of guidance. As a consultation on the draft guidance was then issued—I think on the last day before the Christmas recess—we have not tabled that amendment again, but we do still feel that the guidance that has been issued, and which is subject to consultation, should be subject to a very full debate and approval by both Houses of Parliament. That is why we have tabled amendment 7.

I shall raise some issues with the current guidance but first I want to emphasise the potential scope of the guidance. Under the enabling provisions as currently drafted in the Bill, the guidance could be written and rewritten by the Secretary of State at will. The guidance is very important because it could have a bearing on free speech, academic freedoms and patient-doctor relations, but under the Bill as currently drafted, Parliament would have no role in overseeing what is in it.

My other concern is that one set of guidance will apply to numerous bodies, as set out in schedule 3, and therefore will have to apply in very disparate settings. There are also real issues as to how the guidance will cover Scotland and Wales. The consultation document states:

“Where English and Welsh authorities are different, however, the guidance has so far been drafted only to apply to the English authorities. It is the hope and intention of the UK Government that Scottish authorities will be included, and that this guidance will be applicable to authorities in England, Scotland and Wales.”

The guidance is therefore supposed to cover all countries in the UK, but consideration has, at this stage, been given only to England. Will there be fresh consultation looking specifically at Wales and Scotland once agreement has been reached with the respective Administrations about which bodies within those countries it will apply to?

There is similar confusion over two-tier local authorities, which was also a matter I raised in Committee. The guidance that has been issued simply states:

“In two-tier areas, county and district councils will need to agree proportionate arrangements for sharing the assessment of risk and for agreeing local Prevent action plans”,

but nothing more is said about how that is going to work and how the relative burden should be shared between different authorities. I have to say that I do not think that local government will find this guidance helpful in the way it is currently drafted.

In addition to these issues about where the guidance is to be implemented, there are a number of issues with the guidance itself. My key concern with the document is that there is very little help for public bodies in identifying what terrorism actually is. The document talks about tackling both violent and non-violent extremism, but contains very little to help public bodies identify either. I think we can draw important comparisons with child abuse and domestic violence in this regard. Improving best practice in those areas has required better understanding of the indications of abuse. Everyone agrees we should stop child abuse and violent extremism, but in both cases the problem is that public bodies have often failed to spot the key signs. This document does not do enough to remedy that for extremism and terrorism.

The guidance is very strong on procedures, but short on content. There is a real danger that the guidance could result in a series of time-consuming tick-box exercises performed by public bodies at all levels, without any improvement in the identification or understanding of violent extremism, and that is something we should all want to avoid. For example, there are frequent instructions for bodies to conduct risk assessment exercises, but no guidance on how they should conduct such an exercise, or what factors they should prioritise. If we look specifically at health care we see that duties are placed on a whole host of bodies, and then Monitor, the Trust Development Authority and the Care Quality Commission are all expected to monitor compliance. However, it is envisaged that those bodies—which are already over-stretched—should just check that processes have been followed. I therefore question whether this is the most effective way of ensuring that the Prevent agenda is implemented.

I have similar concerns about the higher education sector. The document’s references to that sector envisage that the Higher Education Funding Council for England will be conducting monitoring and evaluation of the processes that the sector will have to undertake. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to help me understand what happens in Wales and Scotland—as far as I am aware, HEFCE covers only England.

When I met Calie Pistorius, the vice-chancellor of Hull university, which is in my constituency, and its student union president, Richard Brooks, I was very impressed when I learned from both of them about the procedures and practices already in place at the university for dealing with external speakers and room bookings, for example, and for making sure that everybody understands their responsibilities and that there is effective communication. The university and its student union have been identified as one of the best examples of working together to ensure that issues of concern to Prevent are dealt with effectively on that campus, and I pay tribute to them for the work they are doing.

All this focus on processes in the consultation document risks detracting from outcomes and wasting time and effort. At a time of huge cuts in the public sector, we should be trying to minimise the burden on public bodies, particularly those facing very low risks.

Much has been made of this guidance applying to nurseries. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has raised that, and he makes the important point that that setting will generally face a low risk, as will district councils in the Outer Hebrides, for example, yet these bodies will still have to fulfil the processes under Prevent. The guidance document therefore needs to include some differentiation to enable this to work in practice. I want to ask the Minister about childminders in particular, as they are identified in the consultation document. What exactly is a childminder expected to do to fulfil the Prevent requirements, especially as we know that small children—boys and girls—often like to play and act using toy guns and swords? What does the Minister think childminders should be expected to do in such circumstances, in the light of the Prevent consultation?

Throughout the document there is a real failure to deliver a proper analysis of the problem. The introduction makes clear that the focus should be on “Islamist extremists”, and it is clear that a much lower priority is given to white supremacists, for example. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about that. Can she tell me how many referrals to the Channel programme have been for people proclaiming white supremacist views? It would be helpful to have the numbers on that. We have seen the rise of the far-right parties across Europe, and in recent days the demonstrations in Germany. Recent cases such as that involving Anders Breivik show that we should never be complacent about the dangers from the far right and white supremacists. Will the Minister address that point in relation to the Prevent consultation document?

Why does the guidance refer to “Islamist extremists” as though that was just one single thing? The guidance states that the aim of Prevent is to tackle Muslim extremists who have an anti-west agenda, yet we know that the current conflicts in the middle east—particularly those in Syria and Iraq, which are fuelling ISIS—are not between Muslims and the west but are intra-Muslim conflicts. Intra-Muslim tensions have also been identified in numerous UK cities and linked to a series of attacks. We believe that the Prevent agenda should address such intra-Muslim conflicts as well. At the moment, those elements seem to be absent from the guidance.

In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) talked about counter-narratives. The Muslim community is trying hard to combat sectarianism with a narrative of peace and unity, and we support it in doing that. Public bodies should be supporting community bodies in doing that, but they need guidance on how best to undertake that work. Again, that is completely absent from the consultation document.

That leads me to my second overall criticism of the consultation document: the lack of evidence to support what is in it. If the consultation document had said that a particular piece of research revealed a problem with Prevent delivering in certain areas or identifying certain issues, it would have been much easier to understand the measures in the document, but such evidence is not there. As I said in Committee, the Government do not seem to have done enough to monitor the implementation of their revised Prevent agenda across the country and across different bodies. They are now reacting in a blanket fashion because they have not done the necessary work to identify the weaknesses of the revised programme. It is welcome that the guidance includes some brief details about what the Home Office will do to support public bodies, but this could be expanded on, and it seems almost entirely limited to the Prevent priority areas. What about the rest of the country? These duties will be placed on public bodies throughout the country, not just those in the Prevent priority areas.

I want to ask about the Prevent priority areas, because they are a little muddled. Under the previous Government, there were 92 priority areas. This Government reduced the number to 23, but they then realised that that was not quite right. They reinstated funding to some areas, such as Greenwich, and the number of Prevent priority areas rose to 30. The consultation document says that there will be 50 Prevent priority areas, yet the Bill’s impact assessment refers to about 90 local authorities facing high risk. This is a bit of a mess. Do the Government know how many high-priority areas there are? Will the Minister tell us the actual number? Is it 90 or 50? In the light of the issues that I have raised, it is important that Parliament should have an opportunity to scrutinise the guidance, once it has been finalised. At the moment, all we have is the consultation document, which has large gaps in it.

I turn to amendment 6 and the Channel programme, which will be placed on a statutory footing alongside the rest of Prevent. As with Prevent, it is a policy area of enormous importance, and the Opposition support efforts to strengthen it. Once again, however, the Government are placing obligations on local authorities without making provision to ensure that they will be properly and fully supported by central Government.

Clause 28 provides for the creation of local assessment and support panels in every local authority, but once again the Bill is being implemented before a decision has been made about what will happen in Scotland. The Bill puts on to a statutory footing only a small part of the Channel process, and of course what it is putting into statute should already exist. It is surprising that the Government have not been able to provide evidence of how many councils have already created such boards, given that that information has been asked for.

The first stage of the Channel programme is not covered by the Bill. That is the stage at which an individual is referred to the police because of concerns about radicalisation. Under the current system, numerous local bodies can make a referral including schools, colleges, universities, youth offending services, local authority troubled family teams, charities and voluntary groups. The police then conduct a screening process. Only after that does the statutory footing appear to kick in.

15:15

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that this provision should relate not only to public bodies? If an individual believes that someone is likely to become radicalised, it really should be incumbent on that individual to tell someone about it so that something can be done. It is not only bodies such as schools that should have responsibilities in this area; individuals should, too.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that we all have a responsibility in this area. My concern, however, is about the specific responsibilities being placed on local authorities and other public bodies under the Channel programme. We must make sure that we get this right, which is why I am focusing on why the first stage of the programme is not being placed on a statutory basis but the second stage is so being placed. I wonder whether that is the best way of doing it. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, however.

Only when a person has been identified as at risk will the provisions in clause 28(3) kick in. That subsection allows a chief officer of police to make a referral to the local support panel that has been set up by the local authority. My first concern is with the level of expertise that those panels must have, and that is where amendment 21 comes in. As provided for in the Bill, local support panels will have to assess the individual’s risk of radicalisation and tailor a support panel to address the risks. The issues involved are complex and varied.

The current guidance cites 22 vulnerability indicators that could lead to a Channel referral. The panel must weigh up those factors and tailor a support package, which could have any number of elements. In some areas, however, the panel will be addressing issues that it has never faced before, such as sectarian hatred, which can be exacerbated by poorly provided support. That is why we feel that the Home Office needs to support local panels by providing an approved list of support providers who are able to give the specialist interventions needed to address the specific issues facing the individual.

This is a crucial stage of the Channel process and it should be recognised in the Bill. My understanding is that the Home Office is already doing this work to some extent, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment on Second Reading to continue to do it, but as we are putting the obligations of local authorities into the Bill, I think we should also be placing the responsibilities of central Government in the legislation. That could be particularly important for local authorities that are making referrals for the first time. I have repeatedly asked for the number of occasions on which each local authority has made a Channel assessment and referral, but unfortunately my requests for that information have been repeatedly refused. However, there must be many parts of the country that have never had to deal with issues such as these before.

This Government have repeatedly claimed to be stepping up efforts to stop Prevent funding going to organisations that are radicalising people, but that cannot be done unless the Home Office takes a lead in vetting those bodies. Under clause 32, the Home Secretary may indemnify Channel providers, so it is accepted that the Home Office has a role in that regard. It therefore seems reasonable for it also to have a role in assessing and vetting providers and ensuring that they are fit for purpose. These are really important issues. I know the Minister shares the commitment to making sure this Bill is as good as it can be and to getting Prevent and Channel right. I therefore hope she will realise that the support the Home Office is providing on Prevent and Channel needs to be reviewed again and improved, and that the guidance that has been issued as a consultation document can be improved in many areas. I hope she will feel able to accept the amendments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

Today’s events in Paris are yet another shocking reminder of the threat we all face, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and colleagues of the victims. I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in condemning that barbaric attack, and I am sure the whole House stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism.

Part 5 of the Bill and schedules 3 and 4 deal with an important area of our counter-terrorism work: preventing people from being drawn into terrorism. That was subject to a long and insightful debate in Committee, and I recognise and welcome the deep interest many right hon. and hon. Members have in the area. The shadow Minister made a number of points about the Prevent programme in general, and I wish to address those before dealing with the specifics of the amendments.

The hon. Lady made a point about funding for Prevent, so let me make it clear that this Government are committed to the Prevent programme: £40 million has been allocated for Prevent spending in 2014-15, and the spending has been £36 million in 2011-12, £35 million in 2012-13 and £39 million in 2013-14. She knows as well as anybody that the spending is not just done by the Home Office and that that is spending across government, including by local authorities, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. It is worth saying that the Prime Minister announced on 25 November that an additional £130 million was being made available for increased counter-terrorism work, which includes Prevent activity. With that funding, we will introduce a clear legal obligation on our universities, prisons, councils and schools to play their part in tackling extremism. The new funding being made available will also include additional resources for programmes to prevent radicalisation.

The hon. Lady asked about the Prevent projects. We have delivered more than 180 community-based Prevent projects since 2011, and we are currently supporting more than 70. Prevent local projects have reached more than 45,000 people since early 2012. All our current Prevent projects are focused on the current threat, including Syria and Iraq. In the 2013-14 financial year, Prevent local co-ordinators in our 30 Prevent priority areas worked with more than 250 mosques, 50 faith groups and 70 community groups. In addition, since the revised Prevent strategy was issued in June 2011, we have trained more than 120,000 front-line public sector workers to identify and support those at risk. We are currently rolling out new updated training, through the Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent—the WRAP training programme—now in its third iteration. We have seen a significant rise in the number of referrals to the Channel programme, which provides tailored support to people identified as being at risk of radicalisation; the Association of Chief Police Officers reported a 58% increase in the past year. Since April 2012, there have been more than 2,000 referrals to Channel, and hundreds of people have been offered support.

Let me now deal with the amendments. Amendment 7 is a repeat of an amendment first tabled in Committee, which was taken to a vote. It concerns the guidance that the Secretary of State may issue to specified authorities that are subject to the new duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Under clause 24, the specified authorities subject to the duty must have due regard to such guidance in carrying out that duty. Amendment 7 would require that the guidance may be issued only subject to parliamentary approval. In Committee, hon. Members were clear that an amendment of this type was not required, at least not at that stage. Clause 24 already provides that the Secretary of State must consult before issuing guidance and, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration announced to the House by written ministerial statement on 18 December, that consultation has already begun.

The shadow Minister asked about the draft guidance on which we are consulting. It is draft guidance, and we will be holding regional consultation events to explore further examples of best practice with those who will be subject to the duty. The consultation exercise also includes an opportunity for people to comment via the gov.uk website, or by e-mail or post. It is aimed at all those who will be subject to the duty, as well as the public at large.

This public consultation provides sufficient opportunity for interested parties, particularly those who will be subject to the Prevent duty, to scrutinise and influence the guidance. The guidance will benefit from extensive consultation and expert input, and I trust that the final guidance that is published will be all the better for having had this period of formal public consultation. The draft guidance, which we are currently consulting on, sets out, over 40 pages, the type of activity we expect specified activities to consider when complying with the duty.

The starting point for all specified authorities will be an assessment of the risk in their area, institution or body. Where a risk has been identified, they will need to develop an action plan to address it. Staff training and working together with other partners will be key themes.

Let me give some examples of what we expect a specified authority to consider when complying with the duty. Local authorities should ensure that publicly owned premises are not used to disseminate extremist views. Higher education institutions should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus and for the use of all university premises that apply to all staff, students and visitors. Further education providers should have policies in place relating to the use of IT on their premises. Schools and their governors should make sure that they have training to give them the knowledge and confidence to identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism, and know where and how to refer children and young people for further help.

The health sector should ensure that training is provided to front-line staff to ensure that where there are signs that someone has been or is being drawn into terrorism, the health care worker can interpret those signs correctly and is aware of and can locate support for them. Prisons should offer support to an individual who is vulnerable to radicalisation or move them away from an individual of concern, and those at risk of radicalising others should face the removal of privileges and segregation from others. The police should support individuals vulnerable to radicalisation, for example, through the Channel programme and support partner organisations to deliver Prevent work.

Those are just a few examples, and the shadow Minister asked about childminders. Carers in early years have a duty of care to the children in their care similar to existing safeguarding responsibilities. We are not expecting childminders or nursery workers to carry out unnecessary intrusion into family life, but we expect them to take action where they observe behaviour of concern. It is important that children are taught fundamental British values in an age-appropriate way. For children in early years, that is about learning right from wrong and challenging negative attitudes and stereotypes—for example, if a child makes anti-Semitic remarks.

[Bob Stewart]

If someone, perhaps a childminder, has a worry about a threat and reports it, are they guaranteed anonymity? Is a system in place to guarantee that people are not found out, including when reports are fallacious?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his comments. I understand that anonymity would be provided to people coming forward in that circumstance.

The shadow Minister asked about areas with low risk. The guidance sets out very clearly that we are looking for a risk-based approach, but areas need to understand the local risk. This is the starting point, and we are clear that the type and scale of the response will vary. She also asked about the number of Prevent priority areas. The Government have changed our method for prioritisation of local authority areas since 2011 and it is now based on assessment of the risk of exposure to radicalisation in specific areas rather than on simple demographics. The prioritisation also takes into account activity that we have seen by terrorist organisations and terrorist sympathisers. The process is regularly reviewed and activity is currently focused on 30 local authority priority areas where the risk of radicalisation is identified as being higher. Those priority areas received funding for a dedicated Prevent co-ordinator and are able to bid for funding for targeted local projects to work with communities and partners. There are also a further 14 supported areas where we support projects only.

[Diana Johnson]

I thank the Minister for going through the answers to my questions in such detail. The impact assessment says that 90 local authority areas are at high risk, the consultation document identifies 50 priority areas and the Minister is now talking about 30 areas and an additional 14 areas. These numbers all seem a bit confused to me. Will she say the exact number of Prevent priority areas the Government are concerned about?

15:30

[Karen Bradley]

If the hon. Lady will give me a few moments, I will come on to that point.

We do not believe that it is crucial for the guidance to be subject to additional parliamentary approval because we are conducting a wide-ranging consultation and, although the specified authorities must have regard to the guidance, they are not required to follow it in all cases. That is not an uncommon approach for statutory guidance of this nature and we set that out in detail in the delegated powers memorandum published with the Bill. However, I recognise the need for these issues to be properly considered, and that is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration made clear in Committee our intention to await the conclusions of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform before giving further consideration to whether we should make any changes of this sort. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that that is a sensible approach and will be content to await the report of that Committee. On that basis, I invite her to withdraw the amendment, so that we can return to the issue in the other place.

Let me now turn to amendment 6, which would amend clause 29 to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to support panels in carrying out their functions. The amendment would also require that the panel had sight of the list of approved providers for deradicalisation programmes and that the providers were subject to monitoring. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and Security explained in Committee, Channel is a multi-agency programme that provides support to people identified as vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. It has been in operation in all areas of England and Wales since 2012. In Scotland, the relevant programme is known as Prevent Professional Concerns. It is the Government’s hope and intention that these provisions should also apply to Scotland and discussions with the Scottish Government are ongoing.

As the hon. Lady asked about the devolved Administrations, I want to confirm that we are speaking to the Scottish and Welsh Governments about how the duty should be implemented in those Administrations and consulting on how we should make the guidance appropriate to bodies in Scotland and Wales, particularly because the different legal system in Scotland might mean that we need to implement things differently there. As part of the process, we are consulting them on how the duty should be monitored and enforced.

[Diana Johnson]

It is very helpful to hear the Minister set that out, but once agreement has been reached with the devolved Administrations, will there be a further period of consultation on the guidance, so that local authorities and other bodies can comment on what has been agreed between the Governments?

[Karen Bradley]

I am not sure that that is how we envisage it happening, but we are consulting and working very closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we take into account their views and get this right for them.

The hon. Lady asked about the number of priority areas under Prevent, so let me clarify. There are currently 30 Prevent priority areas, and we anticipate that that will rise to up to 50 in the next financial year. The impact assessment allows for up to 90 priority areas, should the need arise.

The hon. Lady asked about referrals to Channel relating to the far right and whether the Channel programme targeted only Muslim radicalisation. Like Prevent as a whole, Channel covers all forms of terrorism and extremism related to terrorism. It does not target Muslims and anyone can refer a person of any age, ethnicity or faith background to Channel. A significant number of people who have started receiving support through Channel were referred for far-right concerns. ACPO has reported that around a quarter of Channel referrals relate to the far right.

The hon. Lady has expressed concern about the expertise that panels must have and has retabled the amendment that we considered in Committee. Clause 28 includes provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to support panels in carrying out their functions. I can assure the hon. Lady that existing guidance is being updated in consultation with relevant persons, including those who deliver on the ground such as panel chairs. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, will issue this guidance before the provisions are commenced.

Local panels assess the individual’s risk and, if appropriate, develop a support package. It is the job of the panel members to provide advice in respect of their areas of expertise, and to arrange, where agreed, support interventions from their services. Interventions that are delivered by such statutory partners are subject to existing monitoring arrangements.

In respect of theological or ideological support, the police representative will recommend to the panel the provider most suited to the case. The list of approved providers for such support is already made available to key members of the panel.

Safeguards and measures are in place to monitor the support providers—I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady—and they are all bound by a service level agreement with the Home Office that sets out the terms and conditions of their appointment, including conduct. In addition, the police, as part of their co-ordination role, regularly review progress made against any interventions commissioned. Any misconduct or quality concerns will be treated seriously by the Home Office, with the option of terminating an agreement with a provider.

On this basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that amendment 6 is unnecessary. I invite her to withdraw amendment 7, so that we can return to the parliamentary scrutiny of the Prevent guidance in the other place.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for going through my questions in such detail. On amendment 7, I am surprised that the Government are not willing to agree that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise the final version of the guidance, which we have not yet seen. I note what she said about keeping the matter under consideration. I am sure that the matter will be returned to when the Bill goes to the other place. On that basis, I will not seek to divide the House on amendment 7. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3

Specified authorities

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 13, page 47, line 10, at end insert—

“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”

This amendment would add the authority specified to those subject to the duty contained in clause 21 and would make the relevant entry consistent with the corresponding entry in Schedule 4.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 14 to 17.

[Karen Bradley]

In respect of the duty to have due regard to preventing people from being drawn into terrorism in clause 21, the Government have tabled a number of corrective amendments to the list in schedule 3, which specifies the authorities subject to the duty. The amendments will ensure that the intended specified authorities are subject to the duty.

Amendment 13 would add:

“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”

This appears in schedule 4, as regards Channel, and should also appear in schedule 3. The effect will be to ensure that where local authority functions are transferred, for example to commissioners if an authority is failing, the duty will apply to them too.

Amendment 14 will add the principal of a secure college to the criminal justice section of schedule 3. That will ensure consistency with schedule 4. Amendment 15 will remove an unnecessary entry. An institution

“within the higher education sector within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992”

will also be a qualifying institution within the meaning of section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004, which has its own entry.

Amendment 16 ensures that the privately funded higher education providers are listed in schedule 3 as intended. They are covered in schedule 4, as regards Channel, but are at present missing from schedule 3. The draft guidance published for consultation has been drafted as though they are included in schedule 3. Amendment 17 corrects an inadvertent error by removing reference in schedule 3 to police authorities.

[Diana Johnson]

Very briefly, I was surprised that there was reference to police authorities when they were abolished by the Government some time ago. I guess that that is what comes when Bills are hastily drafted. I have one question for the Minister, which relates back to the issue of Scottish bodies that will be covered by the Bill. Currently, they are not listed anywhere. When will we have a list of the Scottish bodies that are covered?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the shadow Minister for her question. If she will forgive me, I will have to get back to her on that point at a later date.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Amendments made: 14,  page 47, line 16, at end insert—

“The principal of a secure college.”.

This amendment would add the authority specified to those subject to the duty contained in clause 21.

Amendment 15, page 47, leave out lines 20 to 22.

This amendment would remove an unnecessary entry. An institution within the higher education sector within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 would also be a qualifying institution within the meaning of section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (which has its own entry).

Amendment 16, page 48, line 25, at end insert—

(b) courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).”.

This amendment would make the relevant entry consistent with the corresponding entry in Schedule 4.

Amendment 17, page 49, leave out lines 5 and 6.—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment removes references to police authorities which no longer exist.

Clause 36

Privacy and Civil Liberties Board

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 3,  page 22, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a body to—

(a) provide advice and assistance to the persons appointed under—

(i) section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006;

(ii) section 31(1) of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing &c. Act 2010; and

(iii) section 20(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.

in the discharge of their statutory functions.

(b) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, [this Act] and any other law or prerogative power to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism;

(c) consider whether such legislation contains appropriate safeguards, is proportionate and remains necessary;

(d) review intelligence-sharing guidance and practice to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism and the functions of the Board;

(e) make recommendations to any public authority about the exercise of its statutory functions relating to the prevention of terrorism;

(f) undertake inquiries relating to counter-terrorism when invited to do so by the Home Secretary, the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the initiative of the Board;

(g) encourage good practice in the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of terrorism;

(h) provide advice and assistance to Government on the development and implementation of policy relating to the prevention of terrorism.”.

This expands the remit of the body to match that which is described in the Government’s Terms of Reference for this body.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2,  page 22, line 22, leave out

“Privacy and Civil Liberties Board”

and insert “Counter Terrorism Oversight Panel”.

This would rename the body created by clause 36.

Amendment 4,  page 22, line 25, at end insert

“in accordance with the Code of Public Appointments”.

Amendment 5,  page 22, line 32, at end insert—

“(i) the information-gathering powers of the board;

(j) reporting requirements, and the formulation of and consultation on an annual work plan; and

(k) the access to such relevant classified material as may be required in order for the board to undertake its functions under subsection (1);”.

This increases the points that have to be included in regulations brought forward by the Secretary of State to include information gathering powers, formulation of an annual work plan and relevant to classified material.

[Diana Johnson]

These amendments relate to part 7, which confers powers on the Secretary of State to establish a body to be known as the privacy and civil liberties board. While most of the Bill introduces new powers, part 7 introduces checks on those powers. It is worth mentioning at this stage that no level of general oversight will ever negate the need for proper judicial oversight of the specific use of these powers, which until yesterday the Government unfortunately were fiercely resisting.

Labour has always said that strong powers need strong checks, which is why we support the principle of a new oversight body. It is also why we tabled amendments to the Justice and Security Bill when it went through Parliament to increase the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee and why we have consistently called for a bigger role to be given to the intelligence and surveillance commissioners.

Although the creation of a new body is good in principle, what is actually set out in the Bill does not match the name “privacy and civil liberties board” or what the Government set out in their terms of reference, and it does not introduce what we think is needed. That is why we have tabled amendments 2 to 5. The problem is that the Bill determines nothing other than the name of the body. The name evokes the idea of a body with a wide remit to work on privacy and civil liberties issues in the UK, a body to safeguard human rights, a body similar to the Joint Committee on Human Rights created by the Labour Government, but that is not actually what is provided for in the Bill.

The terms of reference published by the Government suggest a body that will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in providing oversight of counter-terrorism legislation in the UK and investigating its operations. Broadly, we think that what is contained in the terms of reference is very sensible and that it would provide both capacity and openness to the oversight of counter-terrorism policy. It would also address some of the issues relating to the capacity of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation that the current incumbent, David Anderson QC, identified earlier this year—I went through some of that in detail in Committee.

However, what we see in the terms of reference does not match what we see in the Bill. The third version of the board is the one provided for by clause 36, a body that the Home Secretary may create in future if she wishes. In future she may decide on the body’s procedures, membership, work plan and the publishing of its reports. If the body is created, it will have very limited statutory remit and powers. We do not think that is good enough, so amendments 2 to 5 address what we see as the Bill’s shortcomings as currently drafted.

Amendment 3 would ensure that the panel or board will have a remit that includes all the key counter-terrorism issues. Specifically, it includes the terrorism statutes, which the independent reviewer is currently precluded from investigating. Unlike the independent reviewer, we do not envisage a remit that is overly prescriptive or requires annual reviews of certain pieces of legislation. Amendment 3 would also give the board a role in undertaking specific inquiries in certain circumstances, to make recommendations to public authorities, to review intelligence-sharing guidance and to encourage good practice in the prevention and investigation of terrorism.

14:48

Amendment 4 would ensure that appointments to the panel were made in line with the code of public appointments and not used as political patronage. We know that the role of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has been so successful because the calibre of the individuals appointed has been outstanding, but this has been possible only because candidates were appointed for their competence rather than their politics, and the same principle should apply to members of the board.

Of course, a board can be effective only if it has a work plan that is agreed with the relevant parties, information-gathering powers and access to the relevant information which, for a board of this type, will often include classified information. All this would be provided for by amendment 5.

[Bob Stewart]

On classified information, all the information will be very sensitive, so presumably whoever is considered for appointment to such a board will be vetted and security cleared to receive such information. Is that assumption correct?

[Diana Johnson]

No doubt the Minister will be able to confirm that. My understanding is that the level of information and intelligence given to the board will mean that its members will have to undergo appropriate vetting to make sure that they are suitable. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

The amendments would give the board a proper remit, with members appointed on merit, procedures for agreeing a work plan and access to the relevant information. Finally, amendment 2 would give the board a name that matches the role that we envisage for it—the counter terrorism oversight panel.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making good points about the role of the panel, but does she not think that the name she suggests increases confusion? She and I want judicial oversight of the operation of the Bill and other counter-terrorism Acts. To call the board an “oversight panel” invites confusion because that is not precisely its role.

[Diana Johnson]

We have argued throughout our discussions that we want proper judicial safeguards where appropriate, especially in relation to the provisions of the early parts of the Bill. I am not sure I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the proposed name of the panel causing confusion. The current name, the privacy and civil liberties board, does not describe its role. The name is problematic. We have suggested an alternative. If it can be improved, I am happy to consider that, but we think the name proposed in the amendment best serves us at present.

[Mr Heath]

I am not particularly enamoured of the Government’s suggested name, either, as it does not describe the role properly. But I believe the word “oversight” invites confusion.

[Diana Johnson]

Perhaps the matter can be discussed further in another place. “Counter terrorism oversight panel”, the name that we have suggested, best describes the role that we envisage for the body.

As I have stressed, these amendments do not seek to do anything radical. They aim to ensure that the legislation matches what the Government have previously committed to do, and they ensure that what is in the Bill goes some way to addressing the concerns raised by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The amendments are not overly prescriptive; they leave plenty room for the detail to be spelled out in secondary legislation, but they would ensure that that secondary legislation was meaningful as it related to the provisions of the Bill. I hope the Minister will seriously consider accepting the amendments.

[Karen Bradley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the amendments.

Our debate has built on the one held in Committee where there was broad support for the principle of creating the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. The Bill introduces a comprehensive package of measures to disrupt people’s ability to travel abroad to fight, reduce the risks they pose on their return, and combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, these powers are essential to keep up with the very serious and rapidly changing threats we face. Of course, as that threat evolves, we need to consider and update our legislation accordingly. However, it is also right that at this time, in the light of the increased threat level, and as the legislative landscape changes, we consider the oversight arrangements that we have in place for UK counter-terrorism laws to ensure that we are getting the balance right between responding to these threats and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.

The United Kingdom already has a very effective and transparent system of independent oversight and scrutiny. Few, if any, other countries in the world manage as well as the UK the balance between the need for powers that must necessarily be exercised in secret and the need to provide reassurance to the public about what is being done in their name. However, we should not rest on our laurels. During the passage of the Bill that became the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which received Royal Assent in July, the Government committed to establishing a board that would provide additional assurance to the public.

Clause 36 provides the Secretary of State with a power to create a privacy and civil liberties board, which will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, currently David Anderson. The increased demand for a review of particular aspects of counter-terrorism legislation means that this is a substantial task for one individual to undertake. David Anderson himself has been clear that there is a need for reform of the independent reviewer role. The board will be chaired by the independent reviewer. It will assist, advise and undertake particular duties in support of the independent reviewer’s statutory functions, and expand the capacity and breadth of experience available in our oversight arrangements.

[Diana Johnson]

What is the reason for the name of the board, because it does not seem to fit with the role that the Minister has described? “Privacy and civil liberties board” goes much wider than that.

[Karen Bradley]

I assure the hon. Lady that I will come to that point.

Clause 36 provides for the making of regulations that would set out the detail of the board, including provisions about composition, functions and appointment. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We can debate, as we are, the precise details of the board’s composition and functions, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration noted when the Bill was in Committee, no one took issue with the principle that establishing such a board would build on the already strong oversight arrangements that exist in this country. I am pleased to say that since that debate took place, the Government have published a consultation paper on the composition, functions and remit of the board. It can be found on the gov.uk website, and copies have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members, as well as those from outside Parliament with an interest in these matters, to participate in the consultation exercise. We hope that it will elicit a large number of replies covering a wide range of views. The results of the consultation exercise will certainly influence the terms of the regulations. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will cover all the key questions about the board’s composition, remit, powers and functions. Those responding to the consultation will be free to express an opinion on all relevant questions relating to the board. That is why I do not believe that amendment 5 is necessary.

Amendment 3 deals with the board’s functions. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration explained in Committee, the board will fully support the independent reviewer. In doing so, it will provide much needed capacity to allow the reviewer to consider a wider range of areas than it is perhaps currently possible for one individual to undertake. It is therefore right that we ensure that the board’s statutory functions and objectives are in line with those of the role it is designed to support. Should the statutory role of the independent reviewer change in future, we would need to ensure that the board’s role fully reflected that change.

On amendment 4, one of the issues that the consultation covers is the appointment of board members, including those to whom that task should fall and whether there are any prior qualifications that board members should have. It might emerge, for example, that there is strong support for the notion that each board member should represent a particular interest group or category and that that interest group should have a say in the appointment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked whether members will be vetted. It will clearly be important that any individuals appointed to the board are provided with an appropriate level of security clearance. The independent reviewer is cleared to see classified information, and if necessary the same will apply to the board members.

[Diana Johnson]

Has the Minister given any thought to whether it would be appropriate for Members of Parliament or Members of the House of Lords to serve on this body?

[Karen Bradley]

I will return to that point in a moment.

I am sure that we will want to ensure that all appointments are made in accordance with best practice, but it seems to me that it would be premature unduly to prescribe the process until we have decided exactly how appointments are made. I think that that applies in this case.

Amendment 2 would change the board’s name. We have been clear that the primary objective of the board is to offer further assurance to the public that careful, independent scrutiny is being given to the UK’s counter-terrorism powers to ensure that, in the face of the threat to the UK, we are getting the balance right and that our legislation and policies have due regard for civil liberty and privacy concerns. The board’s name properly reflects that purpose, and I see no reason to change it.

I am pleased to say that there is no great disagreement within the House on what we are seeking to do. Given the threats that the UK faces, it is a sad necessity that we need a suite of counter-terrorism powers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in Committee:

“I have always taken the view that without our security we cannot enjoy our civil liberties”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1229.]

To return to the point about Members of Parliament, we have no firm views on that question. We are currently consulting on the board’s composition, and we will take all views expressed into consideration.

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

rose—

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

rose—

[Karen Bradley]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Burns]

Presumably the members of the board will be paid, so would that position be considered an office of profit under the Crown? Members of Parliament are disbarred from such offices if they are to remain Members.

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend has clearly given considerable thought to that matter. We will of course consider all points of view when we look at the responses to the consultation, and the point will be considered at that stage. Does the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) wish to intervene? [Interruption.] He was going to make the same point.

Given the exceptional nature of counter-terrorism powers, it is right that they should be subject to proper oversight and scrutiny. This country has been very well served by the very distinguished individuals who have been independent reviewers, not least the present incumbent, but it is right for us to keep our oversight arrangements under review and be prepared to change them when required. It is worthwhile creating a new board to support the work of the independent reviewer, providing greater capacity in this area and giving the public greater assurance that in framing our legislation we are striking the right balance between privacy and civil liberties.

As I have said, the Government have published a full public consultation inviting comments on the proposals. We will seek to act on the points made in response to the consultation, which covers the composition and functions of the board. I believe that will address most of the issues covered by the amendments. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw amendment 3.

[Diana Johnson]

There is a question about the board’s name, and I hope that that will be considered in the other place. I am interested to hear about the consultation on its membership. On the basis of what the Minister has said about this group of amendments, I will not press them, but we will want to return to them in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.



Clause 38

Power to make consequential provision

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 12, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—

(a) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if included in an Act of that Parliament, consult the Scottish Ministers;

(b) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Welsh Ministers;

(c) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant devolved administration before making consequential provision by regulations under clause 38 if any of that provision would fall within devolved competence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, page 23, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must consult with Welsh Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Measure or Act of the National Assembly of Wales.

(4B) The Secretary of State must consult with Scottish Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating any Act or instrument of the Scottish Parliament.

(4C) The Secretary of State must consult with the Northern Ireland Executive before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Act or instrument of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This would ensure that the Secretary of State could not amend legislation from the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly without first consulting with the Scottish or Welsh Governments or the Northern Ireland Executive.

[Karen Bradley]

Amendment 12 involves an important point of principle. It concerns the power to make a consequential amendment to existing legislation, including legislation made by the devolved legislatures. Such consequential amendments would themselves be reserved, as the Bill clearly legislates on the reserved matter of counter-terrorism. It is possible that a consequential amendment made under this provision might alter a piece of legislation enacted by a devolved legislature. In cases where that is done for a reserved purpose, proceeding without consultation is clearly permissible under, and properly respectful of, the devolution settlement, although in practice the Government would of course raise the issue as a courtesy with the relevant devolved Administration.

The issue would be different were any consequential amendments made under the Bill to fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant devolved Administration before making consequential provision by regulations under clause 38 if any part of that provision fell within the competence of the legislature in question.

I should reiterate that we do not expect there to be any requirement to make such consequential provisions, and in practice, the Government would always consult the devolved Administrations should such a circumstance arise. I trust that amendment 12 will provide reassurance to right hon. and hon. Members, and to the devolved Administrations themselves, that the proper consultation will take place if required. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) not to press amendment 1, and I ask the House to agree to amendment 12.

16:00

[Diana Johnson]

It is very nice that the Government have tabled amendment 12, as it is effectively the same amendment that the Opposition tabled in Committee to ensure that there is proper consultation with the devolved Administrations if the Home Secretary introduces changes. We are pleased that the Government have seen the sense of what Labour suggested, and that we can claim a victory on ensuring that there is full consultation. I am happy not to press amendment 1, because Government amendment 12 is exactly what we were trying to achieve.

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

As we discuss counter-terrorism for a fifth day, our thoughts are very much on the appalling murders in Paris today. It was not only an appalling attack on journalists and a newspaper office but an attack on free speech, and today all of us can say, “Je suis Charlie”. Given those sickening events, it is pretty hard to discuss counter-terror measures today, but we live in a democracy and we will discuss them. We will not let any terrorist attack deter us from our influence on the matter or how we approach our business.

We are eternally grateful for amendment 12, because it is the beginning of a recognition of Scotland’s distinct responsibilities for measures under the Bill. The Bill asks that we be consulted on competencies for which we are actually responsible. It is not consultation that the Minister requires, it is our consent. We are responsible for delivering those competencies in the Scottish Parliament. We are responsible for education and health, we have a distinct legal system, and we are responsible for the judiciary. The Scottish police force, Police Scotland, is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. We have our own institutions and our own set of responsibilities and competencies. Yes, we are grateful that the UK Government are going to pick up the phone and consult our Ministers, but it is our consent that they require when passing measures under the Bill.

We will agree with the Government on most measures, and I am sure we will get on perfectly well, but we take a different and distinct approach on a number of issues. Of course we do—we have a different culture in Scotland. We do not have the same size of ethnic communities as there are south of the border, and we have a different and distinct approach to community relations. We see and deliver some things very differently from the UK Government.

The vast platform of the Prevent strategy will be administered in Scotland by Scottish public bodies, responsible to the Scottish Parliament and under the guidance of Scottish Ministers. Consultation—great. Thank you ever so much, Home Secretary, for being prepared to consult Scottish Ministers, discuss things with them and maybe even ask their views, but what we need is to give consent. If we are to be realistic about the devolution settlement and the range of responsibilities we have, and if we are talking about the respect agenda, that consent is required. Consultation is certainly not good enough.

Our approach to Prevent is different, of course. We see it more through the lens of safeguarding, with an emphasis on keeping people safe, community cohesion, participative democracy and ensuring that action is consistent with the needs of, and risks to, all our communities.

[Bob Stewart]

I cannot see any difference between that and what is proposed in the Bill. Those are exactly the same measures that everyone in this country wants to see instituted.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are differences. They may just be nuances to him, but we take them particularly seriously in Scotland. For example, we work with key sectors in Scotland, such as the NHS, further education, the Prison Service and local authorities. Prevent also benefits from input from Police Scotland’s model of community engagement and from the strength of the relationship between various arms of the community and all the public services in Scotland. The key point is that we perhaps look at the cultural context differently.

What we are keen to do in Scotland—and we have had a great deal of success—is ensure that a sense of Scottish citizenship is given as quickly as possible to new immigrants, particularly from south Asian communities. That has been incredibly successful. We talk about the “bhangra and bagpipe” culture in some of our larger communities, especially in Glasgow, and we are particularly proud of that. Believe it or not, most Scottish Asians supported Scottish independence because they saw from their historical experience, and from being a colonial power or being part of the empire, that independence was not a scary issue. They were able to join us to ensure that such transformative change—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of leeway, but now we have got on to independence. This debate is about consultation, but I think it has stretched a little further than that. As we know, Third Reading is coming up, but at the moment we are dealing just with the amendment.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need consent, rather than consultation, because things are so different in Scotland, and we have responsibility for those bodies. Such issues must surely be up to the Scottish Parliament, and not just through consultation. Consultation is great and there is nothing wrong with it, but this is about ensuring that we have consent. We will not oppose the measure today—it is great that we will get that consultation. We enjoy debating with the Home Secretary. She is always welcome in Scotland, and we enjoy making sure that her views are known. Consent is fine, but we need to ensure that such matters are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and that we make those decision: not consultation, consent.

[Karen Bradley]

I will not detain the House for long, but I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her comments and for agreeing not to press her amendment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was not in the Chamber earlier when we had a relatively lengthy discussion about the devolved Administrations, and the consultation and work to ensure that the Prevent programme works appropriately in Scotland. I like to think that we have more in common than we have differences.

Issues relating to policing and counter-terrorism are clearly reserved matters. Consultation, not consent, is the appropriate requirement in relation to these issues, and that is respectful at all times of the agreed devolution settlement. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will be supporting the Government amendment, and I am glad he agrees that we must ensure that the Bill becomes an Act.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

16:07

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Earlier today we heard about an appalling attack on the office of a magazine in Paris. Twelve people are reported to have been killed, and a number injured. We do not yet have full details of the attack, but I reiterate the Prime Minister’s comments in the House earlier today, and we stand with the French people at this time for freedom of speech and democracy, and against terror. Our thoughts and sympathies are with the families, friends and colleagues of the victims.

Last month we also saw deadly and callous attacks in Sydney and in Peshawar, Pakistan, where it beggars belief that terrorist gunmen should carry out the horrific and targeted murder of children at a school. In 2013 we saw the first terrorist attacks on the streets of Britain since 2005, when Fusilier Lee Rigby was brutally murdered by Islamist extremists, and Mohammed Saleem was stabbed to death by a far right extremist. There can be no doubt that the terrorist threat we face is grave and relentless. It is a threat that takes many forms and causes suffering in many countries.

I have always been clear that we need to keep our terrorism laws and capabilities under review, and ensure that the police and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to do their job. That is why the Bill is so important. As I told the House on Second Reading, Parliament must have sufficient opportunity to consider the Government’s proposals, and I believe that the House has had that opportunity. We have had full and frank debates on the measures in the Bill, and the timetable has allowed us to consider all the amendments that were tabled. The Bill, and the powers within it, have benefited from robust scrutiny by the House.

We are agreed on the need for these powers. I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary and her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for their constructive approach throughout. I pay tribute to the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debates in Committee and on Report, and, in particular, to a number of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee: the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Each has brought considerable knowledge and expertise to the proceedings, but all contributions have ensured that our debates have been enlightening and valuable. I thank the members of the Panel of Chairs who presided over the Committee of the whole House, and the officials, Officers and staff of the House, and those in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, who have enabled the House’s expedited consideration of the Bill.

In the past two days, we have again had a full and detailed discussion of the Bill on Report, with many excellent contributions from all parts of the House. The Bill will strengthen our existing powers, so that we can disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight, and to control their ability to return here. It will enhance our ability to monitor and control the actions of those in the UK who pose a threat, and it will help us to confront the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism.

During the Bill’s passage through the House, we have considered the powers in part 1 of the Bill relating to temporary restrictions on the travel of those seeking to engage in terrorism-related activity overseas, and on those suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad who wish to return to the UK. We have considered the safeguards that should circumscribe the use of the powers.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the amendment I moved yesterday regarding the question of jihadists of British origin who decide that they wish to return to the United Kingdom, even though they have repudiated allegiance to it and sworn allegiance to another state or entity. Will my right hon. Friend at least be good enough to say that she would be prepared to consider the amendment when the Bill goes to the House of Lords?

[Mrs May]

I recognise that there will be those who wish to return to the United Kingdom. The measures we are taking on the temporary exclusion orders are about ensuring that those who wish to return and have been involved in terrorism-related activity may return on our terms. They will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

On other matters, in particular safeguards, as the Minister for Security and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) made clear to the House yesterday, in the light of the views of David Anderson QC, as well as of many right hon. and hon. Members, the Government have committed to look very carefully at judicial oversight of the temporary exclusion order power. We will return to this issue in the House of Lords.

The House has also debated the duty on a range of authorities, as at part 5, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. If we are to counter poisonous extremist ideology and prevent vulnerable people from becoming radicalised in the first place, we must ensure that we have the necessary provisions. I appreciate the considerable interest that has been shown in how the duty will work in practice, and trust that the draft guidance, on which we are currently consulting, has helped to address the concerns raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members.

We discussed the nature of the privacy and civil liberties board, which will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I reiterate the point made by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who has responsibility for modern slavery and serious and organised crime, that we are consulting on this proposal at present and it is right that this consultation should conclude before the final detail of the board is agreed.

The House is aware that the need for this legislation is significant and pressing. Our security and intelligence agencies tell us that the threat we face from terrorism is now more dangerous than at any time before or since 9/11. The appalling conflicts in Syria and Iraq continue, with ISIL solidifying its hold on much of the region. More than 550 people from the UK who are of interest to the security services are thought to have travelled to the region since the start of the conflict, and we estimate that about half of those have returned. Some have become disillusioned and simply wish to reintegrate into British society, but others pose a significant threat and in recent months the police have arrested and prosecuted a number of these people. The Bill will help us to counter that threat.

The powers in the Bill should be used only when it is necessary and proportionate, and their use will be subject to the appropriate level of safeguards and oversight. The Bill represents a considered and targeted approach that strikes the right balance between civil liberties and security, but we must not delay. The threat from terrorism is ever present and evolving. We are in the midst of a generational struggle, and we must ensure that the police and the intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep us safe. The Bill will help them to do that, and I commend it to the House.

16:15

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

I join the Home Secretary in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill and in condemning the disgusting attack in Paris today. The details will continue to emerge over the next hours and days, but we know that 12 people have been killed and others injured, and I am sure the whole House will agree with the words of the French President, Francois Hollande, who said it was

“an exceptional act of barbarism committed against a newspaper”.

He said that France would be firm and strong in facing down these threats and punishing the attackers.

The whole House, the Government and every party stand in solidarity with the people of Paris and France, and our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost their lives, their families, their friends, their colleagues and those across the city and the country who will feel this terrible loss. We have experienced terrorist attacks here, and we have stood firm with other countries that have endured such attacks—the Home Secretary rightly referred to the heartbreaking attacks in Pakistan, as well as those in Australia and Canada—and we will stand with other countries again against the hatred of the killers. We will stand up for our democratic values and never let terrorists win.

We have seen, too, the strength of the response from the French people: the “Je suis Charlie” response; the determination not to be cowed or afraid; the determination to stand together. We will stand with them. Those who died or were injured include journalists, writers, cartoonists and police officers, and the editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo has said:

“I don't understand how people can attack a newspaper with heavy weapons. A newspaper is not a weapon of war.”

As we know, the free press we defend here in Britain, and which is defended across Europe, is vital to the freedom of speech that democracy depends on.

Our thoughts and tributes should also be with the police and security services in France and here in Britain who run towards danger when terrorist attacks take place and who put their own lives at risk as they do so. As we discuss the Bill, we should also pay tribute to our security services and police, who will be working even now with the French authorities to provide any international intelligence that could help France catch these vile killers and bring them to justice. While we know not yet the details of those responsible, we know that the killers do not represent Islam or reflect the faith of millions of French and British Muslims. Muslim leaders in Paris and Muslim community groups and organisations in Britain have been among the first to condemn this appalling attack.

We debate the Bill in the knowledge of the threats that can affect any country and at a time when the terror threat has grown. We have said for some time that more action is needed against terrorism to ensure that the police, security agencies and other organisations have up-to-date powers to act and that we have up-to-date safeguards to protect the liberty and security that terrorists and extremists seek to undermine. That is why we have supported the Bill and called for stronger action to deal with terrorism, alongside stronger safeguards so that we defend those democratic values too. That requires both strong and proportionate powers to act, and oversight—the checks and balances—to defend the very freedom of speech that terrorists have attacked today, as well as the liberty and democracy that extremists want to undermine.

The Home Secretary has talked about the additional challenge from the Syrian conflict. More than 500 people are suspected of having travelled to Syria, and half of them have returned to the UK, which changes the challenges we face here in Britain. Over the past few days and weeks, many of the measures in the Bill have been subject to detailed debate in the context of the Syrian conflict.

As the House reaches the conclusion of its consideration, I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for their efforts, as well as all those who have been involved in scrutinising the Bill. More needs to be done to prevent young people from being radicalised or drawn into extremism in the first place. We hope that putting Prevent on a statutory footing will help to strengthen it. We will continue to probe in the other place how that will work in practice, including through a role for Parliament in debating future strategy.

On TPIMs, the Home Secretary knows that we have called for some time for the Government to bring back the relocation powers that were abolished a few years ago. We are glad that she has finally done so. It is clear that the police and the agencies had concluded that TPIMs were no longer useful in their previous form. I hope that this Bill will change that and make them useful again in the extreme cases where prosecution has proved too difficult but the threat remains.

The police also need to be able to take swift action to stop someone believed to be trying to leave the country to join ISIS. If troubled parents ring the police because they are worried that a son or daughter has gone, they do not have time to invoke the royal prerogative to remove someone’s passport. However, we still believe that more checks and balances are needed to ensure that these important powers cannot be abused. We hope that that will be debated further in the other place. We agree, too, that action is needed to enable the police and security agencies to manage the return of those who may have been drawn into the conflict and ensure that they do not pose a risk to the British public if they return. Where possible, people should be arrested and prosecuted for crimes committed. TPIMs may be required in extreme cases where no prosecution is possible, and everyone returning should be expected to engage with the Channel de-radicalisation programme.

The Home Secretary has changed the policy very substantially from the original pledge by the Prime Minister to exclude people from Britain—we believe she has been put in a difficult position by those announcements. However, we remain concerned that the policy has been designed to fit an announcement, rather than to fit the needs of security, and that it is still unclear how it will work. We believe it will benefit from serious further scrutiny in the other place to ensure that it does not become too complex and bureaucratic, and instead can achieve the aims that she has set for it. We also argued from the start that more judicial oversight and safeguards were needed. I welcome the acceptance by the Home Secretary after the debate on our amendments yesterday that judicial oversight is needed for temporary exclusion orders. We look forward to seeing the Government’s proposals, as well as the debates on them in the other place, to ensure that the appropriate method of judicial oversight is used and that it is tried and tested.

Finally, we have supported, though sought to clarify, the important power to retain IP addresses—which had the support of the Joint Committee that considered the previous draft Communications Data Bill—and in particular the contribution that that can make to tackling online child abuse, as well as international terrorism.

Today’s vile attack just across the water brings home to us the threats that we have to address, the need for vigilance and the need for us in Parliament to ensure that we defend and protect our democratic values. That means that we need to scrutinise any counter-terrorism legislation in great detail. We need to take seriously our responsibilities in this House to protect both the liberty and the security of which Britain has always been proud from extremists of any kind. On that basis, we support this Bill and its Third Reading and look forward to the further debates that will take place in the other place.

16:24

[Mr Heath]

Like the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, I think it is quite impossible to contribute to this debate without starting with the grim events in Paris and the attack on Charlie Hebdo. It is beyond any acceptable behaviour—of course we know that—but as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said earlier, it goes beyond terrorism, in that it would appear to be an attack precisely on free speech. I hope and trust that at the end of the day it will be proved that the pen is mightier than the sword—that people’s ideas cannot be defeated with bombs and guns—because that is what the counter-terrorism fight is all about. As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that every Member of this House will be able to repeat: “Today, je suis Charlie aussi.”

It is normal on these occasions to welcome a Bill, but I do not think that I can welcome a Bill that deals with such a continuing problem. I can say only that it is a grim necessity. We should not welcome the fact of ever reducing our traditional rights and liberties other than to protect the rights and liberties of others. That is what we are, sadly, about today.

One occasionally meets people who will say that the threat is imaginary and is something somehow dreamt up by politicians in order to build their empires. I do not believe that that is the case for one moment. As someone who was on Capitol hill on 9/11 and at Aldgate station on 7/7, I do not need to be told that there is a real threat from terrorism in this and other countries—so frequently that is the case.

The test is not whether there is a necessity to deal effectively with terrorism, but whether the instruments that this House puts in the hands of the Executive are proportionate, effective and actually increase our capacity to fight terrorism rather than make the situation worse. I am, I am afraid, a veteran of far too many debates on counter-terrorism legislation over the years; other right hon. and hon. Members around the Chamber today are in the same position. I have supported some such Bills; some I have opposed; of some I have been deeply critical. I have always opposed the Home Office—I am talking about the Home Office rather than the Home Secretary—when it appears to have been more involved in legislative incontinence than getting to grips with what works and what is effective.

However, where the necessity is there, where the checks and balances are sufficient and where we ensure that every single action taken by the Executive can be reviewed and checked to see whether it is reasonable and appropriate and based on good evidence, this House has a responsibility to act on behalf of people in this country. When this Bill eventually returns from the other place, the issue of judicial oversight over the earlier parts of the Bill will be a key point for me. I hear the arguments about judicial review—that it is a retrospective and partial review—but I do not believe that that is sufficient to the task of ensuring that any Executive do not act on occasions in an excessive or peremptory way. That is why the courts have to be involved. I had this argument many times with the then Government during the last Parliament. Sometimes they accepted the arguments; sometimes, sadly, they did not.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Fortunately, our democracy continues—despite the horror in Paris and what has happened here. I hope my intervention will not be misunderstood, as it is part of democracy. Why did the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not support judicial oversight yesterday? Why wait for the provisions to go to another unelected place?

[Mr Heath]

I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say and I am confident that the Home Secretary has clearly got the message that the Government need to table amendments in the other place, which will return to us and will then, I hope, be approved by this House. I believe that to be a perfectly appropriate mechanism. I would have preferred to have had Government amendments yesterday, but there were not any on this issue. I was saddened that we had not yet reached the point at which the Government accepted the arguments, but I believe that they now do accept them. If they do not, I suspect there will be a majority in the other place that will impose a judicial oversight amendment in any case. We would then have to debate not a Government proposal, but one concocted by colleagues in the other place. Provided that such a proposal is not grossly inappropriate, I will support it when it returns to us. I am sure I am not alone in that, and I know that the Home Secretary is looking at this very carefully. I am genuinely grateful to her and her colleagues for the fact that they have engaged with that argument.

There are still issues to be resolved. We had what was almost a semantic debate, but one that I think was important in the context of the Bill, about the difference between temporary exclusion and managed return. I feel that we are on a journey in that respect. Some people would say that the language amounts to the same thing, but I think that “managed return” better expresses where we need to be.

I have a concern that was not expressed on Report. The Bill requires the Home Secretary to issue a permit to return “within a reasonable period”. I hope that that “reasonable period” will be constrained enough to prevent people from being in limbo for a long time. They will need to know what they must do to ensure that their return is managed appropriately, and that must be arranged promptly and timeously if it is to be effective.

In a sense, however, those issues are peripheral to the main thrust of the Bill. As I have said, I cannot welcome a Bill many parts of which I would not wish to see in place, but I do not live in a perfect world. I live in a world in which the events that happened in Paris today happen not only here, but throughout the globe. We have to recognise that, and we have to deal with it. I hope that we shall reach a point at which we will no longer have to legislate in this way because people will no longer behave in the way that has become so common in recent years, but, sadly, we have not reached that point yet.

16:29

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who is standing down at the next election. We shall miss his wise words and the eloquent way in which he put the case for engagement and against terrorism. I join him, and both the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, in condemning the events in Paris. We know that the community in Paris and in France as a whole—along with the community here—utterly condemn what has happened. We hope that people of good will in that country and in the rest of Europe will come forward and ensure that we recognise the great strengths of diversity and the importance of understanding different cultures and religions, while isolating those who wish to undermine the values of our society.

I commend those on both Front Benches for the way in which they have dealt with this difficult Bill and for the progress that has been made. I, for one, thought that it would not be possible for the Bill to complete all its House of Commons stages by now, but it has done so. I think that the Opposition’s constructive approach—matched, I hope, by the Government’s approach in the form of a pledge to table amendments in the other place—will enable us to be a House united in our condemnation of terrorism and a House united in the method by which that is achieved.

As I have said before, however, I do not think that legislation is enough. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was right to say that we do not welcome Bills of this kind. We would rather not have them, because we would rather not have terrorism. We need legislation because it enables us to provide a framework for the incredible people who work in the police and the security services and who do things that we could not possibly even imagine doing. They are on the front line, dealing with such problems, every day. But what we must do, both in government and in opposition—what every Member has a responsibility to do—is ensure that communities are fully engaged in the fight against terrorism.

I am not saying that the communities are not engaged. They condemn those who wish to undermine our values. When we frame legislation, however, we use words such as “prevent” as though communities were able on their own to prevent what is happening. I think language is extremely important, and that is why I prefer the language of engagement. It should be “engagement, engagement, engagement”. We should be constantly working with communities. We cannot tell them to inform the authorities that someone is behaving in a way that causes them concern. Mothers will be fearful of reporting on their children, because when one woman did so, her son was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Following that case, women will believe that if they try to prevent their children from going abroad, those children be sent to prison for years and years with no prospect of rehabilitation.

These are complex and difficult areas therefore, and although we want these issues reported, we need a counter-narrative to make sure that, whenever the terrorists go on to the internet and prosecute their case for violence, we have an alternative. The people who run our internet services therefore need to do much more. The Prime Minister spoke about the dark net, and I contacted Google as I was very keen to get into the dark net, to try and see exactly what was going on in there, and Google told me, “It’s called the dark net because we can’t get into it.” That is the problem. There are areas on the internet that even the most sophisticated and clever people in our security services are not able to penetrate. That is how the terrorists and those who support their cause have been able to prosecute their case.

We need to get the internet providers to do much more. They need to take down more sites. They need to be more vigilant. They should not wait for complaints; they should act with speed and efficiency. That is clear. It has been clear to the Home Affairs Committee, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) for all the work he has done; he is particularly eloquent on these issues when we look at counter-terrorism and conduct inquiries into these matters.

The problem has moved from the madrassahs and the schools and, I have to say to the Home Secretary, from the universities to the prisons and on to the net. So the old days when we could find the imam who was preaching the cause of terrorism have gone. There is now one-to-one radicalisation. Those who go into prison may become radicalised while there, and, unfortunately, they are not monitored sufficiently when they come out. That is what the Select Committee found in our last report. They then radicalise other people. With the best will in the world and the best resources put forward by the Government, it is very difficult to isolate people who are in prison if they are mixing with others who have different views and if they want to blame somebody else for their plight.

That is why, rather like the Jesuits, we need to deal with this at a much earlier stage. The counter-narrative needs to start much earlier. If we fail to do that, we will, in a sense, allow a whole generation to believe some of the stories that are recurring in certain parts of the country. That is why we commended the work of Google and its work with Abdullah-X, who informed us in his broadcasts that peer group pressure leads to people deciding to give up their way of life in this country and suddenly choosing to go and fight in Syria or in another country. They give up everything—the love of their parents, the support of their families and all their friends—because they believe they are fighting for a better cause. We cannot sit by and wait for that to happen.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) keeps telling us, the counter-narrative must begin now. We must be as aggressive as we can be now. We cannot wait for any more people to go. Ten years ago, Members could stand in the House and the Home Secretary could come to the Dispatch Box and not fear the fact that 500 British citizens had left this country to go and fight abroad. The figure was much less then.

The figure now is much higher in France and the rest of Europe than it is here. Thankfully, our numbers are lagging behind those of the rest of Europe. Taken as a whole, however, this is a real problem and it is getting worse. That is why the Select Committee has said on numerous occasions that what we need is a firm international platform to deal with counter-terrorism. This is done bilaterally at the moment, and we suggested the expansion of Interpol, with all the good work international organisations such as Interpol and Europol do, and that there should be an international platform involving countries of good will. We cannot allow every country into this, because we cannot be sure about every country, but those who are on the right side—if I can put it like that, in a diplomatic way—should work together on an international platform to identify those responsible.

We talked about the need to support countries such as Turkey. Turkey is an international hub: it is where people go before travelling on to Syria to carry on with their fighting. It is essential that we use all our resources to deal with these issues, but unless we work with families and communities as equals, we simply will not win this battle. We cannot prevent someone who is the subject of an order from going into a mosque, putting on a burqa and disappearing. We have to tell communities—no, “tell” is the wrong word; we have to work with communities and try to persuade them to come forward.

In France, there are ways of reporting these things, just as there are here. There, they have the “green line”. Here, we have the anti-terrorist hotline. When parents in this country are having a discussion at breakfast about the possibility of their child going off to fight in Syria, they do not sit around saying, “I think we should ring the anti-terrorist hotline.” Of course they do not want to report their children for terrorism. We need to look again at the language of effective reporting, so that we can encourage people to report their suspicions without fearing that their family unit could be destroyed. Every member of the Muslim community I have spoken to condemns what is happening out there in Syria. They condemn the people who are going out there to fight. I remember listening to a father being interviewed on BBC television. When he was told that his son had died abroad, he did not even know that he had gone to fight. Families sometimes do not know these things.

We need to ensure that there is effective monitoring, not only of those who come out of prison but of those involved in these activities. The Government and the Opposition work closely together to bring forward orders under prevention of terrorism legislation. Whenever Ministers come to the Dispatch Box to say that they want to ban this or that organisation, there is unanimity in the House that that should happen. It is quite right that the Government should be supported in that way, because they have information that we do not have. However, the ability of organisations to change their names and the ways in which they engage in terrorism is a cause for concern, and we need to be careful about that.

On exclusion orders, I understand why the Government are seeking to exclude people. I understand the logic and the reasoning behind the proposals; the Home Secretary appeared before the Select Committee in December and told us why she thought they were important. However, the practicalities will provide problems, which is why it is important that we assess what the Government are doing in the near future. There will not be time to do that before the general election, but it will be worth assessing how the provisions are working.

I recently met a delegation from Pakistan, which has its own severe troubles. The delegates were interested to hear about the Home Secretary’s exclusion orders. They asked me and my colleagues what we thought would happen if Pakistan decided to exclude any of its citizens who had been involved in these activities and prevent them from returning to Pakistan. Once those people were in Europe—and in the United Kingdom, in particular—we would be lumbered with them. If other countries decide to do what we are doing, there could be real problems. We would have to keep here certain people we would prefer to send away. International co-operation and bilateral conversations are therefore absolutely critical.

I support the Bill. Many of the recommendations that we have made in the past seven years are in it, at least in part. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I wish that this could be the last counter-terrorism Bill that the House had to consider. I will be fighting the next election, and I hope that I will be returned to the House by the electors of Leicester East. If they want me back here and I am returned, I anticipate seeing more counter-terrorism legislation being introduced. I would be very much against having more, but if we have to have it, we have to have it. I hope, however, that we will look at the practicalities involved, so that when we put this kind of legislation through the House, we carry communities with us and ensure that the proposals are as practical as possible.

16:44

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Gérard Biard, the editor- in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine which has been attacked, has said:

“A newspaper is not a weapon of war.”

The fact that it has been attacked is an example of how some people object to what others say and do. When I stopped being a Minister in Northern Ireland, I became associated with New Consensus and then New Dialogue, which after each IRA outrage would say, “This is not being done in our name.” That was a way of not going back to the 1970s. When there were terrorist bombs and outrages, people would start to hate the Irish, but by the 1990s most of the Irish were saying, “This is not being done in our name.” We probably need to find a way of letting people—not moderate Muslims but those who are just not violent—express the same thing. We have to say to the French, as others have, “We are with you.” The word “solidarité” is one we can take into English; we can stand in solidarity and suffer in solidarity, just as many people did with us on 7 July 2005.

I did not want to add to the debate on Third Reading, because I have not taken part in the Bill’s earlier stages, but I wish to say that we need to be careful about taking action that drives more people into believing that extremism works. We have to support those who have the responsibility for gathering information and trying to take action. It is worth putting on the record that the anti-terrorism hotline, which can be found by any internet search, is 0800 789 321. People may say to themselves, “I don’t know if this matters”, but when specialists get the information, or talk to someone, they can take things in and make the judgment. If anyone finds something suspicious or odd, it is far better to ring that number and provide the information to the authorities.

16:46

[Mr Winnick]

In expressing our horror about what has occurred in Paris, some understandably ask how it is possible that it could take place. They ask how it is possible that journalists could be gunned down in the way they have been because of what has been written or because of cartoons. The answer is simple: we are dealing with murderous psychopaths. If hon. Members are puzzled or mystified by how such an outrage could occur, I simply ask them to remember what the Nazis did and remember the millions of people murdered for one reason only—not their politics and so on, but simply their racial origin. We are dealing here with people with a Nazi mindset, who consider it an obligation, as the Nazis did, to take lives. I am glad that the House has had an opportunity today, both in Prime Minister’s questions and now, to express our deepest sympathy with the loved ones and relatives of those who have been murdered.

During our consideration of this Bill I have expressed reservations on a number of occasions, and those remain. I am pleased about what has happened on judicial oversight or intervention—it does not matter which way one wants to put it, but we are talking about court involvement—in respect of temporary exclusion orders. For one reason or another, the Government have come rather late to accept that, but if they have accepted it and this will go through the Lords, that is all to the good. It is unfortunate that it could not have been decided in the elected House of Commons, but if a Home Secretary decides otherwise, there is little we can do about it.

I praise the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has set out clearly many of the problems we face in Britain in dealing with this terrorist danger. I simply say that what has happened in Paris has demonstrated, yet again, that we are not alone. Britain is not the only democracy to face an acute terrorist danger. Far from it: other democracies, and counties that are not democracies, also face it.

One has only to look at the horrors that have been happening in Nigeria or in Kenya, for example. Reference has been made to 7/7, when 52 people were murdered in London and many were seriously injured. I was in the United States on a private visit when 9/11 occurred and that evening took part in a rally. I was staying with people in Philadelphia and notices were put up during the day on churches, on other places of worship and in community places, and we decided that we would go and show our support for the United States and our solidarity against the terrorists. We were pleased to do so and I spoke as a private British citizen—not as a Member of Parliament, which I had no authority to do—and expressed the solidarity of this country with the United States in combating terrorism.

We must recognise that the terrorist danger will not go away in the near future. It will outlive me, although that is not saying a great deal. The danger of terrorism will remain; I wish I could come to another conclusion, and I very much doubt that the security authorities think differently. It will be a problem and a danger for years to come and it is no use our trying to deny that or to minimise the amount of time involved in trying to deal with the issue.

I am concerned about how far we will be able in this House and in the future to maintain our democratic rights and privileges—all that we consider so important and that have been built up over centuries—while at the same time taking every possible measure to safeguard our citizens. Every Home Secretary who comes to the Dispatch Box with a new Bill says the same thing. We say the same thing in the Labour party, whether we are in opposition or government. We try to reach the right balance. The fact that I am a critic of many of the measures that have been introduced does not alter the fact that I obviously accept that a balance must be reached. I recognise that there is an acute terrorist danger, as shown by all that I have been speaking about, so it would be foolish to say otherwise.

What concerns me is covered to some extent by what was said by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The danger is that we will take measures that might well be necessary or essential but that could antagonise the very community we want to ensure remains on board and our ally, made up of our fellow citizens. What gives me satisfaction, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East was absolutely right on this point, is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims not only in Britain but in France and in other countries loathe and despise the terrorism that is supposedly carried out in their names in the same way as we do. That is a great asset. It is understandable and we would not expect otherwise, but we must be very careful about the measures we take to safeguard our citizens so that they do not undermine that support and give the terrorists the sort of ammunition they would like. All the indications are that terrorism will have very limited support in this country, as shown in what occurred after 7/7, when all the Muslims I spoke to in my constituency—my right hon. Friend referred to those in his constituency—condemned it in the strongest possible terms, as I would have expected. In the same way, we have done that in the House of Commons.

The challenge in the coming years, as I have said, is to protect our democracy and protect the rule of law as we understand it while at the same time trying to ensure the safety and security of our citizens so that the crimes and atrocities that occurred on 7/7 and in Paris today are not repeated.

16:54

[Pete Wishart]

It seems a bit odd to be having the last word on this Bill after we have spent five days debating and discussing it. May I congratulate the Front Bench and shadow Front Bench teams on the consensual way in which they have approached these issues? We have significantly improved this Bill from its early conception, but it was perhaps a tad over-optimistic to have five full days of debate on it. On some days, the Chamber has been a bit like the Mary Celeste on a foggy day—perhaps Members are counter-terrored out. We have had a number of these Bills over the past few years, and no doubt, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has said, we will see many more in the future. We will come back to this issue time and again, and we will have to deal with it year on year. I can already see that we will have another such Bill early in the new Parliament when we reconvene in May.

I do not want to add anything more to what I have already said about the events in Paris this afternoon other than that I hope we have learned something from those appalling events and that we approach and respond to them proportionately. In the past, the temptation has always been to have a knee-jerk response. Indeed this idea that something must be done is a characteristic of so many of the Bills that we have debated over the course of the year: we must be seen to be doing something, to be strong and to be acting. I hope that there is not that kind of response to the events in Paris. We have seen it so many times in previous counter-terror Bills. We have seen the response of a Labour Government—ID cards, the possibility of 90-day detentions and control orders. Let us try to be more imaginative this time around, and respond to the attack in a proportionate way.

At the heart of all such Bills—we have seen it with this particular Bill—is attention. We need to ensure that our citizens are safe and secure and that we pay attention to civil liberties and the freedoms that we enjoy in a democracy. I see many veterans of previous counter-terror Bills in the Chamber. They know what it is to wrestle with the problems. There is this clear balance that we have to strike between our civil liberties and the measures that are needed to keep our citizens safe. Does this Bill achieve that? I do not think so. Again, we have mucked about at the edge of our liberties. We have sacrificed some of the freedoms that we have the right to enjoy in a democracy. As we go forward, we must ensure that we get absolutely right that balance between what we expect as citizens of a democracy and the measures that Governments must take to keep us safe.

This Bill came alive when we discussed the Prevent measures and the radicalisation in our communities. Some of the things that this Government are doing are right, especially the way that they have tried to engage communities. They want to ensure that communities have the resources, ability and capacity to try to tackle the problem themselves. That is the right thing to do.

We have failed in some of our measures and debates to recognise why people get involved in these terrible activities. Nobody is born predisposed to be a jihadist or a terrorist and to do appalling things. Something happens along the way that makes people respond in a particular way. It might be ultimate frustration or a feeling that no other means can be used to exact political change. Something happens, and we have failed to understand some of the features that determine the development in some people’s minds. I hope that in the future we can look at this matter a bit more carefully and clearly. We must also take our share of responsibility for shaping the environment. It would be good if we could acknowledge some of the terrible decisions that we have taken in this House. I am talking about those things that may have provoked some of the responses that we have seen internationally. The war in Iraq, for example, was illegal. If we are looking at any sort of starting point or trajectory for things to escalate in the way that they have, we have to come back to this clear issue. We set that framework up and must start to accept our responsibility for shaping that environment.

I am disappointed that exclusion orders, which are a key feature of the Bill, have been left to be determined by the unelected House of Lords. I think that we, as Members of Parliament who are elected by our constituents, have a duty to consider these things ourselves. We had the opportunity to put that right yesterday. The public expect us to deal with these issues and make the decisions ourselves, not to leave it to the other place, whose Members are not elected, to sort it out behind the scenes, particularly on something as important as counter-terrorism and security. I hope that when the Bill comes back to the House we will have an opportunity to debate exclusion orders properly. We will look at what the Government are offering on temporary exclusion orders and will be able to make some sort of progress.

There are many things in the Bill that I do not like, such as the balance it strikes with our civil liberties, which I think is wrong, as it is in most of these Bills. However, we will not oppose it. When we return here in May, hopefully with about 30 or 40 Scottish National party Members, I am sure that we will revisit the matter. Let us make sure that in future we do not rush such legislation through at breakneck speed. We must take our time on these weighty and important matters, which deserve proper scrutiny. Let us deal with them properly. One thing that we will certainly be doing is coming back here to discuss this once again.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Proceeds of Crime, Northern Ireland

That the draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 25 November 2014, be approved.—(Mr Wallace.)

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Organic Food Production

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7956/14, a draft Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No. XXX/XXX [Official Controls Regulation] and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007, and No. 8194/14, a Commission Communication: Action Plan for the future of organic production in the European Union; and supports the Government’s approach to amend the proposal to promote continued development of the organic sector and ensure it has an overall positive impact on growth and trade, minimises unnecessary administrative burdens, promotes effective trade across the EU and with third countries, delivers organic products at a fair price and reduces the impact on the environment.—(Mr Wallace.)

Business of the House (Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill)

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Ordered

That, in respect of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—(Mr Wallace.)

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Motion)

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That the Motion in the name of Mr William Hague relating to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Wallace.)

Hairdressing

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Wallace.)

17:01

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to have secured this debate and to have the opportunity to explain why we need to extend the current system of state registration of hairdressers, which is voluntary, to make it compulsory. Nowadays, people living in our sophisticated and complex modern-day society assume that the goods and services they buy, particularly on the high street, are in fact regulated. Most of us make the assumption when we go to the hairdressers that we are being treated by people who are suitably qualified, and much of the time we are.

I was quite shocked, therefore, to find out that in the UK a person does not need any qualifications at all to practise as a hairdresser. In other words, the industry is unregulated. Of course, the majority of hairdressers have appropriate qualifications, work to a high standard and take great care of their customers. However, currently there is nothing to protect the consumer from the unscrupulous or the incompetent, and that is what worries me.

I believe that as a society we have a duty to protect people from the unscrupulous as far as we can, so I want to ensure that a service as commonplace as hairdressing is properly regulated so that we and our families, our young people and our children are properly protected. That becomes even more relevant when we consider the wide range of different types of treatment now available. Hairdressing can involve using sharp implements and styling instruments, as well as a range of powerful chemicals that can inflict third-degree burns. That is frightening and it is not acceptable that we do not require any statutory registration of the people using those substances and implements on our heads, our hair, our skin and close to our eyes, our ears, our face and our brains.

Sometimes we can be our own worst enemies. Before we use certain colouring on our hair, we should have a skin test and wait a couple of days to see if there is any allergic reaction, but we are impatient and tend to want everything instantly. Scrupulously careful hairdressers tell me that they sometimes lose customers because they insist on a skin test, but the customer is too impatient to wait for the result and goes to a salon which does not require the test. When things go wrong, it can be very distressing for the person concerned and ultimately, if medical treatment is needed, it is likely to be the NHS—that is, the taxpayer—who picks up the bill.

I pay tribute to the Hair Council, formerly the Hairdressing Council, for the work that it has done to highlight the issue of compulsory state registration of hairdressers and barbers. I know, for example, that just in this place there is much greater awareness of the issue among MPs than there was just a few years ago. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject. I thank the training, hairdressing and barbering industries for taking a lead and demonstrating how seriously they take the professionalism of their industry. I have had valuable conversations with the hairdressers in my constituency, who tell me that they are concerned to maintain high standards and to ensure that new recruits to the industry also perform to high standards.

Hairdressing and barbering are industries that we in the UK are very proud of. They are sectors of key importance to the economy, contributing some £2.6 billion to the UK economy and employing nearly 250,000 people across 55,000 businesses. Even in the current tough economic climate, we can walk down any high street or through any town centre and find several hairdressing salons or barbershops.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I, too, have written to all the hairdressers in my constituency, seeking their views about regulation. My hon. Friend is right. They want to be seen as responsible and do not want to cause anybody damage when they visit the salon. Does my hon. Friend agree that partly because of the recession and partly because of the increase in the number of people who are self-employed, an increasing number of people are providing hairdressing services in people’s homes, over which there are no checks whatever? That causes me concern.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is right. For a hairdresser working as a sole operator in a home where there is nobody to point out to them that they have done something wrongly, it is even more important that they are properly qualified and that the person employing them has some validation of that. We would check whether a plumber was properly registered; that is far more important in respect of our own body.

[Alison Seabeck]

The protection of hairdressers is also important, to ensure that they are protected if anything goes wrong.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. Insurance companies will have a vital role to play. If there is compulsory state registration, insurance companies will expect professionals to comply with the law and to mention any changes in circumstance. It will be in hairdressers’ best interest to be registered and to be properly insured.

In our town centres, it is often the hairdressing shops that pull people in, which can be welcome. With competition from internet shopping and out-of-town shopping, anything that increases footfall in town centres can be useful to the neighbouring shops, not just the hairdressers and barbers.

Habia, the Government-approved standards-setting body for the industry, estimates that hairdressing and barbering account for nearly 1% of the entire UK economy. They also make up a huge percentage of new start-ups. Habia estimates that 41% of hairdressers are self-employed, and 93.5% work in a workplace employing between one and 10 employees.

I must emphasise that the vast majority of these businesses are respected. The hairdressers are highly competent and have worked long and hard to train to a proficient and qualified standard. However, as always, some do not fall into this category and damage this good reputation. To prevent this, the Government of the day introduced the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964, which created the Hairdressing Council and provided its current constitution. Under the Act, a person can apply to be state registered in the same way as doctors, nurses and dentists. The only difference is that it is completely voluntary to belong to the UK register of qualified hairdressers—a status that can be achieved either through qualification or six years practising as a hairdresser. Ideally, every hairdresser and barber should be state registered, which would eliminate those who practise with no qualifications or experience whatsoever. The problem with the Act is that it does not have any power to safeguard the consumer with a framework of minimum qualification standards and compulsory state regulation of the industry—it is entirely voluntary. The campaign by the Hair Council, which I fully support, would allow for compulsory registration of all hairdressers and barbers.

Let us be honest: we have moved on a long way since 1964. If we want to be reminded of what teenage boys looked like in 1964, we just have to go on to the internet and look for the sleeve of the Beatles’ LP, “A Hard Day’s Night”, and that will give us a good impression. Most of us will remember that hairdressers were about the short back and sides for boys, with schools complaining if hair touched the collar. We knew that our mothers or grandmothers went for a perm now and again. Of course, nowadays there is a whole range of treatments and people have such a variety of different opportunities for things to do with their hair. Dangerous chemicals are used routinely. Without proper training and qualifications, there is no guarantee for customers that they might not be burnt, injured or permanently physically disfigured by the inappropriate use of these chemicals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) said, many people are turning to mobile hairdressers, and it is even more important that they should be properly state registered and therefore regulated.

We need to ensure quality and safety standards within the hairdressing and barbering industry. Many hairdressers who are not state registered practise great hairdressing and run successful salons, but registration is about guaranteeing a minimum level of competence for the consumer and deterring those who are not fit to practise from setting up. As politicians, we have a duty of care to members of the public. When things do go wrong and there are accidents resulting from the misuse of chemicals or dyes, it can be very distressing for the persons concerned. Ultimately, if medical treatment is needed, it is likely that the NHS—namely, the taxpayer—will pick up the bill.

Similar questions and concerns were raised in the wake of the Poly Implant Prothèse implants problem. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh headed up a review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions—in particular, non-surgical procedures such as dermal fillers, beauty treatments, collagen and Botox injections, chemical peels, and laser hair removal. In his report published in April 2013, he notes:

“Dermal fillers are a particular cause for concern as anyone can set themselves up as a practitioner, with no requirement for knowledge, training or previous experience.”

The Government have supported the recommendations of the report, one of which states:

“All non-surgical procedures must be performed under the responsibility of a clinical professional who has gained the accredited qualification”.

Most notably, it recommends that all practitioners should be registered, and states:

“Entry to the register should be subject to…achievement of accredited qualification”.

Some of these procedures could easily be undertaken in a spa or a salon, so let us make sure that we get regulation all round.

The introduction of compulsory registration for hairdressers and barbers would bring hairdressing and barbering into line with other industries in the UK. It would be similar, for example, to the regulation of taxi drivers or food hygiene: one would not expect to go into a restaurant that had not been properly regulated.

Registration of hairdressers and barbers is required elsewhere. In the USA, for example, practitioners are required to have a licence to practise and to provide evidence of training and certification in each business area they intend to provide at their salon. There are on-site inspections and trade tests, and a consumer complaints and procedures route. If they move state, they have to satisfy the regulations of the state to which they move. Australia has a similar set-up, with practitioners required to be registered. The UK remains one of the few countries in Europe that does not require the state registration of hairdressers or their equivalents.

The Hair Council has already made significant progress not only in raising the issue within the industry and with decision makers, but in consulting and drawing up details of how the system might work in practice. The questions that many people will rightly ask are about its cost, how it will be policed and how it will work in practice. There will clearly have to be proper consultation within the industry and a transition phase, but I will return to that later.

Once the system is up and running, it should be relatively easy to police. There will be a list of registered hairdressers. Just as now, people will be able to find their nearest state-registered hairdresser on the Hair Council website. The public and trading standards officers alike will be able to consult the list. Consumers will be able to check whether their hairdresser is state registered, just as they can for their plumber. Trading standards offices will be able to use it as a tool for checking what is happening in the local neighbourhood. When officers make inspections of local salons, they can also check the credentials of the people who are working there.

Ultimately, insurance companies are likely to provide the greatest motivation for hairdressers and salon owners to comply, and to make sure that all their staff are state-registered hairdressers. We all know that we have to comply with the terms and conditions of insurance policies for them to be valid, and that we have to report any change in circumstances. No hairdresser or salon owner will want to pay for insurance only to find that it is invalid. The requirement by insurance companies for hairdressers to comply with the law—they will provide cover for hairdressers serving the public only if they are state registered—will therefore provide a strong motivation for them to register and to employ only those who are state registered.

The Hair Council has estimated that the system can be run at no extra cost above the current fee of £40 per annum per individual hairdresser. In fact, it sees that figure as a maximum. No-one likes to pay any fee, but in the great scheme of things, it is not an unreasonable amount and could be recouped from customers relatively quickly. The cost per customer over a year would be negligible, and customers would find it a very small price to pay for knowing that the hairdressers and barbers that they and their family use are registered and therefore regulated.

On implementation, the structures and the mechanisms are already in place, and the Hair Council has done a lot of preparatory work. We already have the legislation. A registration scheme is in place—its framework has existed since 1964—and it is administered by the Hair Council. The Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 created the then Hairdressing Council and provided its constitution. Under the Act, a person can apply to be state registered in the same way as doctors, nurses and dentists. We are now seeking to make state registration compulsory.

The Hair Council has done a lot of work and has come up with proposals. It suggests that, as the keeper of the register of hairdressers and barbers, its remit would be extended from the maintenance of a voluntary register to keeping a statutory register, with the ability to set and enforce penalties where necessary. The Hair Council is committed to consultation within the industry, and to be both consumer and industry-focused in its communications. It proposes that those already practising as a hairdresser or barber in the UK would be required to join the register by a certain date—perhaps up to two years after the change in the legislation. That would be followed by a period of strict scrutiny, using a team of inspectors recruited for the sole objective of visiting salons. Practising hairdressers or barbers—whether mobile operatives, salon-based or self-employed individuals—would need to register to be able to function correctly and legally.

Trainers would be expected to inform learners that once they had obtained a level 2 national vocational qualification, they would be required to register before they could practise lawfully. That would educate individuals intending to work in a self-employed capacity about the need to register. Compliance could be monitored by qualification-awarding organisations.

When I have consulted local salons, they have stressed the need for high-quality training, so I was pleased to see in December that my local further education college, coleg Sir Gâr, has signed up to registering all its lecturers, assessors and qualified learners with the Hair Council. It clearly makes sense that all those who are training and assessing the next generation of hairdressers should themselves be state-registered.

Qualified professional hairdressers and barbers are drivers of growth on our high streets. They support local employment, train apprentices, serve their communities and contribute significantly to the UK economy, and it is time for the industry to be put on a much firmer regulatory footing to reflect that. We have regulatory and consumer laws because they reflect good practice. The majority of responsible practitioners already come up to or surpass the necessary standards, but we need legislation to provide protection from the unscrupulous or incompetent. A change in the law would not only ensure consumer protection but enhance standards and provide professional recognition for the industry. I therefore ask the Minister to take the initiative and to take the necessary steps to ensure that we are all properly protected, by introducing the compulsory registration of hairdressers.

17:21

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), and I thank her for providing me with the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I join her in placing on record admiration for barbers and hairdressers—one needs only to look around the House to see what a challenge it can be. You, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, are at the top of the list. It is undoubtedly a challenge to get every individual’s hair correct. May I place on record my particular thanks to Sugaz barbers of Lime street, Bedford, for their tremendous dedication to making the Member of Parliament for Bedford look presentable in public these past four or five years?

Hairdressing is a tough profession, as every individual has their own needs and tastes. As the hon. Lady said, the skill sets in the industry and the services and products it provides have progressed dramatically over the past 20 or 30 years. I would also point out the size of the industry. As she said, it is not a small sector of our economy but a considerable one. It employs a large number of people, and there are a large number of businesses in it. It affects all of us—we all use the services of a hairdresser or barber on a regular basis, perhaps until we become follically challenged.

The hon. Lady did not mention another important aspect of the sector, which is that setting up a salon or becoming a barber or hairdresser is one of the most accessible ways for people to start out in their own profession or start up their own business. For a lot of people, formal education is not their direct interest, but making people feel better and bringing happiness to their lives is how hundreds of thousands of people contribute to our society. Hairdressing has historically been a relatively easy way for people to get involved in setting up a business. That is why I disagree with the hon. Lady’s approach to regulation, if I may say so, even though she outlined a solid case. Frankly, I do not want the state cutting my hair. More deeply than that, I believe that sufficient protections for the consumer are already in place. If I may, I will go through a number of them in turn.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has graciously thanked his hairdresser, but may I say that on the whole, his hairdresser’s task is rather simple? The point is the greater complication, and the use of chemicals and other products, when a woman’s hair is styled. That is often a more technical and difficult task, and that is where regulation is required.

[Richard Fuller]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, and I will state why I think regulation is not the approach to take. If that does not satisfy her, especially on the issue of chemical use, perhaps she will make a further intervention or contribution.

My first point applies to almost all barbers and hairdressers, because they almost all go through formal training. Bedford college has an active range of courses for people who want to become hairdressers and barbers. They go through the training, learn about the use of chemicals, different styles, techniques and human interactions, and achieve a good qualification.

[Nia Griffith]

If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the vast majority of hairdressers go through the process of getting a proper qualification, should we not give them credit for that, and ensure that someone who has not done so is not able to give the whole industry a bad name by doing something inappropriate or stupid? As he says, many hairdressers have done a lot of work and trained, and if they were asked to register because it was compulsory, I am sure the vast majority would be proud to do so.

[Richard Fuller]

There are a number of points in that. First, people who work for a qualification get that qualification and credit at the end of their training course, which is a sense of celebration and merit for them. Secondly, if they believe it is valuable to get that additional accreditation from the council, that is perfectly open to them. There is nothing barring someone from taking on that accreditation, but the hon. Lady proposes not to treat accreditation in that way but to make it a compulsory requirement, and that is where I differ from her approach. Qualifications provide people with that credit, and the sector currently works adequately at that level.

Another factor is word of mouth. If there is one part of our lives where word of mouth has a big influence on where we go, it must surely be in who cuts our hair. We listen to what people say, perhaps when we are younger, and then we stick with someone and they cut our hair for many years into the future. We get to know who we want from what other people say, and we tend to stick with what we know. In that type of structure, and given how demand in a market works, regulation seems to be more of an impediment and intrusion into people’s normal practice of finding the right barber or hairdresser than a help.

Supply and demand works. If someone is operating a salon and provides poor or risky service, they will go out of business because in most communities people know which barbers and hairdressers do not work effectively. As I said, there is already quite a lot of conversational management about the quality of service in that sector, and that has been supplemented by online sources. Nowadays people seeking a hairdresser can look at ratings and recommendations online, just as they can for other services. Finally, in the rare occurrences when a problem does occur, one can obviously seek redress directly from the salon for any impediment caused, and if a very severe issue has caused an injury, there is the opportunity for litigation. Plenty of measures are already in place that make regulation an unnecessary, perhaps even distracting, step.

The hon. Member for Llanelli said that regulation helps to stop the unscrupulous, but we had plenty of regulation in banking and that did not stop unscrupulous behaviour. She specifically mentioned taxi drivers. We have regulation in that sector, but in a number of activities there is still unscrupulous behaviour by taxi drivers. I do not see regulation, perhaps as the hon. Lady does, as providing a guarantee that something will be right. In fact, I believe that our understanding of how markets and people work, what we hear from our friends and others, and the service we directly receive, is a much better guide and form of consumer protection than blanket regulation.

I understand that the proposed measure is in the interests of the British Hair Council. I understand that it has about 6,000 registered members from the 250,000 people who could be registered, which is a relatively low proportion. Rather than compelling people to join, perhaps the council should ask itself some tough questions about why it has achieved such a low level of penetration. Why is its offer not attractive enough for people to join? It is not the job of government to give the council a leg up so that it can increase its membership—it should be doing that itself. I think the hon. Lady confirmed that the membership fee is £42, so the council, with its current 6,000 members, has an income of £250,000 a year. Were we to make membership compulsory, that income would go up to £10 million a year. I can therefore see a clear and direct financial interest for the council to be pushing this measure, through both the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and today’s debate. I can see why the council is pushing very hard, but I am not hearing any compelling argument, related to either consumer satisfaction or industry improvement, about why we should take that step.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman needs to take into consideration why one would register if it is not compulsory. There are lots of professional organisations to which people do not necessarily belong if they are not compulsory. When I was a modern languages teacher, I could have belonged to about three or four organisations, in addition to the trade union to which I belonged. If there is to be no regulation, how would the hon. Gentleman guarantee that somebody could not practise if they were not competent to do so? He talks about word of mouth; that might be all right for the established person, but it does not help the newly qualified person in setting up, which is one of the arguments he made. Why is it that he rejects any form of protection? Does he have another idea how that offer of a proper guarantee could be put in place, so that people could see a sticker in a window and know that the salon—or the individual, if it is someone visiting a house—is properly qualified? Is there another way to guarantee that?

[Richard Fuller]

First, as a politician I do not think I should be guaranteeing the quality of service that someone receives in a hair salon. Secondly, I do not think that regulation is the same as a guarantee, and I have tried to make that point. Regulation is, as the hon. Lady rightly says, a sticker in the window, but there are plenty of examples of regulation not providing protection. It can sometimes be misguiding to say that people are protected when they are not. If we want protection, we might have to put in place compensation schemes and ask the taxpayer to fund situations where there have been negative consequences. The hon. Lady and I have a substantially differing approach to whether it is appropriate for politicians to guarantee, and to whether a guarantee means protection. As I tried to set out earlier, there are a number of layers of informal protection that guide our decision to get a haircut in salon A or salon B.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Hair Council’s proposal to have inspectors going around regulating. That would be really tough. The Care Quality Commission has to regulate, I think, 21,000 care homes, and we know that that does not necessarily provide a guarantee of service. There are even more hair salons, so unless there is a very cursory inspection—just popping in and popping out—that would be a substantial undertaking. I have some scepticism about whether the council is currently in a position to provide the level of insight the hon. Lady thinks it can in an industry that is so widely distributed and so small scale individually. The sector also has quite a high turnover—a number of salons will set up and then fail—so there will perhaps be even more than the headline number of salons that need to be regulated.

The hon. Lady set out a good case, but I disagree with her approach. She talked about the regulation of new industries—for example botox and so on. There is a question—perhaps the Minister will address it—of whether there should be a difference of approach when we look at new industries, such as those providing botox and cosmetic surgery, that do not have a track record of customer service and what people understand, as there is in industries, such as hairdressing, that have been established for generations. What about nail salons? If the Minister is minded to agree with the hon. Lady, does he think we should also regulate nail salons? If so, how many nail salons would we have to cover? If not, why would we cover one, but not the other?

The hon. Lady did not mention Europe, but given the title of the debate, I want to talk about pending European regulations relating to the hairdressing industry in the UK. When many of us on the Government Benches hear about European regulation—this is a poor joke—we are minded to pull our hair out. [Interruption.] I said it was a poor joke. [Hon. Members: “It was a very poor joke”.] It is late in the day, so I can get away with it.

There is, however, a much more important non-joke issue that was drawn to my attention by the National Hairdressers’ Federation, which is based in my constituency: the framework agreement proposed by the EU on occupational health and safety protection. As I understand it, the Commission is seeking to make the framework voluntary agreement into something that is legally binding in all member states and for all businesses in the industry. This raises several issues. First, I am not sure we want additional European regulation in a sector in the UK. Secondly, it would not apply to those who are self-employed; it would apply only to businesses and so create a two-tier level of occupational health and safety protection? Thirdly, the European trade federation has said it would have severely negative consequences for the sector.

I think that most people who run salons would say it is a tough, low-margin business where every cost matters. Do we really want to add an additional burden from the EU? I understand that 10 member states have already expressed their opposition to making the regulation legally binding. Will the Minister give us his views and tell us whether the UK has or will oppose making it legally binding rather than a matter of voluntary compliance? In most sectors, voluntary compliance works effectively.

The hon. Lady has made a strong case for an alternative point of view, but it is a case I disagree with, and I hope that the Minister will also disagree. However, I am grateful to both of them for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

17:37

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

I will not be as bold as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), but will steer clear of commenting on the quality of Members’ hairstyling; I think I will stay on safe ground.

I am sure the House will commend the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) for bringing this issue to its attention. She is right that it concerns a significant industry that affects almost all the population who use hairdressers or barbers. I am familiar with the Hair Council’s campaign—my predecessor met Sally Styles, the chief executive officer, to discuss the issues—and I am aware of the recent debate on the subject in the Welsh Assembly. I am sure that the hon. Lady, in her constituency and shadow ministerial roles, will be familiar with that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Llanelli said, the hairdressing and beauty industry is important to the UK economy. It contributes about £5 billion a year and employs about 250,000 people, and it is dominated by small and micro-businesses, with about 36,000 salons and 3,000 barbers. The majority of the work force is female and a high proportion of people are self-employed. My hon. Friend made the point about the low barriers to entry and its being a very competitive industry. That is an important tool in ensuring that an industry is well regulated, because anyone who delivers poor customer service will not be in business for long in a business that is competitive and where people share knowledge about the quality of service they receive.

Of course, nobody wants to see incompetent people in the profession, unsatisfactory conditions of hygiene or unsafe use of chemicals, all of which could impact on business owners, employees and members of the public. However, I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said and the thing that was missing from her speech—I will perhaps not be as generous as my hon. Friend, because I do not think she made a strong case—was what is the problem that we are trying to solve. Despite the size of the industry, how many people work in it and how many customers it has, I did not hear any analysis in her speech of what the problem was. She did not set out a compelling argument that large numbers of people are damaged by incompetent hairdressers, nor did she lay out a real problem that we are trying to solve. She laid out some theoretical risks, but they are not risks in practice. The Government’s position on health and safety regulation is that we should take a proportionate approach to risk and have regulation to deal with the amount of risk that exists, not overburden industry with unnecessary red tape.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister not accept, though, that rather than waiting for disasters and scandals to happen, it is better to see what we can do in advance? This is a widespread industry; lots of teenagers go and get their hair done and all the rest of it; and just as we have seen with tanning salons and tattoo parlours and so forth, people sometimes end up doing things that perhaps are inappropriate. Would it not be better to put in place a system that we can properly use, rather than just leaving things to drift?

[Mr Harper]

This comes back to one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. The hon. Lady’s argument might have some force if we were talking about a radical new industry, but we are talking about something that has been around for a long time and that has a clear track record showing that the problem that she suggests might occur is just not there. There is a genuine issue about how health and safety regulation can ensure that people can go to work and return home safely, not be killed, injured or damaged, and that members of the public can have the same protection. However, the Government’s general approach to regulation, particularly in the health and safety space, is to ensure that it focuses on where the risks are, not where they are not. As I have said, I did not hear in her speech a compelling case for the problem that she is trying to solve, and I do not think there is one, which is why I am not attracted to her solution.

[Mrs Moon]

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made the point that the industry has moved on. We have moved on from the days of the short back and sides for men. Men now have more products used on their hair, as do women. Women are having hair extensions, which can result in hair being pulled out, and are having different chemicals used on their hair all the time. Hairdressing is a more technically-minded industry, rather than just a creative, simplistic industry, where people went for a perm or a set, or a short back and sides. It is that change in the nature of the industry that has led to calls for greater regulation.

[Mr Harper]

I will come to the point about regulating the use of chemicals in a minute, but as I have said, I do not think a compelling case for the problem has been set out.

We welcome what the Hair Council does in operating its voluntary registration scheme and we support initiatives to improve professional competence and standards. However, it is interesting that about 10% of hairdressers—that is my understanding; I do not necessarily agree with the exact statistic used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford—are registered in the voluntary registration scheme that was implemented under the 1964 Act. Although the hon. Member for Llanelli said that the industry would support compulsory registration, the fact that only 10% of those in the industry are registered with the Hair Council suggests to me that they do not think there is a compelling argument that membership of that organisation is necessary to show their customers that they have the appropriate competence and skill. I think my hon. Friend is right: when people get a hairdresser they are confident in, they tend to stick with them for quite a long time. In my experience, good hairdressers have a good reputation and attract business in that way, and poor ones go out of business very quickly. I do not think the evidence suggests that the industry wants compulsory registration.

My hon. Friend is also right that the idea that a state registration scheme is a guarantee that everything will be fine is simply not right and is not shown by a range of other industries that have elements of regulation where that does not guarantee high quality. The thing that guarantees high quality is a competitive industry, low barriers to entry and a competitive marketplace. People who deliver poor customer service will not be around for very long. The evidence suggests that hairdressing is a generally well run sector of the economy and that the individuals and businesses supported by the trade bodies take sensible and proportionate measures effectively to manage the health and safety risks to their employees and customers.

The hon. Member for Llanelli said that there were not any measures or regulations to protect people in the industry at the moment. That is simply not true. Businesses operating in the hairdressing sector are covered by health and safety at work legislation and public health legislation, which are enforced by local authorities. They are covered by the provisions within the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which set out requirements about identifying hazards, the control of risks, the provision of training and information for staff and the need for advice. If chemicals are used, there are other regulations about controlling substances hazardous to health, the use of work equipment, manual handling, welfare and personal protective equipment. There are already quite a lot of regulations, with which a hairdresser or hairdressing salon has to comply to ensure that they do not present a risk to their customers or their members of staff.

[Nia Griffith]

What research has the Minister done on the level of understanding of that legislation by hairdressers who go house to house to work?

[Mr Harper]

I have not done any specific work on that, but I do not think there is any evidence that there is a problem to be solved. Everyone who runs a business has to comply with health and safety legislation, but it is proportionate to the risk that they run. As I said, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford; I do not think the evidence suggests a risk in this industry to justify imposing a state registration scheme. That is the first point, and the second is that I do not think there is any evidence that if we did so, it would have any impact on making the industry better. It is generally a well run industry, with some high-quality individuals and businesses operating, which delivers good customer service.

As well as providing a legislative framework, the Health and Safety Executive produces guidance for small businesses. It has an example risk assessment for hairdressing salons, which is accessed between 200 and 400 times each month. It goes through the common hazards that might be present in a hairdressing salon, the harm that can be caused to staff and customers and it suggests the sorts of actions that salons and hairdressers can take to control the risks. The HSE works closely with the National Hairdressers Federation and the Hairdressing and Beauty Industry Authority, which is the Government-appointed sector skills body that controls the standards that form the basis of all qualifications, to raise awareness of health issues.

The hon. Lady mentioned the training aspects. In my constituency, the Forest of Dean campus of Gloucester college trains people in the hair and beauty industry. I have been along myself and I recall for a short period sitting in the chair as a model while various people practised on me. That demonstrated the high level of skill and training in the industry. The college works closely with local employers and the standards are very high.

A good example of joint working was the “Bad Hand Day” campaign, which the HSE ran in partnership with the industry to raise awareness of how to prevent hairdressers suffering dermatitis. The HSE has run a recent health and safety campaign, which targeted small businesses across a number of industries, including the beauty industry. The HSE produced “Health & Safety ABC: An easy guide to health and safety”, which was supported by both the Hairdressing and Beauty Industry Authority and the National Hairdressers Federation, while 92% of those surveyed in the beauty industry said that the health and safety of their customers was either a major or moderate concern. Most people in the industry recognise that there is something they need to be concerned about and take appropriate steps to deal with it.

There are some other regulations under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and a new suite of health protection regulations came into effect in April 2010. This updated an “all hazards” approach, dealing with infections and contaminations. Public authorities are thus able to respond to modern-day health hazards. As well as local authorities, Public Health England, Public Health Wales and Health Protection Scotland have an interest in protecting the public from harm in the wider beauty industry.

Hairdressing products, which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned, are also regulated—I am sorry to say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford—under the EU cosmetics directive, which offers a further layer of protection for customers in that any product used must be authorised, properly labelled and packaged.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Llanelli compared these proposals with measures taken to control other professions in the beauty industry, and the hon. Lady specifically mentioned other cosmetic treatments. There is a distinction between the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and wider public health legislation that regulates more invasive cosmetic treatments, such as the one that she mentioned. It is necessary to apply regulation that is proportionate to risk. The report to which she referred was clearly a response to some of the risks involved—I think I am right in saying that it was triggered partly by some of the fall-out from the issue of breast implants—and I do not think that it is relevant to the hairdressing industry.

Local authorities have powers, under various local Acts, to exercise a proper degree of control over standards of health and hygiene, which includes the cleanliness of premises, instruments and equipment, and they have powers to inspect. They take enforcement action, such as prosecuting poorly performing hairdressing salons, under the existing regulatory framework. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Lady, there is already a fairly comprehensive regulatory framework, which is designed to protect both staff and customers in hairdressing salons. If people comply with that legislation, the risks—which are relatively low—will be properly controlled, and I therefore see no case for extending it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford referred to moves on the European front, specifically the European framework agreement on the protection of occupational health and safety in the hairdressing sector. The Government do not want that agreement to become a compulsory directive, and we have been working with like-minded states to prevent its implementation as such. We have no objection to a voluntary scheme, but, having analysed the agreement, we think that it duplicates a great deal of existing legislation. Moreover, an initial assessment suggests that it would impose an extra cost of £75 million on hairdressing businesses in the United Kingdom alone, without improving existing standards.

My hon. Friend mentioned nail salons. They are effectively covered by the same regulatory framework as hairdressers, so they must comply with the same health and safety regulations and public health legislation.

The hon. Member for Llanelli asked whether insurers could require hairdressers to be state-registered. Hairdressing businesses, like all other businesses, are already required to have employers’ liability insurance, and responsible businesses will have public liability insurance as well. Again, a regulatory framework already ensures that businesses providing these services are properly insured and therefore have the appropriate financial resources if they cause damage to their customers.

I do not think that the hon. Lady has set out a problem that needs to be solved. Hairdressing is an important industry that employs a great many people, is generally well run and delivers a good customer service, but it is already subject to a comprehensive range of regulatory laws contained in primary and secondary legislation that ensures that the risks must be dealt with properly.

[Alison Seabeck]

Throughout the Minister’s speech—it has been an interesting speech, in which he has expressed a different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—he has referred to a lack of evidence. Given that 70% of hairdressers suffer from conditions such as dermatitis at some point in their lives, there is no doubt that customers will also be subject to problems caused by chemicals, latex gloves and other equipment. Customers may enter salons without fully understanding some of the risks, particularly if the staff are not particularly experienced. That is a significant issue. The Minister says that he is opposed to regulation, but would it not be worthwhile to carry out research among customers as well as hairdressers about the nature of the problems that people experience in salons, given that we clearly do not know enough about it?

[Mr Harper]

The alternative way of looking at that is that if there was a real problem, we would know about it. As constituency MPs, lots of issues come to our attention, and I am digging through my memory and in my nine years as a Member of Parliament I do not think I have ever had a single letter complaining about appalling treatment by a hairdressing salon in my constituency. In fact the opposite is the case; I have been fortunate enough to go to salons in my constituency to present awards to high performing and well-trained members of staff. If there was a real problem that affected significant numbers of people, I think we would know about it.

[Alison Seabeck]

We have some fantastic salons in Plymouth, all of which are performing incredibly well, but if we go on Google and type in “hairdressing” and “accidents”, enormous numbers of messages from solicitors’ firms pop up on our screen saying, “Let us help you with your claim against your hairdressers”, so something is clearly going on out there.

[Mr Harper]

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for saying that just because there are lots of ambulance-chasing lawyers around trying to dream up and invent legal actions in a particular sector does not necessarily give a good indication of whether there is a problem to solve. We all know about such lawyers trying to dream up and invent legal actions; we have seen what happens with people trying to sue others for car accidents and inventing claims and driving up motor insurance premiums. In the hairdressing sector, therefore, given that we already have a range of health and safety legislation, I do not think further legislation would deliver much gain to employees or customers.

The issue the hon. Member for Llanelli was raising was professional standards and competence among hairdressers. The Government believe such matters are often best dealt with by businesses and their representative bodies. They know how to improve standards. That is very effective in a competitive business with low barriers to entry and no reason why people cannot switch very easily, so the Government are not in favour of mandatory state registration for hairdressers, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, we oppose the European social partner agreement becoming a compulsory directive.

The Health and Safety Executive will continue to work with all the various bodies representing the hairdressing industry, to maintain good standards of employee and customer health and safety. That is an appropriate way for what is a generally very well run and excellent industry to continue to be regulated.

Question put and agreed to.

17:57

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 7 January 2015

Transport

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Ministerial Corrections

Rail Network (Disruption)

The following are extracts from the responses made by the Secretary of State for Transport to the Urgent Question on Monday 5 January 2015.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the investment in financial terms and in the work done on improving and upgrading our rail network is warmly welcomed, but that the other side of coin is that there is a responsibility through Network Rail to ensure minimal disruption to commuters and passengers—not simply during key holiday periods but on every other weekend of the year—who too often hear on a Monday morning about the overrunning of engineering works and cancelled services? What can be done to hold Network Rail more to account to minimise such problems?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The problem happens when we are doing the sort of massive upgrade to the system that we are doing. Over the five-year period between 2014 and 2019, some £38.5 billion will be spent on upgrading the railway infrastructure, and some of that will lead to delays through overrunning engineering works. I know that particular problems have affected my right hon. Friend’s constituency over some weekends, and I think we should look further to see whether there is a better way of doing the engineering work. Let me point out that 18 months ago, over a period of eight weeks, Nottingham station was closed down while 2,000 people were working on it. That is sometimes an option, but when we are talking about the main London termini, that is really not an option.

[Official Report, 5 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 26.]

Letter of correction from Mr McLoughlin:

An error has been identified in the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

The correct response should have been:

[Mr McLoughlin]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The problem happens when we are doing the sort of massive upgrade to the system that we are doing. Over the five-year period between 2014 and 2019, some £38 billion will be spent on upgrading the railway infrastructure, and some of that will lead to delays through overrunning engineering works. I know that particular problems have affected my right hon. Friend’s constituency over some weekends, and I think we should look further to see whether there is a better way of doing the engineering work. Let me point out that 18 months ago, over a period of eight weeks, Nottingham station was closed down while 2,000 people were working on it. That is sometimes an option, but when we are talking about the main London termini, that is really not an option.



An error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas).

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

We have heard much rhetoric from the Secretary of State about additional investment in the railways. In December, did not his Department, under his direction, cancel the investment in phases 1 and 2 of modular signalling improvements in north Wales? Will he confirm that he has authorised that?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What I will confirm is that we are investing some £38 billion in the railways, which is more than any previous Government have invested. In 13 years, Labour electrified 10 miles of track. We will be electrifying more than 800 miles, which is a record of which this Government are incredibly proud.

[Official Report, 5 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 33.]

The correct response should have been:

[Mr McLoughlin]

What I will confirm is that we are investing some £38 billion in the railways, which is more than any previous Government have invested. In 13 years, Labour electrified 10 miles of track. We will be electrifying more than 850 miles, which is a record of which this Government are incredibly proud.



An error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).

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

What lessons has the Secretary of State learned from this sorry episode over the Christmas period? Does he recognise that the frustration comes not just from cancellations and long delays but from the complexity of the compensation system, with different train companies applying different terms and conditions? There are also times when people end up on a rail replacement bus having paid top fares for a rail journey.

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. I will try to answer them all. The new franchises I am issuing have changed the way in which compensation is awarded, and they are a great improvement on those awarded by the previous Government. He also asked me about bus replacement services. If he wants us to carry out improvements on the network, alternatives have to be made available. I accept that our changes and improvements are an issue, but we are investing a record £38.5 billion in the railways between 2014 and 2019.

[Official Report, 5 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 34.]

The correct response should have been.

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. I will try to answer them all. The new franchises I am issuing have changed the way in which compensation is awarded, and they are a great improvement on those awarded by the previous Government. He also asked me about bus replacement services. If he wants us to carry out improvements on the network, alternatives have to be made available. I accept that our changes and improvements are an issue, but we are investing a record £38 billion in the railways between 2014 and 2019.



An error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson).

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

After the Christmas shambles, I was pleased to see that the chief executive of Network Rail voluntarily said that he would not take his bonus of £34,000. Has the Secretary of State considered introducing performance-related pay for rail bosses, in the same way as his Government advocate it for teachers?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not think I will take too many lessons from the Labour party about bonuses. In 2009-10, the bonuses paid to Network Rail were £2.3 billion; this year, it was going to be £260,000. I think there should be carrots and sticks, and, if the criteria set are met, a bonus is a way of rewarding the people directly involved in providing services.

[Official Report, 5 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 36.]

The correct response should have been:

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not think I will take too many lessons from the Labour party about bonuses. In 2009-10, the bonuses paid to Network Rail were £2.3 million; this year, it was going to be £260,000. I think there should be carrots and sticks, and, if the criteria set are met, a bonus is a way of rewarding the people directly involved in providing services.

Petition

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Petitions

Wednesday 7 January 2015

NHS dental services in Walsall South

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners wish to be able to access NHS dental services at The Dentist Surgery, Liskeard Road, Walsall.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage NHS England to award an NHS dental services contract to The Dentist Surgery in Walsall.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.––[Presented by Valerie Vaz, Official Report, 11 December 2014; Vol.589, c. 1089.]

[P001410]

Observations from the Secretary of State for the Department of Health:

The commissioning of NHS dental services is a matter for NHS England.

NHS England, through its Area Teams, discharges its powers to secure the provision of services, including primary dental services in accordance with section 99 of the NHS Act 2006. NHS England is required to follow procurement rules and must meet the standards included in public procurement law, specifically as set out in the NHS (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) No 2 Regulations 2013.

If consultation and a needs assessment lead an Area Team to determine that additional services within available resources are necessary a competitive tender would be conducted.

Commissioners must not prevent, distort or restrict competition. An Area Team cannot issue a contract on request, as this would be unfair to other potential providers. The value for money and quality of service offered by any potential provider cannot be properly determined without a competitive tender process.

Birmingham, Solihull and The Black Country Area Team advises that the local needs assessment does not suggest additional NHS dental services are required, and at this time no procurements are planned for primary care dental services in Walsall.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 7 January 2015

[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]

Diverted Profits Tax

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

A happy new year to everyone who is here for what I hope will be an interesting debate on a whole new tax. It is not often we get whole new taxes in this country, and I thought we should mark this one with a bit of parliamentary scrutiny, because I fear it will sneak through in the pre-election wrap-up Finance Bill and will not get much debate in Committee. It would therefore be helpful for Parliament to have a bit of a chance to work out the Government’s intentions and exactly where they intend this tax to go.

If we judge Government measures by how balanced the reaction to them is, this tax has probably gone down about right with people. Some advisers regard it as the worst-drafted legislation in some time, while some have said it is relatively narrow and focused—there has even been a cautious welcome from Richard Murphy, although he is perhaps thinking again about that. Another tax campaigner, David Quentin QC, regards the tax as “widely and aggressively drafted” with “a penally high rate”. If we take the average of all those reactions, it is probably about where the Government would want it to be. It appears that the tax will deter some people from doing some things, but it will not do so ridiculously little that it destroys the UK tax regime, so we are perhaps starting in the right place.

It would be useful to understand what the Government see as the way forward. We have had Treasury tweets suggesting, “This tax isn’t ever really meant to apply to anyone. We hope everyone will change their behaviour. We’ll accept they all have establishments in the UK after all. They’ll stop using artificial transactions, and everything will be fine. We’ll rarely have to apply this tax. It’ll be a big stick that never actually gets wielded.”

In some ways, the Treasury forecast of how much the tax will raise suggests it is not intended to apply to the many thousands of multinational companies it could apply to. Some advisers say that, in theory, the tax could apply to a large number of people and raise a large amount, but the Treasury seem to think it will raise a small amount. I assume, therefore, that behavioural change is the main motivation, but it would be interesting to see whether the Minister confirms that. It would also be useful for everyone to know that the Government actually intend to put this tax through before Parliament is dissolved so that it is on the statute book exactly on 1 April—the date on which it is intended to come into force.

That leads me to one of the main concerns about the new tax—its impact on, and the Government’s strategy for, the base erosion and profit shifting process, which is intended to produce an international agreement on stopping multilateral companies flouting tax rules around the world and avoiding paying tax on profits they earn in various countries. Everyone accepts that that is the right place to get to. It is ludicrous that a large global company can earn profits in the UK and not pay tax here. We all want that to stop, and we all welcome the fact that the Government have introduced a proactive measure to achieve that. However, what I suspect no one wants to happen is that, rather than moving forward with a global agreement so that we have globally consistent rules that can be applied everywhere, we end up with a load of countries taking a piecemeal approach, putting in place slightly different rules that overlap or conflict with each other. In other words, rather than a sensible level global playing field, where everyone knows what the rules are and applies them, we end up with some horrible complexity that results in a similar mess to the one we started with or, equally as bad, a load of double taxation risks. We are a main global trading nation, and I suspect we have a lot to lose from a load of conflicting double taxation rules.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is a colleague on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on securing the debate. The message I get from many in the business community in my constituency is that if Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had been doing its job in the first place, there would be no call for this new tax. HMRC does not seem to go after the large companies that avoid paying tax, but it does go after the medium-sized to small companies, and that is unfair. What we really need is a level playing field.

[Nigel Mills]

The hon. Gentleman comes from an area that would like to be a tax haven—under these rules, a tax haven is defined as somewhere where the tax rate is less than 80% of the UK rate, and I suspect he hopes that the rate in Northern Ireland will be less than that in the relatively near future, although I would be intrigued to see whether the rules would actually apply to profits diverted into Belfast. However, I agree with him in part, and we have had all the stories about sweetheart deals. It is much harder for the Revenue to go after very large companies with very sophisticated advisers who can resist the rules, and it may be tempted towards softer targets that are perhaps not as well advised. However, it is not fair to say that we have this new tax because the Revenue has failed to use the rules that exist. There is a gap in the law, and certain companies have managed artificially to avoid having a permanent establishment in the UK and have, therefore, avoided paying tax on UK profits. I think a general agreement has been reached through the OECD BEPS—Base erosion and profit shifting—process that the rules need changing to bring those profits into tax in the right places. The point the hon. Gentleman made at the start of his criticism was therefore perhaps not entirely fair, given the context we are talking about.

To return to the concern regarding BEPS, no one would want the UK, by acting unilaterally, to unravel that process so that we do not get the co-ordinated international outcome we all expect later this year. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the Government’s strategy on BEPS. Is the tax meant to be complementary to it? If the outcome of the BEPS process is inconsistent with the tax, do we change the tax, or do we end up keeping both?

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend said that this unilateral action should not affect a global agreement that may be reached in the future. What concerns me, however, is that some countries—Luxembourg, the Republic of Ireland and, possibly, Holland—are acting as de facto tax havens. They regard helping big companies avoid tax in our country as a method of increasing their GDP. Given that, it is unlikely there will ever be a global agreement of the type my hon. Friend is talking about.

[Nigel Mills]

I have always been cynical about the OECD process, for exactly the reason my hon. Friend gives: the risk is that some countries will block it or undermine it out of self-interest. If the main countries are serious about tackling multinational tax avoidance, one country that really needs to change its rules is the US. The US could stop a lot of this by changing some of its rather strange entity classification rules and other things. That would stop US corporates getting the real tax saving they are after. I sense that until the US is willing to do that, we will never see these things stop completely.

[David Mowat]

I should have added that our hands are not clean. We appear quite sanguine about the status of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. I am always a bit surprised that neither Front Bench has ever regarded that as an issue on which more action is needed. People in Luxembourg would raise that issue with us, just as I am accusing them of acting as de facto assisters of tax evasion.

[Nigel Mills]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the UK doing some sponsoring of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but I will leave the Minister to answer for the Government’s policies on tackling that. My hon. Friend says our hands are not entirely clean; it is interesting that we have introduced the Patent Box to try to have a lower tax rate for intellectual property in the UK—presumably on royalties charged in countries around the world. We have also been trying to get our tax rate down to a low level to encourage international investment. Someone sitting somewhere with a tax rate much higher than 20% might think that we are trying to encourage profits to be taxed here that perhaps should not be, but I am sure that is not the Government’s intention.

To wrap up on the BEPS process, the Association of Revenue and Customs—the trade union for professionals at HMRC—raised the concern that the Government’s proposals were unilateral and stood outside the BEPS proposals. The ARC suggested an alternative approach, whereby the Government remain in the BEPS process and timetable, but use their current initiative to show they will have legislation in place in case the process falters or is impeded. I presume the Government will confirm that they do not intend to slow down on the rules and wait for the BEPS process and that we will see them on the statute book later in the year.

The second area I would like to look at briefly is how likely the rules are to be effective. We all want the tax to be collected in the UK. We do not want to see these corporates able to artificially avoid paying the tax that is due here, but there is a question on whether the rules will survive a challenge under the UK’s many double tax treaties or under EU law. People suspect that the Government have chosen to do a whole new tax, rather than just tweak the existing corporation tax rules, to try to ensure that the rules are not struck down by our international treaties or by EU law. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have looked into that and are satisfied that the treaty analysis is correct? Paragraph 4 of article 2 of the OECD’s model tax convention states:

“The Convention shall apply also to any identical or substantially similar taxes that are imposed after the date of signature of the Convention in addition to, or in place of, the existing taxes.”

At first glance, it looks as though the direct profits tax will be a tax on corporate income, which sounds similar to a corporate income tax and our corporation tax. The definition in the convention suggests that the tax might be caught by the treaties. Article 7 of the convention, which is on business profits, states:

“Profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein.”

The problem we are trying to fix with the avoided permanent establishment part of the rules is that if a company does not have a PE, we cannot tax them. We think they are diverting profits out of the UK and we want to tax those profits, but if we are dropped back into the treaty, we might end up in the same position as we started. It would be useful to understand how the Government have satisfied themselves that the tax will not be caught. Is it because they are trying to tax the UK establishment that already exists, or do they believe that it is a new tax that falls outside the treaty?

On the EU law point, I am no big fan of the EU interfering in our tax system. Tax is meant to be for nation states and not the EU. I have never been keen on the view that the European Court of Justice should interfere in sensible tax avoidance rules, so I will not advocate that here, but there must be a risk for the many companies that choose to site themselves in Luxembourg, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said. We have all seen the tax rulings that have been published, and we know how many companies are doing that. A company based in Luxembourg might say, “Wait a minute: if I am established in the UK and pay tax there, I pay it at 20%. Why, because I am in Luxembourg, do I pay a slightly different tax at 25%? Is that not fundamentally contrary to some kind of freedom of establishment principle?” There is a risk of a legal challenge to the rules on that basis. It would be useful to understand how the Government have satisfied themselves that the European courts would not strike down what many of us see as a sensible anti-avoidance measure that we would not want to lose.

The flipside to that is whether the provisions have been drawn up in the right way, so that they catch those we are aiming at, but do not create onerous burdens for loads of “innocent” corporations or place a ridiculous burden on HMRC. We want targeted rules that attack the corporations engaging in what they must know to be pretty aggressive artificial structuring. The guidance is clear on some of the structures that HMRC and the Treasury are targeting. We would all probably agree that it looks artificial if a sales force gets 95% of the way through a sale and cannot sign the final contract, but has to refer it to Luxembourg, Switzerland or somewhere else. If the rules are drafted too broadly, there is a risk of thousands of companies that the Government had not intended to be caught fearing that they will be caught. That creates a burden on them, and they will have to go through the whole compliance process to satisfy themselves that they are not caught.

The flipside to that is the risk that HMRC gets thousands of notices that it cannot possibly deal with, and then misses the notices that have all the tax at stake. By drawing the rules too widely, people could sneak through the middle who should not. The adviser community is expressing sensible concerns and asking, “Have the rules been drawn too broadly? Is there any way that they can be focused, perhaps through filters, such as those in the controlled foreign company rules?” Through that, we could be clear to taxpayers on who is intended to be caught, and what the hallmarks are that let them know that they are caught. That can give those who are not trying to avoid UK tax artificially some kind of comfort that they are not in the rules and do not need to do the self-assessment.

[David Simpson]

In the new tax legislation and the new tax that we are hoping to see implemented by April, is there any provision to protect against brass plating?

[Nigel Mills]

I should probably let the Minister explain the tax that the Government are trying to introduce, but there are two parts to the rules. One is about avoided PE and the other is aimed exactly at brass plating. It looks at where companies are paying fees, royalties or other things to companies that do not have the substance to justify the income they are earning. If the hon. Gentleman reads the examples that HMRC has put in the guidance, he will see that the rules target the routing of large fees into entities with very little substance in tax havens. I think we would all accept that that is an appropriate, sensible and fair target. I am sure the Minister will correct me later if I have misunderstood and am too optimistic about what the rules are trying to achieve.

Those concerns about how broadly the rules have been drafted are echoed by the ARC, which is concerned that HMRC will end up swamped by a load of notifications from people. It recognises the burden that that will place on companies and HMRC. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are prepared to look in the consultation at whether any filters could be introduced to try to make the compliance burden easier for companies that are not trying to avoid tax, or does she think that that is too risky and might narrow the rules and allow some companies that should be caught to squeeze out?

Clarity on the direction of the Government’s thinking, and on how we can get the rules to apply only to those to whom it should would be welcomed by a lot of people. One way of achieving that would be a clearance mechanism. Will the Government consider that? Is there a way that taxpayers could seek an advance ruling from the Revenue, or confirmation that what they have done does not bring them under the rules?

That brings us to how the Government propose to handle large corporates that have been through inquiries on their transfer pricing or their permanent establishments and think they have an agreement with the Revenue that says that their tax affairs are okay. Are those agreements still in force or, because the tax did not exist when those agreements were made, are they outside the rules? If the company has been engaging in activities that HMRC thinks are avoidance, are those activities safely in scope? Do we expect customer relationship managers to give their customers any assurances on that? Exactly when can people get assurances? When will HMRC staff be trained on the new rules? The rules will apply from 1 April. If a company has an April year-end, it will in theory have to submit its notice by the end of July. The rules will apply in six months’ time, and people will have to start complying with them. When will the support be available for people to work out what they need to do?

The final area I will touch on is the assessment and collection process. This is a new tax with a different assessment method from the one we are used to in this country. We normally accept that people self-assess how much tax they owe and then pay it. HMRC chooses whether to inquire and challenge how much that tax is. With this tax, we have almost the reverse of that. A taxpayer has to write and say, “I think I might be caught”—that is perhaps not quite the technical language—and HMRC has two years from year-end to issue an initial charging notice stating, “Here is how much we think you owe.” The taxpayer has 30 days to make representations and HMRC has 30 days to issue a final charging notice. The taxpayer has to pay that then. Then there is a year in which that charge can be inquired into, challenged and discussed before it is finally agreed. Effectively, that is saying, “Pay now, argue later”, rather than agreeing the liability before it is charged. There are questions about how reasonable that approach is. I accept that it will enable the Revenue to get the money early and leave the arguing until later. Perhaps part of the intention behind the tax is to prevent people from engaging in that behaviour in the first place.

There is a practical question. If the Revenue gets a notice from a multinational corporation that it has not inquired into regularly in the past, how can it issue an initial notice saying, “Here’s how much we think you owe”? If it has absolutely no idea other than a territorial disclosure of its UK turnover, how can it have any idea of how much tax to assess in the first place? Will it put a finger in the air and say, “Don’t worry, we’ll sort it out in the fullness of time”, or will there be some process to enable the initial assessment to be at least relatively in the right ballpark? No one wants a system in which someone gets an assessment that is far too low and chooses not to challenge it, or one in which they get an assessment that is ridiculously high and that creates unintended business survival issues, although those are clearly extreme situations.

I am also slightly intrigued about what will happen if we think a whole load of tax is owed by a non-UK resident party. How do we collect it? I assume that we can go through the mutual collection procedures, but I have never been entirely convinced that it is easy to make them effective. There is a provision in the rules that enables us to collect tax from any UK member of the group, but if there are relatively small UK group companies that do not make any money due to artificial tax avoidance, how will we get the money from them? Are we assuming that all the multinationals that have apparently been engaging in artificial tax structuring will decide that standing behind their subsidiaries and ensuring that they can pay their tax bills is the right and noble thing to do, or is that one level of optimism too much?

In my 20-minute canter round the new rules, I have been trying to extract from the Government further information about their policy direction, the intent of the rules and who they are trying to catch. Are the Government happy that the rules are catching the right people, and not just spreading the net so wide that it will create compliance burdens? We do not want to make the UK a less attractive place for corporates to establish themselves. We clearly do not want to attract artificial tax abusers, who come here to take advantage of our tax regime. However, our strategy has been to make ourselves a territory in which companies want to base their head office, and in which they want to invest by creating a stable, predictable tax regime.

UK Trade & Investment published a helpful document, “A guide to UK taxation”, which notes that we have a stable tax regime, that we avoid unnecessary changes to the rules and that our tax policy is aligned with business practice. It states that we have

“legislation which minimises complexity…a level playing field for taxpayers”

and

“A transparent and consistent approach to policy-making”.

Our objective is to create a level playing field in the UK territorial system, so we want everybody who operates here to pay taxes on their profits here. I see this tax as a way of ensuring that everybody pays their tax, and as a way of creating a level playing field so that UK companies are not out-competed by multinationals that do not pay tax.

However, is the Minister concerned that the speed at which the rules are being introduced will worry some corporates? Will their breadth put some people off investing here or make some corporations think, “Well, the easy way out of these rules is to have no UK establishment at all. We’ll just ship everything in from Rotterdam”? Is there a risk that we will lose jobs and the tax that we do get by chasing such things too onerously? I suspect that most of us will say that we are a great place to do business, so if companies want to make money here, they must pay their tax here. If they do not want to pay their tax here, perhaps they are not the kind of people we want. However, I am not sure it is easy in the real world to make that stick.

Are the Government happy that the rules are proportionate and in the right place? Do they target the right people? Will they be effective in tackling those people? Are the Government sure that they will not be struck out by some other international law? Will the Government respond to the various responses by tweaking the rules to ensure they focus on the right places, so we get the tax off people who owe it without unduly burdening those who do not?

09:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is always a pleasure to speak on such issues. It is nice to see the shadow Minister in her place. More importantly, it is nice to see the Minister in her place, because we have conversed and supported each other in many debates in Westminster Hall. It is nice to see her back in a ministerial position. I look forward to her response, which will be worth listening to.

The public anger has been immense over this issue. If there is one thing that nyarks people, to use an Ulster Scotsism, in my part of this country, it is the issue of tax avoidance—big companies making money and not making the contribution they should.

We welcome the Chancellor’s introduction of the new tax; we are pleased to see it. Many of the companies that hit the headlines back in 2012—they are not all UK-owned—have been in and out of the news ever since, which infuriates people. The Chancellor said that this new legislation will bring in £1 billion over five years, although others have said that they are not sure whether it is workable. When the Minister replies, will she give us an idea of how it will work and how we can make those companies accountable?

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the proposed legislation is welcome, we need to take account of what was said earlier? The director of the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation said:

“The fundamental problem is the structure of the international tax system”.

In addition to this legislation, we need international co-ordination to prevent people from brass plating.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague is on the button. Although it is good that we have the legislative change, we need co-operation among countries across the world so we can work together to address this issue.

This new legislation aims to ensure that people pay tax. There are various safeguards that, as my hon. Friend and colleague said, we need to see in place. We need to work better with other countries across the world. We also need to ensure that businesses that are pursued wrongly are not affected.

The legislation is for larger companies. It concerns what is referred to as artificially diverted profits, and that is exactly what it is. Foreign companies must have UK sales of at least £10 million, and if the UK activity would be considered a small or medium-sized company for UK accounting purposes, this new law does not apply, so there are some important concessions.

Finally, the tax provision examines whether UK costs have been inflated or UK sales have been reduced, which is another way of artificially diverting the figures. We must look at whether there is a tax mismatch between what seems likely should have been reported in the UK and what is reported in a foreign company. We need clarification on those issues from the Minister. The hon. Member for Amber Valley set the scene well in his introduction.

Although £10 million might seem like a lot of money, I will put it in perspective. In 2011, Starbucks, a global company that has come into disrepute again for not paying any tax—its coffee is lovely but there is an issue to address elsewhere—made £398 million in UK sales alone. I used the word “nyark” earlier. It nyarks us greatly that companies can make that much turnover and not pay a considerable amount of tax.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that doing nothing is not acceptable? However, as questions have been asked about the new scheme that the Chancellor spoke about, is it not best that we look at those questions and ensure that the legislation that is being introduced will tackle the problem we face?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to have legislation in place that enables us to oversee the loopholes that have been outlined. We are all hoping that the Minister will tell us how it will work in her response. I hope she will address the questions that have been asked.

Starbucks employs 8,500 people in the UK, so it makes a contribution in employment, wages and associated taxes, but it pays no corporation tax. Amazon, another global company, employs 15,000 staff in the UK and reported sales of £3.35 billion in 2011, as well as profits of £74 million, but it paid only £1.8 million in corporation tax. That annoys me greatly. Google, one of our favourite search engines, made £396 million in 2011 and paid only £6 million in corporation tax. Some of the companies have of course been stung into making tax contributions, although those have been minimal.

An article by Joseph Brothers that I read last month in the magazine Tax Notes International sums up the subject of the earlier intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on brass plating. Brothers suggested that Apple, reacting to a threat by the Irish Government to shut down one of their lucrative, corporate-friendly, tax-avoiding laws, would switch strategies to escape taxes in Ireland. He wrote that the so-called “Double Irish” might soon be replaced by a new “Bermuda Triangle”: instead of ships and planes mysteriously disappearing in it, it would be a triangle of tax treaties between Ireland, the Netherlands and Bermuda, exploiting rules that do not quite align and creating the space for profits to vanish, at least to the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service auditors.

If that strategy works, Google and others are likely to follow suit. The outcome could well be that the big corporate tax dodgers achieve what a noted tax lawyer calls “stateless income”: siphoning profit out of high-tax countries in Europe, Japan and North America and moving it around under tax treaties until it is not subject to any tax, because any profits are being reported in a non-existent country called “nowhere”. That is the bottom line of what could happen if our legislation is not correct and if the loopholes, disparities and open questions are not dealt with.

I am using those three companies as examples, but there are many others. Unfortunately, a common trend is filtering down through to a large number of companies. At the end of the day, we must remember that UK-based companies pay corporation tax on their taxable profits wherever those are made. It is only right, therefore, that foreign companies pay tax in the UK on profits made in this country. We must make it clear that the UK is not a country to come to for freeloading. Those are the issues.

Many British-based global companies do pay their taxes. They are concerned that the new legislation might give HMRC too much discretion. Furthermore, as the head of the tax policy unit of KPMG here in the UK noted in the company’s latest annual tax competitiveness survey, companies value “stability” and “simplicity”, but unfortunately, one criticism of the proposed legislation is that it does not offer simplicity. Many questions therefore need to be answered and much transparency applied to ensure that the legislation, while welcome—we have to take a step in the right direction—can work in practice.

The aims of the legislation are admirable as well as necessary. In a recent poll of more than 500 accounting and small business professionals, taken immediately after the Chancellor’s autumn statement, 56% of respondents said that the most significant tax announcement in the speech was the one about the diverted profits tax. Many, perhaps all of us—if not the companies trying to avoid the measure—welcome it, but we need to be sure that everything is in place.

Will the Minister tell us about another issue raised by the hon. Member for Amber Valley: the IT equipment necessary to ensure that expertise is in place? There is also the question of the resourcing of moneys. I understand that the initial set-up will cost £2.3 million in staffing for the first year and £1 million per year thereafter. At a time of HMRC cuts, of which we are all aware in every area, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether provision has been made for the IT equipment and the necessary staffing resources to ensure implementation.

It is of course important to remember that big businesses are always welcome in the UK and, as other Members have said, we do not intend to turn any away. We want companies to be based in the United Kingdom, but we, like everyone else, want them to make their contribution to the tax system. It is always extremely pleasing to hear that another company has made the decision to expand in the UK, and we are seeing a lot of that at the moment in Belfast. It is good to have those companies providing employment opportunities and taxes, and spending money so that our economy in Northern Ireland grows. That is super news for local people, local business and the local economy. It is also vital, however, that those big companies pay their way, otherwise it is not so lucrative after all for local businesses, people and economies. Instead, the money will simply stay in the hands of the global giants.

Will the Minister say what steps the Government will take to deal with the tax havens in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? Will we have some influence there, or access to information? Gone are the days when money was hidden under the mattress, the bed or the floorboards; people now put it overseas in tax havens. Will the Minister give some indication of the direction of policy?

[Nigel Mills]

I am keen to check the view of the hon. Gentleman’s party. In the event that Northern Ireland chooses to reduce its corporation tax rate, does he agree that Northern Ireland should not use that lower rate to attract artificial income into Belfast, as the Irish did in the Republic? The lower rate should be for the purposes of getting real jobs and real substance into Belfast, instead of dragging profit out of the UK mainland, perhaps through the financing of intellectual property companies or other ways of artificially moving tax.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman will find that my party, through the Northern Ireland Assembly and the First Minister, will hold an upstanding position in working the policy. We will not be developing into a tax haven. We want to see real jobs for real people on the ground. That is the way forward, and it is what we support.

We are pleased to have the Minister in her place today. Responsibility for answering our questions and for how this will work lies very much with her Department. We are committed to having the new legislation in place, I hope by 1 April. We want the big companies to be brought into line and made accountable for tax avoidance. We want the issue of the tax havens over which we have control to be dealt with, and for our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland to have the same opportunity. In addition, we have to look at the global picture, because although legislative change may take place in this country, what will really make it work is how we interact with other countries.

10:07

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing the debate. His initiative is excellent, given the enormity of what is proposed.

There is something of a crisis in corporation tax: globalisation, the European Union and the internet have all given many more opportunities to move tax or profits around. In the days since I was a global finance director in 1996, we have seen a lot more predatory activity by advisers and companies. They seem to be far more shameless about carrying out transactions without a commercial basis. With my training, I would have said that that was already a problem, even without any new legislation, but companies seem quite happy to do such transactions, to the extent that a year or so ago the chief executive of WPP could describe the amount of tax paid as “a question of judgment”, which tells us a lot about the amount of flexibility that he could see in the system.

Moreover, the chief executive of Google famously boasted about avoiding £2 billion in tax in a single year. He seemed to have no concept that that meant £2 billion in cuts to public services in the all countries in which his company operates, or the same amount more in tax that other companies and individuals in those countries would have to pay. The climate seems to be changing, although the Prime Minister’s business advisory group still includes that chief executive. I wonder whether he had any input into the new policy and what he thinks of it.

After the measure was announced, Newsweek commented on 26 December:

“The British government, after a search, says it knows how to tax profits Google earns in the United Kingdom. Its solution is simple and elegant, and it probably won’t change a damn thing.”

That view is perhaps overly cynical, but it backs up a point made by several Members: the expectation is that companies will take other measures rather than lie down and pay the tax. That is a huge issue.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley was right to mention the question of how on earth the tax will be calculated. City experts are already saying that the calculations will lead to a “legal quagmire”—that is one expression I have seen used. In other words, when HMRC comes up with an assessment the lawyers will probably start work. I wonder whether HMRC has budgeted sufficiently for the resources that it will need to make the tax stick. It could be involved in lengthy legal cases with expensive lawyers paid by large companies.

That leads us to the main question concerning this tax. When I was trained as an accountant, we were told that the one principle a tax system needs is certainty. In other words, it should be clear what a company is doing and what the tax on that will be; the company can then pay that tax. Certainty is one of the functions of a good tax system, but with the diverted profits tax we are straying into an area of high uncertainty about how the tax will be assessed and paid. The hon. Gentleman made an excellent point about our ability to collect the money: by definition, it could be all over the place and not in the UK. That leads us to the question of the confidence the Minister has in our ability to collect the money—I am interested to hear her comments on that.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about certainty and also about the difficulties that globalisation and the internet have caused for gathering corporation tax. Is there a case for the international community to give up on corporation tax and instead have higher taxes on sales and, if necessary, dividends, so that the tax is still raised in the end but we do not have a continual process of chasing money across international boundaries, which, for the reasons he has given, is time consuming and perhaps counter-productive?

[Ian Swales]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. I know that some commentators believe the right way to go is to scrap the incredibly complex system that we have. Although that might be where we end up, I would like to see country-by-country reporting introduced first, so that we know what activity companies are carrying out in each country, and where they are trading and are declaring their profits will be transparent to the world at large. That would help tax authorities; also, the problems companies would then have with reputation management would cause quite a shift. I would like to see that country-by-country reporting first, but perhaps we will end up in the position that he has suggested.

The estimate is that the tax will raise £1 billion over five years. That is a very small amount given the scale of the issue. One commentator has suggested that Google alone could be assessed as owing around half that figure. The Financial Times has found that in 2012 seven US technology companies paid only £54 million in tax on UK sales of $15 billion. I am aware that corporation tax is levied not on sales but on profits, but the companies we are talking about typically make 20% profit or more on sales, so we could quickly come up with a large number there. Will the Minister tell us how the assessment of the amount the tax will collect was made? What assumptions sit behind it? The figure seems small given all the relevant issues, which we are well aware of.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley rightly mentioned EU law. I will not repeat what he said but there is clearly the potential to challenge the tax through the EU. When one talks to global finance directors, there is no doubt that financing structures and interest payments are the tax avoidance measure of choice—they are how the largest diversion of profits occurs. Will the Minister explain why offshore finance centres and excessive foreign interest payments have been specifically excluded from the diverted profits tax? I welcome the moves that have been made, but a large area has not been addressed by the tax.

I will mention a few other aspects of profit diversion. The Minister may tell us that they are included, but my guess is that most are not. There are well documented loopholes used by banks for tax arbitrage between countries, particularly between the UK and the US, because different instruments are taxed differently in the two countries and by shuffling money backwards and forwards it is possible to create beneficial tax arrangements. Will the legislation address those loopholes? Does the legislation deal with hybrid entities, for which there are similar opportunities because of the different taxation of legal structures between different countries? They are another method that the financial services sector in particular uses to shift profits.

Some of the issues connected to Luxembourg have been mentioned already, but will the Minister address the issue of the wholesale tax avoidance and profit diversion that, for example, sees Vodafone holding five times as much capital in Luxembourg as the GDP of Luxembourg, although it does no trading there? That kind of thing enrages the public, and it is high time it was addressed. When will she get the EU to deal with the preposterous activity going on in Luxembourg behind its so-called headline corporation tax rate of 29%?

The Channel Islands have already been mentioned. The particular point I want to raise is that the majority of contracts for UK private finance initiatives are now financed from those islands. That makes a mockery of the Green Book assumptions about PFI tax recovery; it is assumed that a very high figure—I think it is 6%—will come back to the Treasury in tax receipts, but that assumption completely ignores the fact that PFI deals are routinely moved to the Channel Islands, including those for 50% of the schools in my constituency, which are apparently owned in Jersey.

Those are just a few of the arrangements that may or not be covered by the diverted profit tax legislation. I suspect most are not, but they illustrate the fact that there is a lot more yet to do.

Diverted profit arrangements do not simply cost tax or allow profit diversion; they incentivise offshore acquisition and ownership of UK businesses. These days, highly profitable UK businesses have to create some offshore financing or else somebody else will do it for them, as predatory takeover activity in the UK is often predicated on offshore finance structures designed to move taxable profits out of the country. A good example would be Betfair. Last year, a company was looking to take it over in an aggressive takeover. I wondered what the company was going to add in terms of betting technology or new IT, but the clue was the name: “So-and-so Partners, London and Luxembourg”. The factor the takeover was going to add was the shifting of Betfair’s profits away from the hands of the Treasury. In the end, that takeover did not go through, but the diversion of profits affects business ownership and competition in the UK.

I mentioned the amount that the tax is expected to raise. I think the figure is low because of what are traditionally called behavioural effects—in other words, what companies may do as a result of the tax—and so I am interested to hear more from the Minister on what the Treasury thinks will happen, as opposed to the idea that companies will simply sit there and pay the tax. What kind of measures does the Treasury consider companies might take?

How will the success of the tax ultimately be measured? As the hon. Member for Amber Valley rightly said, it could well be that the real success of the legislation will appear not in diverted profit tax receipts but as higher corporation tax receipts. Does the Treasury have any way of judging how the measures have played out?

I welcome what is happening and hope that the Government will do more. I have mentioned country by country reporting, and that has begun to happen in the financial services sector. It is driven partly by other countries’ legislation. I hope it will expand through the work of the OECD and pressure from our Government, and in the operation of companies around the world will become more transparent. We should push for that.

John Cridland, the head of the CBI, said about a year ago that he was confused and did not know what the Government wanted on tax. I do not think that it is confusing at all. We want companies to account for their UK activities in the UK and pay tax on the profits that they earn in the UK. It could not be any simpler. I addressed the CBI tax forum two or three months ago and made that point. I said bluntly that if its companies were doing otherwise, we would steadily be coming after them.

The Government have a record of at least moving in the right direction. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for more than four years and took part in scrutiny of large companies and tax advisors; judging by the culture and attitudes out there, we still have a long way to go. I vividly remember asking a tax advisor how many of the schemes that he had advised individuals and companies to adopt in the previous few years had been made illegal; he cheerfully said it was all of them. It is good news that HMRC keeps pinning those things down, but the fact is that there is an industry out there constantly looking for new ways to avoid the taxes that we try to levy. I hope that the Treasury will make its proposals work, and will continue to recognise that there is still much more to do.

10:22

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing the debate, and on his speech. He raised many points on which I, too, want to press the Minister. He was right to say that the issue has not received a huge amount of attention, and that there will not be a great deal of parliamentary time for detailed scrutiny of the Government’s proposals, given where we are in the parliamentary cycle.

The announcement of the proposals was of course rather trumped by the changes in stamp duty, which led the media coverage and debate. However, there has been a lot of coverage in the specialist taxation media, and that has helped to bring out some of the issues raised by the proposed diverted profits tax. I am grateful for this opportunity to press the Government further on their proposals. I will seek answers about technical detail— bearing in mind that there is currently a technical consultation, which will report on 4 February—as well as about practical elements and the Government’s emerging thinking about the impact on the OECD BEPS process. All three hon. Members who spoke mentioned that.

Our general approach is not dissimilar to the Government’s, and we recognise that there is a significant issue. All those who have spoken have referred to the public examples of large companies, with significant businesses that are doing very well, effectively gaming international tax rules to minimise their tax liabilities in this country. That significantly undermines public trust and confidence in the taxation system, particularly at a time of economic difficulty and stress. It is a real issue, and it is legitimate for all political parties to look for practical answers to alleviate such concerns.

As a general principle, economic activity should be taxed where it takes place. The question for all politicians to grapple with is finding an effective way to get to that point. For the Opposition—and for the Government, going by what they have said throughout this Parliament—the starting point is to try to work with international partners, notwithstanding the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Amber Valley about whether the US and other jurisdictions would be willing to play ball on co-ordinated international action to deal with gaming of the international tax rules. It is the right place to start, and that is why we have supported the OECD’s BEPS process. It is the right forum for seeking an international agreement on tax rules.

The Government have of course been much closer than the Opposition to that process, and we rely on publicly available information about its progress, and expert commentary from, and conversations with, some of the participants. From what the Government were saying up to the time of the autumn statement, we anticipated that their preferred way of proceeding on all the issues that form BEPS action points would be to await the final reporting in September before thinking how to go further. They have of course moved a little more quickly with the diverted profits tax, and I, like other hon. Members, would like to hear more about how that affects our role in the BEPS process.

We agree that a solution is needed and are keen for the issue to be dealt with, so we broadly welcome the Government’s proposed action. We will approach the diverted profits tax proposal in the Finance Bill in a supportive and constructive spirit, because we want a workable solution to reach the statute book; but I want to press the Minister further, particularly about the BEPS process. It would be helpful if she could tell us how those in the process have reacted to the DPT proposals, and why the Government felt it necessary to take unilateral action at this point, notwithstanding what many commentators have said about the looming general election. Was there a feeling that BEPS would not produce much of a result in relation to the relevant element of the international tax rules? Does the decision mean that BEPS will effectively be a failure? Is that the kind of world that we are looking at?

Some commentators have, as I am sure the Minister is aware, expressed cynicism about the motive for a unilateral move by the UK, and some have even suggested that it will torpedo the whole BEPS process, so that we get nowhere. I am interested to understand the conversations that the Government have had with people in the OECD and in the tax specialist community about where BEPS now stands.

[David Mowat]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s points about international co-ordination. In the event of a Labour victory in the May election, what would its position be on UK tax havens such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man? I thought that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) made a powerful point about the 50% of schools in his constituency that are financed from Jersey. I would expect the Opposition to have developed some policy on that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to highlight Labour policy in this debate. A few months ago, we published a paper on corporate taxation that included a section on the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. We have made the commitment that, if we win the general election, we will require the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to publish a public register of beneficial ownership. That is the key demand of all in the wider tax justice and fairness community, and it would shine a light on the true owners of businesses based in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. The Government have spoken a great deal about doing something similar, but I think it is fair to say, without being party political, that progress has stalled. We have gone further by saying that we will ensure that that process happens. I have already taken the conversation forward with Ministers and other officials from the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Recently, I met officials from Jersey and Guernsey, and although transparency might be part of the issue, a lot of the arrangements that shift profit out of the UK are totally transparent. The issue is not transparency, but the arrangements themselves and, for example, the allowance of huge interest payments. I know that the debate is not about Labour party policy, but since we have strayed into that area, would her party do anything about such arrangements? A lot of them occurred under the Labour Government’s watch.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Of course we will look at particular arrangements, but transparency is the starting point. The Prime Minister famously said that

“sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

There has already been some opposition to our proposals, which suggests that there is real gain to be made from a much more transparent system for the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. That will be our start point, but we will continue to look at the other issues mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

While we are on the subject, I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the Government’s approach to tax transparency policy with regard to the diverted profits tax. She will know that, in its paper on corporate taxation published a few months ago, the Labour party committed to going a little further on the broader issue of tax transparency and country-by-country reporting of business profits than the Government have done so far. We will support multilateral action, because we think that that is the right start point, but if multilateral agreement is not reached, we are prepared to take unilateral action on public tax transparency.

The Government have fully rejected that approach, saying that it will create too large a burden on business and that, were the UK to take unilateral action on tax transparency and country-by-country reporting, it would negatively affect the UK’s tax competitiveness. The Minister is well aware that both those arguments apply equally to unilateral action on the diverted profits tax. Will she explain why the Government have used those arguments to block potential unilateral action on country-by-country reporting in the form of a public register, but are dismissive of the same concerns when they are raised by others regarding unilateral action on the diverted profits tax?

It is important to understand why the Government think that those arguments do not apply, because although we may disagree with the criticisms made by business, in particular in relation to the diverted profits tax, it is important to understand the values and philosophical thinking behind the Government’s approach, because that will give us an indication of where policy is likely to go. I would appreciate the Minister’s detailed comments on that.

Other hon. Members expressed concerns about the potential for legal challenge. The Minister is aware that there is substantial scope for discretion in the application of the new rules. Although I was not a tax specialist, as a former lawyer, whenever I see the word “discretion” I know that for lawyers it basically means that there is lots of money to be made—a point also made by other hon. Members. What assessment have the Government made of the possibility of challenges within both EU law and the terms of the UK’s various double taxation treaties? My working assumption was that conversations have already been had, particularly in relation to the double taxation treaties. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister could update us and perhaps also give further details on HMRC resourcing, particularly for known areas of risk of legal challenge.

The Exchequer impact was also mentioned. Given that the draft legislation casts a broader net than was anticipated in the lead-up to the autumn statement, it is unclear why the revenue associated with the measure is quite so low, comparatively speaking. For example, we know that Google and Amazon alone generate somewhere in the region of £7.5 billion of UK revenue between them. A £360 million tax boost at a corporation tax rate of 20% would imply taxable profits of £1.8 billion, which an aggressive interpretation of the rules could attribute to those two companies alone. The projected yield therefore implies some combination of caution and, potentially, significant ongoing royalty deductions from UK corporation tax, behavioural change, and the anticipation of legal challenges. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain exactly what the Government had in mind when modelling the Exchequer impact of the changes.

Avoidance is a continuing issue. Whenever new rules are introduced, one of the first things we must all look for is the potential for avoidance opportunities. One method for avoiding the rules might be the relocation of businesses where the business model does not require a physical footprint in the UK. Have the Government done any work in consideration of such issues? The new rules read much more like a TAAR—targeted anti-avoidance rule. In the past year, I have had a number of discussions in Committee with the Minister’s colleague, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), about the use of targeted anti-avoidance rules to support the tax avoidance measures that the Government have introduced, and I have wondered whether we might also end up discussing a TAAR for this particular TAAR. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain where the Government are coming from on that.

Has the Treasury done any modelling to take account of copycat or so-called retaliatory legislation from other countries? Could the UK ultimately be a net loser? We have some intellectual property-heavy sectors in our country, particularly pharmaceuticals and media. If other countries introduce similar rules, that would affect the UK, potentially making us a net loser. I am sure that the Treasury has done some work on such issues; we should know more about them in order to illuminate the debate.

Finally, where does the Minister think the new measures leave the general anti-abuse rule—GAAR—for which the Government legislated earlier in this Parliament? Tax lawyers in particular have commented that we are seeing much more complicated new legislation, rather than better use of existing legislation, including the GAAR and, potentially, transfer pricing rules and other elements of the tax system that people feel are currently not necessarily enforced. The combination of those two measures could have dealt with many of the issues that have been raised. Instead, the Government have decided to introduce an entirely new tax. Where do they think that that leaves the wider legislative framework?

The Opposition’s general approach is supportive, and we will seek to be constructive as we debate these issues further ahead of the Finance Bill 2015.

10:39

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I wish you a happy new year. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing this debate on such an important subject. As a number of colleagues have pointed out, the new measure is designed to ensure that Britain is a very competitive place—in fact, our ambition is to be the best place in the world to start up and run a business. If a company comes to this country, we will charge it low tax rates, but it will be expected to pay. That is what lies behind the measure: to ensure that companies pay that fair rate of tax.

The Government are working to create the most competitive tax system in the G20—a simple, competitive and fair tax system that will support economic growth and investment. However, we then expect companies operating in the UK to pay these fair and competitive taxes, so we are taking action both domestically and internationally. It is not one or the other—one does not rule out the other, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) suggested it may. We are trying to address concerns about some businesses paying little or no tax on profits made in the UK.

When this Government came to power, Britain had one of the least competitive business tax regimes in Europe. Since 2010, the Government have introduced a series of tax reforms to boost competiveness, such as the patent box, increasing the generosity of research and development reliefs, modernising the UK’s controlled foreign companies regime, and cutting corporation tax from 28% to 21%—next year, it will fall to 20%, the lowest rate in the G20.

The corporation tax reforms were a central plank of our economic strategy, and that strategy is working: growth, jobs and investment are all moving in the right direction. An increasing number of multinational businesses are locating activities in the UK, including companies such as Brit Insurance and Hitachi Rail Europe. The UK is one of the most competitive and attractive countries when it comes to deciding where to base a business.

It is clear that the tax reforms we have made since 2010 are supporting the economic recovery, and that our plan to cut corporation tax again to 20% will lead to more jobs and investment in the UK. Nine out of 10 UK businesses say the corporation tax rate cuts delivered since 2010 have been good for UK competitiveness.

However, as all colleagues have pointed out, there are real public concerns about unfairness in the system, whereby some companies, particularly large multinationals, are seen to be aggressively avoiding tax in the UK. It is vital that the public have confidence in the tax system, and that the tax rules treat both companies and individuals fairly and consistently, without leaving them scope to avoid their obligations. As we seek to return the public finances to balance and reduce the deficit, it is also important to make sure that we collect all the tax that is due. For those reasons, we are taking action, both domestically and internationally, to reform the tax rules and tackle corporation tax avoidance.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked whether we are therefore giving up on the international tax framework, and of course, as she will know, that is not the case. The current international tax rules were first developed in the 1920s and desperately need reforming, so that they continue to support free trade and ensure a level playing field for businesses, but also to make sure that they address weaknesses such as companies playing different regimes off against each other to avoid paying tax on their profits anywhere at all.

The UK has taken a lead on the international stage to reform these rules and is committed to multilateral action through the G20 and the OECD to tackle the issue of base erosion and profit shifting—known as BEPS. At their summit in St Petersburg last year, the G20 leaders fully endorsed the ambitious and comprehensive BEPS action plan set out over 2014 and 2015. The individual action points are being taken forward by various OECD working parties.

The OECD BEPS project is reviewing the international tax rules to find out where they are not fit for purpose in today’s modern globalised economy. Over 40 countries are collaborating to take forward the action plan: a comprehensive two-year strategy to tackle international tax avoidance.

[Ian Swales]

We constantly hear about the G20 and the OECD, but the Netherlands, for example, is not even a member of the G20. Is the Minister concerned that all this work is going to be focused on certain countries, but that will, in itself, just lead to even more activity in countries that are not party to this process?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; nevertheless, the UK is at the forefront of driving the international effort to tackle these problems—these weaknesses—in international tax laws that are very out of date. The UK is certainly doing its bit.

In line with the BEPS action plan, in September 2014 the OECD’s first set of outputs from the BEPS project were fully endorsed by the G20 Finance Ministers at their Cairns summit. In a global economy in which goods and services flow freely between countries, international co-operation, as the hon. Gentleman points out, is the only way to tackle the challenge of tax avoidance. Measures taken in Britain will not deal with the problem on their own; we must have global tax rules, too. That is why, under our Prime Minister, we have been pushing, through the G8, the G20 and the OECD, for global solutions.

[David Mowat]

Of course, that has to be the right answer, but does the Minister really believe that countries such as Luxembourg and the Republic of Ireland, which derive a considerable amount of GDP from a tax evasion strategy, will contribute to any such global effort when it is so important to their standard of living?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to all hon. Members for the points they are making about other tax jurisdictions. What the UK can do is lead the international effort and focus on what we can do to ensure that the UK’s tax base is not eroded. Therefore, although these other points are extremely important, hon. Members will realise that I cannot influence directly the tax laws that Luxembourg undertakes for itself, other than through the contribution the Government make to the international effort to put pressure on different jurisdictions.

The Chancellor announced, in the autumn statement 2014, UK action on two of the internationally agreed 2014 outputs of the BEPS project. I know that the hon. Member for Redcar supports the UK’s introducing legislation to implement the G20-OECD agreed model for country-by-country reporting, which will require multinational companies to provide tax authorities with high-level information on profit, corporation tax paid and certain indicators of economic activity for risk assessment. Draft legislation for the Finance Bill 2015 was published on 10 December 2014, with a tax information and impact note and an explanatory note.

Furthermore, a consultation document on the UK plans for implementing the G20-OECD agreed rules for neutralising hybrid mismatch arrangements—another point raised by the hon. Gentleman—was published at the autumn statement. The new rules will tackle a tax avoidance technique used by multinationals to exploit differences between countries’ tax rules to avoid paying tax in either country, or to obtain more tax relief against profits than they are entitled to.

However, the Government have gone further still. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked whether that was instead of BEPS or because we feel that BEPS will not work, but no, not at all—this is in addition. The Government have gone further to tackle tax avoidance by multinational companies operating here in the UK and to strengthen our defences against the erosion of the UK tax base. That is entirely complementary to the BEPS process. Where companies in the UK are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying their fair share of tax, we will act to prevent that. That is why the Government have introduced the new diverted profits tax—to counter the use of aggressive tax planning by large multinationals to avoid paying tax in the UK on profits that have been generated from economic activity here in the UK.

The diverted profits tax will be applied using a rate of 25% from 1 April 2015. The measure is targeted at contrived arrangements used to shift profits away from the UK in a manner that ensures they go untaxed or largely untaxed. The measure is designed to counter the erosion of the UK tax base as a result of complex structures that circumvent the international tax rules on permanent establishment and transfer pricing.

For example, some multinationals have gone for aggressive tax planning that involves quite complicated arrangements, such as the so-called “double Irish”—a point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley—using group companies in other countries as conduits to route expenditure to tax havens so that profits from UK activity goes untaxed.

Specifically, the diverted profits tax applies in two situations. The first is where a foreign company carries out activities in the UK in connection with the supply of goods or services to UK customers in such a way that it avoids creating a permanent establishment, and the main purpose of that arrangement is to avoid UK tax, or a tax mismatch is secured such that the total tax derived from UK activities is significantly reduced. The second situation is where a UK company, or a foreign company with a UK permanent establishment, creates a tax mismatch by using transactions or entities that lack economic substance.

If a multinational company is found to be using those contrived arrangements to avoid tax in the UK, HMRC will issue a notice that requires the diverted profits tax to be paid up front. The legislation provides for a review period of up to 12 months, within which the multinational company will have the opportunity, among other things, to demonstrate that it was not liable for the charge or to provide information to HMRC to show that the level of disallowance of intra-group expenditure in computing the charge is wrong on normal transfer pricing principles. The measure is designed to complement our transfer pricing arrangements.

[Ian Swales]

On the second case the Minister mentions, she can be interpreted as talking about artificial financing structures—for example, moving money to Luxembourg and then loaning it back to the UK—but the briefing note says that the legislation specifically excludes such arrangements. Can she confirm that?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think I have been quite clear about the purpose of the legislation. I am not aware of the briefing note to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I will address the point again in responses to questions, so perhaps we can deal with it then.

After the 12-month review period, if the charge has not been withdrawn, the multinational company will have the right to appeal the charge at a tax tribunal on any appropriate grounds.

There are some specific exemptions from the tax. A number of hon. Members asked who was exempted. Those will include small and medium-sized enterprises, companies with limited UK sales and the situation where arrangements give rise only to loan relationships. I will come on to that in more detail at the end of my responses to questions. The draft legislation was published on 10 December and will come into effect from 1 April. Comments from industry are of course welcome as we finalise the rules to ensure that they are clear and targeted.

As I said, the UK is fully engaged in the work to reform the international tax framework through the OECD-G20 BEPS project. The introduction of the diverted profits tax is entirely consistent with those principles and complements the ongoing international efforts in the BEPS project, which is looking to align taxing rights with economic activity.

A number of hon. Members questioned the yield that is expected or forecast from the diverted profits tax. The Office for Budget Responsibility has certified the central estimate of tax yield to be £1.35 billion over the next five years to 2019-20. That will contribute to the £31 billion that HMRC has already secured from tackling tax avoidance and evasion by large businesses since April 2010.

Let me answer some specific questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley asked whether this measure was in some way overriding UK tax treaties. I can reassure him that that is not the case. The scope of the UK’s tax treaties is limited under UK law to income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax. The diverted profits tax is therefore not covered by those treaties, so, as a formal matter, there is no treaty override; and in fact the OECD, in the commentary on its model tax treaty, provides that states can deny the benefits of a tax treaty where arrangements have a main purpose of securing more favourable tax treatment in circumstances contrary to the object and purpose of that treaty.

My hon. Friend also asked whether the measure was compatible with EU law—he did so rather reluctantly, and I would be reluctant, too, on the matter of tax sovereignty. The diverted profits tax has been designed to comply fully with our obligations under EU law. It is aimed at structures that are clearly designed to erode the UK tax base. As such, it is an appropriate response to those who abuse EU law to divert profits from the UK. The safeguards built into the legislation provide taxpayers with a number of opportunities to demonstrate that they should not be subject to the diverted profits tax. Accordingly, we believe that this is a balanced and proportionate measure that tackles arrangements that are clearly designed for tax avoidance.

The hon. Members for Strangford, for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) asked about the specific cut-off for the diverted profits tax. I can tell them that the rules do not apply to SMEs as defined by the EU. That includes companies with fewer than 250 employees, turnover of less than or equal to €50 million and a balance sheet size of €43 million. That is consistent with our transfer pricing legislation. There are also measures that restrict the diverted profits tax if there is not much UK business going on.

My hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley and for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Of course, they will be aware that those territories are free to set their own rates. We in the UK will go through international forums in terms of influencing international tax jurisdictions, but the UK has a very clear and transparent tax policy-making process, as evidenced by this parliamentary debate. Tax is a national, sovereign matter, so individual tax jurisdictions are free to set their own tax policy. The diverted profits tax is designed to ensure that the UK’s tax base is not eroded by that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley asked whether the assessment and collection processes will really work and whether they are fair. For example, if HMRC gets a notice from a big company saying that it might be within the scope, how can it issue an initial charge notice in 30 days? Where would the information come from and so on? I can tell him that the notification of potential liability to diverted profits tax must be made within three months of the end of the company’s accounting period. The Government are still consulting on the detail of the notification requirement and would welcome comments on the drafting. However, it is likely that not all notifications will result in the issue of a preliminary notice. The preliminary notice does not create a charge, but merely warns that a charging notice may be issued and sets out estimated figures that would be included. Following the issue of the preliminary notice, the company would have 30 days to correct any factual inaccuracies in it. That would include any errors in figures on which an assumption in the notice is based.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and the hon. Member for Strangford asked whether the provisions were drawn too broadly, such that they might catch not only the abusive structures targeted but a whole load of other, unintended taxpayers. The Government are of course open to suggestions on how the drafting of the legislation could be clarified without undermining its effectiveness. However, the calculation of the charge follows well established transfer pricing principles. Those principles are widely understood and routinely applied by businesses in pricing intra-group transactions. The only difference is that where the contrived features set out in the legislation are present, the diverted profits tax will have to be paid earlier than in a normal transfer pricing dispute.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; she is being very generous. She talked about the notification process and so on. Is she happy with our knowledge of legal entities and the fact that many of them will be outside the UK? Will HMRC be able to cope with that process?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Government have significantly increased the resources available to HMRC for this purpose, so yes, we are confident we will be able to manage this process.

There were a number of other questions, which I fear I will not have time to deal with now, about interest payments being excluded. There is a limited exemption for certain arrangements that involve only loans, and separate work is going on to look at how to ensure fairness in the measures. That matter is not being excluded, but is being looked at separately.

Hon. Members raised the question of the wholesale diversion of profits to Luxembourg. The legislation targets profit diversion only where the profit has a clear link to the UK, as I think I made clear. It would not be appropriate for the legislation to go further than that and to bring into scope profits that originate from other territories. However, the Government are strongly supportive, as I said, of the BEPS process, which aims to prevent and address this international problem.

In conclusion, I reiterate that the whole purpose of the diverted profits tax is to create in the UK the most competitive environment in which to base and run a business, including low corporation taxes, but it is a requirement of this Government that companies wishing to do business in the UK should pay those taxes and should not seek to avoid paying them.

Health Care Provision (Newark)

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I start by thanking Mr Speaker for granting the debate and the Minister for replying this morning. I am also grateful for the attention of the Secretary of State, who visited Newark hospital last year. I thank my constituents and the Newark Advertiser, who have come here for the debate, and I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). Rather like the film “Groundhog Day”, the last debate on the subject was held two years ago to the day. The matter has moved on somewhat since then and progress has been made, to which I will refer shortly, but concerns remain. That is the reason why I return to the subject today.

I do not want to bore the Minister, but a little bit of history might be useful. I know that she visited Newark three times in May last year, but let me briefly guide her. We sit on the border between Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, and despite excellent north-south road and rail links, the community is relatively remote and rural, and it is bedevilled by poor roads and awful traffic. Newark is a growing town, with applications for thousands of new homes being considered as we speak and many more to follow, according to local growth plans. We have an older population, and the number of over-65s is likely to have doubled by 2026. I fear that Newark suffers from the Nottinghamshire health care model, which has been in place for at least a decade and a half. Centres of excellence have been created in places such as Lincoln, Nottingham and King’s Mill hospital, but not in Newark. For reasons of population scale, Newark hospital was linked to King’s Mill hospital some years ago. They were, and remain, uneasy bedfellows, because there are few natural connections and poor transport links between the two.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In the two years that have elapsed since the previous debate, one thing that has changed is the transfer of more than £80 million in private finance initiative payments from Sherwood Forest hospitals trust to its PFI holder. What impact is that having on Newark hospital and Sherwood Forest hospitals trust?

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning on PFI and Sherwood Forest hospitals trust. I will return to that question later in my remarks, because it is one of the central issues affecting the trust’s ability to deliver good-quality health care not only for my constituents, but for his and for people throughout Nottinghamshire.

To return to my brief history lesson, the hospital delivers superb services, and it always has done, but those services have diminished relative to those that were offered in the recent past. In addition, as we have heard, King’s Mill is saddled with a devastating PFI that will be in place for 30 years. The problem is not new; it has been a hot potato in the Newark area since at least 2004, and there is a history of declining services including the loss of maternity care in the increasingly distant past. The PFI was put in place, and in 2010—bridging the previous and current Governments—the A and E department was replaced with a minor injuries unit. I say that, but the classifications in the NHS seem byzantine to us amateurs, and even if they are not designed to confuse us, they undoubtedly have that effect. The department called itself an A and E for the best part of 10 years, but it did not qualify to be one. It was always going to be extremely painful to change the department’s title and inform the community that the back-up available at the hospital was insufficient to be safely called an A and E and to have ambulances directed to it for the commensurate range of emergency situations.

In 2012, Monitor delivered an extremely critical report on the PFI and the trust, which includes King’s Mill and Newark hospitals. The report pointed out that Newark hospital was, at times, underutilised by some 55%, and it was closed for admissions after 6 pm. Good has come from that report, including new management and significant improvements at the trust. However, the trust, as the Minister knows, remains in special measures, with a corresponding impact on recruitment, retention and the reputation of the trust and its hospitals among my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood.

To return to the hospital and bring us closer to the present day, some services, including those related to hips and knees, have been removed in recent years following the Keogh report and the imperative, we were told, to ensure that services are matched to appropriate levels of staffing and back-up. The trust is in the process of refocusing Newark on day case services and diagnostics. We all understand that the transformation of services takes time to implement, and the period of change has seen some underutilisation. I suspect that that period has gone on too long. Furthermore, there have been problems about directing patients to the appropriate hospital and ensuring that that hospital is Newark if the services are still available. I have lost count of the number of times that constituents have told me that they were not offered Newark hospital or had to ask for it specifically, when we know that the hospital delivers the necessary services. That contributes to underutilisation and must be resolved once and for all.

On top of those difficulties, East Midlands ambulance service received a concerning inspection report by the CQC at the beginning of 2013, which found it to be underperforming in four of the six central measures. As medical professionals agree that the most serious emergency situations are best treated by fully staffed and equipped general hospitals, the imperative becomes greater to have an ambulance service in north Nottinghamshire with the capacity to respond swiftly and meet the appropriate timings for our constituents. Furthermore, residents complain about the length of time taken to repatriate those who are no longer critical but who require rehabilitation or some further care closer to home. That is made all the worse and more onerous by the long journeys and expensive bus fares required for relatives to visit.

To bring my history lesson to a close, I want to report some positive developments of late. In 2013, a new 13-bed ward, the Fernwood recuperation and rehabilitation unit, opened. The Bramley children’s unit, new cardiac services and an endoscopy suite have all opened. The CT scanner at the hospital, which had reached the end of its natural life, is—admittedly after some pressure—to be replaced. The trust has appointed a new director, Mrs Jacqueline Totterdell, with the specific objective of bringing Newark hospital up to full capacity in the range of services that it provides. This week, the trust and the clinical commissioning group have announced a capital investment of more than £500,000 to enhance the facilities of the minor injuries unit, providing a better patient experience and more consultation rooms, and integrating the MIU with out-of-hours GP services. That development is the successful result of an application to the Prime Minister’s challenge fund.

Those developments are refreshing and should be celebrated. They confirm that the old rumours in the town that the hospital was to close are unfounded. The trust has made that clear. They also suggest a welcome degree of focus on the hospital by the trust and the CCG, which I hope will continue and which must intensify. I praise the clinical leader of the CCG, a respected Newark doctor named Dr Mark Jefford, for his role in that.

Where do we go from here? My objective, which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood shares, is to ensure that Newark and north Nottinghamshire have health care provision of the highest possible quality delivered as close to home as is safe. I gave this debate the title “Health Care Provision (Newark)”, as distinct from the previous debate, to emphasise the fact that my interest is precisely that. My interest is not in bricks and mortar, and it is not driven by nostalgia or false science.

I return to the emergency provision. We still hear forlorn voices talking about the reopening of an A and E unit, but no one who understands the problem could think for a minute that Newark will have an A and E unit. I want to make it clear that that really is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether the present MIU or urgent care centre—whatever one wishes to call it—adequately reflects the fundamental remoteness of Newark and the surrounding area of Nottinghamshire, and whether anything can safely be done to provide a higher degree of emergency provision. Again, terminology gets in the way but, for the sake of argument, let me call it MIU-plus—in other words, providing sufficient support to enable Newark hospital to take a greater proportion of the so-called green cases. One can argue about what the proportion might be but, clearly, any material increase in the types of cases that paramedics could safely bring to Newark hospital, or that the hospital accepts from those walking into the MIU, would result in a range of benefits: shorter journeys to hospital for those in Newark and rural areas; less pressure on the ambulance service; and greater convenience for patients and their relatives. The benefits would surely be felt throughout Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire and would take pressure off overstretched A and E departments.

In my time as a Member of Parliament, I have argued that, if a clinical case can be made, there is no reason why such an MIU-plus should not be introduced at Newark hospital. I have sought the advice of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who, without detailed knowledge of the circumstances, pointed me in the direction of a hospital in Hexham where GPs, local authorities and the hospital trust have integrated to a degree to preserve and enhance services in a remote area.

Members of the management and leadership of the trust and CCG with whom I have discussed the matter over the past couple of months take a different view. They think the system would be extremely difficult to implement safely. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) gave me her view, today or in the future, on exactly how realistic the proposal is. Members of the public seeking an outcome not wholly dissimilar to the one I have described have written to various authorities, including Ministers and NHS England, but have been unable to gain their opinion on that route. I admit to banging on about this, continuing a line of argument that has been made unsuccessfully for some time, but I raise it again because it is strongly felt by my constituents. I seek the Minister’s guidance and, of course, the ear of the trust and the CCG.

As I have already described, the heart of the problem in Newark and Nottinghamshire is the interlocking concern about the adequacy of the MIU and the performance of our ambulance service. East Midlands ambulance service has new leadership, a new chair in Mrs Pauline Tagg and acting chief executive in Mrs Sue Noyes. The ageing fleet, which I have seen myself, will be upgraded, including with welcome new vehicles for north Nottinghamshire. The trajectory appears to be upwards, which is welcome. Any support that the Minister and her Department can give to EMAS and its leadership would be greatly appreciated.

I recently spent time with paramedics and was hugely impressed. They face the challenge of operating in a large geographic area. A and E is under strain, and a contributing factor is the very limited circumstances in which paramedics are able to take patients to Newark. Whatever one’s view on that, there is a lack of clarity on those circumstances. I am told by one source that a lad breaking his arm on a football pitch, suffering no other major symptoms, could be taken to Newark, but I am aware of plenty of cases in which paramedics could not take such patients there or have been turned away. I am told that the number of circumstances in which paramedics may take patients to Newark has increased, yet I have seen a crib sheet in ambulances that appears to show that the number has decreased by two. I do not know the rights or wrongs—I am not a clinician, so I cannot say—but that must be cleared up urgently. Fundamentally, the rurality of Newark and north Nottinghamshire needs to be addressed with adequate ambulance capacity,

Finally, I will address the PFI debt, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood mentioned. Monitor expressed concern about the financial situation of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The trust signed its £320 million PFI deal for the redevelopment of King’s Mill hospital in November 2005, and in 2012-13 the trust’s PFI cash outflow was £42.5 million, which equates to 17% of the trust’s income. If ever we needed an example of a terrible PFI deal and debt, this is it.

The trust operates with one hand tied behind its back. In December, my hon. Friend and I asked the Secretary of State for Health whether he would review the trust’s finances as it is both in special measures and suffering the consequences of a disastrous PFI deal. He agreed to do so, and I ask the Minister to make good on that promise. PFI contracts are complex and the options available to the trust to reduce the current burden—whether that be some form of refinancing, the buying back of debt or addressing parts of the contract not yet or inadequately executed—are complex and require analysis. The trust has limited resources to devote to the analysis required, which would presumably require the help of outside specialists. Are the Minister and the Department willing to sponsor, by which I mean pay for and support with advice, a full review of the PFI deal, with the objective of presenting options to the trust that can be reviewed and, I hope, implemented? I make that request with the full support of the trust’s chief executive. Such support would make a difference to the trust, my constituents, my hon. Friend’s constituents and the constituents of many other north Nottinghamshire Members who have not been able to join us this morning.

In addition to my specific questions, I leave the Minister in absolutely no doubt of the importance to my constituents of Newark hospital and of health care provision in north Nottinghamshire. Newark hospital is much loved. I was there on Christmas morning, and patients and their relatives had the utmost respect for the wonderful staff. My constituents, and people across Nottinghamshire, want an inspiring vision of what their health care provision will look like, but a vision without substance is an illusion. My constituents now want a credible plan in which they can believe, a plan that ensures that health care continues to improve for them and for future generations in this growing and rural community. That, in essence, is what we seek today.

11:09

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I apologise for being a stand-in for the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). I know he has previously debated these issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), whom I congratulate on securing this debate. It was a pleasure to go to Newark to campaign for him during the by-election. Literature that we all delivered told us that he would be a doughty campaigner, with health at the heart of his campaigning and his representations on behalf of his constituents. He has evidently made good on that promise in his relatively short time in the House. I am very aware of his dedication to ensuring that the health needs of his constituents are met. It is also a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), who is another assiduous local Member and a valued colleague who has the health concerns of his constituents at heart.

This debate is a welcome chance to discuss local health care matters. I know both my hon. Friends regularly meet local health leaders, which is right. The depth of knowledge that comes across from both Members this morning is the result of that engagement. I encourage such engagement because it allows Members to be best placed to bring their constituents’ concerns to the House.

I recognise, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, the hard work and dedication of NHS staff in his and other constituencies. He rightly describes them as wonderful, and it is excellent to hear that he was with them over the Christmas break. More than 4,000 staff are employed by Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust alone, in addition to the thousands who work in primary care. We thank them for their service at a time when we know they are under pressure.

It is all too easy to overlook primary care’s essential contribution to health care provision. The local GP or pharmacist is the key health care provider for many people. I will talk about the local hospital in a moment, but that foundation of good primary care is important. I am delighted that, through the Prime Minister’s challenge fund, Newark and Sherwood CCG is working with the hospital, local GP practices and Central Nottinghamshire Clinical Services, the out-of-hours provider, to improve access, reduce complexity for patients and ensure a sustainable staffing model. Given the pressure on the system over the Christmas and new year period, we can see only too well the importance of that work and the challenge fund in finding new ways to provide primary care access. In 2014, Mansfield and Ashfield CCG and Newark and Sherwood CCG were awarded a total of just over £1.8 million from the Prime Minister’s challenge fund, which was part of a £5.2 million collaborative funding bid that was spent in this financial year.

My hon. Friend is right to make Newark hospital the heart of his speech. Although there is legitimate concern, much of the worry caused for patients and the public in Newark has simply been unnecessary. I know he realises this but, for the record, the number of patients being treated is increasing. In 2012, the number was about 131,600; it increased to almost 133,500 in 2013. There is also more day care surgery, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The number of out-patients’ appointments is increasing and the number of specialities offering appointments at Newark is up. There is also improved provision for children.

I quite understand, however, why my hon. Friend wants to emphasise the need to keep building on that progress. He focused much of his speech on the minor injuries unit and urgent care centre. I can only sympathise with him with regard to navigating a way through terminology, because I am well aware that some terms mean different things in some parts of the country and that our health economy, because of its sophistication, is sometimes quite complex. It is therefore incumbent on all of us—Ministers, local health leaders and so on—to try to cut through that complexity as much as possible to make clear to local people what they can expect to get in a particular facility, what they would go there for, and where that facility fits into the local health economy, as well as the fact that it is part of a plan.

Newark provides consultant-led out-patients’ services, planned in-patient treatments, day-case procedures, diagnostic and therapy services and the MIU-UCC. My hon. Friend spoke about the need to increase the range of services. He is right to do so and to put forward his constituents’ concerns. As he outlined, there are plans to enhance the services offered at Newark hospital through the Newark strategy. He gave a history lesson at the beginning of his speech; I am well aware that there have been a number of strategies, but the current Newark strategy is being implemented, and I am encouraged by what I heard, in preparing for the debate, from local senior leaders. However, he is right to say that progress must be maintained.

The strategy includes Newark hospital being a centre of excellence for a broad range of services, including diagnostic, rehabilitation and so on. A number of new developments are already in place and a £500,000 development to make structural changes to the MIU is planned, which will make urgent care simpler and increase the range of Newark-based services.

As I said, I will take this debate as an chance to emphasise that if there is a lack of clarity locally—I can understand that there might be—local health leaders and all of us who work in and around the health system must work hard to ensure that the public, who are the users and end recipients of our excellent NHS services, really understand what is being offered. It is vital that they do.

The plans I mentioned include provision of additional consulting rooms, so that health care staff, including hospital staff and GPs, can work alongside each other instead of at separate locations. Building for that should start in April, which is really encouraging and testimony to my hon. Friend’s efforts to keep this a front-foot issue. Such evidence of the hospital’s long-term future is extremely welcome and should be reiterated.

With regard to the suggestion that more ambulance patients might be taken to Newark hospital, I understand that the local NHS has identified safety concerns with that. The level of emergency care was reviewed locally in 2013 as part of the development of the Newark strategy. As I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate, a patient’s diagnosis will not always be clear when the ambulance crew first arrives at the scene, so more comprehensive diagnostics are required—diagnostics that often need to be done in a main centre before a serious condition can be excluded.

I am told by the local NHS that the conveyance of all green ambulance calls to Newark would result in a limited improvement in ambulance response times, but I hope that it has looked at that carefully, has heard what my hon. Friend said today, and is giving proper weight to that. I know that for both my hon. Friends, the safety of their constituents is a paramount concern. They will know that for the Secretary of State for Health, the safety and quality of our health system is a touchstone issue in this Parliament, and we have debated significant safety concerns in recent years. When local clinicians believe that there are safety risks, it is important that their opinions carry weight and that we listen to those concerns closely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark has already discussed with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, whether hospitals elsewhere might provide helpful examples for both Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newark hospital. Hexham was mentioned as one such example. While parallels can be drawn, an exact comparison cannot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark acknowledged. There are some similarities between the services offered at those sites, but Hexham is a larger site with a more remote community. I note, however, what he said about his constituency being mixed, with some areas being much harder to get to owing to their road services.

GP services are offered at Hexham, and the new extension at Newark will enable that to happen in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which will be welcome. As he is also aware, decisions on local services, including urgent and emergency services, are a matter for local NHS leadership because they are the people, working with elected representatives, who know the local community best. The local NHS is clear that decisions about services will be based on patient safety and sustainability, which, having seen some of the problems uncovered in this Parliament in cases such as Mid Staffs, is what we all want as the foundation on which we build.

[Mr Spencer]

It is good to hear that progress is being made, but the elephant in the room remains the £40 million a year in PFI payments. Until we solve that problem, the challenges will remain. In the time remaining, will the Minister discuss that?

[Jane Ellison]

I will; in fact, that is on my next page. My hon. Friend is right to bring me to that. On the trust’s financial position, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, Monitor assessed Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in 2012 and identified issues that had contributed to its deteriorating financial performance. The trust signed its £326 million PFI deal under the previous Government in November 2005 for the redevelopment of King’s Mill hospital. The trust’s PFI cash outflow equates to some 17% of its annual income, which is clearly a substantial amount. The operating costs for that scheme are inflating with the retail prices index by about £1.5 million a year. My colleagues are therefore right to raise that considerable concern.

The trust has received ongoing financial support directly from the Department of Health: it received £28 million in 2013-14 and £26 million in 2014-15. However, as my hon. Friends realise, it is important that I emphasise that such funding is not sustainable as it takes resources away from other areas. We therefore clearly need a better solution.

The trust forecast a financial deficit this year, but Monitor does not have any immediate concerns about the sustainability of services at Newark hospital. I put that on the record as a note of reassurance for my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. The trust recognises the challenge that its PFI payments present—that has come out clearly in my discussions—and it accepts that the solution lies in the full involvement of all partners in the local health economy. The Better Together programme for Nottinghamshire goes some way towards achieving sustainability, and local commissioners continue to work with Monitor and NHS England, as they need to, to find a solution.

I am aware that there have been suggestions locally that Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust should look at the route taken by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and buy out its contract. However, the overall PFI deal for Sherwood Forest is much bigger than Northumbria’s, so a similar buy-out would incur a far greater cost. That is a note of caution.

The Department and the Treasury have discussed a range of options to reduce the cost of PFI projects in general, using public sector capital, including buying senior debt and terminating contracts completely. It is however for individual trusts to be clear about what options they have considered and to bring proposals forward.

Looking around the country, it is clear that the individual schemes have complexities, in terms of when they were signed, effective pricing and risk profile, so it is important both that such matters are looked at carefully at a local level and that the Department is engaged early on by trusts and foundation trusts when they develop their proposals, which will then be considered carefully by the Department of Health and the Treasury—and Monitor, if required—on a case-by-case basis for value for money and affordability. That is what happened in Hexham.

In the time left, I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Newark that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as he said last year, will be happy to consider any proposals brought forward. We are very much open to that.

I am left with little time to comment on the ambulance services, other than to say that although we acknowledge that there are some big challenges, a resilience plan is in place and we will monitor that carefully. I end by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Newark and for Sherwood on bringing this important topic once again to Ministers’ attention.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Benefit Claimants (North-east)

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

14:30

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for such an important debate, Mrs Riordan. I hope that you and all Members present enjoyed the festive period. As we return to Westminster, it is important to recognise that not everyone will have been able to enjoy it. We have seen unprecedented demand at north-east food banks over Christmas, and it is not hard to see why. On my website, I publish pie charts of the issues raised with me by constituents. If Members visit www.chionwurahmp.com —I recommend that everyone does regularly—they will see that benefits is consistently among the top two or three issues. For example, my office dealt with 28 benefits cases in November, 36 in October and 32 in September.

MPs all over the north-east are aware that a particular challenge of benefit cases is that they almost always involve someone vulnerable. Those claiming benefits are by definition going through a tough time. They may have lost a job, have an illness or disability, or be in low-paid or part-time work, or they may be caring for young children or relatives, making it harder for them to work. They need our support. They need our care, a helping hand to get their lives back together, and concern for and understanding of the challenges they face. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has said:

“Jobcentres, and the HMRC offices that currently administer tax credits, are vital public services that British citizens pay for with their taxes. People who use them have as much right to expect fair and respectful treatment as patients in an NHS hospital, parents dealing with their child’s school, or victims reporting a crime at a police station.”

It has become increasingly clear to me that that is not the experience of my constituents.

I have dealt with cases in which the only explanation for the cruel and inhumane way people were treated is that the employees of the Department and its agencies—public servants—have forgotten, or been told to forget, that benefit claimants are people: human beings with lives, loved ones and feelings. That is why I want the Minister to answer for the treatment of benefits claimants in the north-east and the culture in the Department for Work and Pensions that results in that treatment. I am going to raise a number of cases from my constituency to illustrate my point. I know that the issue extends beyond the north-east, but I want to focus on my region. I know from speaking to colleagues that they have many similar cases, and we can see how well represented the region is by the Members present.

The first case concerns a constituent whom I will not name for reasons that will become evident. Each constituent I do name has given me their express permission to do so. In January last year, my constituent was found hanged in his home by a neighbour. He was well known to Newcastle Welfare Rights, from which he had received considerable support in his dealings with the DWP. He had been in receipt of employment and support allowance, and previously incapacity benefit, and he was engaging well with NWR until November 2013, when he underwent a work capability assessment. The social worker who accompanied him had to spend two hours with him afterwards.

After he scored zero points and was found fit to work, NWR sought evidence from psychological services, and wrote to the Department, stating:

“The recent news that Mr…is not entitled to ESA support has had a significant impact on his mental health…he was acutely distressed; he struggled to talk, he was having thoughts of suicide, he had also started drinking alcohol to cope and had struggled to leave the house…His main emotion was one of fear and unfortunately this has reawakened traumatic memories of abuse in the past”.

The letter went into a lot more detail, but was disregarded by the DWP. The decision remained unchanged.

Over Christmas 2013, my constituent attempted to take his life using prescribed medication and attempted hanging. He had daily input from the local mental health trust crisis assessment and treatment team, and regular input from NWR. In January 2014, NWR submitted another letter from his psychologist that said that his

“distress and subsequent suicide attempt are directly related to the ATOS/benefits decision recently made”.

The letter went on to state that the psychologist was aware that my constituent was “highly anxious” prior to the assessment

“and required a significant amount of support following the interview.”

The psychologist’s professional opinion was that if he

“was found to be ‘fit for work’ this could directly lead to further suicide attempts and subsequently result in him successfully killing himself.”

That was a warning, and, tragically, that is exactly what happened.

As one can imagine, his suicide had a serious impact on the NWR team, especially those who were working to support him. They told me they were numbed and deeply saddened that their efforts were not enough to prevent his suicide. The neighbour who found him was also deeply affected and continues to require psychological support.

The second case that I want to highlight concerns another of my constituents, Mr Roy Hails, an IT specialist who was recently made redundant. He was determined to find work and applied for every suitable job while claiming jobseeker’s allowance, but was sanctioned by the jobcentre when his work search record was judged inadequate—in the week that his father died. Think about that for a moment. I happened to know Mr Hails’ father and the long and complex illnesses that he suffered from. I also know what a close family they were, and what a loss to his family and the community Mr Hails senior was. Regardless of that, is there anyone in this Chamber—or, indeed, in this country—who does not believe that a son should be given the opportunity to grieve for and bury his father, whether or not he is claiming benefits? The culture that this Government have put in place is such that people are not being given that opportunity.

Members are no doubt familiar with the play “Antigone” by Sophocles, in which the heroine defies a brutal Government to bury and mourn for her brother. It is a sad indictment of the Conservative party when an ancient Greek playwright, dead for more than 2,000 years, is more in touch with the needs and values of this country than the Government.

After I wrote to the director general for operations, the Department did find an exception by which a bereaved claimant can be excused from signing on or job search requirements for up to two weeks. However, the officials who dealt with Mr Hails were unaware of it; they thought that that the Government they work for would prevent a man from grieving for his father. What does that say about the culture the Government are promoting? Mr Hails told the Jobcentre Plus in Newcastle that his father had died and that was why he had not been searching for jobs, but they still thought it appropriate to sanction him.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. Does she share my deep concern about the rumours that there are league tables in DWP offices, and that people who are working very hard are being brought to task for not sanctioning people enough? They are told that they are underperforming. If that is the case, we will face these issues for ever and a day, as long as a Conservative Government are in charge.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will not call what I too have heard rumours, because it is clear that jobcentres are measured on the number of sanctions they issue. There may not be official targets, but the numbers are measured and published, so of course they are compared. I know from speaking to former and current DWP employees that they are under pressure to sanction people, almost regardless of how hard they are trying to find a job.

My third and final example concerns another constituent, Adam Ross Williams. What happened to him occurred just before Christmas. In November, the jobcentre wrote to Adam to say that because he had failed to complete and return a JSA2 claim review form, which he had never received, all payments to him were going to be suspended. He immediately called to ask why the form had not been sent to him by recorded delivery or handed to him at the jobcentre, which he has to attend. He also asked if he could complete the form by phone. He was told that that was impossible and that he would have to wait for another form to be posted to him.

The form finally arrived just before Christmas, almost one month after he had requested it, during which time he had no income, going without and relying on handouts from friends and family, “when I was lucky”. Of course, many other claimants in similar situations are forced into debt, and in particular to use payday loans.

Adam’s circumstances had not changed and the form he was sent was exactly the same as the one he had first filled out. He filled out the second form, took it to his local jobcentre and asked them to fax it straight over to the DWP. However, he immediately got a phone call from the DWP saying that they had not received his form and asked if he would be willing to complete the form over the phone, which is what he had wanted to do in the first place. We must remember that all this happened just before Christmas, which is a really stressful time for everybody, particularly those on a low income or, as in this case, no income.

Adam asked for an emergency payment and he was assured that he would get a phone call confirming that he would be paid. No phone call came, so he checked with the benefit inquiry line and was told that no emergency payment had been requested, so nothing could reach him until after Christmas. And yet all that had been needed was to ask him to confirm that his circumstances had not changed. When I hear stories such as this, I wonder whether the system is designed to hound people such as Adam, who are seeking work.

I could go on for hours—I could give 300 examples, not just three—but I know that many Members from the region wish to speak, and I also want to say a little about the broader context. There are people on benefits who are abusing the system; there are what are known as “scroungers”, who take what they can get and consider benefits both a lifestyle and a right. However, they are a very small proportion of those on benefits. It is estimated that 0.7% of welfare spending is lost to fraud, in comparison with the 1.3% lost to overpayment because of mistakes.

It is of course important to tackle fraud and error, but does the Minister think it necessary to place adverts on buses in my constituency saying:

“Think you know a Newcastle upon Tyne Benefits Cheat? Report them anonymously”?

Stunts such as that fuel misconceptions about benefits and fraud. Is it any surprise that people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than is actually the case? Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much that campaign cost and how the Department plans to measure how much money has been saved by it. I have yet to see adverts encouraging people to turn in tax evaders, despite the Treasury itself estimating the “tax gap” at £34 billion and tax campaigners suggesting that the true figure could be much, much higher. Or is this process more about, as one person complained to me, fostering a culture of suspicion and bitterness towards claimants? That is the outcome, and certainly that is how many of my constituents have come to feel.

I will quote from what Adam said to me:

“In summary, I am absolutely disgusted at how I have been treated. I feel entirely let down by my government, and like a second class citizen. What have I done to deserve this?”

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I did not mean to interrupt my hon. Friend before she reaches the end of her excellent contribution, but I wonder whether she, like me, has had cases involving former service personnel who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and, in some instances, even earlier conflicts. They were in receipt of incapacity benefit and other benefits due to their war disablement, but under the new system—the work capability tests—they have been thrown off those benefits. Does she have such disgraceful cases in her constituency? I will raise those I have come across with the Minister when she replies to the debate.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent contribution herself. I am not using all the examples I have, because I have so many. However, I am aware of the way some veterans in my constituency have been treated, and of the disgraceful impact it has had upon their lives. I look forward to hearing from her about the cases in her constituency.

My constituent, Adam, went on to say:

“How can it be right that an unemployed person…not only has the shame of completely having to rely on the government for my next meal but can have my only income arbitrarily stopped? A civil servant promises to get an emergency payment to me then what…? Forgets? So now I have to wait an extra week. Christmas is ruined…I can’t even go see my little girl, let alone put the heating on or buy some food.”

I want to make it clear that I am not blaming those who work in jobcentres or in the DWP. As I mentioned earlier, I have spoken to current and former jobcentre officers, and they have told me how they are pressurised to sanction claimants and how, as one former agent told me, the atmosphere changed immediately following the general election. Their job was no longer to help claimants into work but to “find them out”. I accept that mistakes are sometimes made, but it is the organisational culture that the Minister is responsible for, and I am sure she will want to take responsibility for it, as any business leader would. I would welcome her comments on this issue. I am sure she will acknowledge, as I do, that this challenge is not an easy one, but that much more needs to be done. That means supporting those in work, and not vilifying those seeking work or unable to work.

Five charities have come together for the Who Benefits? campaign. I know the Minister prefers charities to be seen and not heard; that is the Victorian mindset of this Government. However, the Children’s Society, Crisis, Gingerbread, Macmillan Cancer Support and Mind often work with people who find themselves in receipt of benefits. The charities are campaigning because they believe that

“politicians should do more to listen to, understand and act on the realities of people’s lives”



and to focus on

“the real reasons that people are struggling to address, like low wages, the high cost of living and the housing crisis”,

rather than demonising those on welfare benefits.

I have a number of specific questions for the Minister. First, will she make it clear in her own words how much she recognises the challenges that benefits claimants face, and outline the kind of nurturing, supportive environment that she is seeking to establish? Secondly, what measures are in place to ensure that benefit claimants are nurtured and supported, and that those who work for the DWP and its agencies treat them with dignity and respect? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the impact of measuring and comparing the number of sanctions meted out by jobcentres? What other measures have been looked at, such as measuring the number of claimants in every jobcentre who found and stayed in work for six months? Fourthly, what sanctions are in place for those who are not respectful towards benefits claimants, and are those sanctions applied to Ministers? Fifthly, why do the Government refuse to acknowledge the link between increased sanctions and increased food bank usage? Finally, why did the recent Oakley report on sanctioning not extend to all benefit claimants? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

When the Minister’s office wrote to me asking what this debate would be about and what my concerns were, I wanted to give her lots of time to prepare for it, so I made it clear to her that the debate would centre on the culture and treatment of benefit claimants, and that I would cite examples where that culture and treatment had not met the standard that I hope the Minister aspires to. I would also like to reassure her that I have studied the recent Westminster Hall debate on benefit sanctions, on 2 December 2014. I have read the questions posed by my hon. Friends in that debate and her response to them. I think it fair to say that there is not a strong correlation between the two. I assure the Minister that she does not need to repeat the points made in that debate about the importance of getting work, the history of sanctions or the role of incentives to work. I and the vast majority of benefit claimants are familiar with them. No one wishes to make it easy for freeloaders, or foster a culture that does not recognise the value of work. That is not what the debate is about. Will she ensure—unlike on the last occasion—that she saves some time to address our concerns? They are important.

The sense that claimants are being treated as second-class citizens, scroungers and cheats has a terrible impact on their well-being and, in particular, their mental health. I have some experience of that. I was brought up largely on benefits. We were a one-parent family. My mother was crippled with rheumatoid arthritis and also suffered from breast cancer. It was hard for her, not only because of our poverty but because of her shame at taking handouts. I am so glad that she did not have to face the sort of vilification and abuse that benefits claimants face now—abuse caused in part by a sustained campaign from those on the right of the political spectrum. Contrary to what many of them would imagine, I was brought up with a strong work ethic and to believe that the state should provide a robust safety net for those who need it. I am not proud that I grew up on benefits, but I am not ashamed either. I want to know what the Government are doing to prevent the demonisation of those claiming benefits.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Chamber that several Members want to take part in the debate. I want to give the Minister enough time to reply to all the points raised, so I would be grateful if Members kept their speeches to about six minutes.

14:52

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing the debate and on her passionate speech. We all know how the changes under this Government have victimised benefits claimants, and we have all met people who have suffered because of the harsh sanctions regime, but it is not only the law that has changed; the culture has changed, too. The jobcentre is a very different place from what it was just a few years ago. The focus has changed. It is no longer about getting people into work; it is about getting them off benefits by any means necessary.

My hon. Friend gave several examples, and things are no different in South Shields. Constituents of mine have been refused a private room to discuss intimate personal or medical issues, and have felt humiliated at having to hold such discussions in a public area. One man who was suffering from serious back pain and could barely climb the stairs was told that he could not use the lift because it was for staff only. The general attitude of staff is confrontational and sometimes downright rude. One man was told that he had to shut his mouth and get out when he disagreed with staff.

[Ian Lavery]

To highlight one of the difficulties with the staff, who generally do a fantastic job, the press reported on the assessment of a lady who is blind and has a guide dog. The person doing the assessment held three fingers up and asked the blind lady, “How many fingers am I holding up?” The lady said, “I am blind.” The person said, “That has nothing at all to do with it. I have to ask you the questions.” That is the way disabled people—in this case, a blind person—are being treated by some of the staff in jobcentres.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I have noticed that compassion and understanding are being completely removed from the jobcentre. There are no grey areas anymore; it is black or white. When I went to my local jobcentre to discuss some of my constituents’ complaints, I was shocked by how dismissive the local management team were. They explained that they refused to offer a private room because they did not want to set a precedent. In other cases, they simply said that they did not believe what I and my constituents were telling them. The whole attitude was completely negative and showed the confrontational way in which jobcentres now deal with claimants. In fact, the attitude shown to me was so appalling that I complained to the regional manager. It was not that I was particularly fussed by how they spoke to me; my concern was that if they speak to a Member of Parliament in that way, how on earth are they treating our constituents?

Jobcentre staff are ultimately there to provide a service, and to help people find work. If someone has special requirements, staff should be allowed to accommodate them. The Government’s hard-line approach and the pressure on staff to meet targets mean that the focus has changed and the majority of hard-working staff, who I genuinely believe want to do their jobs properly, feel hindered and frustrated about being unable to do so. When I was looking for work, advisers were there to guide jobseekers into work or training that was right for them. It was a process that treated people like human beings. That is important when people are already feeling low or marginalised because of their unemployment. That is not how the system works today. Now the role of the jobcentre is to police the unemployed and punish them for making even the smallest of mistakes. If they are five minutes late for an appointment, there is no mercy or discussion—their benefits are simply cut off. Where once staff were there to advise, they are now told to check up on claimants, to police them and to catch them out.

As far as I am concerned, our jobcentres are no longer providing a good enough service. Staff are under pressure to get people off benefits by any means necessary, and there are perverse incentives to push people on to make-work courses. Constituents have complained that they have been ordered to take the same CV writing courses over and over again as a substitute for genuine support. That is a complete waste of time and does not get them into work. What it does, however, is remove them from the unemployment figures. Like those on the Work programme, they are not employed in any meaningful sense, but they do not show up in the figures. I make it crystal clear to the Minister that being on the Work programme or stuck on make-work training courses does not constitute employment, no matter how much her Government would like us to think so. The only purpose of the schemes is to help a jobcentre meet its targets, because it can use the courses as evidence that it has provided training or work-related activity, or use non-attendance as a reason to sanction benefit claimants.

In any organisation, the attitude of those at the top filters down. That is why the culture change at the DWP fits right in with the ugly attitude that the Government have taken towards people on benefits. They have encouraged and continue to encourage the public to think of claimants as spongers or skivers, so that working people struggling to get by will blame the unemployed man or woman next door, claiming their £70 a week, instead of the tax-dodging companies that cost our economy billions every year. The way claimants are treated is nothing to do with getting people into work; it is about scapegoating the poor and making them a target for the anger and frustration the public feel during a time of serious hardship. It is downright nasty politics, and the Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

14:58

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing the debate, and I applaud the graphic, detailed way in which she outlined the problem faced by all Members of Parliament in the north-east. Sadly, the cases she outlined are not unusual. They are common—even the case where the gentleman died. There has been more than one such example in recent times in the north-east, and that is completely unacceptable.

I will start by talking about the staff at Jobcentre Plus and the DWP in general. They work hard and are put under enormous pressure. Staffing levels have diminished dramatically since 2010. We hear anecdotally about the pressures of informal targets on sanctions—we all know they are in place—from people who are too frightened to say something, so they tell us off the record. I sympathise enormously with them about the job they are being asked to do every day.

The other thing I want to discuss before I go on to the example I will talk about is the north-east’s economy. I have lived in the north-east my entire life. I live two miles from where I was born, which is very common in the north-east. We are a close-knit, supportive community, and that is replicated throughout the north-east, not just the part I am from. We have had high unemployment throughout my lifetime—obviously, there have been peaks and troughs, but it has been consistent. Although more jobs are available at the minute, their quality has to be questioned: a lot involve zero-hours or temporary contracts, so they give no stability.

We have a lot of people who, through no fault of their own, rely on benefits. We are also a low-wage economy. Furthermore, most people’s families do not have massive wealth, so if people fall on hard times, their families do not have the wealth to support them informally. If somebody’s benefits are sanctioned, they really do have no money. They cannot go to their families to ask for a little help, because their families simply do not have the money. It is not that they do not want to help—they simply do not have the finances to.

The other thing to say about the background of people in the north-east is that we are a hard-working area. Life is pretty tough for many people, but people have an ethos of working hard, paying their way and doing a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. That is the mindset of people in the north-east, and I take great offence when I read or hear about people criticising the area and talking as if people there were just scroungers, because that simply is not the case. I have no truck with people who really try to fiddle the system, and I would be the first to remove their benefits and sanction them, but they are not the norm, and they are not the people we are talking about.

People who need to claim benefits should be treated with dignity and respect, not only by those they deal with at the DWP and Jobcentre Plus, but by the rest of society. They should not be made to feel that they are worth any less than the person next to them because, for whatever reason, they have to live on benefits. However, the treatment people receive often falls short; in some cases, it is absolutely appalling and unacceptable.

I want to give an example of a case study I have had. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, I get a staggering number of cases every week. A few months ago, I had a constituent who was unable to attend an appointment at Jobcentre Plus because he had suffered an asthma attack and was in A and E. He telephoned his adviser to tell them, although, to be fair, it would have been perfectly reasonable if he had not managed to do that. However, he did, and he spoke to the receptionist about the Jobcentre Plus appointment that had been scheduled for that day, which he would clearly be unable to get to. He explained his reasons and, on returning from hospital, he sent a letter.

A few weeks later, he received a letter saying that he had failed to comply with the scheme’s requirements and that his jobseeker’s allowance would be sanctioned for one month. Extraordinarily, the letter went on to say that an asthma attack was not a sufficiently good reason for missing an appointment. I am an asthmatic myself, and I know how crucial it is for people to get to hospital pretty darn quick if they have an attack that is out of control. The difference between not getting treated correctly in a timely fashion and surviving is paper-thin, and we read every year about the tragic cases of people who have not got to hospital quickly enough. However, if people get to hospital in time, they can be treated and brought back to health quite easily. The time element is crucial, which is why I said that, although my constituent took the time to ring, it would have been acceptable if he had not.

Miraculously, when my constituent came to me and I got involved, the decision was overturned. The most annoying thing is not that it was overturned—that was absolutely the right thing to do—but that it was made in the first place and that my constituent ever had to come to me. That is the problem, and that is what needs sorting out.

If people are ill, or have other genuine reasons for not being able to get somewhere at a certain time, they need to be treated fairly. They need to be treated like anybody else in any other system, and to be believed. In this case, my constituent had discharge letters from hospital; there was no question but that he had been at hospital, but that was not seen as a reason not to attend an appointment. That is just one case, but it graphically explains the problem.

I do not want to go over other cases, because we all have them. The people we are talking about are vulnerable. Many have not always been on benefits, and the unemployment that has arisen in the last few years is new to them. They are not part of a culture of benefit claiming. Treating them in this absolutely inhumane way is wrong and unacceptable—there is no other way of saying it—and it reflects badly on the DWP, the Government and, in broader terms, us as a society. We should be proud of the fact that we have a safety net for people who fall on hard times.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Let me take the debate slightly further north. I was recently astonished to read reports that the DWP was issuing stories and details about people they alleged were scroungers to the media to feed this attitude that my hon. Friend describes. This is therefore coming from the top, not just from a local office level.

[Julie Elliott]

That is not something I have read of, but it would not surprise me, quite honestly.

This week, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions held its first oral evidence session on benefit sanctions beyond the Oakley review. The review was highly critical of what was going on, and I look forward to seeing what comes of that. The Minister needs to accept our comments as constituency MPs who have witnessed the same problem at different jobcentres and offices. It is not one office that is to blame; this is about a culture. I hope that she will listen and act on our comments, because we are genuine people, and I am sure that the way we have described the system working is not what she would intend. I am interested to hear her comments on the situation as it actually is.

15:07

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. It is also a pleasure to take part in this important debate. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), on securing it. It is enormously important to the people we represent that we debate these issues and tease out things that are just not acceptable.

At the heart of the problem is the mismatch between the pressure on DWP staff and what is actually obtainable for the citizens we represent in the circumstances of the north-east of England. The inflexibility of the regime—especially the ESA regime—is at the heart of many of the individual cases that have been raised so far and of the one or two constituency cases I will raise in a minute.

The restricted nature of the jobseekers labour market, as opposed to the broader north-east labour market, is a significant factor in this, as is the Department’s practice of churning people through projects, a further period of JSA and then more projects, and of migrating them from incapacity benefit to the new ESA, when their chances of actually securing sustainable employment are not that strong.

People come to my surgeries, as they do to all Members’ surgeries, but when their opening gambit is, “You are my last hope,” my heart sinks, because I know the system is failing them and that they have been referred to me, as their Member of Parliament, by others who are trying to help them or that they feel they have nowhere else to go.

One chap I met—I will call him Mr A because I do not want to put his name into the public domain—is 62 years old. He has been a labourer all his life. One look at him told me that his days of being a labourer were over. He is on ESA. He is certainly not capable of manual work any more, but he is to be churned through a range of schemes to train him for jobs that I do not think he will ever be able to do. I went to visit Ingeus, and I do not take as harsh a view of the Work programme as my colleagues. I thought that much of what Ingeus was doing, as one of the Government’s contractors, was sensible and well founded; but I was struck by how different the labour market that it was dealing with was from the broader labour market in the north-east of England. The spectrum of all the jobs across the north-east of England is not there for people on ESA. A much narrower range of overwhelmingly service-sector jobs is open to them. I do not think that it will work for the chap who came to see me.

The same will be true for another constituent, who was referred to me by the Newcastle Society for Blind People, which was trying to help her. She is 60 years old and epileptic. Her eyeballs were removed in childhood, so she is absolutely blind. She has a carer; he cares for her, but cannot read or write. She has been transferred from incapacity benefit to ESA; therefore, the system will find her a job. She cannot write or see, but can read Braille. She uses a thumbprint for her signature. I have asked the DWP to write to her in Braille. After a lot of haggling between the Department and me, it has agreed to note my request. Perhaps I may gently put it to the Minister that there are a number of ways for MPs to deal with issues of this kind: the first might be for me to ask her politely to get the Department to do a bit more than just note my request.

Given my constituent’s age and circumstances, and the obvious hardship that she has endured throughout her life, it is not fair to her to kid her on that somehow she will now find a job she can do without overcoming every one of the hardships that confront her. It seems just wrong—almost inhuman—to put her through the sort of exercises that the Department is putting her through. It is harsh and unreasonable. I once did the Minister’s job. I was the first Minister for Work when the Department was created under the previous Labour Government. In my time as a Minister I did not come up against a case of this kind, referred to me by a Member of Parliament from either side of the House. Had I done so, I would have intervened straight away to help the victim of what I would regard as oppressive treatment.

Another constituent of mine, a 62-year-old, was sanctioned for a year for not complying with JSA. As his sanction—it actually went on for a year and a month—came to an end, he was told that he would be sanctioned for another 13 weeks, but not given a reason. He was then told that he had to fill in a JSA10 form at a jobcentre. He went there and was told that the form did not exist any more, and that he had to ring the benefit delivery centre. The centre staff told him that he had to go to Felling to fill in a declaration, and he walked from Newcastle to Felling. Hon. Members might ask why he walked, when we have some very good integrated transport arrangements in Tyne and Wear. The walk is not a direct one, because there is a river in the way, and it means going to the centre of Newcastle—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central—over the bridge and along the south bank. My constituent walked because he does not have any money to pay for his travel.

When he got to Felling the official gave him a telephone number that he had to ring. It would have been possible either to give him that without requiring him to undertake the journey, or to ensure that he had the money to make the journey on public transport, rather than having to walk. My constituent then got another phone call from the Department—which was being proactive, for once—telling him that he faced further sanctions because he had missed an appointment with his work provider. He had not missed any actual work, the House will understand —just a meeting with the provider. He missed the appointment because, as he had informed the Department, his residency at the Salvation Army on City road was closing down, and his mail was not being satisfactorily redirected. That is an issue that will apply to other people who have lived in that facility, which was quite well known on Tyneside. He spent 45 minutes on the telephone begging for a hardship payment, because he had no money at all to live on. He eventually got an £86-per-fortnight payment—just think of living on £86 a fortnight—and was then told that he stood to be sanctioned again and that his national insurance contributions would be withheld as well.

My office intervened. MPs always get the credit for dealing with these cases and it is actually our staff who do it. This is probably an appropriate time to thank our staff, who work very hard, not least on wading through pretty intransigent responses from the Minister’s Department. It is certainly not how we originally envisaged Jobcentre Plus operating when it was rolled out more than a decade ago. My assistant’s intervention meant that the matter was finally resolved in a satisfactory way; but we should not be putting people through such turmoil. The system should be on their side. It is meant to be run by the state for the citizens of the country—and it just is not. It should not be necessary for us to have to take such matters up with the Minister directly. I hope that she will take from the debate the fact that things are going wrong with case work, and that there is a need to intervene directly to turn around the culture in the Department that allows that to happen.

15:16

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship so early in the new year, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing this important debate. I am conscious of the time and the fact that several of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I want to make several quick points, based on the experience of constituents who have contacted me.

The first point is about the rise in the use of sanctions in the past couple of years. Most people would accept the principle that if people flagrantly and persistently fail to adhere to mutually accepted requirements, they should face consequences. I have a constituent who failed to attend 22 out of 26 appointments, without any real explanation, and it is difficult to argue against some sanction in that case. However, like my hon. Friends, I have noticed a large increase in the number of sanctions imposed, often for a first or light transgression, and often with no regard to the context. Life is not so black and white. If it were, everyone who went over their parking meter allocation by a minute would be fined automatically, and I think there would be outrage at that.

A constituent contacted me about his experience of realising, on the date of his appointment, that he had missed the time. He phoned up the same day to apologise and make another appointment, which was offered for the following day. He turned up and went through the interview, and was then sanctioned by post. The staff did not even have the respect to do it face to face. He was left with no income—no means of feeding himself or heating his home—for an entire month, on the basis of one missed appointment.

There have recently been roadworks at the junction of Raby road and Middleton road in the centre of Hartlepool, which have caused chaos. All road users have been affected, including bus passengers. A constituent of mine was late for her appointment because her bus could not navigate Raby road and was delayed on the first day of the roadworks. That was not her fault. She had no way of knowing it would happen; but she was sanctioned and left without money for a month.

One of my constituents was told that her appointment for a work capability assessment was cancelled; she was then sanctioned for failing to attend the cancelled appointment. If it were not so serious it would be ludicrous. Another constituent was sanctioned for a month, and left with no means of feeding herself or heating her home, because she missed an appointment once. The reason she missed it was that on the day of the appointment she was burying her grandfather, having been at his deathbed for the previous week. In all those cases, and in others, I have been able to get the sanctions overturned; but that itself raises some issues. Is it an efficient use of taxpayer resources to apply a sanction, only for staff time to be employed in overturning it? How robust, efficient and effective is the process if that continues to be the case?

My second point is about jobcentre culture. Front-line staff do not have any flexibility to determine whether a benefit claimant has failed to comply with a requirement. They have to see things in black and white and they cannot provide personalised support. The system is geared not to help individuals, but merely to process them.

Claimants can suffer appallingly as a result of their treatment. Jobcentre Plus is not seen as a place that assesses people’s skills and training needs and helps them get back into work, but as a negative place where any contact results in the delay or stopping of benefits. It is seen as somewhere where claimants are punished and belittled, rather than helped. I have constituents who have independently told me that Jobcentre Plus staff have said to them, “But you sit on your backside all day watching ‘Jeremy Kyle’, don’t you?” That cannot be acceptable. What is the Minister doing about that top-down, politically driven culture? It is demoralising for staff and claimants, and something needs to be done.

My third point relates to personalised support. Hartlepool, like other parts of the north-east, has a large number of men—it is largely men—who worked in manual occupations for most of their working lives. Many reach their late 50s and find that, because of their personal circumstances, the fact that they are becoming ill or changes to the economy, those occupations are no longer available to them. The jobcentre is simply not interested in helping them secure a new job. Through its indifference and latent hostility, it is consigning my constituents and those of other hon. Members to the scrap heap long before their time.

A constituent came to see me who had worked in factories for 35 years and had been made redundant. He was a hard worker and a proud working man. He had never been on the dole in his life, but he said that the jobcentre was treating him like a leper because he had asked for assistance. He was told to apply for benefits online, and was not given an answer or any support when he said that he did not have a computer, had never used one and did not even know where to begin. There are many people like my constituent in Hartlepool and the north-east. The digital divide is creating social exclusion that is affecting the most vulnerable people. What will the Minister do to address that?

My final point is a technical one. Will the Minister take action to ensure that jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance sanctions result in the suspension, rather than the closure, of claims? The different public agencies are not talking to one another. Will the Minister also ensure that her Department distinguishes between claims that are closed because the claimant has gained employment, and claimants who are sanctioned and are entitled to housing benefit on the grounds of low income? If the Department provides local authorities with that additional information, it will ensure that those claimants’ entitlement to housing benefit continues and that they do not lose their houses as a result of that culture and their treatment.

My constituents deserve better, as do many others in the north-east and elsewhere. They are treated shabbily and with contempt. They are proud people who want to work. The Minister should be trying harder.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call the Front Benchers at about 3.30 pm, so I ask the two remaining speakers to limit their speeches to a maximum of five minutes each.

15:23

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing the debate and on her touching personal and factual speech.

My office, like those of my hon. Friend and other Members here today, receives many enquiries from constituents who have problems with their benefits and are at the end of their tether. My excellent staff always do their best to resolve their problems. In some instances, as has been said, constituents turn out to be swinging the lead, but when they have a genuine case we see the unnecessary distress that can be caused, and we do our best to help them.

Anybody here who has experienced unemployment—I know that some colleagues have—know how miserable it is to go through the process of signing on at the jobcentre, and they know the feeling of rejection when job application after job application does not even receive a response. When somebody gets an interview and it is unsuccessful, it adds to the feeling of deflation and their confidence goes down even further. That is why people’s experience at the jobcentre is so important.

The Work and Pensions Secretary said that in return for claiming unemployment benefits, jobseekers have a responsibility to do everything they can to get back into work, and that sanction should be a last resort. However, the examples we have heard today show that the Government are not keeping their side of the bargain and that sanctions are far from being used as a last resort.

I have two examples of people at different stages of their working lives that illustrate how my constituents have been short-changed in the jobseeker’s allowance process. The first concerns a single mother who works as a dinner supervisor for less than 16 hours per week. She is entitled to a top-up of JSA, and she dutifully always sends the necessary wage slips every month. She was shocked when her benefits were stopped because her wage slips had not been received. My office got in touch with the MP hotline. We got further copies of her wage slips and sent them in again, only to find that those had disappeared too. The issue was sorted out in the end, but in the meantime her benefits were stopped and she fell into rent arrears, all through no fault of her own.

A single, older constituent who had paid her taxes and national insurance for more than 40 years was referred to the Work programme. She attended appointments with Ingeus three times a week, and her job adviser was satisfied that she met the job search requirements. She was pleased when she managed to find a part-time job, but when she went to the jobcentre to tell them about the new job, the adviser wanted to see her jobseekers’ diary. She had shown it to the Ingeus adviser, and thought she would not need it at the jobcentre. She was told that she had not demonstrated that she had performed an adequate job search, and her case was referred to a decision maker. She was left without any money for more than a week, which caused her a great deal of hardship as she started her new job. Fortunately, she won her appeal, but that was no consolation for the poor treatment she received.

I worked in the former Department of Social Security back in the 1980s, so I know that staff take pride in their work and want to help people. I cannot help thinking that the Government cuts to the public sector are putting more pressure on staff in our jobcentres and that consequently, claimants in the north-east and across the country do not receive a fair and proper service. Evidence shows that advisers interpret the guidelines for sanctions inconsistently, which means that claimants in similar circumstances can receive completely different decisions. That should never happen.

I watched some of the first session of the Work and Pensions Committee’s inquiry into benefit sanctions this morning, and I was surprised to hear that the sanctions process is not monitored. How can the Government possibly measure its success? North Tyneside citizens advice bureau told me that, according to the monitoring of a similar scheme in Canada, sanctions have little or no effect on claimants’ behaviour. I have written to the Secretary of State about the examples I have outlined. I hope the Minister can give my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and our constituents some positive answers, and that in the future jobseekers receive the fair treatment they deserve.

15:27

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing this debate. She spoke with great passion, authority and personal conviction, and we should listen to her.

At the start of the day in the Main Chamber, the Speaker’s Chaplain leads the main prayer in which we undertake to

“seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.

That sentiment is hardly likely to chime with my constituents who have had recourse to the benefits system or who have suffered sanctions.

The creation of the welfare state by the great post-war Labour Government ranks among our nation’s greatest achievements. It was created with the conviction that in a wealthy nation such as ours, nobody should fall into the depths of deprivation and extreme poverty. British citizens fund vital public services with their taxes, with the understanding that when people lose their jobs or fall on hard times there will be a safety net and a network of support to assist them and help them back to employment. We expect anybody who uses those services to be treated with dignity and respect.

There is a consensus among the public that the existence of such a system is right and civilised. However, under the Government, we have witnessed policies that seek to redefine the role of the welfare state and the status of those who depend upon it. Our society includes those who, through luck, hard work or talent, are unlikely to ever need to depend upon the state. Those people are often entrepreneurs or committed and hard-working individuals who work in businesses and create wealth and jobs. It includes those who have the potential to make great contributions to our society, but require support to achieve what they are capable of, and it includes a small minority who need more than just a gentle nudge to engage with employment and contribute towards society. It also includes vulnerable people who live at the margins of our society, and who have not been as fortunate as others and are in need of our support, compassion and love. The Government, however, have lumped together all those who have to use benefits. The notion that has permeated this Government’s welfare reforms has been that joblessness is the personal and moral failure of the unemployed to which there is an “all stick and no carrot” solution, plunging them into destitution. It is almost a case of, “If we make people’s lives more difficult and more unbearable, somehow there will be a positive outcome.”

Since the existing regime was introduced, 1.4 million jobseeker’s allowance sanctions have been imposed. My constituents are sanctioned more than any others in the north-east, with more than 1,000 sanctions applied against JSA claimants in Middlesbrough between April and June last year, 300 more than in any other constituency. Ministers would have us believe that each of those sanctions was a just act that punished workshy people for failing to demonstrate that they were looking for employment. Every hon. Member present knows, however, that that is often not the case. We are inundated with stories from our constituents who describe a punitive regime that punishes benefit claimants for things beyond their control. The human cost is unacceptable.

One case is that of a single mum who works part-time as a lunch-time supervisor at a primary school while undertaking training to become a classroom assistant. She is in receipt of in-work benefits. Despite her asking for the interviews to be arranged outside her working hours, they were constantly arranged during them, meaning that she faced sanctions. She failed to attend one interview that was due to take place on the day that her father died. In the distress of the moment, she forgot the appointment, but when she rang the jobcentre the next day to apologise and explain that her dad had died, it was not accepted as a valid reason for missing her appointment. She was sanctioned for a month.

Another case is that of a 19-year-old homeless boy with no family, a baby and no support network, who has little in the way of formal education and limitations in his ability to communicate. He failed to complete a particular form correctly, which was beyond his capacity. He was duly sanctioned and left destitute. He then stole food from a supermarket in the hope and desire that he would be sent to prison, so that he would have something to eat and somewhere to sleep.

The number of such cases is shaming and a damning indictment of the Government and their policies. The Government refuse to explain the increase, but numerous sources have reported that it is being driven by unofficial targets imposed on jobcentres by the DWP. That is unacceptable. Introducing targets or expectations for jobcentres on sanctioning benefit claimants is a perversion of the values of the welfare state. People’s benefit entitlements ought to be decided on the basis of need, not on an arbitrary target set in Whitehall.

[Ian Lavery]

One important issue that has not been discussed in the debate is the coalition decision to withdraw the independent living fund, which hundreds if not thousands of disabled people in our area, the north-east, depend on. Does my hon. Friend agree that that decision should be reviewed? The independent living fund is there to help disabled people. If it is withdrawn, disabled people will end up in abject poverty.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. That the circumstances of people dependent on such a vital source of income should be reduced—we saw on the television last night the people protesting outside this place—is an absolute horror and brings shame upon us all.

In conclusion, with the vulnerable being penalised along with hard-working people who do all that we expect of them, either the Government must concede that, on their watch, the safety net that marks us as a civilised society has become no longer fit for purpose, or they must admit to their audacious abandonment of the principles of the welfare state.

15:33

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Riordan.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). She has done everyone a great service in securing this extremely important debate. I am also immensely pleased that so many Labour MPs from the north-east have spoken this afternoon: my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). They all took part and have spoken with compassion and forensic attention to detail, which it would be nice to see from those on the Government Benches as well.

To understand the problem, we need to think more about the reasons why people in the north-east claim benefits. The north-east is the area of the country with the highest unemployment. At the moment, unemployment is 9%, compared with a 6% national average. An issue with sanctions is that we suspect them of forming part of an attempt to massage down the level of unemployment figures, in particular in our region. It is absolutely clear, however, that there is a serious problem for people in finding work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East pointed out. The ratio of vacancies to claimants, when that number was last collected in 2012—again, the Government are hiding more recent numbers from us—was 4:1 in the south-east, but 9:1 in the north-east.

High unemployment in the north-east is caused by economic restructuring, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool pointed out. When people move from, say, being an administrator in the local magistrates court, they are not immediately able to go and work for a biotech company. They are bound to be unemployed for a certain time. We need a safety net to support them during that period. The Government have been boasting about the level of public spending cuts in the north-east, because they believe that we were over-dependent on public service jobs, but it behoves the Government to take a more positive attitude to the people most affected by their chosen policies.

The second problem, also mentioned by my colleagues, is the overhang of heavy industry, which means that we have higher levels of industrial injuries, disabilities and chronic illnesses. Therefore, any problems in the benefit system that relate to JSA, PIP, disability living allowance, ESA, IB or industrial injuries benefit—all areas that the Department has managed to mismanage over the past five years—weigh particularly heavily in our region. In Redcar, for example—it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who is a Liberal Democrat, has not bothered to turn up today—16% of the working-age population is on out-of-work benefits. That is not a lifestyle choice by the people who live in Redcar; it is because they face serious problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central talked about the problem of people with chronic conditions and disabilities who have wrongly been turned down for benefits. That continues to be a problem and I still have such problems in my constituency. It is incredibly unpleasant for people, creates misery, worsens their health and is a prime example of Tory welfare waste. The level of appeals has been as high as a third; the level of decisions overturned has also been a third—the Minister is looking puzzled, but I am quoting from what the Select Committee said about the ESA system in 2012. The cost to the public purse therefore has been £70 million per year. In the north-east, we are used to working with the Japanese and they have a “right first time” approach; we would like to see more of that in the benefits system.

The second set of problems involves the immense delays that we see over and over again. The situation is pitiable and particularly problematic at this time for people making PIP applications. Since April 2013, 670,000 people have made claims; as of last October, 287,000 people were still waiting for decisions. That is appalling; that is almost half. I know the problem is a continuing one, because my constituency office is looking at 35 such cases. At the moment, 900,000 people in this country are stuck in that waiting period. What is the Government response to the report by Mr Paul Gray? It would be helpful to hear something from the Minister. Again, however, we have the problem of the Government avoiding addressing the issue by delaying the publication of the statistics on waiting periods for some further months.

The final and most discussed set of problems is to do with sanctions. Everyone knows that we need some sanctions in the benefits system. Indeed, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East, I was a Minister in the DWP during the previous Parliament, and the last thing I did in that role was take a statutory instrument through the House in March 2010 to tighten up the sanctions regime.

Under this Government, however, we have seen an absolute explosion in and abuse of the use of sanctions. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) had an Adjournment debate on this issue in the main Chamber just before Christmas, to which the Minister responded. My right hon. Friend has discovered that, across the nation as a whole, the number of people sanctioned has doubled during this Parliament, that sanctions are longer and that a quarter of JSA claimants will now be sanctioned at some time during their claim. In the north-east, it is even worse. The number of ESA claimants sanctioned has increased at least fourfold and the number of JSA claimants sanctioned has doubled, meaning that in any year, 30,000 people are being sanctioned at any moment in time in our region.

[Mrs Hodgson]

It is obvious to the Opposition that that is what is feeding—I use that word deliberately—the rise in people accessing food banks. When I visited a food bank in Washington in December, the people there said that when they analyse the reasons why people are coming through their doors, benefit sanctions are by far the top reason given.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sanctions problem is extremely alarming. For example, a constituent of mine, Mr A, rearranged an appointment he had missed—he had got confused because a close family member had died. When my office got in touch with the jobcentre, the sanction for that was overturned. Mr B was sanctioned for missing an appointment because he was collecting his ill daughter from school. The jobcentre falsely accused him of having a fictional child. The sanction was overturned on appeal, but in the meantime he was sanctioned for 13 weeks. In another case, Ms D was sanctioned because she refused to do a job at the weekend, when there was no child care.

There is a pattern to the sanctions cases that we are receiving, taking up and seeing overturned. I had a look at the Department’s guidelines on what constitutes a good reason for someone not being sanctioned if they miss an appointment. Good reasons include: domestic violence; health conditions; harassment or bullying at work; homelessness; travel time; domestic situations, such as bereavement or child care issues; learning difficulties; and legal constraints. We have heard examples of cases involving almost all of those reasons today.

Will the Minister deny this afternoon that there are any targets for jobcentres on sanctions? Will she tell us how many sanctions have been overturned on appeal? Will she also tell us how many of those overturned fall into those categories—how many people have been wrongly sanctioned because a bereavement, a child care problem or ill health have not been properly taken into account?

From what we are hearing it is clear that decision makers and people working in jobcentres are not clear about what is in the guidelines. When the Minister gets back to her office in half an hour’s time, will she write a letter to all the jobcentres across the land to tell them that those categories are there for good reasons and that she expects decision makers and people who work in jobcentres to take proper account of the guidelines that her Department has promulgated? We cannot have a set of guidelines in the left hand and a piece of behaviour in the right hand, and no connection made between the two.

As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, however, it should not be necessary for us to come to the Minister to tell her about these problems. She should know what they are. She should have tackled them and done something about this situation. I want to know why she has not. Why has she not sorted out the sanctioning problem? I very much hope that she will be able to tell us, in detail, what she is doing about it. She must understand that she is responsible for the misery caused to thousands of people up and down this country. Of course, it is possible that Ministers in her Department do not care about the misery they are creating, in which case, as no good reasons for what is going on have been given to us, one might say that they are the ones who should be sanctioned.

The upshot of the situation is that we have seen appalling maladministration and cases of people living in a half light that make the Kafkaesque seem totally straightforward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, the number of people in the north-east accessing food banks has gone up, and in the six months between April and September last year it reached 40,000.

The whole situation is the result of Tory welfare waste. It is a waste of public money, a waste of official time—things get done and then redone, and redone again—a waste of the efforts of people in the voluntary sector, who would much prefer to be doing creative projects, and it is certainly a waste of the lives of the people who are on the receiving end.

15:45

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for securing the debate, as it allows me to clarify and explain some of the points that have been raised. First off, I want to speak on behalf of the 34,000 jobcentre staff who work in over 740 jobcentres across the country and see about 400,000 people a month. The attacks I have heard on them are completely misplaced.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the Minister give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will continue, because I have heard specific quotes today. I have to defend those people, because I believe they work incredibly hard.

[Chi Onwurah]

They were about you!

[Esther McVey]

No, they were specific quotes used by Members about what advisers had said. Those people in the past year alone have helped record numbers of people into work, and work consistently hard every day, to the best of their abilities, so I want to speak on their behalf.

I will also say that nobody, whoever they are, should be treated shoddily, badly or rudely—I think those were the words used—or as a lesser person in some way because they are on benefits. That is not allowed and should not happen. If it is proved that anybody has done that, they are answerable to me. I will not have people doing that anonymously.

[Ian Lavery]

Is the Minister saying that she is unaware of the fact that people are being treated shoddily and poorly in jobcentres? By the way, nobody here has had a go at anybody other than the people in jobcentres who were treating people like that.

[Esther McVey]

I am trying to follow the logic. Apparently we were not talking about the staff, but there are people who are treating people shoddily, badly and so on; the hon. Gentleman therefore is talking about people who work in jobcentres—[Interruption.] I would like to finish my sentence.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the Minister give way?

[Esther McVey]

Not at this moment, no. When people have been spoken to or treated like that, the people who have done that will be brought to account. I am saying that it is not acceptable that anybody is spoken to in such a manner, irrespective of who they are. I will defend the right of anybody to be spoken to properly and courteously. That is only right, and it is the way I would expect everybody to speak to others.

[Chi Onwurah]

rose—

[Mrs Hodgson]

rose—

[Esther McVey]

I will give way first to the hon. Lady who secured the debate.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I have to say that I have rarely heard such a cowardly defence of a position—attacking the people for whom she, as Minister, is responsible. All of us here made it very clear that this is about the culture. She shakes her head, but I hope that she has some experience of the responsibility associated with management and will therefore take responsibility for the culture that she and her Government have created, and for how people behave in that culture. If she will not do that, she is even less in touch with reality in this country than I thought.

[Esther McVey]

As I said, I take full responsibility, because I would not accept anyone speaking to anyone else, irrespective of who they are, in a discourteous way. Obviously, hon. Members would like to know that, actually, claimant satisfaction has increased under this Government. It has increased in the north-east, and at the moment it stands at 81%. That is only right. We constantly monitor how people are treated and what happens.

I meet with staff, claimants and businesses daily to ensure that we are doing the best for all of them. When we talk about different people—where they have come from, their backgrounds and the various paths that they have trodden—I have always said, “There but for the grace of God go I.” That is something that I would totally live by, and which I think is only right. Anyone may be only one pay packet away from being unemployed, whether owing to redundancy, to falling on hard times or to a family matter. I live by that completely, because all of us here may know family members or members of other people’s families who have fallen on tough times and come to the state for support. It is only right that we support those people as best we can.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She said that she will not stand by anyone in the work force if such cases are proven. Therefore, if any Member can bring evidence to her, will she commit today to looking into those cases? There are probably just a few bad apples among the work force, with the rest of them doing a sterling job.

[Esther McVey]

Absolutely. If anyone comes forward to point out what has happened, the people involved should be brought to task. I would like to think that these are instances of bad apples, because I do not believe that that reflects the 34,000 people who are doing a sterling job, and who have helped so many people into employment—that is their job. They come into the profession because they want to help other people, and it is only right that they do that. As for feeding stories to the media—words such as “workshy” and “scroungers” were used today—I can honestly say that I have never put forward a story like that, and I never will. That serves nobody’s purpose.

We have talked a lot about sanctions. Sanctions have existed since benefits were created. The Oakley review described them as

“a key element of the mutual obligation that underpins both the effectiveness and fairness of the social security system.”

Benefit sanctions provide a vital backdrop in the social security system for jobseekers. That is correct, and I think I heard Members from both sides of the House agree with that. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister must be heard. I know that emotions are running high, but the Minister is replying and it is entirely up to her whether she chooses to give way.

[Esther McVey]

On what happened pre-2010, that was so significantly different from what is happening now. There was widespread inconsistency in decision making, with similar cases treated differently in different jobcentres.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will not; I will proceed a little further. We had to ensure that we did not have different approaches and inconsistencies. We had to ensure that everyone was treated the same and fairly across the country. In 2010, 1.4 million people had spent most of the previous decade trapped on out-of-work benefits, so our mission was to renew the incentives to work and to remove barriers in people’s way and, in so doing that, transform the benefit system for those who were locked out of work but who wanted to work, so that, going forward, we could give them the best help to get them into work.

The latest employment figures nationally and in the north-east show that employment has increased by 1.75 million since the election, and by nearly 600,000 in the past year. In the north-east, it has increased by 32,000. There are a record 30.8 million people in work in the UK and 1.18 million in the north-east. Employment for women in the UK is at a record number of 14.4 million and rate of 68.1%. That has increased by 300,000 in the past year in the UK and in the north-east by 18,000.

Private sector employment has increased by nearly 640,000 in the past year—nearly 2.2 million since the election—and 60,000 in the north-east. We have done that as part of our transformation of the UK as a whole to get it back to working. There are various sources of extra support, such as the £310 million in the north-east for the regional growth fund. There are new and other companies expanding there, such as Siemens and Quorn. There is offshore development, and £20 million for research to create jobs and innovation. That shows that considerable infrastructure investment is going into the north-east.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister please address the issues that we raised about why people are being sanctioned, and say what she will do about it?

[Esther McVey]

Part of the picture—perhaps Opposition Members do not want to hear this—is about why welfare has been changing and what has been happening. How many people are sanctioned? We know that, per month for JSA, the figure is between 5% and 6%, and that for ESA the figure is less than 1%. In the past year, the number of people sanctioned actually decreased. The number of adverse decisions overturned on reconsideration is 12%, and the figure on appeal is 3%.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I repeat that we specifically asked her not to repeat the statistics that she used in previous debates, but to address the issues that we were raising. In these last two minutes, will she say what she will do to ensure both that our constituents are not treated in the ways shown in the examples we have given and that the sanctioning regime is fair? That is not how it is now.

[Esther McVey]

I have been answering those points. Today’s statistics were specifically for the north-east. They show the help and support that we have given to individuals who would have been locked out of the workplace but who were given support to get into work. We have reduced the figures for worklessness and for children living in workless households; all of that is key.

On digital separation, the extra support needed there and how difficult that is for people, one of the key things is to help people who are digitally excluded to be able to use IT, because they will need that not only to claim benefits, but to get a job and a cheaper standard of living. We are providing extra support to enable people to claim benefits, and to benefit them later in life, once they have got a job.

We have provided more support than ever before with training, extra help, work experience and sector-based academies. With that comes a greater commitment from the individual. We have ensured that that is totally personalised: when each person walks through the door, they will get an intense interview with their adviser on making a claim and giving a commitment. Everything that they want to do—their hopes, dreams, ambitions and where they would like to go—is written down and formulated, so that, between the two of them, they have a claimant commitment that they can work from. They get the best out of their time, and we understand what they need so that we can help them. It is a deal between two: those who need a job and those who are giving them the support. That is key: how do we best help that individual to get a job? How do we bring about a culture that is all about support to get people into a job?

Short Let Deregulation (London)

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity at the 11th hour to explain to the Minister the concerns that I am picking up from constituents, residents, community associations and local authorities about the impact, particularly in inner London, of the proposals to deregulate further the rules on short-term lettings.

Residents in my local communities that are particularly affected—in areas where there is already a substantial proportion of private rented accommodation that is very much at the front of this kind of problem—are already under a number of pressures; I will develop that point later on in my speech. They are very anxious about how much that will be extended with further deregulation. I believe that measures can still be taken that can offset those problems for my local residents.

The Government’s logic in extending deregulation is that home owners should be free to take decisions about what they do with their own homes, within some continuing limitations. Of course, no one wants to put in place petty, bureaucratic restrictions. If a home owner wants, for example, to do a home swap when they go on holiday for two or three weeks, or to take advantage of their absence to let their home out for a week or two, they should not be subject to severe restrictions and enforcement action. However, what local authorities will say—particularly the central London authorities—is that they do not seek to enforce against that kind of casual and holiday use, but they do seek to use the existing law to enforce against the significant and growing problem of abuse of short-term lets. What seems reasonable when viewed as cutting red tape for the individual can feel very different when it is scaled up and applied to the residential economy of central London neighbourhoods. That is certainly the conclusion of the residents and amenity societies in Westminster.

Even before the deregulation, those neighbourhoods have been facing this pressure, and local authorities have been feeling the cost of enforcement, as residential neighbourhoods increasingly resemble an extension of the hospitality industry. That can be confirmed by spending a minute or two on home-letting websites such as Airbnb. The simple fact is that there is a strong economic incentive for inner London property owners in particular to turn over their properties to commercial use. Data collected by Westminster council a few months ago demonstrated that hospitality rents are far higher than those that apply to longer-term residential properties. It found that a one-bedroom flat would earn almost £800 a week in the short-term let industry, compared with £440 on average for a longer tenancy—and prices are rising proportionally.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. She mentioned Airbnb, one of the more aggressive marketers. Not a day goes by without constituents writing to me having been asked by this organisation to give their flat or house over. They are worried because they feel that residential areas are effectively turning into hotels, and as a consequence, there are fewer properties in an area where there is already great pressure, and there is also a lot of disruption to their lives.

[Ms Buck]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is exactly the substance of my comments, and I agree with him totally. As I said, a one-bedroom flat could generate £800 a week in the short-term let industry. For a two-bedroom flat, Westminster council estimates that £1,372 a week could be earned, compared with £600 in a residential let. For a three-bedroom flat, £2,660 could be generated, compared with £950 for a longer-term rental, and for a four-bedroom flat, £3,367 could be earned, compared with £1,158. That economic incentive not only reduces the attractiveness of longer-term residential letting, but distorts rents elsewhere and reduces affordability still further.

Central London, and particularly Westminster, has traditionally been the largest private rental market in the country, meeting a growing need for rental homes offering accommodation to different groups of people. That includes people who want to move to London for employment, sometimes on short-term contracts; students and young people who are starting out in life and saving for a home; and people in housing need who are unable to access a declining stock of social housing. We need a healthy private rented sector. Even if that sector is less secure than owner-occupation or social renting, and in many cases, less attractive, it is none the less an important element of the residential mix in central London.

The growth of the unplanned and deregulated hospitality economy is already eroding the ability to provide homes. Indeed, the purpose behind the original legislation that the Government are seeking to change was

“to protect London’s existing housing supply, for the benefit of permanent residents, by giving London boroughs greater and easier means of planning control to prevent the conversion of family homes into short-term lets.”

Around 3,000 properties are estimated to be in use as short-term accommodation in Westminster alone. That figure is almost half as much again as the total number of Westminster’s homeless households who are in temporary accommodation, who are of course in many cases increasingly being forced out of the borough in which they live. In some cases, they have lived in the borough for decades, even their whole lives. I am not suggesting that there is a neat match between the two kinds of accommodation, but the figures are striking.

Westminster council’s estimates show a loss of housing stock equivalent to seven years’ worth of housing supply. That figure is simply extrapolated from the 7,300 enforcement actions taken with regard to the alleged unauthorised use of property for short lets since the millennium. Further deregulation can only add to the loss of homes to commercial use, as it becomes easier and less risky to change to commercial use, and harder for the local council to detect abuse. It cannot be a coincidence that Camden council found 923 flats being offered on Airbnb in October last year. That figure is up 37% on the previous three months, so over the months that followed the Government’s introduction of that clause in the Deregulation Bill, the amount of property advertised as lets of this kind has soared.

What an irony it is that at the very moment when the Government are seeking further deregulation, other cities such as Paris are looking into tightening regulation to protect their city. We are going in the opposite direction. The Parisian authorities are so worried about the drain on residential property that they are enacting measures to bring the situation under further control.

It is not only the loss of accommodation in the longer-term residential sector that is a concern; even without short-term lets, the private rental market has a downside, which is the massive turnover of population, with a one-in-three churn in the electoral register in Westminster annually. A short-term-lets economy exacerbates that trend dramatically. As Westminster council has said, there is a

“proven negative impact…arising from short-term letting, as longer-term...residents are forced out, the consequences of which include an increase in anti-social behaviour, reduced security and a higher fear of crime for permanent residents in the vicinity of properties used for short-term let purposes.”

The 18 Westminster amenity societies, in a joint representation, added:

“Short-term letting is causing a major problem for some permanent residents in a number of these amenity societies, particularly in cases where short-term lets are regularly made. There can be real problems of anti-social behaviour (and even intimidation), noise, refuse collection problems and similar issues. The Council’s dedicated ward budget, which reflects the wishes of a particular ward community, has in three cases set aside funds to tackle the problem.”

To that can be added further concerns, including inconsistent standards within the hospitality sector, potentially leading to undercutting on health and safety standards; the lack of security checks on guests; and the potential for fraud, including housing benefit fraud.

The findings of the London Councils survey of local authorities are therefore unsurprising: 92% of responding boroughs said that short-term lets caused problems with noise and nuisance; 92% said that the issue led to a loss of permanent accommodation; 75% said that it caused a loss of community identity; 58% said that it caused a heightened fear of crime; and 25% said that it increased crime and fire safety risks. All the findings were confirmed by local residents replying to a survey that I undertook in selected blocks of flats in high-risk areas. With only a few exceptions—there were some people who felt strongly that home owners should be able to do as they wished with their property—residents reported concerns. One Lancaster Gate resident described her experience in a mansion block of flats:

“People are turning up and buzzing the doorbells for keys to various flats”

all the time. She said that there are three, four, five or six people to a flat and they stay for only three or four days. She said:

“I think I am now living in a hotel because of the groups of people coming in and out the whole time...It is harder for us to know our neighbours and there is no community cohesion.”

A Maida Vale resident, also from a block of mansion flats, talked of the

“constant stream of strangers in my block, leading to an increased risk of burglary, noise and more.”

Another lady from Lancaster Gate described all-night parties and

“damaged communal areas with walls scratched and rubbish left everywhere”,

and a resident of Queensway said:

“Long-term leaseholders in blocks of flats find that short-term residents do not respect the communal areas of the building”

and

“the majority of flats are sub-let...it needs constant vigilance to keep civilised standards in a block I have lived in for forty years.”

[Mr Slaughter]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again; she is very generous. She has identified clearly the problem. It is with mansion flat blocks, and her constituency has even more of those than mine does. Many long-term residents, a lot of whom are now elderly, simply want the quiet enjoyment of their own home, but find themselves living in a highly disruptive atmosphere, often with groups of young people who do not take care of the property because they are there for days or weeks at a time and who are making their lives a misery.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a common theme. This often, but not exclusively, affects older residents, who describe their experience as one of being completely stranded in what used to be a neighbourly block, where they knew people, felt a sense of security and had the quiet enjoyment of their homes. Now, they find the constant movement of people in and out very bewildering and alienating, and find that it causes or is linked to a number of practical problems.

Another resident wrote to me to say that

“this will increase problems related to noise and nuisance for Westminster residents from the short-let tenants. It’s already happening within my own apartment block, and I’ve had to complain to Westminster Council 24-hour noise hotline due to loud parties and excessive noise every week from short-let tenants in my block. This is making me want to sell my home and move to a safer, quieter neighbourhood outside of Westminster.”

Of course, none of this means that all visitors cause problems or that all landlords, whether professional or casual, are careless of the consequences of their letting. That is far from the case. It is the cumulative impact and the nature of the high turnover in the visitor and tourist economy that is often the problem; it is not the behaviour of any single person or group of people. These blocks of flats—the properties are largely flats—were not designed to be part of the hospitality economy; they were designed to be part of a residential community, and they have changed.

In addition to the impact on residents and neighbours, Westminster council—I am sure that this is also true of other local authorities—is investigating some 1,600 properties for violations of the short-term-let rules with a staff of four, at a time of massive reductions in funding and staffing. Some councillors are having to use ward budgets for this purpose—I do not think that is what ward budgets were intended for—as complaints have risen. There have been 360 complaints in the last 12 months.

If resources were going on enforcement action against the home owners renting out their home for a few weeks while they are away—against the very people whom the Government claim the deregulation is aimed at helping and relieving the pressure on—money could be saved, but of course that is not the case. Enforcement action is aimed at the de facto commercial landlord, and the new deregulated environment will make that harder and costlier to pursue, with a requirement to meet a higher burden of proof. The reality is that a bigger burden will fall on councils that are increasingly ill equipped to deal with it.

The Government seem to accept the need to limit the extent to which professional landlords can take advantage of the opportunities offered by higher incomes from inner-London lettings; otherwise, presumably, they would abandon all restrictions, rather than simply change the limit to permit 90-day letting under the Deregulation Bill. Unfortunately, that is likely to work better in theory than in practice. As the Covent Garden Community Association explained to me:

“Some amateur landlords are causing just as many problems. Not only will it be very difficult to prove who is a genuine resident but short lets even by genuine residents can be very disruptive and insecure...we are hearing complaints about this sort of thing all the time now, with an estimated 200 flats in Covent Garden alone available to rent by the night on Airbnb at any one time.”

I say to the Minister that there is still an opportunity to use the Deregulation Bill to meet the legitimate and indeed cross-party concerns raised by civic and amenity societies and local authorities in central London. By amending it to give individual London boroughs the right to override any relaxation of planning requirements for short lets that the Secretary of State might introduce, and by making it clear that local authorities could restrict lettings in respect of residential properties that were not the sole or main residence of the lessor, many of the risks could be offset. The Minister should take that opportunity.

We think that it would also be useful to consider the findings of the review of property conditions in the private rented sector before proceeding. It would be useful if the Minister could provide further information on that. Finally, we expect regulations to be tabled, and they offer greater scope for local flexibility in response to what are obviously varying pressures.

However, local authorities and the communities that make up their areas need to be listened to. In the spirit of localism, to which we all pay tribute, the Government need to understand that it is local authorities that understand their communities, and this is a particularly excellent example of where decisions need to be taken closer to the ground, balancing a wish to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy against the pressing need to sustain healthy, safe and vibrant neighbourhoods, even and perhaps especially when these are on the fringes of the hospitality heart of the world’s greatest city.

16:16

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

The Government, through the legislation we are considering, are taking forward proposals that will tackle out-of-date legislation from the 1970s. Section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 makes it illegal for London residents to rent out their homes to visitors on a short-term basis. Londoners who want to rent out their homes for less than three months are required to apply for planning permission from the council. That burden does not apply anywhere else in the country. We want just to update that legislation, to give London residents the freedom to let their homes on a short-term, temporary basis without the unnecessary cost and bureaucracy of applying for planning permission. We also want to ensure that we maintain the important provisions for the protection of London’s housing supply and residential amenity. That goes directly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), and I will come back to that in a few moments.

Section 25 provides that the use of a

“building, or any part of a building”

for “temporary sleeping accommodation” for less than 90 consecutive nights is a change of use, for which planning permission is required. London local authorities can take enforcement action against an unauthorised change of use. As a result, London residents failing to secure planning permission face a possible fine of up to £20,000 for each offence.

Clause 33 of the Deregulation Bill grants a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of short-term letting. Our intention is that regulations will set out the circumstances in which temporary sleeping accommodation in London would not require planning permission. It will also allow for the exclusion of particular residential premises, and residential premises in particular areas, from any relaxation of section 25.

We all know that the internet is creating a new world in which to live and do business. It has made it much easier for people to rent out their property; references have been made to Airbnb, for example. It allows residents to supplement their incomes and offer new experiences for consumers. Last summer, nearly 5 million overseas visitors came to the capital. Some of those visitors, as well as British residents, want to experience London as a local. That means staying with Londoners who live in London permanently, or in their homes while the resident is away on holiday. We know that thousands of London properties and rooms are currently advertised on such websites. However, each of them is potentially in breach of section 25 as it stands. There is uncertainty for householders as to whether their local authority will take planning enforcement action against them for unauthorised short-term letting.

[Ms Buck]

Does the Minister have evidence of local authorities taking enforcement action and fining home owners who simply let out their home for two weeks here and there, perhaps for a home swap or something similar?

[Brandon Lewis]

That is the point I was making. There is an uncertainty for residents if they do not know whether any given local authority would take action. If the local authority is not using that power, however, it will not miss it after the change in the legislation.

Planning legislation for the capital needs to catch up with our 21st-century way of living. Every year, thousands of visitors enjoy their holidays in Londoners’ homes. Such short-term letting already supports major events, such as tennis at Wimbledon. Our proposals will not only benefit London’s strong tourism industry by expanding the competitively priced accommodation offer; it will allow families to earn some extra income by making their home or spare room available to visitors. It offers an alternative to hotels and guest houses, so it can support the wider tourism industry. In addition, such accommodation helps those who are temporarily working in the capital or searching for a place to live by expanding the pool of competitively priced accommodation.

Residential homes provide a type of accommodation that is different from the average hotel or guest house. Renting a room in a person’s home, or renting their home while they are away, provides an opportunity to travel and live like a local, and it caters for a different type of client. Websites advertising householders’ rooms and homes indicate that a wide variety of accommodation is available in different locations, many of which are outside the central hotel zones.

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not think anybody objects to people renting out rooms in their homes. In any event, such people will not be caught at the moment. I do not think anybody objects to people renting out their property for Wimbledon or when they are away on holiday. The problem is the commercial, organised letting of large numbers of flats in single blocks, which effectively turns residential blocks into hotels or “aparthotels”. That is what we want local discretion to prevent.

[Brandon Lewis]

I suspect, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to support the Government’s proposals. If he looks back at my opening remarks, I think that that will deal with some of his concerns. I will go a bit further in a second.

London is a great city, as the hon. Member for Westminster North has outlined. Our proposed step forward gives Londoners the opportunity to be part of a huge industry and supplement their income. We want to be leaders, not followers, and we want to open up our great global city even further. Where other cities and countries may wish to shut down, we want to move forward.

I want to make it clear that through our reforms we want only to give London residents the freedom that is enjoyed in the rest of the country: to let out their homes on a short-term, temporary basis without the unnecessary cost and bureaucracy of applying for planning permission. We do not seek to provide new opportunities for short-term letting on a permanent or commercial basis. We fully recognise that London’s homes should not be lost to investors who will use them exclusively for short-term lets, and our reforms will not enable that. Through regulations, we want to provide certainty and consistency for residents in all London local authority areas. We want them to know when householders will be permitted temporarily to short-term let their property without the need for planning permission. The regulations we will introduce will clarify for London residents what is permissible, so they can be confident they are within the law. We will look to strike an appropriate balance between allowing freedom for occasional short-term letting by residents, as well as—this goes directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter)—maintaining the important provisions of the existing legislation to protect London’s housing stock.

I know there are concerns that our deregulation of section 25 could lead to a loss of permanent housing stock for Londoners at a time when London needs more new homes. However, as we seek only to allow residents to let out their homes while they are away, those properties will not be lost to the short-term rental market from London’s permanent housing stock. We will not be providing new opportunities for short-term letting on a permanent or commercial basis.

[Ms Buck]

This is the heart of the worry. If it is difficult now for local authorities to enforce against properties they believe are part of the short-term letting sector when one merely has to prove that that is the case, will it not be far more difficult to enforce when the local authority has to demonstrate that the property has not been let for more than 90 days?

[Brandon Lewis]

Our proposals are designed to ensure that we bring things up to date, which is why I have said that we want to make sure that we get the regulations right. It is important that we move forward and allow people to have the right flexibility. We must not be scared away from doing the right thing because something has been done incorrectly in the past. We want to move this forward and get it right for the future. We must recognise the world in which we now live, rather than harking back to something from the past that did not work.

As at present, it will still be open to property owners to seek planning permission from their local authority if they want to change the use of their premises. It will also, therefore, remain for local planning authorities to determine whether an unauthorised change of use has taken place and whether they should take planning enforcement action in the public interest, so that protection remains.

It has been suggested that our proposals might lead to an increased loss of amenity for London residents as a result of people’s behaviour. Reference was made earlier to antisocial behaviour in neighbouring accommodation on a short-term basis. Our proposed reforms will do nothing to weaken the duty on a local authority to investigate such complaints of statutory nuisance from people who live in its area, or to take action against those responsible.

I know there are concerns that people who currently short-term let property through internet sites are somehow permitted to circumvent not only section 25 but other vital measures, such as health and safety regulations and fire orders. That is not the case. I can confirm that our proposed change to the legislation will not provide a short-cut to important protections, beyond allowing householders temporarily to short-term let their property without applying for planning permission. Clause 33 of the Deregulation Bill provides a regulation-making power. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative process for statutory instruments following Royal Assent, which will enable Parliament to scrutinise the detail of the proposed deregulation. We recognise that there is considerable interest in ensuring that we get the changes right. We will continue to work closely with the London local authorities to ensure that the measures brought forward meet householders’ aspirations of temporarily letting out their homes or spare rooms but that, importantly, they retain the key purpose of section 25, which is to keep London’s homes for those who live and work permanently in London.

16:26

Sitting suspended.

NHS Funding (York and North Yorkshire)

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I am delighted once again to have secured an opportunity to address the important issue of health care funding in York and North Yorkshire and, ultimately, the formula used to calculate the per patient funding from which clinical commissioning groups—and, before them, the primary care trusts—derive their money. Other North Yorkshire and York MPs and I have been campaigning on this issue since 2010, and I am delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) are here to support me this afternoon. I strongly believe that the nettle has to be grasped on what I accept is a difficult issue, albeit one that cannot continue to be ignored.

The quality of local health care is of the utmost importance to many, if not all, people because, ultimately, it is something upon which we all come to rely at some point in our life. Health care provision is a measure of the local community’s economic well-being and happiness, and it is in our moral and economic interest to ensure the widest availability of health services, the shortest waiting lists and that the most impressive health outcomes are available to all, which I stress. Ensuring such health care standards for all is truly one of the Government’s most essential roles. Indeed, I am sure that all hon. Members from North Yorkshire, both those who are here and those who are not, will agree that health-related concerns crop up frequently in our constituency mail. That is certainly the case in my constituency, as I am sure it is in yours, Mrs Riordan. As such, I welcome the £2 billion of health care spending promised by the Government for this financial year in the autumn statement. That injection of cash has led to every area’s budget increasing ahead of inflation in the recently released allocations. It is for such reasons that I believe the Government can stand proudly on their NHS funding record.

I have called this debate, however, to address the fair allocation of funding and the impact on health care delivery due to a funding formula that works to my CCG’s disadvantage. In a previous debate on this issue I outlined my concern that the now-abolished primary care trusts would pass on their historical debts to the new CCGs. Vale of York CCG inherited a deficit of some £7 million in April 2013 due to the current funding formula. NHS England has acknowledged that the previous York and North Yorkshire PCT received approximately £17 million less than the allocation should have provided for the local population demographic because the funding is phased in over time. Although I am pleased to say that Vale of York CCG has cleared the deficit it inherited, it is still struggling to offer many services that constituents have a right to expect. Allocations made for the newly formed CCG in 2013-14 were a straight uplift of the historical allocations, which resulted in a postcode lottery for certain health care services in my area.

Why does Vale of York CCG, in particular, receive such a poor allocation? The Government decide how much money should be allocated to each CCG. Officials begin by dividing the total budget by the number of people living in each respective area. Money is then added or taken away to account for local characteristics, including the proportion of people claiming benefits, the teenage pregnancy rate and the number of people who leave education early. That is where the problem lies. Of the 10 characteristics, nine reduce the amount of money allocated to our area. That disparity in the allocation is due to the funding formula failing to take account of both the rural nature of the region and, most importantly, age. Instead, the current formula provides a significant weighting that awards additional funds to areas with high levels of social deprivation. The allocations for 2015-16 have now been announced and, once again, Vale of York CCG has received, by a substantial margin, the lowest per capita funding of all the CCGs in the area. Although I recognise that health needs are generally greater in more deprived areas, the current formula provides far too much weighting for deprivation and insufficient weightings for age and rurality.

Age and rurality are even greater problems in my constituency and in other North Yorkshire constituencies because York and North Yorkshire have the highest proportion of over-85s in the north, but Vale of York still receives among the lowest funding per head of any northern CCG. The area also has a high number of people in care homes, with a typical GP practice informing me that up to 50% of home visits are taken up by care home residents, who account for only 2% of patients on the practice’s roll. The distribution of health care costs is strongly age dependent, and it is difficult to argue against that. On average, it costs approximately eight times more for the NHS to care for a patient over 85 than for a patient in their 40s, which, of course, is due to elderly people being more likely to have additional health problems. We are all living longer, which is obviously a good thing, but we are living longer with more complicated conditions. Age is increasingly becoming a defining factor in health care funding.

Alongside age, the formula does not account for the additional cost of providing health care services in sparsely populated rural areas. Those additional costs are reflected, among other things, in longer average journey times for ambulances and community health staff, such as health visitors. There is also a need to provide additional smaller hospitals in rural areas in order to retain accessible and essential services for those communities.

The distortion in the funding formula has led to certain areas being awash with money, which in the past has sadly led to well publicised vanity health care projects, whereas York and North Yorkshire have consistently struggled to balance the books, resulting in their continuing to take difficult decisions on health care provision. Those decisions have had a massive impact on the quality of life of many of my constituents, hampering their ability to work and affecting their careers.

To my mind, Vale of York CCG does not provide some procedures due to the funding formula. I have been contacted by many constituents over the past few years regarding their inability to receive pain-relief injections free on the NHS. I have been actively campaigning for the removal of those charges for all who require such injections. I am sorry to say that the charges are symptomatic of the postcode lottery due to the current funding formula. The CCG reviewed its position on pain-relief injections and concluded that the injections are not clinically beneficial, which is why it decided to retain the charge, but I would argue that the injections can dramatically improve people’s quality of life and should be offered free of charge. Pain-relief injections are offered free of charge by many other CCGs across the country and across our region.

Alongside pain-relief injections, another procedure that has not been available through the Vale of York CCG is IVF treatment. In fact, for a long time the Vale of York was the only health authority in the country not to offer any free IVF treatment. I know from many constituents who have contacted me about the issue that infertility has an awful effect on people’s lives, causing stress and depression, and with the potential to tear otherwise healthy relationships apart. It must be extremely frustrating for someone to know that treatments are available just a few miles away but are inaccessible to them; nevertheless, that has been the reality in many parts of my constituency for a number of years.

I was pleased to hear the CCG announce in late December that it will now offer at least one cycle of IVF. Although that falls well short of the three cycles recommended by NICE, it is a welcome step in the right direction.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the start of his speech and congratulate him on securing this debate. This may tempt him toward a conclusion, but does he agree that spending more on primary care in the Vale of York and other North Yorkshire CCGs would keep people out of hospital, which would obviously be to the greater good of the health service and those living in North Yorkshire?

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Given the rurality of the whole of North Yorkshire, which I mentioned at the start of my speech, we know that providing health care services is difficult and expensive. That is part of the argument for why the funding formula must be adjusted. At the same time, it must be more cost-effective to deliver services in people’s homes and offer more accessibility. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend will know from the situation in her constituency, it is important that we also keep small hospitals open and accessible. I know that that is an important issue in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. This debate is all about ensuring that we have a fair formula so that we can deliver those services.

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

On that point, when we are here in London it is difficult for people fully to comprehend the distances involved for both patients and their families in North Yorkshire. The local provision from the hospital in Ripon and Castleberg hospital in Settle in my constituency is valued really highly by families and patients alike.

[Julian Sturdy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is fundamental to a fair health care system and to fair health care for all. Through this debate I want to show how important that is for our area. We need a fair funding system that can deliver health care across not only York and North Yorkshire but the whole country. We must ensure that areas such as York and North Yorkshire do not suffer while others benefit. That is why we must get the funding formula revised.

Returning to IVF, the treatment now offered by Vale of York CCG does not help those who have been denied access to treatment, as have many people in my constituency over many years. They have either paid thousands of pounds privately or are now past the eligible age criteria for access to IVF. Despite that welcome news from the CCG, people living in our area had no access at all to IVF treatment for some time.

Alongside certain procedures that have been denied to many of my constituents, another area that has really felt the strain is A and E, which has hit the headlines in the past 24 hours. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s £700 million increase to the NHS budget to deal with well-known winter pressures. That shows the Government’s foresight: they knew that the issue was looming and so put that money in. Nevertheless, altering the funding formula would also help areas that are constrained by their budgets, because A and E funding ultimately comes through CCGs.

Finally, I want to turn to the controversial issue of clinical exceptionality and the impact that it has had on several of my constituents. Where a treatment is not routinely commissioned by the local health authority, clinicians must submit individual funding requests on behalf of their patients, which are then decided by a special panel. In order to achieve funding, the GP is required to prove that their patient is clinically exceptional from the referenced population. Or, to put it more plainly, they must be suffering more than other sufferers of the same condition.

That is, just as it sounds, an extremely difficult task for already busy GPs. It also results in an extremely tragic situation wherein a small group of people who suffer with a rare condition slip through the net and do not receive the treatment that their doctors feel that they need. Their condition is too rare for the particular treatment to be routinely commissioned, but not rare enough to prove that they are clinically exceptional and therefore eligible for individual funding.

One young constituent of mine suffers with severe gastroparesis, as well as diabetes. His devastating condition effectively prohibits his stomach from doing the job that it is supposed to do. As a result, he feels almost permanently nauseous and vomits up to 30 times a day. His clinicians believe that the most effective treatment for him is to have a gastro-pacemaker fitted at a cost of £25,000. That may seem like a lot of money, but as my constituent is unable to work and his mother has had to leave work to care for him, the cost to the state is far greater each year. The alternative treatments that he currently receives, such as morphine, also come at great cost to his health and well-being.

I have been working for some time on behalf of my constituent and alongside his clinicians to try to obtain the necessary funding for the treatment he so badly needs. The most frustrating thing for him is to know that other patients under the same clinicians, who do not suffer as badly as he does, are being accepted for funding because they live in areas that do much better out of the existing formula than York. Sadly, I fear that the lack of funding in our area is causing the individual funding request panel to interpret the rules of clinical exceptionality much more rigidly than our neighbours in, for example, Leeds.

My nine-year-old constituent Ben Foy, of Strensall, has also been a victim of the deeply unsatisfactory situation. Ben suffers with narcolepsy and cataplexy after having the swine flu vaccine, and he is known to fall asleep suddenly up to 20 times a day. Along with Ben’s family and clinicians, I have tried numerous times to obtain funding for sodium oxybate to treat his condition, but we were repeatedly told that we had fallen short of proving his clinical exceptionality.

To sum up, as it stands the funding formula is clearly causing a disparity in how health care is delivered across Yorkshire, as well as across the country. It is imperative that we move toward a funding formula that gives much greater weight to age and that recognises rurality and its associated higher cost of health care provision, while scaling back on the amount given for deprivation. We cannot continue to have, as was previously the case with PCTs, CCGs in the deprived areas of Yorkshire and the Humber receiving substantially more per capita and consistently under-spending their allocation, at the expense of CCGs in areas such as mine. Time and again, we are seeing patients being refused or pushed away from treatment because of the funding formula.

Ultimately, I accept that it is a difficult decision for the Government, the Department of Health and the Secretary of State. Along with colleagues, I have met the Secretary of State and Ministers numerous times to discuss the issue. As I say, I know that it is a difficult decision, but I fundamentally feel that we have protected the NHS budget during the past five years and we have seen more money go into the NHS over that time, which is the right thing to have done, but now we must ensure that we have a funding formula that backs that investment up and can deliver a fair health care system for all.

16:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (George Freeman)]

Thank you, Mrs Riordan, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate, with the support of our hon. Friends the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), and for Malton (Miss McIntosh), and I congratulate them all on their contributions to the debate. I am very aware of the personal interest of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer in health matters affecting his constituents, and of course his interest in NHS allocations, including this question of fairness for rural areas.

I will also take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the North Yorkshire MPs who have worked so hard together on this issue since 2010: my hon. Friends the Members for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), for Skipton and Ripon, for Thirsk and Malton, and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), the hon. Member for York Central (Sir Hugh Bayley), my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). I know they have had one meeting, if not more, with the Secretary of State for Health, and as a group they have been an effective and forceful lobby on this important issue, which we in the Department of Health all take seriously.

Of course, the whole House will agree that good-quality patient care is something we all expect, regardless of which part of the country, or indeed which county, we live in. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer has signalled, the question is how we work within the overall NHS budget—I welcome his acknowledgement of the Government’s increasing that budget—to determine how funding for each area should be assessed and decided. He made the key point: that it must be done in a way that is fair to all citizens and patients, wherever and whoever they are, and that where someone lives should not in any way unreasonably distort their access to health care. It is the NHS—the national health service—and those initials should mean something.

My hon. Friend will be aware that I, too, come from a very rural constituency—Mid Norfolk—where many of the issues he has identified chime, including ambulance response times and the extra time that clinical staff and patients take to travel around. Of course, there are other issues and problems, which he has highlighted: hidden deprivation, ageing and elderly populations, and isolation and loneliness compounding conditions such as dementia, making it harder to set up initiatives such as dementia cafés.

Health funding is an issue I have taken an interest in for a long time. Years ago, I did some work in County Durham to unpack the index of local conditions and the standard assessments in local government spending. When we unpack those formulae, we discover that those used to allocate funding for deprivation are all inner-city indicators: they are all about high-rise blocks, the percentage of black and minority ethnic people, and density. They are all urban indicators, as if only urban areas really experience deprivation. So my hon. Friend is raising an important point, which goes to the heart of much of the way that Whitehall allocates funding.

I will say something about how allocations within the NHS are made under the arrangements we have put in place. As my hon. Friend is aware, NHS England is the independent organisation responsible for managing the budget and the day-to-day workings of the NHS. It supports clinical commissioning groups—the local groups of GPs and other health professionals who commission NHS services on behalf of their patients. To make sure that the taxpayer has a say in how that money is spent, the Government provide direction and strategic ambitions for the NHS through a document called “the mandate”. The current 2014-15 mandate was reviewed and updated in December. There are eight key areas, which are about making general improvements; the Government deliberately leave the NHS free to make decisions about how these objectives should be met. They are: helping people to live well for longer; managing ongoing physical and mental health conditions; helping people to recover from episodes of ill health or injury; making sure that people experience better care, and integrated care; providing safer care, with a greater emphasis on patient safety; promoting NHS innovation; supporting the NHS to play a broader role in society; and making better use of our health resources.

NHS England has been given £98.7 billion this year, rising to £101 billion in 2015-16, to achieve the objectives in the mandate. I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the extra £2 billion that the Secretary of State recently announced. NHS England has the responsibility to ensure that that money is well spent.

The first thing to say on the financial aspect of the mandate is that we have protected NHS funding in this Parliament, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. In 2014-15, all CCGs received a funding increase matching inflation. Furthermore, like all CCGs in England, North Yorkshire CCGs will benefit from the £2 billion of additional funding announced in the autumn statement. As I say, those CCG allocations and the formula used to decide what they should be are the responsibility of NHS England. NHS England itself commissions some services directly, including all primary care, as well as making allocations to individual CCGs. So these allocations to CCGs, although they are crucial, are only one part of a broader picture. In making those allocations, NHS England relies on advice from the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. As my hon. Friend will be aware, ACRA provides advice on the share of available resources provided to each CCG, in order to support equal access for equal need, as specified in the mandate.

NHS England does not set income on an equal “cost per head” basis across the whole country. Instead, allocations follow an assessment of the expected need for health services in an area, and funds are distributed in line with that, which means that areas with a high health need, including rural areas, should receive more money per head. There have sometimes been suggestions that a single per capita payment should be made across all CCGs, but I am not sure that that would not in fact lead to further discrepancies. As my hon. Friend will be fully aware, the key question is what overall weighting should be given to a range of factors, including age, disability, rurality and disease prevalence. As he himself acknowledged, there is no simple answer that would please everyone; this process requires the making of difficult judgments.

Without knowing that background, it can sometimes be hard for people to understand what are misleadingly presented as huge anomalies in allocations to CCGs. In the Vale of York, the funding is £1,067 per head; in my constituency of Mid Norfolk, it is £1,050; and in central Manchester, an urban area with an urban CCG, it is £1,085. I appreciate that those small differences add up over large populations, but they are not huge variations. The objective is to ensure a consistent supply of health services across the country, with health funding following —as best the system can map it—health need. That is one of the reasons why the data steps that we are putting in place are so important to allow us to monitor disease and health need.

NHS England has reviewed the funding formula and made welcome changes that take into account three important factors in driving health care need: population growth, deprivation and the impact of an ageing population. That should go some way towards helping to address the points my hon. Friend made.

NHS England now believes, and tells us, that it has a funding formula that sets recurrent allocations to CCGs more accurately and fairly, which is what the formula is supposed to do. However, I welcome the scrutiny that my hon. Friend and other colleagues from North Yorkshire are rightly insisting that it be put under.

By reflecting changes in population around the country and better targeting of pockets of deprivation, the NHS should be able to offer the best services to patients where they need them. I know there is a perception in North Yorkshire that the area is relatively underfunded. However, the NHS in North Yorkshire has benefited from increased funding, and when the Vale of York CCG’s funding is compared to that of other CCGs across the country, it is evident that it is not a significant outlier in terms of either funding per head of population or the level of funding relative to the formula. I appreciate that those are average figures; my hon. Friend will know better than I do the specific details of his own constituency.

At a time of continued pressure on the public finances, the additional funding we have provided for the NHS underlines the priority that this Government place on it. It means that the NHS will continue to benefit from stable, real-terms increases in funding, which will allow us and NHS England to get those formulae more and more accurate. Next year, the recurrent allocations of all CCGs in North Yorkshire will grow by 1.94%, an increase of almost £17 million. I am delighted that these increases will ensure that CCGs, including those in North Yorkshire, can continue to meet ever-growing demands for services, while investing in new services.

As time is short, with my hon. Friend’s permission perhaps I could write to him on the specific points he raised about back pain and IVF.

[Miss McIntosh]

I have a very simple question. Obviously, we as Back Benchers scrutinise the Department of Health, but who scrutinises and monitors NHS England?

[George Freeman]

As Ministers, we are responsible and ultimately accountable to Parliament for that. However, I am conscious of the time, so perhaps I could pick that point up in a letter to my hon. Friend.

As I said, I welcome the attention my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer and other North Yorkshire MPs are bringing to this issue, and I hope I have signalled that I consider it a substantive concern. Citizens in this country, rural or urban, demand and expect a national health service—rightly so, because they have contributed to it—and they expect national access on a fair basis. The structure we have put in place is really about giving NHS England the clinical freedom to ensure that funding decisions are made on the right basis. No system will be perfect, but as Ministers we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the system we have is as accountable and transparent as possible, and to providing the security of funding to allow that process to be pursued.

I know from my own experience in County Durham and in my Norfolk constituency that these are important issues. It is about ensuring that our citizens in rural areas get equal access to health services. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer and other colleagues are doing exactly the right thing in raising this issue. I will happily address in writing the points I have not had time to address this afternoon. I look forward to writing to colleagues with more detailed answers to the specific points they have raised.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Written Statements

Wednesday 7 January 2015

Forced Labour Convention

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

The Forced Labour Convention (the convention) is one of eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). In June the ILO agreed a protocol and set of recommendations to supplement the convention, with support from the UK Government.

On 12 September, the European Commission proposed that Council decisions should be adopted to authorise member states to ratify the ILO protocol, in the interest of the European Union, with regard to matters related to judicial co-operation in criminal matters and with regard to matters related to social policy.

The Government do not agree that the EU has any exclusive competence in the area covered by the protocol. The Government have therefore decided not to opt in to the Council decision covering matters related to judicial co-operation.

The UK is determined to tackle the horrific crime of modern slavery, and intends to ratify the protocol to the Forced Labour Convention.

[HCWS173]

Hatfield Colliery

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I want to update the House on matters concerning Hatfield Colliery Partnership Ltd.

The directors of Hatfield Colliery Partnership Ltd (HCPL) approached the Government in November 2014 to report that, due to a combination of unfavourable coal prices, exchange rates and production issues, the viability of the business was in doubt. Having exhausted all other options for securing investment, HCPL requested financial support from Government.

The taxpayer would face significant costs and liabilities in the event of an immediate insolvency of HCPL, principally relating to safe closure costs for the mine, redundancy and unpaid tax liabilities. Considering this, the taxpayer is better served by supporting a managed closure of the mine.

I can therefore announce that the Government have agreed to provide a short-term commercial loan of £8 million available for drawing down in tranches subject to performance, to support the company’s managed closure plan. The first tranche (in the sum of £2 million) of this loan was remitted to HCPL on 31 December 2014. This short-term loan will provide time for further consideration of the case for a longer term loan to allow HCPL to continue operating until 2016. We expect the loan to be paid back in full.

[HCWS172]