House of Commons
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
1. What recent progress has been made on implementation of the Stormont House Agreement; and if she will make a statement.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
4. What progress has been made on implementation of the Stormont House Agreement.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
11. What progress has been made on implementation of the Stormont House Agreement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will first offer my condolences, and those of my colleagues in the Government, in relation to the tragedy that occurred in Berkeley which took the lives of five Irish students. The pain of that loss is felt across the UK and Ireland.
The Government are making progress on their obligations under the Stormont House agreement. We have legislated for corporation tax devolution and we expect to introduce a Bill soon on new structures on the past. I urge the Northern Ireland political parties to deliver on their side of the agreement, including welfare reform and passing a sustainable budget.
Andrew Gwynne
I would like to associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments.
Many young people in Northern Ireland have been given the opportunity to build a shared and integrated future through educational programmes for which there are substantial resources under the Stormont House agreement. Now that a waiting game is being played as the parties in Stormont must agree on other matters, will the Secretary of State update the House on the status of those initiatives?
Mrs Villiers
An important part of the financial package offered by the UK Government under the Stormont House agreement includes £500 million to support shared and integrated education as a crucial means of building reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The financial package is of course contingent on the Stormont House agreement being implemented. The UK Government think this is one of the main reasons why we need to press ahead with the welfare provisions and the sustainable budget. It would be a huge setback for Northern Ireland to lose the rest of the Stormont House agreement, including the valuable funding for shared and integrated education.
Andrew Stephenson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the implementation of the Stormont House agreement is the only way to get things back on track in Northern Ireland, and that the Government should continue to do all they can to achieve that?
Mrs Villiers
I do agree. We are working hard and the Executive are making a degree of progress with a number of their obligations under the agreement, but it is vital that welfare reform, which was agreed in Stormont Castle and Stormont House, is implemented. It is a good deal for Northern Ireland. The reformed system provides real help for vulnerable people and rewards work. It is a better system than the one it replaces. Under Stormont Castle, the five political parties agreed top-ups from the block grant that would give Northern Ireland the most generous welfare system in the United Kingdom.
Suella Fernandes
As has been mentioned, the Stormont House agreement contained a financial package of up to £2 billion of additional spending power for the Northern Ireland Executive. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that represented a substantial commitment by the Government to Northern Ireland which, should the agreement not be implemented, could be in jeopardy?
Mrs Villiers
It would indeed be in jeopardy, which is one of the main reasons why it is very important for the Northern Ireland Executive to pass a budget that works. That will be impossible without the implementation of the welfare provisions. It is incumbent on every Administration worldwide to live within their means. The consequences of denying the deficit and spending money without regard to the consequences are extremely negative for front-line public services, which is why getting the Stormont House agreement back on track is essential if we are to continue to ensure public service provision is of high quality in Northern Ireland and vulnerable groups are protected.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Everyone in Northern Ireland and further afield agrees that the reason the Stormont House agreement is not being implemented is the failure of Sinn Féin and the Social Democratic and Labour party to live up to what they agreed back in December, and to implement what they agreed and signed up to. Will the Secretary of State accept that this is now costing Northern Ireland £2 million a week in terms of loss to the block grant? That is hitting vulnerable people, and imposing austerity and greater cuts, which those parties claim to be against. Does she accept that she must live up to her responsibilities and take action to ensure the agreement is implemented?
Mrs Villiers
I agree that every day welfare reform is delayed and every day Sinn Féin and SDLP refuse to live up to their obligations under the Stormont House agreement costs the Northern Ireland Executive money. If the situation is not resolved soon, we will start to see a significant negative impact on Northern Ireland’s front-line services, because it will not have a sustainable or workable budget without Sinn Féin and SDLP living up to the commitments they undertook as part of the Stormont House agreement. I will continue to work to see that welfare reform is agreed and implemented, and the Government will consider all the options.
Mr Dodds
Given that we are now into the period running up to 12 July and beyond, does the Secretary of State accept that enormous efforts were made last year by community leaders and political parties to ensure peace and calm on the streets of Belfast and elsewhere? Since then, she has abandoned the only initiative that was in the offing to move things forward, and has not come up with an alternative. Will she undertake to look at the parades legislation? She has the responsibility for parading issues—it is not devolved—so will she come forward with proposals to move the situation forward and find a replacement for the current failed regime?
Mrs Villiers
The best way to take forward reform of parades adjudication is, of course, through the Stormont House agreement. I understand that the Office of the Legislative Counsel has been preparing the options for which it was tasked, under the agreement, for reform of parades legislation. I hope that they will be published soon. Alongside others, I will take part in the debate about what a reformed system of parading would look like and how it would work. In the meantime, it is crucial for us all to work together to encourage a peaceful parading season, where determinations are obeyed and any protests and parades are both peaceful and lawful.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
With regard to setting the budget and many other decisions that need to be taken, is not the fundamental problem that the Assembly and the Executive were designed for the very good reason of bringing people together, but that that does not make for an efficient decision-making body? What thought has the Secretary of State given to how we might move forward to a position in which the Assembly and the Executive can take decisions on a day-to-day basis?
Mrs Villiers
These difficult decisions on living within one’s means are more challenging in a situation in which there is a broad coalition and multiple vetoes. Where there is the political will, however, it is perfectly possible for the Northern Ireland Executive to pass a sustainable budget and implement the Stormont House agreement. That is why it is very important for the two nationalist parties, Sinn Féin and the SDLP to live up to the undertakings they made. The Stormont House agreement was a good deal for Northern Ireland. It was rightly praised by Sinn Fein when it was agreed, and now it needs to get on and implement it.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Let me reassure the Secretary of State that the SDLP has lived up to, and will continue to live up to, every detail of its obligations. I would be very glad to discuss with her any of the details that she has not understood. Although the Stormont House agreement achieved much, it did not fully complete the circle of the many issues involved. Will she define the Government’s position with regard to the Stormont House agreement? Are they active participants for peace and progress, or are they neutral observers?
Mrs Villiers
We are active participants for peace and progress. That is why we are fully engaged on our side of the Stormont House agreement and in encouraging the parties to live up to theirs. Obviously, a crucial part of the agreement is progress on dealing with the legacy of the past. That is another reason why I appeal to the hon. Gentleman and his party colleagues to unblock the questions about welfare so that we can press ahead with those institutions that his party championed during the Stormont House talks.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that in the event of the Stormont House and Stormont Castle agreements being implemented, the Northern Ireland Executive will operate a far more compassionate and generous benefit system than is available in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mrs Villiers
I believe that the welfare reforms introduced by this Government are the best ones for the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe it is crucial to replace a system that has failed and trapped people in poverty with one that rewards work and caps benefits. I believe that the top-ups agreed by the Northern Ireland parties at the Stormont Castle agreement produce a useful and helpful addition to match specific local circumstances.
Mr Lewis
Although we disagree with the Government on the bedroom tax and on their refusal to come clean on future benefit cuts, the Secretary of State is right to insist that these agreements are honoured without extra money from the Treasury. In the past, Northern Ireland’s leaders have earned great respect for making tough choices for peace. Does she agree that all parties must now accept that an affordable and sustainable welfare system is vital to securing financial and political stability in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. It is crucial for the Northern Ireland Executive to find a way to live within their means. They are not being asked to do anything that Governments across the developed world have not had to grapple with over the last five years. Their block grant has gone up a little in cash terms and come down only by about 1% per year in real terms. It is deliverable; it is possible to do this. The Stormont House agreement delivers a good deal for Northern Ireland, including on welfare.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
2. What steps the Government are taking to tackle low pay in Northern Ireland.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What steps the Government is taking to tackle low pay in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that, from October, the national minimum wage will increase by 3% to £6.70 per hour, the largest real-terms increase since 2006. The Government are also committed to increasing the personal allowance to £12,500, and to ensuring that anyone who works at least 30 hours a week on the minimum wage pays no tax at all.
Jo Stevens
The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action has said that introducing the living wage would benefit 173,000 low-paid workers, giving them an average pay rise of £1,300 a year. What are the Government doing to help workers in Northern Ireland, which has the lowest private sector pay rates in the United Kingdom?
Mr Wallace
One of the best ways to help the low paid is to allow them to keep as much as possible of the money that they earn. The hon. Lady will be delighted to learn that, according to the most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics, average gross weekly earnings in Northern Ireland have increased by 10.2% over the past year. That is a whacking, massively great increase compared with the United Kingdom average of 1.7%. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be delighted to recognise that our long-term economic plan is working for the low paid in Northern Ireland.
John Woodcock
I welcome the Minister—my neighbour—to his post, and hope that he will be successful in it.
One in five children in Northern Ireland lives in poverty. The Government are not really considering going back on their legal commitment to tackle child poverty, are they?
Mr Wallace
Like every previous Government, this Government have tried—and, in many instances, continued successfully—to deal with child poverty. Let me reiterate that one of the best ways of doing that is to make sure that works pays, and that people keep the money that they earn. To ensure that that happens, we have increased the personal tax allowance by 63% since 2010, from £6,475 to £10,600.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy is reducing taxes and regulation, so that the private sector can invest and create new jobs and opportunities for the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr Wallace
That absolutely is the key, and our long-term economic plan will deliver a rebalancing of the economy and new jobs. I am delighted to say that 40,000 more people are employed in Northern Ireland than was the case in May 2010. Giving people jobs is the fastest way out of poverty, and ensuring that the Northern Ireland economy converges with and improves alongside that of the rest of the United Kingdom is our No. 1 priority.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
15. Some 89,000 working families in Northern Ireland receive an average of £4,000 a year from the child element of tax credit. How will the Minister help them to restore the money that they will lose when the Prime Minister implements his welfare cuts?
Mr Wallace
The best way to help those people is to ensure that there is an economy that allows them to work, rather than forcing them to rely on the benefits system. It is interesting to note that ours is the party that wants to give people a hand up, while the hon. Gentleman’s party seems to want to give them a handout.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I must not pre-empt job news which will be heard later today in Derry, and which will obviously be welcome in a city and region with high unemployment and a lower wage profile. Given that lower wage profile, however, are Northern Ireland Ministers discussing with their Treasury colleagues the possible implications of the changes that are afoot in relation to tax credits, not least the implications for cross-border workers?
Mr Wallace
We are, of course, always talking to the Treasury to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard and its special needs recognised. We are also working hard with the Northern Ireland parties to ensure that, should the Stormont House agreement be fully implemented, we can achieve the most competitive possible corporation tax in the rest of the United Kingdom in order to allow further inward investment.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
5. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the implementation of greater fiscal flexibility for Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers, including the Chancellor. The Government are giving £2 billion of extra spending power to the Northern Ireland Executive under the Stormont House agreement.
Ms Ritchie
I am glad to hear that Northern Ireland Ministers are having conversations with the Treasury, but will the Secretary of State and her Minister now act as persuaders on behalf of Northern Ireland, which would benefit from a reduced rate of VAT on tourism for the whole United Kingdom?
Mrs Villiers
I know that is a matter of great importance to the hon. Lady and her party. The reality is that the Government have to act with caution when it comes to reductions in taxes. We have identified further increases to the income tax threshold as our priority, but no doubt the Chancellor will be able to share more information on those matters in his Budget.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the last party that should be seeking additional fiscal flexibility for Northern Ireland is the SDLP, given the way in which it and Sinn Féin have put the budget in Northern Ireland in jeopardy. But will she spell out for us the implications for the budget of the financial mess that the refusal to implement the Stormont House agreement has made? What are the implications for the devolution of corporation tax, which has already been agreed?
Mrs Villiers
The implications are very serious: if the welfare question is not resolved, it means that the pressure on the Northern Ireland Executive budget grows considerably and, ultimately, that the Executive will get to a point where they cannot pay their staff and bills, and front-line services will suffer as a result. Without resolving the welfare question, the prospects of corporation tax being devolved and reduced are remote.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
6. What discussions she has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on security of police officers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
The safety of police officers, and others who work tirelessly and with great courage to tackle the terrorist threat, is paramount. The Government are in regular contact with Executive Ministers, and the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Chief Constable, the security services and the Minister of Justice to ensure that every effort is made to tackle the threat from violent dissidents.
Jim Shannon
The safety of police officers is critical. Recently, the Policing Board purchased Vauxhall Vectra cars, which are completely unsuitable for policing in west Belfast, Londonderry or south Armagh. Police officers—who have an average height of 5 feet 10 inches—with body armour and weapons cannot get into those cars in time if attacked, and nor can the Vauxhall Vectra be armoured. What discussions will the Minister have with the Policing Board to ensure that this issue is looked at again?
Mr Wallace
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As someone who previously had to squeeze into armoured cars on the Falls Road, I know, and have full sympathy with, what it is like trying to get into such cars at speed. Procurement decisions are a matter for the Chief Constable, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point and am happy to raise his concerns directly with the Chief Constable when I next see him.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am very curious to establish what criteria the Secretary of State uses to judge appeals by retired police officers who have had their personal protection weapons withdrawn. They feel increasingly vulnerable to attacks by dissident republicans.
Mr Wallace
Obviously we do not comment too much on intelligence matters, but from intelligence and information that we receive on individuals we take into account the threat to them. We regularly review applications, and when a threat increases, or a threat against an individual is demonstrated, we seek to do what we can to protect them.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I pay tribute to the outgoing Minister, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who has many friends in this House and made many friends in Northern Ireland? He is remembered with affection and respect. I welcome the new Minister, the fifth I have shadowed, to the Dispatch Box, and note that among them have been one Royal Navy surgeon and three former Army officers, all of whom wore their uniform with great distinction—much more than I did, although admittedly the opportunity for gallantry is limited for London Transport bus conductors.
Last year there were 550 twelfth of July parades and the vast majority went off peacefully. Does the Minister not agree that further reductions in the PSNI budget threaten the stability of the peace process, and will he make a statement?
Mr Wallace
Policing budgets are a matter for Stormont and the Northern Ireland Executive, and we are keen to see the current impasse move on so that they can make those decisions. To anyone in the parading environment, the Government’s message is that violence does not pay. It helps neither side resolve the issues, and we urge them as much as possible to work together to resolve the often long-held disputes over parading.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
7. What recent assessment she has made of the political situation in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The political situation in Northern Ireland continues to be very difficult. It is essential that the current deadlock on welfare reform is resolved so that the Stormont House agreement can be implemented.
Jake Berry
What impact does my right hon. Friend think that the failure to implement the Stormont House agreement is having on the international reputation of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Mrs Villiers
I think it does have a negative impact on the reputation of Northern Ireland. Of course it is crucial that we are all promoting Northern Ireland around the world as a great place in which to invest, and part of that is about ensuring we can deliver political stability. That is yet another reason why the Stormont House agreement needs to go ahead.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the current political impasse as a result of two parties failing to implement the Stormont House agreement is costing us about 50,000 private sector jobs, as corporation tax reductions and investment in the likes of the Ballykelly camp in my constituency are being held up?
Mrs Villiers
There are the direct consequences that we have talked about before in terms of public finances and the effectiveness of the Executive, but the huge jobs boost that could come with corporation tax devolution is not going to be delivered unless a sustainable budget is settled and welfare reform is implemented.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
8. What recent discussions she has had on the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism continues to be severe. It is potentially lethal and it is enduring. It is being suppressed through the hard work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5, but the need for a high state of vigilance remains.
Pat Glass
I have just heard the Minister passing the buck on the cuts to the PSNI, but the situation in Northern Ireland goes on, with 171 bombings, shootings and paramilitary actions in the past year. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the PSNI has the resources it needs to meet this ongoing security situation?
Mrs Villiers
The Government have provided £230 million in extra security funding for the PSNI. The primary responsibility for funding the PSNI rests with the Executive, but the Stormont House agreement contains a provision to seek to protect its budget. That is yet another reason why this welfare question must be settled; the PSNI is among other front-line services that will suffer directly if it is not and if the Executive start to run out of money because their budget is unworkable.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
The residents of Randalstown, Ballyclare and Antrim in my patch are all suffering from the police cuts. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that if the Stormont House agreement—or the welfare agreement—does not happen, sufficient funding will be going through to ensure that we have enough police on the ground?
Mrs Villiers
The security situation is one that we monitor at all times, and of course the security implications of the current political impasse will be an important part of our thinking in how we approach it. It is vital that this question is resolved. There is a question for Sinn Féin and the Social Democratic and Labour party: do they want to spend this money on a more expensive welfare system or do they want to fund front-line public services?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Belfast woman Maíria Cahill was raped by Martin Morris, with his crime being covered over by Padraic Wilson. Both those individuals’ trials have collapsed. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a worrying trend that legacy cases in Northern Ireland involving senior republicans are not resulting in convictions?
Mrs Villiers
It is obviously not appropriate for me to comment on the outcome of a particular court case, but these events were very shocking. This is another reason why it is important to press ahead with the new structures on the past, including the Historical Investigations Unit and the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, which were agreed as part of the Stormont House agreement, because the current systems are not providing good enough outcomes for victims and survivors. Their interests should be at the heart of the actions of all of us in this House and in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
9. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that a viable budget can be set by the Northern Ireland Executive.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The devolved institutions are responsible for setting a viable budget for Northern Ireland. Under the Stormont House agreement, the Government provided £2 billion of additional spending power to help deal with problems which are specific to Northern Ireland, such as addressing the legacy of its past.
Mrs Villiers
I have an almost continuous round of meetings with the Northern Ireland political parties. I have a review meeting on the Stormont House agreement on Thursday, alongside Minister Flanagan from the Irish Republic. I will be doing everything I can to get the process back on the road, but, fundamentally, it is down to Sinn Féin and the SDLP to live up to the commitments they made under the Stormont House agreement.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland made great play in London at the weekend of how the vulnerable are hurting. Will she remind our Deputy First Minister that the vulnerable have been hurting while we have had an impasse over the Stormont House agreement, and they will continue to hurt should there not be any progress on the issue?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that taking an irresponsible approach to the public finances means that the people who really suffer are the most vulnerable in our community. That is why difficult decisions are needed in Stormont to ensure that a sustainable Budget is passed and that the Stormont House agreement is back on track.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 June.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure that the whole House wishes to join me in celebrating Armed Forces Week. Our armed forces are the best in the world, and this week is an important opportunity to pause and reflect on their dedication and sacrifice in keeping the country safe.
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 Vickers
I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about Armed Forces Week, and there is a major event in my constituency to mark the occasion. I thank him for agreeing to meet me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) following the announcement yesterday of significant job losses by Young’s Seafood, which is the largest employer in the area. It is particularly disappointing after a run of good news. Much investment has been attracted with the help of the regional growth fund. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that additional help and support may be given to the area through the RGF. It is important to retain Young’s presence in the area.
The Prime Minister
First, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. As he says, the recent reports surrounding Young’s are concerning, and I know that this will be a difficult time for employees and their families. The company will be talking to employees, and the Government stand ready to assist in any way they can. He is right that the broader picture is more positive. We have the Able UK Marine Energy Park creating up to 4,000 jobs, and also the Siemens’ project nearby, which is a major investment for the region. We will continue to provide support for the regional growth fund; 49 awards have been made in Yorkshire and the Humber area. We will keep up with that and with the long-term economic plan to create the jobs we need.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our armed services, including the Reserves. We honour those who are serving today, and we remember the sacrifice of those who have served in the past. Let us never forget them when we think of the freedom and democracy that we have today. I also pay tribute to the families’ federations—the Army Families Federation, the Naval Families Federation, and the RAF Families Federation. The great work they do supporting service families contributes so much to the strength of our services.
We have all seen the chaotic scenes at Calais where British travellers and lorry drivers are facing harassment and intimidation as 3,000 migrants try to get illegally into the UK. The French should be assessing them as soon as they get to Calais to decide whether they are genuine refugees or migrant workers who should be removed. How confident is the Prime Minister that the French are going to start taking effective action? What is he doing to put pressure on them, and will he raise the matter at the EU Council this weekend?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she said about forces’ families. She is absolutely right. This Saturday, when many of us will be attending Armed Forces Day celebrations and commemorations, is a moment to talk to those families and thank them for what they do when they are missing their loved ones.
The right hon. and learned Lady quite rightly asked about Calais. We have all been witnessing totally unacceptable scenes there over the past day. Of course, a key role was played by the strike that took place in France. She asked specifically about what should be done. Let me answer very clearly that of course we want to see migrants better documented and fingerprinted, but much of that needs to happen in Italy, where they land, rather than in France. There are three things on which we must act. First, we need to work with the French to achieve better security at Calais. We have already invested £12 million, and I am happy for us to do more if that is necessary. Secondly, we must work with our European partners to stop this problem at source—to break the link between getting in a boat and getting settlement in Europe. Thirdly, we must do more to ensure that Britain is a less easy place for illegal migrants to come to and work in, and that is what our Immigration Bill is all about.
Ms Harman
The Prime Minister is right that the problem is the responsibility of the Italian authorities and the French authorities, but as he acknowledges, it is also about the security of our border at Calais. Can he say a bit more about what steps he has taken to strengthen security at the UK border in Calais?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that the juxtaposed border controls on the French side are a good thing for our country, and we should be prepared to invest in them. That is what the £12 million has been about, but in talks with the Home Secretary this morning, we have been looking at whether we can put more personnel and, indeed, sniffer dog teams on that side of the channel to make a difference. Also, more work is being done on installing fencing, not only around the port at Calais, but around the Eurostar and Eurotunnel entrance. All those things can make a difference, and we should work very closely with the French. There is no point in either side trying to point the finger of blame at the other. This is a strong partnership that we have in place and we should keep it that way.
Ms Harman
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Efforts on all sides will need to be stepped up.
On another issue, in his speech on Monday the Prime Minister said:
“There’s…nothing progressive about robbing from our children”,
but is it not inevitable that cuts in tax credits for working families, unless employers raise their wages immediately, will mean that children are worse off?
The Prime Minister
First, what I said in that speech about robbing from our children was about the importance of getting our deficit down and not asking them to pay debts that we were not prepared to deal with ourselves. What we need to do is make sure we go on with a plan that is seeing 2.2 million more people in work. Crucially for children, compared with when I became Prime Minister, there are 390,000 fewer children in households where no one works. My programme for tackling poverty is to get more people in work, get them better paid, and cut their taxes.
Ms Harman
Well, I am asking about robbing from children in families who are facing tax credit cuts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that cutting £5 billion from tax credits would mean working families losing, on average, £1,400 a year. Now I know the right hon. Gentleman does not have to budget, but many families do—[Interruption.] That is the truth—[Interruption.] It is the truth. If hon. Members will just for a moment think about a lone parent working part time: to compensate her for that loss of £1,400, the minimum wage would have to go up overnight by 25%. That is not going to happen, is it?
The Prime Minister
The problem with what the right hon. and learned Lady says is that the last Government did not budget for the country—[Interruption.] She asks—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am very worried about the health of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). She must calm herself. We are at a very early stage in the proceedings. A period of calm must descend upon the House.
The Prime Minister
Because the last Government did not budget for the country, the whole country was plunged into poverty, which is what we have been dealing with. Let me explain what we are going to do. For those who are out of work, we want to get them a job—a well paid job. That is the best route out of poverty. For those in work, we want to see higher rates of pay and lower taxes. Our programme is simple: let us have an economy with higher pay, lower taxes and lower welfare. What the right hon. and learned Lady seems to want is the current failure of low pay, high taxes and high welfare. That is what we need to move on from.
Ms Harman
You see, Mr Speaker, you do not get higher pay by cutting tax credits. The Prime Minister seems to be saying that low income families will not lose out because, somehow, on the day that he cuts tax credits, every employer in the country will rush to put up pay immediately. To compensate for the loss of tax credits, employers would have to put up pay overnight by twice what the Office for Budget Responsibility has said they will do over a full year. That is not going to happen, is it?
The Prime Minister
We are seeing rates of pay in our economy go up because we have a strong and successful economy due to the decisions we took. What the right hon. and learned Lady does not seem to understand is that if you do not get people back to work and reduce welfare, you will have to make deep cuts in the NHS, which we do not want to see, or put up taxes, which we do not want to see. If the Labour party wants to spend this five years arguing against any change in the welfare system, I say let it; it will end up with the same result.
Ms Harman
What the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand is that these are people who are in work. They are going out to work, providing for themselves and their children. The truth is that the Prime Minister will cut tax credits, and will not make up for that loss by putting up the minimum wage overnight. Employers will not make up for that loss either, so millions of families with children will be worse off. He says that he is tackling low pay; he is not. He is attacking the low-paid. So much for the party of working people.
The Prime Minister
The party of working people is the party that has got 2 million more people into work and almost 400,000 more children in households where people are working. That is why people see a party that believes in work up against a party that, according to one of its leadership contenders, is now the anti-worker party—that is what the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said. I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that in the week when Greece teeters on the brink, we should learn the lessons of what happens when debts spiral and a country loses control of its economy. Labour is stuck with the same answer: more borrowing, more welfare, and more debt. It is the same old Labour, and it will lead to the same old failure.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
Q2. Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the best ways of tackling the cycle of child poverty is ensuring that we deal with persistent educational under-achievement, so that children get the best start in life, particularly in schools, universities and—just as importantly—vocational education?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we really want to tackle the deep and entrenched poverty that we have in our country, we need to go after the causes of poverty: sink schools, high unemployment, debt, addiction and family breakdown. Those are the things that can make a difference. I was at a school this week on the outskirts of Runcorn with 65% free school meals, yet that school was able to achieve almost two thirds of pupils getting five A to Cs at GCSE. That is a better record, frankly, than that of many schools in leafy, well-off constituencies, so it can be done. Let us go after the causes of poverty; then we can really lift people out of that entrenched poverty.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
We join in the tributes to the armed forces, and to all those people who have organised and will attend Armed Forces Day events across the UK.
The Prime Minister and other UK party leaders made a vow that more powers would be delivered to the Scottish Parliament. The people were promised home rule; they were promised
“as close to federalism as possible”.
Why does the Prime Minister’s Scotland Bill not even deliver the limited Smith commission proposals?
The Prime Minister
The Bill that we put in front of this House does deliver the Smith commission; it fulfils the vow that all of us have kept. Of course, what it does not fulfil is the full fiscal autonomy that the hon. Gentleman’s party would like, which would land Scottish taxpayers with a bill of thousands and thousands of pounds. If that is his policy, when he gets up to speak, he should say so.
Angus Robertson
The House of Commons Library says that important parts of the Smith commission proposals are not in the Scotland Bill that the Prime Minister has proposed. The Bill’s shortcomings have been identified by an all-party committee in the Scottish Parliament—a committee on which the Scottish Conservative party sits. Are all these people wrong? Will the Prime Minister now commit to delivering the Smith commission proposals in full, and all the powers that were voted for by the people of Scotland in the general election?
The Prime Minister
We addressed precisely the points made by the Scottish Parliament committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers. This goes to a larger truth, which is that the Scottish National party only wants to talk about process. It does not dare talk about which of the powers that it is being given it would like to use. If you do not like the way that things are fixed, why don’t you put up taxes and spend more money? Is it not time that you started talking about the policies that you want to put in place, and the outcomes? The truth is that full fiscal autonomy has become FFS: full fiscal shambles.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Q3. Will the Prime Minister investigate why some Labour-controlled councils, including Leeds, are ramping up their charges to schools wishing to become academies? A good example of this is Woodkirk Academy in Morley and Outwood.
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that Woodkirk Academy and its feeder primary schools have applied to set up a multi-academy trust. It often really works if secondary schools work with primary schools to improve the results in those primary schools. I am also convinced, from looking at the figures, that converter academies are performing better than the local authority main schools. That is why the change is so necessary. I would say to the Labour party: do not stand in the way of this change; help to bring these academies about.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Sunday Times reported over the weekend that the Department for Transport is planning to scale back and axe rail electrification projects. Will the Prime Minister inform the House, and the people of Wales, whether it continues to be the policy of his Government to complete the electrification of the great western line to Swansea by 2018 and part-fund the valley lines?
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to electrifying the great western main line to Cardiff and through to Swansea. We are also contributing £125 million to the costs of the wider valley lines electrification. It is vital that this work goes ahead. We need to make sure that Network Rail gets its costs under control and has strong leadership in place, and we will make sure that those things happen.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Q4. Unemployment is down by 61% in Thirsk and Malton since 2010—a strong endorsement of this Government’s policy to make work pay and of the hard work and investment of business people in my constituency. What further support will the Prime Minister offer to help with much-needed investment in the A64, superfast broadband, and mobile phone coverage, all of which would further help job creation in my area?
The Prime Minister
Let me welcome my hon. Friend to this place and the work that I know he will do on behalf of his constituency. He is absolutely right. In rural areas like the one he represents, better transport, better broadband and filling in the “not spots” on the mobile phone network are absolutely vital. The mobile infrastructure project is providing more homes and businesses with mobile coverage, but we need to make sure that we build the masts. I am pleased to say that the A64 is part of our £3 billion investment in roads in the north-east and Yorkshire. As for broadband, I think that 130,000 homes and businesses are getting access in North Yorkshire, but there is more to be done.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q5. Historically, 500 babies per year are damaged in the womb by sodium valproate, a drug prescribed for epilepsy. Although GPs are now more aware of the risks, the national archives show that the risks were well known by drug companies and Government as far back as 1973, yet mothers were kept in the dark. Will the Prime Minister urge his Health Secretary to meet me and a delegation of mothers who are affected by this issue to discuss their case?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this case. I am not aware of the specific drug she mentions, but I will look at it very closely. As someone who had a son with very severe epilepsy and knows how little we really know about many of these drugs, I will certainly fix the meeting between her and the Health Secretary so that they can make progress on this issue.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Q6. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a northern powerhouse requires proper transport infrastructure? Can he update me on my campaign to get the A6 Hazel Grove bypass to reduce congestion and increase growth in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are increasing transport levels in the north-west. We are investing £4.3 billion on the strategic road network. As he knows, the A6 to Manchester airport relief road is going ahead. I am pleased to confirm that we have provided Greater Manchester combined authority with £350,000 to fund a feasibility study for the next stage of the bypass route around Stockport and Hazel Grove that he refers to. I do understand that if this could go ahead it would really make a lot of difference in relieving congestion.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
With the death of yet another cyclist—again, a young woman commuter, beneath the wheels of a tipper truck—will the Prime Minister meet a small delegation from the all-party parliamentary cycling group to discuss what more can be done to protect vulnerable road users, including the call by the acting leader of the Labour party for a ban on these killer lorries in our towns and cities at peak times?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to have that meeting. It seems to me that although a lot has been done in London to try to make cycling safer on our roads with the cycling strategy—money is being invested and cycle lanes are being introduced—the number of fatalities is still very high, and it is extremely depressing that young lives are being snuffed out in this way. I am very happy to have that meeting and perhaps keep in contact with the Mayor about this important issue.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
Q7. As the Prime Minister mentioned, access to high-quality broadband is essential in today’s digital economy. Will my right hon. Friend tell us about his plans to get broadband to my rural constituents and those in rural areas across the country?
The Prime Minister
First, let me welcome my hon. Friend to this place. He has the job of following in the footsteps of William Hague, which a number of us have found very difficult in all sorts of different ways, but I am sure he will do it very well.
The figures on superfast coverage are encouraging. We went from 45% in 2010 to over 80%, but obviously there is a real challenge getting to the remaining bits of the country, including the most rural areas. We have the £8 million investment fund and are piloting a number of solutions, one of which, run by Airwave, is testing new technology in the Upper Dales communities, near my hon. Friend’s constituency, so he is on the cutting edge of this digital technology, and if it works we can obviously boost it faster.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Last week, this Government sent out a message to the world that Scotland was closed for business when it comes to future investment in the renewable energy sector. Today, the Cole report on exports estimates that this Government are set to miss their target for exports by up to £300 billion. Will the Prime Minister confirm when he is going to stand up for the best interests of the Scottish economy?
The Prime Minister
If Scotland was not part of the United Kingdom, there would not be the access to the UK energy market—but I suppose we can leave that on one side. I say to the hon. Lady that we have had a huge increase in renewable energy right across the United Kingdom in recent years. We have removed some of the subsidy from onshore wind—we are going to reach 10% of our electricity generation from onshore wind—so now it is right that it should be for local communities to make that decision. Interestingly, before they got into government, that was a position that the SNP agreed with.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Q8. Last year, the £75 million mis-selling of cashback warranties by Scottish Power, including to thousands of my constituents, was raised with the Prime Minister. A year later, very little has happened, with Scottish Power dodging its responsibilities to 625,000 people across the United Kingdom. In the light of the most recent evidence, will my right hon. Friend urge Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to look again at this issue, to get people back the money they are owed?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. I understand that the liquidation of the companies involved in the scheme is still under way. As a result, the creditors of the companies have not yet received the reports from the liquidators to see whether that money can be extracted—[Interruption.] Before Labour Members get too excited, most of this happened between 1997 and 2001. I have asked the Business Secretary to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns directly.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The great Englishman John Donne said:
“No man is an Island, entire of it self; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main”.
With reference to vulnerable child refugees, does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do, and that is why Britain fulfils its obligations in taking asylum seekers from all over the world and having a system that many other countries see is robust and fair. It is also why we are playing our role in the Mediterranean—first with HMS Bulwark, now with HMS Enterprise—rescuing people who are desperately in need. It is also why, uniquely among the large, rich countries, we have kept our promise about funding overseas aid and are investing in the north African countries from which these people are coming. I am quite convinced that we are doing what we should to fulfil our moral obligations as a nation.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Q9. In the last comprehensive spending review, the clever wheeze of transferring expenditure on the BBC World Service from the Foreign Office budget to the BBC helped to prevent a calamity in our foreign policy capacity. Five years on, foreign policy making and analysis have got considerably more challenging. Will the Prime Minister ensure that a siloed savings requirement is not applied to our capacity to direct the overseas element of our national security strategy or our ability to represent the country abroad?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election as the Chairman of the vital Foreign Affairs Committee of this House. I know that he will always speak out without fear or favour, and that he is vigorously independent.
My hon. Friend is right that the soft power that we have as a country, whether through the British Council, the BBC, the Foreign Office or our overseas aid budget, which I was just talking about, is vital not just to fulfil our moral obligations but to project power, influence and British values in the world. I want to ensure that those things continue. He talked about the BBC funding being a wheeze. I am not sure that I would call it that. It was part of the BBC making sure that it found efficiencies, as other parts of the public sector were.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Yesterday, we heard that early referral for cancer tests could save 10,000 lives a year. Siobhan Galbraith, a 21-year-old Erdington mother of a three-year-old son, suffered in agony for six months. Three times, she was refused a referral; she was told that she was too young. Now, she is battling cervical cancer and will never have another child. Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for Health to investigate what happened and to meet me? Will he act to ensure that in future we have early referral so that never again are people denied treatment that could be the difference between life and death?
The Prime Minister
I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman raises that individual case, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will look at it specifically. He is right that early referral is the key to improving cancer outcomes. Although I will not stand at this Dispatch Box and say that the problem has been solved, I would say that we are now making sure that about 650,000 more patients are being referred in respect of cancer. Crucially, we are seeing many more of the diagnostic tests that can find out whether someone has colon cancer or bowel cancer—about 400,000 more of those tests are being carried out. The key is to ensure that GPs get the training and information that is necessary to identify cancer early so that they can onward refer rapidly.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Q10. The Prime Minister made two promises before the general election that were especially important to the people of mid-Wales. He has fulfilled one of them by scrapping onshore wind farm subsidies. When he fulfils the other by visiting the Royal Welsh show in three weeks’ time, perhaps he will call in on Montgomeryshire to see the wonderful landscapes that will now not be desecrated.
The Prime Minister
It was a privilege to keep the first promise to the people of mid-Wales in respect of wind farms, and it will be a pleasure to keep the second promise by going with my hon. Friend to the Royal Welsh show.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This morning’s “Today” programme on Radio 4 was partly recorded at Brompton bicycles in my constituency. The concern of Brompton, an award-winning company, and other employers of good quality staff producing good quality goods for export is that the apprenticeship scheme in this country is not fit for purpose to meet their needs. What plans does the Prime Minister have to meet those employers and to develop an effective, quality apprenticeship scheme, rather than the cheap and cheerful scheme that is currently in place?
The Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Lady to this House. I, too, have visited Brompton bicycles. It is an absolutely excellent firm. I seem to remember that I recorded a party political broadcast while I was there, so it is obviously an equal political opportunities employer, which is very good. It is important to ensure that we have really good apprenticeship schemes. We must focus on the quality as well as the quantity. We are committed to working with employers, and to making sure that those employers work with local colleges, to ensure that the standard of the qualifications is very good.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Q11. Last week my constituents were very pleased to hear the news that, as part of the measures the Prime Minister is introducing to boost mobile coverage in rural areas, three of our very worst “not spots” have been selected for consideration for new mobile masts, in Boxford, Bildeston and Assington Green. Does he agree that better mobile coverage has an important role to play in improving rural economic growth, and will he continue to do all he can to ensure that we spread the benefits of this technology as far and wide as possible?
The Prime Minister
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to this place and congratulate him on winning his constituency. He is absolutely right that if we are to have the productivity revolution that the Chancellor and others have spoken about, we must improve broadband coverage in our country. The mobile infrastructure project can make a difference. Three potential sites—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should calm down a little. Three potential sites have been identified in South Suffolk that will make a difference. It is important that all Members of the House recognise that while there are often very strong campaigns against masts, we need to see them built if we are to crack the problem of “not spots.”
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has repeatedly been reported as saying that he wants to create “a new era of transparency in government.” Given that desire, why is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions refusing to release the statistics relating to the deaths of people who have been declared fit for work, which he has been instructed to do by the Information Commissioner? Will the Prime Minister intervene and get the Secretary of State to comply with the spirit of his desire and the instruction of the Information Commissioner?
The Prime Minister
First, let me reassure the hon. Lady that the data will be published; they are being prepared for publication as we speak. I think that it is important that we publish data, and this Government have published more data about public spending than any previous Government.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Q12. Over the past few years we have seen some horrendous examples of children being sexually exploited. As a mother, I ask my right hon. Friend what he is going to do to tackle the exploitation of children.
The Prime Minister
Let me welcome my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right to raise this. What we saw happen in Rotherham, Rochdale and in my own city of Oxford was absolutely horrific. Steps are being taken by the police and social services to deal with it much better in future, and there have recently been some very important prosecutions, for instance in Oxfordshire. But I am not satisfied with the progress, so I have asked the Education Secretary to chair a new child protection taskforce to drive fundamental reforms to improve the protection of vulnerable children. I want us to bring the vigour and emphasis on quality that we have brought to education to the area of social work.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Q13. This month’s International Monetary Fund report shows how unequal the UK has become, with 15% of all income in the UK going to just 1% of top earners while over 5 million people earn less than the living wage. Given the evidence showing that increasing the income of the poorest 20% will lead to an increase in growth, why is the Prime Minister contemplating a cut in tax credits to people on low pay?
The Prime Minister
What I would say to the hon. Lady is that the statistics show that inequality in Britain has gone down, not up. One of the reasons for that is that we have 2.2 million more people in work. As I said to her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), what we want to see in Britain is an economy in which we create well-paid jobs, cut taxes and keep welfare down. The alternative, which is a low-pay, high-tax and high-welfare economy, is what we had under Labour, and it has not ended extreme poverty.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Q15. Every week, 15 babies die or are stillborn, which is devastating for the families who suffer that loss. In half the cases no cause of death is established. Will my right hon. Friend facilitate a meeting between the Secretary of State for Health and the charities the Lullaby Trust and Sands so that we can try to reduce those figures?
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend to this place. She served in the Welsh Assembly and I know she will serve her constituents and this place with great dedication and ability. She proves that by raising such a difficult and heartbreaking case. The death of every child is a tragedy and no words can do justice to the loss felt by parents in such cases. We have made some steps forward with more midwives and, crucially, more health visitors, which can make a lot of difference in the run up to those vital days before birth, but I can tell her that NHS England is going to fund a project to develop a national child death review information system to try to drive more information. The Health Secretary will keep everyone informed and I am sure that he will want to discuss the issue with my hon. Friend, given her knowledge in this area.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Q14. Why has the Prime Minister promised local people the final say on onshore wind farms but denies local people in Blackpool and Lancashire the final say over local fracking applications? Why are there double standards on renewable energy and fracking?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is making a slightly odd comparison. We have taken away the unnecessary subsidy for onshore wind, given that it is now a mature technology, and we have a sensible planning system so that unconventional gas can go ahead under very strict environmental conditions. I will tell him what I want for Blackpool. I want Blackpool to be the centre of expertise and excellence for this industry. I want the jobs, the apprenticeships and the training rather than to see things stuck, which is what he wants.
Border Management (Calais)
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on management of the border in Calais.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Industrial action by striking French workers yesterday caused significant disruption at the ports of Calais and Coquelles in northern France. This action resulted from a dispute between local trade unions and the owners of the French ferry operator, MyFerryLink. As a result of this disruptive strike, the port of Calais was shut for a period of more than 13 hours and train departures were suspended at the channel tunnel rail port of Coquelles. Sadly, the strikers damaged SNCF railway tracks outside the tunnel, which led to the cancellation of all Eurostar services until 6 o’clock this morning. More generally, the disruption caused backlogs of traffic in the Calais area that presented existing migrants around the town with opportunities to attempt to enter slow-moving lorries.
The French and UK Governments were well prepared for this event and tried and tested contingency plans were quickly put in place. Despite the extra pressure caused by the French strikers, Border Force maintained border security by following plans to put additional staff in place to search freight vehicles passing through the affected ports during the industrial action and thereafter. All freight vehicles passing through the Calais ports undergo searching by both the French authorities and the UK’s Border Force before boarding a ferry or train. During the course of yesterday’s disruption and since, Border Force and the French authorities have successfully identified and intercepted a significant number of would-be migrants.
Last night, I spoke with the French Interior Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve. He was as grateful as I was for the strong co-operation between UK and French authorities during yesterday’s incident, and I thanked him for the French police’s efforts to maintain law and order in the Calais area. Our two Governments have been working closely and constructively in recent months to bolster security at the juxtaposed border at Calais and other French ports. Last September, Her Majesty’s Government committed £12 million to that work. This has led to the installation of fencing around the port of Calais and the approach road and improvements to the layout of the port to speed up flows of traffic and create secure buffer zones for heavy goods vehicles. This is in addition to £3 million spent on the provision of new scanners and detection technology to assist with the searching of freight vehicles and additional dog searching undertaken by contractors. At the port of Coquelles, we have already provided significant investment in upgrading perimeter security and freight-screening technology. We will continue to work with Eurotunnel and the French authorities on installing additional security measures at the site to prevent migrants from making incursions into the port.
More broadly, the ongoing situation in Calais serves as an important reminder of why EU member states need to work together to tackle the causes of illegal immigration in source and transit countries. We are already co-operating closely with the French to tackle the organised criminal gangs that facilitate the movement of migrants into and across Europe. UK and French law enforcement organisations have already had considerable success in dismantling criminal networks behind people trafficking and smuggling on both sides of the channel, resulting in the prosecution of 223 individuals, and Monsieur Cazeneuve and I have agreed to build on this important work. As the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made clear, the most important step to resolving the situation in the Mediterranean is breaking the link between migrants making this dangerous journey and achieving settlement in Europe.
Traffic on both sides of the channel is moving again. There will, however, continue to be a significant border security operation as the backlogs of traffic are cleared at the affected ports. The inconvenience caused by the French strikers to the travelling public and lorry drivers is deeply regrettable. Though yesterday’s incident was caused by events that were beyond the control of Her Majesty’s Government, our law enforcement organisations reacted to the events extremely well. I am sure the House will want to join me in commending the excellent work done by Border Force, Kent police and others on both sides of the channel who have worked tirelessly to maintain border security and minimise disruption to the travelling public. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Hanson
As the Home Secretary rightly says, the situation in Calais has been caused by a wider humanitarian issue across the whole of the Mediterranean and north Africa, which is in turn caused by hunger, civil war, political instability and the movement of people across the Mediterranean. Alongside the strike and the problems in Calais last night, the situation there has been causing problems for some time, as I saw on a visit in November last year, and it remains a real challenge.
Will the Home Secretary tell us what steps she is taking, following her discussions with the French Interior Minister, to ensure that the French Government assess, process, identify and take action on those at Calais? She has rightly said that they are the victims of people traffickers, but they are also in France and the responsibility of the French Government. Will she resist the calls from some quarters in France to end the UK Border Force presence at Calais, given that it is extremely important in maintaining the integrity of our border?
Will the Home Secretary tell us whether, at the European summit this weekend, the Prime Minister intends to raise the points he made at Prime Minister’s questions about the situation in Italy and southern Europe? As he and the Home Secretary have said, that situation plays a key role in determining the intentions of the people who come to Calais. Will the right hon. Lady also tell us what proportion of the £12 million that she and the Prime Minister have mentioned has been spent to date? She will recall that the £12 million relates to a three-year programme, and we are now in year one. I would like her to stop talking about the £12 million and tell us what has been spent to date, and whether further resources are required to meet the challenges.
Will the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary advise hauliers, train operators and the public on the assessments that they should be making, and on whether compensation claims could be made in the light of yesterday’s incident? Will she also ask the Transport Secretary to make an assessment in due course of whether Operation Stack operated as an effective response yesterday in southern England?
The Home Secretary has announced a new taskforce today. Will she tell the House more about its remit and resources, and explain how she would measure any success that it might achieve? Will she also make a further commitment to tackle the scourge of people trafficking through working with our European partners and their police forces? I would like her to make a commitment to report regularly to the House on the success of the taskforce in achieving its objectives.
This is a humanitarian crisis and the Home Secretary will have the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition in dealing with it. It is important that we do so not only on behalf of those victims of the crisis, but for the integrity of our borders. The French need to take further action to ensure that they support us in both of those objectives.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman’s questions raise a number of issues. He referred to the fact that he visited Calais last year. Indeed, at the time he said of the problems of migrants building up at Calais:
“This is not new—we saw problems over ten years ago.”
That is precisely why the previous Labour Government worked with the then French Government to introduce the juxtaposed controls. The Le Touquet agreement was important and I reassure him that we certainly intend to do everything we can to maintain those juxtaposed controls. They are an important part of our border security and we will continue to work with the French authorities, as previous Governments have done, to ensure that they are maintained and operate well.
On the issue of processing people, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in Prime Minister’s questions when asked about it by the acting Leader of the Opposition, there is a challenge to the Italian authorities. People are due to be processed and fingerprinted when they first arrive on European shores, and for the majority of those people that means Italy. My French opposite number and I have been working with the Italian Government and, indeed, other European member states to encourage Italy to do exactly that. The European Council will be looking at the question of Mediterranean migration, as did the Justice and Home Affairs Council that I attended in Luxembourg last week. One of the key messages the United Kingdom has been giving consistently—and others support it—is that the best means of dealing with the issue is to break the link. This is about ensuring that people see that if they make this dangerous journey, they are not going to achieve settlement in Europe.
We need to work to break the organised criminal gangs and the people traffickers. The new taskforce is bringing together people from the National Crime Agency, Border Force, immigration enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service. Some of them will be based overseas and some in the UK. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they will be working not just among those British agencies, but with the French authorities and others, to ensure that there is better intelligence and a better understanding of where the gangs are and what the routes are, so that we can take appropriate action against them. I absolutely agree with that. It was this party, as part of the coalition Government, that introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which makes it easier for law enforcement to deal with human traffickers. Obviously, that is important legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has had a number of meetings and conversations with representatives of road hauliers about the security aspects. We believe that, overall, Operation Stack worked well. The process has been in place for some time, but the Department for Transport will continue to look at it and about half of the £12 million has already been spent.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Obviously, none of the member states of the European Union can just take in the vast numbers of people who are fleeing here from poverty and oppression in Africa and the middle east. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the moral and practical dilemma is that it will not be possible for Italy, France or the United Kingdom simply to ship back to Somalia, Eritrea, Syria and other places where they face death and oppression men, women and children who have risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean? In addition to the very welcome steps she has described of EU member states beginning to work together, as opposed to trying to blame each other—it is farcical to blame the Mayor of Calais and the French for the present situation—is any work being done to try to identify, locate and finance civilized camps where people can be held in decent conditions while they are processed and not left drifting destitute to all kinds of places over Europe? While there, they can be processed and proper plans can be made for how to resettle them somewhere they can properly find new lives.
Mrs May
My right hon. and learned Friend raises important issues, but it is wrong to assume that all the people coming through those routes are refugees or have valid asylum claims. Significant numbers come not from the countries to which he refers, but from Senegal, Nigeria and other west African countries, for whom the issue is somewhat different. Many people who come across from Libya into Italy are economic migrants who are trying to get into Europe illegally and to get settlement. That is why breaking the link is so important. Those individuals should know that they should not make that dangerous journey because they will not get settlement in Europe as a result. It is also why dealing with human traffickers and people smugglers is important.
Within the European arena, we are talking about the possibility of establishing places—we are currently looking at west Africa—where it is possible to return people. The other side of the matter is working in countries such as the ones my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, using aid money, to ensure that we are developing those countries in a way that means we are reducing poverty in them, and reducing the temptation or incentive for people to try to move.
Mr Speaker
Order. That exchange was of singular interest, and should probably be preserved, and will be, in the Official Report, for the delectation of future generations. However, if others imitate it in length, we will be here for some hours.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
While delays to cross-channel transport are concerning, as is the associated disruption, surely the bigger issue, which others have touched on, is the humanitarian aspect. Some of the migrants trying to cross from Calais to Dover are desperate. Many have gone through unimaginable suffering and are risking their lives in the hope of a better life in the United Kingdom. Many are fleeing countries that the United Kingdom had a hand in destabilising.
We need to take our fair share of refugees in the UK, as we have a proud tradition of doing in the past, from the Kindertransport in the 1930s to the Ugandan refugees in the 1970s. Even Mrs Thatcher took some of the Vietnamese boat people, although not as many as other countries.
The Scottish National party and the Scottish Government remain committed to assisting in this matter. We believe that there should be cross-country co-operation throughout the European Union. Will the United Kingdom Government accept the help of the Scottish Government, and participate in multilateral and collective action across the European Union, to deal with the problem of refugees?
Mrs May
The Government are addressing the issue of refugees in a number of ways. First of all, in relation to those displaced from Syria—refugees as a result of what is happening there—the UK Government are the second-largest bilateral donor to the region in terms of the money we have made available for refugee camps. Many people are being given medical treatment, water, food, clothing and shelter as a result of the money we have given—it is getting close to £900 million. We should be proud that we have done that. Given the number of refugees, they will not be accommodated by allowing everybody to move to Europe. Many of them want to be able to return to their home country in due course. Giving that provision in that area is important.
In relation to Scotland and asylum seekers, it is open to the hon. and learned Lady to encourage local authorities in Scotland to take larger numbers of the asylum seekers that we disperse around the United Kingdom.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I, too, commend the work of Border Force, which has deterred tens of thousands of illegal migrants from coming to this country. Without its effectiveness, the French would have rather a lot more to complain about. If our border became known as a weak link, many thousands more would pour into Calais.
What is the Home Secretary doing to bust the myth that the Home Affairs Committee has identified? Those people who are trafficked to Calais believe that we are some sort of El Dorado, where they will get jobs, benefits and support services. The truth is that they absolutely will not and that they will be illegal. What are we doing to bust that myth to deter people from going to Calais in the first place in the hope of coming here illegally?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that people understand what that journey means, what they will be coming to and the dangers of the journey. We have been working with the French authorities on the messages given to people who reach Calais about the fact that they should claim asylum in France. By the end of this year, the French authorities will have more than trebled the number of people processed in Calais compared with 2013.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
This crisis has been waiting to happen and no blame should be attached to the Government on it, because enormous amounts of money have been spent trying to deal with security in Calais, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and I saw for ourselves. The problem is the Mediterranean. Once people get to Calais, it is too late. Once people enter France, it is too late. That is why I welcome the establishment of the taskforce. The taskforce has to work with the Governments of the Maghreb. They are the key to preventing people from setting sail in the first place. It is not just the Italian border, but the Greek-Turkish border. The Home Secretary will have our support in trying to ensure that other EU countries bear their responsibility as well.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and take the opportunity to congratulate him on his re-election to the chairmanship of the Home Affairs Committee. I dare say that he and I will be looking at each other across a room in the House of Commons on a number of occasions over the coming months.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we need to identify the need to do something about the journeys from parts of Africa through the Mediterranean. The route from Libya to Italy is crucial, but he is right that people are being transported and moved through the Turkey-Greece border into Europe. We will work with Governments in Africa and elsewhere to ensure that we have an understanding of those movements and that we are able to deal with the criminal gangs. That is why I am pleased that the National Crime Agency has already focused on that and is increasing that focus.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I commend the work of our Border Force officers, whose diligent work to protect the UK border was certainly not helped by the actions of the French strikers yesterday.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred to a crisis. The problem of migrants gathering at Calais has been there for some time. As the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), said, we saw that many years ago. Of course, the problem was exacerbated yesterday by the action of the French strikers, which meant that lorries were queuing, and therefore presented a greater opportunity and incentive for the migrants to try to clamber on to them.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to UK Border Force, which does a fantastic job around the country. Within the past fortnight, a further 50 illegal immigrants were found in the back of a lorry that arrived in another major UK port. We have a serious problem not only in Dover and Calais, but around the UK. UK Border Force redundancies are taking place in Teesport. Will she put a stop to any immediate front-line redundancies and ensure that what is happening down in Calais does not suck resources from around the country and put other ports at risk?
Mrs May
The aim of Border Force is to have a flexible workforce, so that it is possible to move officers around and reinforce particular ports when we need to, as we have seen happen because of the problems in Calais. We are conscious that clandestines have been found in the backs of lorries entering the UK through other ports. I have raised that matter with the Dutch immigration Minister. There will be talks between UK Ministers and Dutch Ministers about how we can help to reinforce the Hook of Holland. We are making extra capacity available to do that.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The path to Calais may begin in Khartoum or Conakry or other places in Africa, but it passes through a number of Schengen countries on the way. Those countries have no borders internally. What discussions is the Home Secretary having with her European counterparts to ensure that they take responsibility for that concentration, which is what we have in Calais, of that humanitarian disaster?
Mrs May
My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right to point out that migrants who come to Calais will have come through a number of Schengen countries. Obviously, we are not a member of Schengen, and it is up to countries that are members to look at the rules they operate. He may have seen last week that there was activity by the French authorities at the French-Italian border because of concerns about migrants being able to move through from Italy.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary rightly reminded the House of the importance of aid policy in addressing the causes of increased migration. Can we take the opportunity in the next few days to remind our European Union partners of their obligation to match our 0.7% commitment and to press the French Government, who are cutting development assistance at this time?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I congratulate him on his recent election as Chair of the Select Committee on International Development.
Yes, we do. In fact, at the Justice and Home Affairs Council last week, I raised the need for Europe to look collectively at how its aid money is disbursed to ensure it is being used properly to alleviate poverty in the areas people are coming from.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that preserving good relations with the French Government so that our border is effectively at Calais and Coquelles, as opposed to Dover and Folkestone, is the biggest single contribution to the integrity of our borders in this part of the country. She also said that Operation Stack worked well. May I gently point out that it may work well in administrative terms, but whenever it comes in, it causes huge disruption and misery to my constituents and thousands of other people in Kent? Will she, with the Secretary of State for Transport, take this opportunity to redouble efforts to make sure that alternatives to Operation Stack are brought in? Every time it comes in, it causes massive disruption to one of our biggest road routes to Europe.
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for gently pointing that out to me. He makes his representations. Representations are also made to me on a regular basis by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on the impact these incidents have on the port and the surrounding transport network. I will raise the comments my right hon. Friend makes with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Secretary of State makes a fair point about the work of humanitarian organisations in the theatre—we all applaud that—but does she realise we are facing the worst refugee crisis since the war and that the UK response has been described as paling in comparison with that of other EU countries? Does she welcome the Scottish Government’s offer to work with them and take more Syrian refugees in the resettlement programme?
Mrs May
First, several thousand Syrians have been able to claim asylum in recent years here in the United Kingdom. We introduced the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, which the Prime Minister announced last weekend will be slightly expanded. The scheme, working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, focuses on the most vulnerable. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that to describe the donation of £900 million of aid to refugees, supporting many people’s lives through medical provisions, water, food and shelter, as pitiful is quite wrong. This country should be proud of the fact that we have taken such a leading role.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Home Secretary is giving her answer to the hon. Gentleman. It is not appropriate to try to raise a point of order in the middle of an answer. It is unparliamentary. It is also—dare I say it?—more than a tad discourteous.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I welcome the measures the Home Secretary is taking to tackle the problems in Calais. Do we not need to work on the longer-term problem of illegal immigrants trying to find their way into Europe and into this country? What measures is the Home Secretary taking to tackle this long-term issue?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we deal not with the symptoms of the problem—people arriving at Calais and trying to get into the UK—but the origin of the issue. We need to work with the countries of origin on the provision of support such that people can have a better life: a better economy and the stability to ensure that they are less likely to wish to move to Europe. We must also ensure that we catch the criminals, the people smugglers, who are helping people on their way. They take people’s money and then put them into dangerous conditions on the sea. We must break that link, so people see that paying out that money will not actually get them to Europe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Is she aware of the media reports this morning indicating that some eastern European countries will not stop illegal immigrants coming through their countries, thus increasing the impact on France and the United Kingdom? What steps can she take to address that issue?
Mrs May
I am aware that a number of countries in eastern Europe are taking a number of measures. Some of them are putting in place greater physical security on their borders, while others are looking at the operation of what is known as the Dublin regulations, which require the claiming of asylum in the first country that an individual enters. We will be discussing these issues with our European colleagues.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is right that the scenes we are witnessing in Calais are the natural result of the failure of the borderless Schengen area. Is she pleased, as I am, that we are not in it? Will she confirm that we will never join it?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary think that deeper UK engagement in resolving the problems Italy and Greece are facing in handling large numbers of refugees and economic migrants would maximise the chances of securing a European solution to the European problem at Calais?
Mrs May
We are working with a number of Governments across Europe. Indeed, as part of the Greek action plan agreed across Europe and put into effect by Frontex some time ago, we have been putting resources into that plan to help to support the Greek authorities to deal with the numbers they have coming across their border.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Surely, two of the issues are these. First, we are seen as an El Dorado because we have high employment rates compared with the rest of continental Europe. We do not want to change that. The second issue is Schengen. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the French Government to strengthen border controls, which she has already mentioned, with Italy and other countries? Schengen partners are allowed to do that in such emergencies.
Mrs May
As I said in response to a similar question, we are not part of Schengen and any discussions on how the Schengen rules operate are predominantly for those countries within the Schengen area. As my hon. Friend will have seen, the French have taken recent action. This is not the first time such action has been undertaken. I am aware that the Schengen countries have had discussions on the question of internal border controls, should emergency circumstances require them.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Is the Home Secretary concerned about reports today that people traffickers are now causing a proliferation of people smuggling by recruiting businessmen, students and day trippers to bring people into the country in their cars, which are subject to less scrutiny than lorry transport? What steps can be taken to deal with this new development without massively disrupting traffic through ports?
Mrs May
Sadly, the situation we face is that the people smugglers and the human traffickers will try every way possible to ply their trade. That is why it is so important that our law enforcement agencies, working with law enforcement organisations in Europe and elsewhere, are identifying trafficking routes, traffickers and people smugglers and can take action against them.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the scale of the problem yesterday was exacerbated by the French strikers gaining forcible access to the channel tunnel, leading to the closure of services there as well as at the port, and that the French authorities need to do more to secure the channel tunnel at Coquelles? Has she been given any reassurance by the French Interior Minister on that point?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that the problem yesterday was the strike and the damage to the tracks. Lorries and other vehicles were queuing or moving very slowly, which gave the migrants a greater opportunity to try to clamber aboard. I have had discussions with the French Interior Minister, both last night and previously. We are looking at what extra security can be put around Coquelles, in addition to the extra security at Calais. I have been reassured by the French authorities that they intend to ensure a police response is available at the ports, so that we can deal with this problem as it arises.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
It is estimated that one in 122 people on the planet is now a refugee, and many of them are children. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much of the £12 million is being spent on child protection for those children collected at the borders who are vulnerable to being seduced into paedophile rings and trafficked again by criminal gangs?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady has misunderstood, as the £12 million is specifically for improving border security at the juxtaposed controls. In respect of the issue she raises—children being exploited and trafficked—we are stepping up the efforts we are able to make as a Government. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is a seminal piece of legislation, the first of its kind in Europe. It is very important, giving extra powers to law enforcement agencies and ensuring that victims are taken into account. We are taking a number of actions to provide extra support to victims of human trafficking when they are identified.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Many of these criminal gangs will, of course, have links to the funding of terrorism, and the capability of civilian police forces in Europe is somewhat limited by comparison with the military. It is unlikely that a UN resolution will be granted for limited and targeted NATO military action in north Africa, but what progress, if any, is being made on an EU resolution to deploy an EU military force to disrupt and degrade the logistical supply chains?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Taking action on this matter has been discussed at the European level, but action against the boats setting forth from the Libyan coastline has to be done in discussion with the Libyan authorities. Those discussions are taking place. The United Kingdom is also playing a leading role within the UN in looking to see whether a resolution can be brought forward that would enable action to happen.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly in respect of transport logistics. The Home Secretary has rightly explained that this is not a recent issue—indeed, it has been an ongoing problem. She also rightly identified that Coquelles and Calais should be the border. Many commercial drivers, however, are stopping much further away from the port on the French side and are being targeted by highly organised criminal gangs, sometimes in places more than 100 miles from Calais. Can she reassure us that the conversations she is having take that issue into account and are aimed at enforcing the rule of law, so that commercial drivers are protected all the way through their journeys?
Mrs May
Yes, we are absolutely looking at that issue. There are two aspects to it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is having discussions with the Road Haulage Association to talk about its point of view, and the National Crime Agency, in tandem with other law enforcement organisations, is working with law enforcement bodies elsewhere in Europe to identify the routes and where the potential attempts at incursion can take place and to take appropriate action.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), will my right hon. Friend or her Ministers have ongoing discussions with their continental European counterparts to ensure that the security arrangements are resilient enough to withstand the type of industrial action that we have seen recently?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. When Border Force looks at security issues around the ports, it takes into account the work necessary to deal with the migrants building up at Calais and Coquelles, but it has contingency arrangements in place to deal with potential strike action, which actually took place at Calais yesterday. It will continue to look at those arrangements and make sure that they are robust, so that we can, as far as possible, ensure that the cross-channel routes can be maintained, while we maintain the security of our borders.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Many of these people are coming from Italy. Given that Italy is feeling absolutely overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the numbers coming in, what specific help is the Home Secretary offering to her Italian counterparts to deal with those problems in Italy?
Mrs May
The longer-term answer is, of course, working with Italy and others to break this link, so that we do not see people trying to make this journey. Some members of the organised immigration crime task force will operate in Italy, working with the Italian authorities and others. Extra resources are also being offered to the Italian authorities for asylum processing in Italy.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary can be rightly proud of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the fact that there are now tougher penalties for traffickers, that it is easier for the police to take action and that a commissioner has been created. However, these are evil criminal gangs, equal in evil to the gangs that deal in drugs, yet we put in only a proportion of our resources for fighting traffickers and much more for fighting drugs. Can we look at that balance to see if we have it right?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right. He is well aware of these issues from when he was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and of the terrible evil that, as he says, lies behind this crime. We do indeed look at the balance, and I have asked the National Crime Agency to provide a focus on human trafficking. We should not think that the gangs deal either in drugs or in people: sadly, these gangs will deal in anything that they think will make them money. Many of them are therefore dealing in people and drugs.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State claims over and again that the way to tackle the crisis in the Mediterranean is by breaking the link between travel and settlement. Is that the reason behind the Government’s unbelievable decision to scale down our capacity to undertake search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean? Does she not recognise that that decision will cost lives and should be reversed?
Mrs May
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed about exactly what happened. I think that he is trying to refer to Mare Nostrum, which was not a European-wide engagement but one done by the Italian Government. Indeed, in the year Mare Nostrum was in place, more people died in the Mediterranean than in the previous year. There is now a Frontex operation, to which the UK Government give support. The Prime Minister referred earlier to HMS Bulwark, and it will be replaced by HMS Enterprise. There are also two Border Force cutters taking part in the enterprise of saving lives in the Mediterranean. The UK is certainly playing its part.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I join hon. Members across the House in commending the work of the UK Border Force in securing our border over the last year or so. I welcome the extra investment that the Government have made in bolstering security across the ports in northern France. Will my right hon. Friend tell us in a little more detail what that includes?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about Border Force and its work. The money made available covers physical security, in the form of extra fencing and looking at the layout of a port to make it more secure by providing larger areas for lorries, for example. We have also put in some extra sniffer dog capacity by increasing the numbers in the teams, as well as extra detection equipment, so that we can identify when clandestines are in lorries.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Before I first came to this place, I represented the Home Office in several people-smuggling cases, and I echo the comments of other hon. Members in commending Border Force officers. Will my right hon. Friend say more about investigatory powers for police officers, the duties of investigation for haulage companies and sanctions for breach?
Mrs May
These are areas where, in respect of human trafficking, we have been able to bring offences together in one Act of Parliament, increase sentencing and make extra powers available to the police to deal with those responsible. In the immigration Bill, which will be forthcoming later this year, we will look at the responsibilities on hauliers and other parties to make sure that our border is as secure as possible.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I am glad that the Home Secretary mentioned the work of Kent police in her statement, because they have been working tirelessly on the whole issue. Whenever industrial action of this nature takes place in France, it has a knock-on impact in Kent and causes problems for both motorists and the police. I understand that the police were given extra resources to help them to tackle the issue, but will the Home Secretary keep their funding under review, so that they can continue their good work?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right. Given that the Kent force polices the Dover area in particular—but, obviously, other Kent ports as well—it often finds itself having to react to various initiatives, and in need of resources to enable it to do so. We do, of course, consider the basis on which police forces are funded, and take account of their requirements.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I understand that we are not part of the Schengen agreement, but actions taken by Schengen countries clearly have an impact on our borders. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the French to conduct more operations like the Italian border operations, to ensure that the problem is not concentrated on Calais as it has been to date?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The more that can be done to stop the flow of people further upstream, the better it will be for Calais and the less pressure there will be not just on the French authorities there, but on Border Force and our juxtaposed controls. I assure my hon. Friend that healthy discussions are taking place in the European arena about the actions that can be taken by Schengen countries.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
May I ask the Home Secretary to continue the hard work that is being done to deal with the confusion caused by a failure to differentiate between the economic migrants who often come here to work and the vulnerable refugees who come here in search of a place of safety? I think that those who are considering the arguments from the outside feel very confused about the work that the Government are doing, and I therefore welcome the forthcoming immigration Bill, which will help to tackle the problem.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that issue. Reports about what is happening at Calais and about people crossing the Mediterranean often use terms such as “refugee” or “asylum seeker” to describe all those people, although, as we know, a significant proportion of them are economic migrants who are trying to enter Europe illegally. We think it important to break that link, so that people are made aware that they cannot make those journeys, arrive in Europe illegally, and settle here.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary for her efforts to establish a taskforce, but how will its important activities be reported to the House?
Point of Order
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions why he was refusing to publish information about the number of people who had died within six weeks of claiming incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance,
“including those who have been found fit for work”,
although he had been ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner on 30 April. The Secretary of State replied:
“She knows very well that the Department does not collate numbers on people in that circumstance.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 611.]
His statement was in direct contradiction of his own Department’s submission to the Information Commissioner, which stated that it did collate those data and had last published them in November 2011. I should be grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how we can correct the record and seek an explanation for the error. This happens too much, and it brings the House into disrepute.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of her intention to raise it. If there is an inconsistency between what she has been told in the Chamber and what has been said elsewhere by the Government, and if that is a matter of fact, it will be apparent to Ministers, who are responsible for the accuracy of what they say, and, in the event of inaccuracy, for ensuring it is corrected. I cannot say more than that today, but the hon. Lady has made the point with crystal clarity; it is on the record, and it will have been heard by Ministers. I think that she should, at this stage, await events.
Bills Presented
Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rob Marris, supported by Crispin Blunt, Heidi Alexander, Lucy Allan, Jim Fitzpatrick, Paul Flynn, Norman Lamb, Karin Smyth and Stephen Twigg, presented a Bill to enable competent adults who are terminally ill to choose to be provided with medically supervised assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 7).
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Heaton-Harris presented a Bill to make provision for access to innovative medical treatments; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 8).
Defence Expenditure (NATO Target) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Gerald Howarth presented a Bill to make provision about the meeting by the UK of the NATO target for defence expenditure in each member state to constitute not less than 2 per cent of gross domestic product; to make provision for verification that NATO’s criteria for defence expenditure are met in calculating the UK’s performance against this target; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 October, and to be printed (Bill 9).
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Julie Cooper presented a Bill to make provision for exempting carers from hospital car parking charges; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 October, and to be printed (Bill 10).
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Morton, supported by Mr Adrian Bailey, Neil Carmichael, Maria Caulfield, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr Nigel Evans, Jeremy Lefroy, Stephen Pound, Mary Robinson, Mr Barry Sheerman, Keir Starmer and John Stevenson, presented a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the removal of the Secretary of State’s powers under the National Health Service Act 2006 to appoint trustees; to make provision transferring to Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity the right to a royalty conferred by Schedule 6 to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 November, and to be printed (Bill 11).
Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-funded Secondary Schools)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Teresa Pearce, supported by Sir David Amess, Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods, Dawn Butler, Thangam Debbonaire, Mr Nigel Dodds, Bill Esterson, Mr Philip Hollobone, Jason McCartney, John McDonnell, John Pugh and Mr John Spellar, presented a Bill to require the provision of Emergency First Aid (EFA) education by all state-funded secondary schools; to require that EFA education include cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillator awareness; to provide for initial and continuing teacher education and guidance on best practice for delivering and inspecting EFA education; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 November, and to be printed (Bill 12).
Riot Compensation Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mike Wood, supported by Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Byron Davies, Chris Heaton-Harris, James Morris, Andrew Griffiths, Craig Tracey, Nigel Mills, Amanda Milling, Simon Hoare, William Wragg and Wendy Morton, presented a Bill to repeal the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and make provision about types of claims, procedures, decision-making and limits on awards payable in relation to a new compensation scheme for property damaged, destroyed or stolen in the course of riots.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 13).
Off-patent Drugs Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Nick Thomas-Symonds, supported by Dan Jarvis, Dr Liam Fox, Liz Saville Roberts, Dr Phillip Lee, Dame Angela Watkinson, John Healey, Jessica Morden, Mr David Nuttall, Carolyn Harris, Robert Neill and Glyn Davies, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to seek licences for off-patent drugs in new indications; to require the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to conduct technology appraisals for off-patent drugs in new indications; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 November, and to be printed (Bill 14).
Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ms Karen Buck, supported by Kate Green, Jack Dromey, Matthew Pennycook, Emily Thornberry, Andy Slaughter, Mr Gordon Marsden, John Pugh, Lyn Brown, Rushanara Ali, Clive Efford and Fiona Mactaggart, presented a Bill to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to require that residential rented accommodation is provided and maintained in a state of fitness for human habitation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 15).
Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Simon Hoare, supported by Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Scott Mann, Johnny Mercer, Bob Stewart, Wendy Morton, Craig Williams, Richard Burgon, Stephen Twigg, Caroline Lucas, Robert Flello and Mr Clive Betts, presented a Bill to make powers available to highway authorities to make further provision for the safety, convenience and free movement on pavements of disabled people, older people, people accompanying young children and other vulnerable pedestrians; to clarify, strengthen and simplify the law relating to parking on pavements in England and Wales; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 16).
Local Government Finance (Tenure Information) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dame Angela Watkinson, supported by Sir David Amess, Bob Blackman, Lyn Brown, Meg Hillier, Mr Stewart Jackson, Boris Johnson, Charlotte Leslie, Paul Maynard, Mark Menzies, Bob Stewart and Mr Mark Prisk, presented a Bill to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to make provision for collecting information about tenure and the details of private landlords; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 October, and to be printed (Bill 17).
On-demand Audiovisual Services (Accessiblity for People with Disabilities affecting Hearing or Sight or both) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Lilian Greenwood, supported by Peter Aldous, Sir Peter Bottomley, Neil Carmichael, Rosie Cooper, Kate Green, Norman Lamb, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Ian Mearns, Jim Shannon, Ruth Smeeth and Dr Eilidh Whiteford, presented a Bill to require the appropriate regulatory authority of on-demand audiovisual programme services to draw up a Code relating to the provision of subtitles, signing and audio-description for persons with disabilities affecting their hearing or their sight or both; to require the appropriate regulatory authority to consult before issuing any such Code; to make provision for minimum requirements to be included in the Code; to require that on-demand programme services providers observe the requirements of the Code; to provide for regular consultation about and review of the minimum requirements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 November, and to be printed (Bill 18).
Highways (Improvement, Traffic Regulation and Traffic Management) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir William Cash presented a Bill to make provision for the prioritisation of maintenance of unclassified roads; the management of heavy commercial vehicle traffic; the regulation of the use of certain roads by such vehicles; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 November, and to be printed (Bill 19).
Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
William Wragg, supported by John Howell, Mr Peter Bone, James Davies, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Keith Vaz, Mr Graham Brady, James Berry, Dr Liam Fox, Dr Tania Mathias and Seema Kennedy, presented a Bill to extend the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s powers to obtain information.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 20).
Higher Education (Information) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Heidi Allen, supported by Sir Oliver Heald, Mr Jonathan Djanogly, Kevin Hollinrake, Oliver Colvile, Mr David Burrowes, Daniel Zeichner, Caroline Ansell and Victoria Prentis, presented a Bill to require information to be made available to prospective undergraduate students about what is provided to students for the tuition fees charged, how tuition fee resources are expended and what is expected of students; to establish transparency in how tuition fees are spent; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 October, and to be printed (Bill 21).
Representation of the People (Young Persons’ Enfranchisement and Education) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Vicky Foxcroft, supported by Ms Mhairi Black, John Pugh, Justin Madders, Ruth Smeeth, Keith Vaz, Clive Lewis, Ian Mearns, Conor McGinn, Tulip Siddiq, Stephen Kinnock and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to reduce the voting age to 16 in general elections, elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the European Parliament, local government elections and referendums; to make provision about young people’s education in citizenship and the constitution; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 22).
Crown Tenancies Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mark Pawsey, supported by Andrew Bingham, Graham Evans, Oliver Colvile, Jeremy Lefroy, Jack Lopresti, Karen Lumley, Jason McCartney, James Morris, Wendy Morton, David Mowat and Craig Tracey, presented a Bill to provide that Crown tenancies may be assured tenancies for the purposes of the Housing Act 1988, subject to certain exceptions; to modify the assured tenancies regime in relation to certain Crown tenancies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 23).
Mental Health (Independent Advocacy) (England) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Geoffrey Cox, supported by Stephen Hammond, Mr Charles Walker, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Stephen Phillips, Oliver Colvile, Mr Nigel Evans, Daniel Kawczynski and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, presented a Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 to make further provision for powers and responsibilities of independent mental health advocates for qualifying patients in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 November, and to be printed (Bill 24).
Health and Safety Executive (Powers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
James Cleverly presented a Bill to confer further powers on the Health and Safety Executive.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 25).
Assessment of Government Policies (Impact on Families) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Caroline Ansell, supported by Mr David Burrowes, Mrs Anne Main, Mary Glindon, Richard Graham, Fiona Bruce, Martin Vickers, Jeremy Lefroy, Mr Peter Bone, John Howell, James Cleverly and Jim Shannon, presented a Bill to require ministers to carry out an assessment of the impact of government policies on families by giving statutory effect to the family test; to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make a report on the costs and benefits of requiring local authorities to carry out equivalent tests on their policies; to require the Secretary of State to establish, and make an annual report on, indicators of and targets for the government’s performance in promoting family stability; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 26).
Opposition Day
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
A&E Services
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 270 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that hospital A&E departments have now missed the four-hour A&E target for 100 weeks in a row; further notes that trusts are predicting record deficits this year; believes the pressures on hospitals are a consequence of declining access to out-of-hospital services under this Government, including fewer older people receiving social care and more people waiting a week or more for a GP appointment; further believes the increasing bill for agency staff is also adding to the pressure on hospitals; notes that the Government plans to stop the weekly reporting of A&E data; believes this decision will make the NHS less transparent and make it harder for patients to judge the performance of their local hospital; and calls on the Government to reinstate the publication of weekly A&E data and to set out how it will tackle hospital deficits in 2015 in order to protect services.
I want hon. Members from all parts of the House to cast their minds back to the week commencing 14 July 2013: the country was still basking in Andy Murray’s historic win at Wimbledon; England had just embarked on a successful Ashes series against Australia; and hospital A&E departments achieved their target to see 95% of patients within four hours. Since then a number of unlikely things have happened: the then reigning world champions, Spain, have crashed out of the World cup in the first round; a group of scientists remotely have landed a probe on a comet hundreds of millions of kilometres from earth; and Cuba and the United States have begun to repair diplomatic relations. But in the same period some sadly predictable things have occurred: England have crashed out of the World cup in Brazil; they have been whitewashed by Australia in the cricket; and under a Conservative Government hospitals in England have now missed their A&E target for 100 weeks in a row.
I start this debate by paying tribute to the hard-working staff at every level of our national health service. They work tirelessly in trying circumstances, and without them there would be no NHS. Ministers have in this place adopted the practice of attempting to pretend that any criticism of Government policy is a criticism of the health service or its staff, so let us make clear one thing right at the start of this debate: NHS staff are remarkable and we are all in their debt. The achievements of NHS staff are despite Government policy, not because of it.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What have the Opposition learned from the Mid Staffs disaster and tragedy, where they were hitting the targets but missing the point? What should they learn about how one drives quality forward in the health service?
Mr Reed
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. If he paid attention to the Francis report, he would learn that it was not the targets themselves that were to blame for the Mid Staffs tragedy, but the way they were applied in that hospital. That is clearly stated in both the first and second Francis inquiries; indeed, it was a point that the Prime Minister made on the Floor of this House when he reported to Members.
In the past 100 weeks, nearly 2.4 million patients have waited more than four hours in hospital accident and emergency units in England.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that in my constituency A&E targets have been met for 97% of patients, that in his own hospital in his constituency in England they have been met for 93% of patients, but that in Wales they have been met for only 83%?
Mr Reed
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. Had he been in this House longer and paid more attention to these issues, he would know that the datasets comparable between England and Wales are not actually the same. He would know also that the last time we had a Conservative Government people in Wales were waiting two years for operations, and that nobody campaigns more than I do on behalf of hospitals in my area on the waiting times there.
In the past 100 weeks nearly 2.4 million patients have waited more than four hours in hospital accident and emergency units in England; almost half a million people have spent more than four hours on a trolley waiting to be admitted; and more than 1,500 have waited more than 12 hours to be admitted.
Those figures offer a stark analysis of the difficulties facing accident and emergency. Even in this week of the summer solstice, this Government’s A&E winter crisis shows no signs of abating. In a debate in January the Secretary of State for Health said that the NHS had just been through a tough winter, but the evidence from NHS England shows that accident and emergency departments have had two tough winters and are well on their way to a third tough summer. Under this Government accident and emergency is experiencing a permanent winter.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that Northwick Park hospital in my constituency has had some of the worst waiting times in the country over the past year. Does he understand, and will he address in his remarks, the fact that the ageing population—those over the age of 80—in Brent has increased by 50%, yet the funding available to cope with that increase has been reduced by 25%? It means that, of the 250 people who attend A&E each day, 100 are dementia patients who become bed blockers because the integrated care package is not in place and is not working.
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right to mention those issues, which I will come to later. I pay tribute to him for doing so.
The reason for those pressures on A&E, in addition to the issues that my hon. Friend raises, is the sharp increase in people attending A&E since 2010. In the past the Secretary of State has tried to claim that the increase is the fault of the previous Labour Government, but that is patently nonsense. Annual attendances at hospital accident and emergency units increased by 60,000 in the four years before 2010, whereas in the four years after they increased by nearly 600,000—10 times faster. The reality is that A&E dramatically improved between 2004 and 2010, when 98% of patients were seen within four hours. This is a crisis that only started on the Tories’ watch—after they made it harder to see a GP, after they started stripping back social care services and after they launched their damaging top-down reorganisation.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the closure of A&E at Crawley hospital in 2005, under a Labour Government, was distinctly unhelpful to A&E waiting times?
Mr Reed
The hon. Gentleman has made that point on the Floor of the House on many occasions, and he has been a constant voice with regard to the hospital services used by his constituents. That was a decision made by clinicians in the area, and he will recognise that. He will recognise also how much the framework has changed and how much more difficult the Government have made it for communities such as his to have their say on health reconfiguration.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point is not that there should never be any change in our national health service. When clinicians plan it and put it forward to improve services, we are right to support it. The difference is that the Conservative-led Government came in and attempted to close A&Es from the centre, such as Lewisham A&E, which they were going to close. They said they would not close Sidcup A&E, but they closed it within months of entering government. That is the difference: the Government dictated the closures, not local clinicians.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) mentioned the distressing figures at Northwick Park hospital, but the Government’s solution was to close Central Middlesex hospital’s A&E. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) think that that added to the crisis or made it better?
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Is there not an extra pressure, with many trusts ending the year with deficits? Wythenshawe hospital, which is looking at a £3 million deficit, has decided to try to cut 33 district nursing posts, yet when the Health Committee looked at winter A&E pressures we found that it was important to hang on to district, community support and hospice nurses. Is it not just madness to force hospitals with deficits to cut district nurse posts?
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend puts her finger on the problem precisely. It is absolute madness, and it is happening at trusts throughout England, as their deficits edge up towards £1 billion for this financial year.
The number of patients waiting more than four hours each year has rocketed by more than 1 million, meaning that there are now almost four times as many people as there were five years ago waiting more than four hours. That is a damning record, and based on the performance over the previous Parliament five more years of the same will see almost 2.5 million patients each year waiting more than four hours by 2020. For the benefit of patients, medical professionals and the healthcare system as a whole, that cannot be allowed to continue.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman may know that I spend my weekends working in the NHS, attending seriously ill patients. We are seeing more patients who are elderly, who have a higher acuity and who need admission to hospital; hospital is the only place for them. On his suggestion that the situation has arisen on the Government’s watch, how does he account for the Royal College of Nursing’s telling the Health Committee that the decisions that needed to be taken to deal with this demographic shift should have been taken a decade or more before my party entered government?
Mr Reed
If the hon. Gentleman wants to compare the records of this Government and the previous one, we will do that all day long and he will come out on the wrong side of that debate. On the ageing society, we would think from listening to Ministers and Government Back Benchers that this has just been sprung upon us. He is right to say that it has been coming for a long time, but we did an awful lot more to address it than this Government are doing. I will go on to explain why in just a moment.
A real worry for the NHS, and for those of us who use it or work within it every day, is the Government’s plan to suspend the work of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on its safe staffing programme. That move is a rejection of a key recommendation made by the Francis report, and in response to the move, Sir Robert Francis said:
“I specifically recommended the work which NICE has been undertaking for a reason…I would not be surprised if this news generates a significant level of concern, and it seems a shame that the work of NICE has been stopped.”
Dr Clifford Mann, president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, has said:
“There are real pressures on nursing levels in Emergency Departments.”
He has also said:
“We are concerned about patient safety and staff welfare.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to me, and to Sir Robert Francis, why on earth the Government have suspended this crucial work.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I read the hon. Gentleman’s motion carefully and I was left slightly bewildered, as he seems to be suggesting that the solution to this problem is more resources for A&E and for primary care, yet I seem to recall that just a few weeks ago I was standing in an election campaign where my party pledged £8 billion more for the NHS and his party failed to back that. Can he explain where he will find the resources?
Mr Reed
That is the kind of magical thinking that afflicts Conservative thinking. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the last general election we talked about a specific £2.5 billion fund to train 20,000 more nurses, 8,000 more GPs and so on. What we always said was that the NHS would get the money it deserves, quite separately from that £2.5 billion, from a Labour Government. That remains the case and he knows that that is the truth. It is true that certain societal changes, including the ageing society, pose new challenges and offer new pressures for the NHS, but the service is also under increasing financial pressure as a direct result of Government policy.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
May I tell my hon. Friend that we should not recommend to anybody that they rely upon the promises of the Conservative party, because it promised to keep Chase Farm’s A&E unit open—the Prime Minister himself promised that at the 2010 election—but then he closed it? Every A&E department in the surrounding area that now serves the people of Enfield—those of the Royal Free, Barnet and North Middlesex hospitals—continually miss their A&E waiting time targets.
Mr Reed
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and may I say what a pleasure it is to see her again in the House of Commons? She is entirely right in what she says. We all remember the pictures, and we remember the Prime Minister’s promises and those from the previous Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is right to say that nobody should ever take any lessons from Conservative Members or believe what they are being told by them—not one bit.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Why is it that when an A&E department is lost from a Labour constituency it is the Government’s fault, but when one was lost in a Conservative constituency under the previous Government that was “clinically led”? Can the hon. Gentleman explain the contradiction?
Mr Reed
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not listening; the rules have changed. The system whereby these processes are undertaken has comprehensively changed. If he were to draw a golden thread through Conservative health policy over the past five years, it would be that the public do not matter and are not listened to, and that change is driven from the centre, irrespective of what local clinicians say.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
This is all a little ironic, given that in my constituency the Labour party went around petrifying local people by saying that the A&E unit at Kettering general hospital was going to close, but it is still open and it is performing better. Would the hon. Gentleman like to apologise?
Mr Reed
If the hon. Gentleman is seeking an apology, would he like to apologise for the fact that A&Es in England have missed their waiting time targets for the past 100 weeks? I do not see any trace of an apology or any scintilla of embarrassment on his face.
It is true that certain societal changes, including the ageing society, pose new challenges and offer new pressures for the NHS, but the service is also under increasing financial pressure as a direct result of Government policy. First, the declining access to social care and the squeeze on primary care have forced people to turn to A&E in increasing numbers and have also meant an increasing number of admissions that could have been avoided if people had received better care outside hospital. Secondly, the Government wasted £3 billion, at least, on a damaging top-down reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for, and which was hidden from the electorate. That reorganisation sucked resources from front-line patient care. We know that senior members of the Cabinet believe that the reorganisation was a catastrophic mistake. We know that, in the words of British Medical Association chair Mark Porter,
“the damage done to the NHS has been profound and intense”,
and we know that the reorganisation has not made the NHS more productive or more efficient.
Thirdly, the effect of that wastage has been compounded by the short-sighted cuts to nurse training places at the beginning of the previous Parliament. That means that there are not enough staff working in hospitals—that was a key criticism by the Keogh review. In addition to compromising patient safety and clinical outcomes, this Government’s decision has left trusts over-reliant on expensive agency staff.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
When I worked in hospitals and was responsible for arranging community-based discharge, two major problems created a delay in discharge—I hate the expression “bed-blocking” as it is such an insult to elderly people. One was access to community care facilities—home care support—and the other was ensuring that we had community equipment, such as hospital beds, hoists or bathing equipment. If we do not have all the pieces in place, which often come not from NHS funding but from local authority funding, it will not happen. That is exacerbating the problem in A&E.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as he has just responded to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who is from Wales. Does he accept that in every financial year since 2010 the NHS in England has had a real-terms increase in funding, albeit a modest one, but that there has been a cut of 8% by the Labour Government in Wales and the A&E target in Wales has not been met since 2008?
Mr Reed
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his knighthood—it is remiss of me not to have done that. He will know that real-terms increases and cash increases are not the same. He will also know, because he voted for it, that the budget in Wales has been cut by this Government by more than £2 billion. Let us compare like with like.
The Royal College of Nursing has calculated that almost £1 billion—£980 million—was spent on agency staff in the last year alone. Those and other choices made by this Government have meant that, collectively, trusts in England reported a total deficit of £822 million in 2014-15. That is simply unsustainable. A recent survey by the King’s Fund found that 90% of trust financial directors and 85% of commissioners are concerned about the financial state of their local health economies, and that view will be shared by many Members on both sides of the House. An investigation by Pulse revealed that clinical commissioning groups were being forced to use their 2015-16 winter pressures allocations just to maintain regular services.
Questions must also be asked about this week’s revelations that thousands of foreign nurses working in our NHS could be forced to leave the country as a result of the Government’s immigration rules. The RCN points out that this would cause chaos for the NHS and waste tens of millions of pounds—the Secretary of State laughs as I mention that. It would make matters much worse for patients and for front-line clinicians. Will the Minister tell us how many nurses will be lost from A&E and how many will be lost in total as a result of this move? Where in the country will they be lost? How will the vacancies be filled? What will this cost? Has he or any Minister in his Department made representations to the Prime Minister about the effects of this policy? If so, will he share those with the House? When did Health Ministers know that this policy might cause so much damage?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
When the Minister replies it will also be interesting to hear him say exactly how that cut and restriction on nurses will impact on the Royal Stoke university hospital, which had the great misfortune, for patients and the public more generally, of topping the list for the longest waits last winter of more than 12 hours on trolleys.
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Stoke deserves better, and no one has worked harder than him to ensure that it gets something better. Let us ensure that the Minister answers those points.
The understaffing crisis represents a dire situation that will only get worse unless the Government demonstrate an understanding of these issues and give them the attention that they deserve. We know that, as well as deficits this year, the“Five Year Forward View” is based on assumptions that the NHS can save £22 million by 2020. Will the Minister assure us that this will not result in any fewer medical staff or cuts to hospital or community services? Will he also commit to placing the analysis and the assumptions behind the efficiency plans in the public domain so that we can have an informed and honest debate about NHS funding? We do not want a programme of services being set up to fail and then being cut by stealth.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I worked as a nurse under the previous Labour Government. That Government may have kept numbers the same, but they reduced the skill mix, which greatly affected the safety of patients both on wards and in out-patient facilities. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that?
Mr Reed
It is a matter of fact that we increased nursing numbers. The hon. Lady will be well aware that when we came into office in 1997, we were training 15,000 nurses a year, and when we left office in 2010, we were training 20,000 nurses a year.
On social care, under this Government, 300,000 fewer older people are getting the care they need, with more and more people being forced to stay in hospital. But that is only part of the story. When someone who needs care cannot get the help they need, it increases the risk that they will struggle or fall ill and have to go to accident and emergency. That is clearly demonstrated in the increasing number of older people arriving at A&E by ambulance. Almost 100,000 extra patients over the age of 90 were brought to accident and emergency by ambulance last year. That is an indictment of Government policy towards older people, and the problem is further exacerbated when the true scale of the damage to social care is revealed.
Before the election, the National Audit Office published its report on the impact of Government cuts on local council budgets. The report found that 40% of the total savings between 2013-14 and 2014-15 were made through reducing adult social care services.
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has calculated that a further £1.1 billion will be cut from adult social care over this financial year, and the president of the association said:
“Short-changing social care is short-sighted and short-term.”
The number of patients ending up in A&E because they cannot get the care they need to help them stay healthy outside hospital is clear evidence of this short-termism.
Cutting the social care budget is clearly a false economy, as thousands turn to A&E as a result. That is bad not only for the patient, but for the taxpayer. If a patient is not getting the care they need, their condition will deteriorate, which means that more complex interventions will be needed. A recent poll commissioned by the Care and Support Alliance found that nine out of 10 GPs believe that deep social care cuts are responsible for the overcrowding in our accident and emergency departments. The Government need to get a grip and address the crisis in social care in order to relieve the pressure on A&E departments and GP surgeries. Instead, they have chosen to risk putting more pressure on the heath system at all levels by announcing further cuts of £200 million to the public health budgets of local authorities without any idea of whether they can be made without harming vital services—services that potentially save money.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the shadow Minister recognise the initiative that is happening in north Northamptonshire? Kettering general hospital will have not only an A&E, but urgent care, social care and mental health facilities and GPs all on the same site. People can go to the hospital and be dealt with there and then, correctly. I will also have an urgent care centre in my constituency. Is that not the way forward?
Mr Reed
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree that models such as that and local best practice can exist in pockets all over the country. It is just a shame that so many health economies are getting cut to the bone, because that stops them developing such care models. He is right that it is precisely that kind of integration that points the way to the future. Have the effects of these public health budget cuts on primary care and accident and emergency been modelled by the Department, and will the Minister share that work with the House? If that work has not been done, will he explain why? Has the Department consulted on these latest cuts, and what was the response?
I now wish to turn to the situation in general practice. In the previous Parliament, we saw a marked increase in the number of people waiting longer for a GP appointment. By 2013-14, almost 6 million people could not get a GP appointment. If the trend continues, that figure could be around 10 million by the end of this Parliament. Those people are often left with little option but to turn to accident and emergency. The GP patient survey suggests that almost 1 million patients went to A&E last year because they could not get a convenient GP appointment. It is clear that the GP workforce crisis is a major driver of the issues under discussion today.
Robert Flello
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech and is being very generous in giving way. On that point, Stoke-on-Trent has traditionally had far more patients per GP than the national average, and the age of that population is rapidly approaching, and often way past, retirement age. What we are seeing is not that people cannot get an appointment when it is convenient, but that they cannot get an appointment for days on end.
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend makes the case. What is happening in Stoke, I regret to say, appears to be something of a canary in a coal mine for the NHS around the country, and its issues will increasingly be seen in areas all over the country.
It is clear that the GP workforce crisis is a major driver of the problems. The number of full-time equivalent GPs per head has fallen over the past five years, even as demand has increased.
Mr Reed
I have been generous with time, so I must press on.
In 2013, the Government announced a call to action to improve general practice access and experience for patients. They set out six key indicators to rate the quality of access and experience for patients. One year later, every single indicator had shown a deterioration in performance. Fewer people described the overall experience of their surgery as good and fewer people were able to get an appointment. The Government must address that finding. Only by addressing the crisis in general practice in addition to social care can the Government begin to relieve the pressures on A&E departments.
When the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister discuss the NHS in this House, they like to use words such as “openness” and “transparency”. Sadly, their actions betray that sentiment on a routine basis. I refer again to Professor Keogh’s seminal letter to the Secretary of State two years ago in which he refers to the use and principle of transparency in the NHS as representing
“a turning point for our health service from which there is no return.”
Except that, for this Government, it seems that there is a return.
Currently, NHS England publishes the performance measures for each A&E in England every week. Those figures contain a wealth of information for each trust and it makes that data available to the public. The data show how each A&E department is performing across a range of measures, and it can be used to target specific interventions at trusts that are struggling. This reporting time period also means that issues can be identified quickly and resolved promptly. Rather than taking action to ensure that hospitals in England meet this target, the Government are seeking to hide the performance data. We will not be able to see how A&Es are performing each week; we will have to wait until the end of each month. By publishing a significant number of performance measures from across the NHS on the same day, the Government appear to have found an innovative way of burying bad news—publishing even worse news at the same time. Patients deserve better than that. Clearly, Ministers find it more palatable to be reminded of their failings just once a month, rather than at the end of each week. This move is designed to make the red box lighter and the scathing headlines kinder. Will people not conclude that the monthly publication of A&E data—unlike other monthly data sets—has nothing to do with patient care and everything to do with political and media management?
Mr Reed
I must make some progress.
The issues facing A&E departments, GP surgeries and social care services will not be solved by amending the date on which performance indicators are published. The public will be rightly sceptical about the motivations behind the reduced publication of data that illustrate both good and bad performance. It is a move designed to take the pressure off Ministers as they turn a blind eye to the pressures that they are inflicting on our health service.
The pressures that the Government have introduced into the health service have built up until the system can no longer cope. A&E is full to bursting and social care has been cut to the bone, which means that patients cannot be discharged, wards are getting fuller, there are delays for admission and more people are waiting longer for treatment. That is indisputable. In England, the target for seeing 95% of patients within four hours has been missed for 100 weeks in a row. Instead of easing the pressures in A&E, this Government have decided to make it harder for patients to see the effects of Government policy on the services that they use by restricting the performance data that are available. Under this Government, it is getting harder to see a GP, harder to be seen at A&E and harder to see how the NHS is performing.
Not only is the record of this Government shameful, but their cynicism and complacency are, too. Professional bodies and Opposition Members have long warned the Government that the path they have placed the NHS on is damaging the service, working against patients’ best interests and causing unprecedented professional concern. Having done that, the Government are now trying to evade scrutiny. Today, Ministers must explain why they are seeking to make NHS performance less transparent and to hide the damage caused by their policies from patients and the public, and how they intend to protect services and tackle hospital deficits this year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I am putting a six-minute time limit on Back Benchers—that does not apply to Front Benchers. Six minutes is already a little over-generous, so may I make a plea for few interventions, so that we can get in as many Back-Bench speakers as possible? With that in mind, I call Ben Gummer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
May I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a great pleasure to speak for the first time with you in the Chair. You will have noted that the subject for debate on the Order Paper is A&E services—an important matter that everyone in this House cares much about. You will also have noted that there are several proposers of the motion, including the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister for care and older people. My first question is why, on this important issue, which the Opposition seem to think is critical to their programme for the NHS, the shadow Secretary of State for Health cannot be here to make the argument himself. Further, we understand that the shadow Minister for care will not be wrapping up the debate.
Mr Jamie Reed
I can tell the Minister where they are not: they are not hiding behind trees, and they are not meeting Rupert Murdoch in an underground car park.
Ben Gummer
I am not sure I get the gist of the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do think that the shadow Secretary of State for Health should propose the motion in an Opposition day debate on health matters. I hazard a guess that there has been a disagreement between the two shadow Ministers—perhaps a suggestion that one of them is using health debates as opportunities to grandstand. I hope that that is not the case.
I am slightly concerned that we are about to see another episode of the ongoing psychodrama which is the Labour party. We had the TB-GBs and then, when that very happily came to an end, we had the Miliband “Band of Brothers”—a disaster for that family but happily not for the country.
Barbara Keeley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I really wonder whether this is within scope. Is it at all orderly to be debating which Minister is answering or proposing a debate? This happens quite a bit in this House—for example, the Chancellor did not come last week. It is just not orderly to be starting off the debate in this way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. I think the point has been made. Perhaps we can move on with the debate.
Ben Gummer
It is a matter of importance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because in this episode of “Health Handbags”, we have been given an insight into the crisis within the Labour party and Labour Members’ inability to understand what the priorities are for the NHS and for the country.
If the NHS and A&E services are of such importance to the Labour party, one would expect the shadow Secretary of State—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. If the Minister could sit down for a moment, I will take the point of order, which I imagine is very similar to the previous one. It would be nice if we could move the debate on, as there are several maiden speeches waiting to be taken. It is an important subject and I would like to move on, rather than get bogged down in this. I will take the point of order, and then I hope we will move on.
Robert Flello
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of new Members on both sides of the House, I think it would be helpful if you spent a moment clarifying when it is in order to challenge the Chair’s ruling on something and when it is not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Thank you very much. It is the person in the Chair’s decision whether something is within scope or not. I did not take the Minister’s response to my decision as a challenge to the Chair; I merely wanted to point out that it would be nice to get on with the debate and to allow other hon. Members to speak, especially new Members who wish to make their maiden speech. If the Minister could move on, we would all be very grateful.
Ben Gummer
With pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In the absence of the shadow Secretary of State, I shall channel him, which is something I enjoy doing. I like the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham); he is a man who often—sometimes; a few times—speaks some sense. Just before the last election, he said that after the election,
“we need to come together, and then allow the NHS to get on with the job of building 21st-century services”.
What I do not understand about the motion that he and other Opposition Members have put before the House is that, far from coming together and trying to build consensus on the future of the NHS, what they are seeking to do—once again—is reproduce the golden oldies of criticism that they put before the country before the last election, and that were so roundly rejected.
That comment was about after the election. What I do not understand is what the shadow Secretary of State felt was the purpose of leading a campaign so politicising the NHS before the election. I, like so many others, had a leaflet through my letterbox saying that there were 24 hours to save the NHS—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. We are straying into the general election, which has passed, and away from what is on the Order Paper, which is a debate on A&E services. If the Minister could stay on that subject, I would be enormously grateful.
Ben Gummer
With pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is that we were warned that there were 24 hours to save the NHS, yet it is still there, and the A&E crisis, which is named at the top—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. If the Minister could resume his seat, we are beginning to stray into the realms of challenging the Chair’s decision. We do not have much time and I do not want to take any more points of order on this one subject, so if he could stick to the subject on the Order Paper and let us move on, I would be very grateful to him.
Ben Gummer
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The motion is about A&E services, and I would like to talk about the progress that the NHS has made in the past five years. Far from the picture painted today by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) and Members who intervened during his speech, the NHS is treating more people than ever before, it is treating more people in A&E than ever before and it is treating more people at a higher rate of satisfaction than ever before, and the result of that is that patient outcomes—something we did not hear much about from the shadow Minister—have improved. We are treating more people to a higher standard.
John Redwood
Is it not the case that the excellent policy of seven-days-a-week GP services means an expansion in the amount of GP services, which will provide welcome relief from the pressures on A&E, which will add to the good work being done in hospitals?
Ben Gummer
That is precisely the sort of policy on which we will seek consensus in the months and years ahead. There is a choice for Opposition Members. I know there are many new Members who wish to make their maiden speech in this debate, and I would just say to them that the choice is this: to come together to try to model better care within the NHS and better outcomes for patients, or to seek division.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I want to raise a point of substance that affects my constituents. There are young people in my constituency who would love to train as nurses and work in the NHS, but by cutting the number of training places in London by 25%, the Government have made that much harder. At the same time, when I last spoke to the recently retired chief executive of King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, he told me that he was recruiting nurses in the Philippines, because there are not enough nurses—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. When the Chair is on her feet, Members sit. I have said before that interventions need to be very short and kept to a minimum. That was too long.
Ben Gummer
The shadow Secretary of State cut the number of training places for nurses; it was increased under the last Government and is now at a record level.
We were on the subject of performance, which is at the heart of the motion. The shadow Minister can speak warm words about the workforce, but he failed to congratulate them on their exceptional performance under unprecedented pressures. At no point in his speech did he acknowledge the real increase in pressure on A&E services in the NHS. Some 3,000 additional patients a day are being seen, treated and discharged in accordance with the 95% target; that is being delivered by NHS staff across the service. He fails to point out the places where we have seen remarkable successes. He fails to give the example of Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, which saw a 16% improvement in A&E performance times in the last year. That is front-line staff delivering better outcomes as a result of changes made by the Secretary of State over the past five years.
Mr Jamie Reed
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he gives an absolutely fictional account of my remarks to the House. If he is so confident in his description of what is happening in the health service, can he explain why a comedy document produced by the Conservative research department says:
“New polling by Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft found that 47 per cent of voters believe Labour has the best approach to the health service while just 29 per cent picked the Tories”?
Ben Gummer
As Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out, we have just had an election, and the voters’ voice on the NHS was loud and clear. There is a simple point to make about the performance of this nation’s NHS: an independent think-tank—one of the most respected in the field—has rated it the best performing national health service in the world. It is better than that of Scotland, Northern Ireland or Labour-run Wales. A&E, as measured by countries across the world, performs no better in any country than in this. If we wish to go to international comparisons, the shadow Minister would do well to accept the extraordinary work that NHS staff are already delivering to make this the best health service in the world.
Mr Reed
I wish the Minister was right. I genuinely wish ours was the best A&E provision in the world. However, I have to draw his attention to an article in the International Business Times in January this year. When a journalist contacted the Department of Health to learn the basis for that claim by the Secretary of State, they were told that there was
“no concrete research on which Hunt had made the statement”.
This is a complete fabrication. Will the Minister set the record straight?
Ben Gummer
The shadow Minister should know that we in this country perform best of all countries that measure A&E, and that is the only way that we can judge this. The trouble is that by talking down that remarkable fact, all we do is denigrate the work of the people who deliver that every day.
I move on to the financial performance of the NHS, the second point that the shadow Minister raised, which lies at the heart of his motion. Let me set the financial context. [Interruption.] While Opposition Members are giggling, they might like to remember that they went into the last election not willing to commit to the NHS’s own plan for the next five years. Only one major party pledged to give the NHS the funding that it requested for the next five years: the Conservative party. The history on delivery is clear: we are talking about an additional £12.9 billion of cash in the last five years; a contribution of £2 billion this financial year, and a further £8 billion to fulfil the five-year plan. That is the financial background to this debate—a background that the Opposition refused to match at the last election. Money on its own does not get to the root of the problem, which I am afraid is not recognised in the motion, namely the relationship between quality, standards and money.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it would probably do the shadow Minister and other Opposition Front Benchers a great deal of good to move down to Wales, where there has been an 8% cut in the budget? Wales has not met A&E targets since 2008.
Ben Gummer
It is a real delight to respond to my hon. Friend. It is a good thing for the shadow Minister and those living in England that they do not have to endure the experiences of people in Wales, which have, I am afraid, been inflicted on them by the appalling management of the Labour Government there, who chose not to invest in the NHS in the way that we did, in a time of constrained budgets across the public sector. I have to say to the shadow Minister that by concentrating on money—he cannot match the Conservative party’s commitments on that anyway—he misses the points around quality and safety, which are conjoined with money. If we go back to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may groan, but they may wish to reflect on why Stafford hospital went wrong. It was within budget and was hitting its targets, yet at the same time it was killing people. Until that simple fact is remembered, and until we put quality and patient care first, we will not get the efficiency, as regards either care or money, that I am sure Members on both sides of the House wish to see.
Ben Gummer
I am sure that the shadow Minister has come to the House without reading the speech in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State directly addressed the issues caused, in some trusts, largely by agency spending, which took place because of the chronic understaffing created by the previous Government, and put right by us. That led in part to the catastrophe at Mid Staffs. The shadow Minister has not read my right hon. Friend’s comments about limiting the salaries of highly paid managers in the NHS, or his comments about cutting consultancy pay. It is precisely that kind of action—including enabling chief executives of NHS trusts to control their budgets—that this Government are taking to ensure that, nationally and locally, we are living within our means.
Clive Efford
The Minister says that the Government responded to Mid Staffs. Will he give us a guarantee that there will be no removal of the minimum staffing requirement that came in on the back of the Mid Staffs report?
Ben Gummer
I can guarantee that to the hon. Gentleman. On minimum staffing, it was in response to the Francis inquiry that this Government, in their previous incarnation, set the Care Quality Commission a specific target of doing something about minimum staffing. That did not happen before then. He understands that relationship between safe care and money. I just wish that he was able to explain it to his colleagues on the Front Bench, because if they went to the Salford Royal hospital, they would see how, through instigating safer care, it is saving £5 billion a year. It is by combining quality and efficiency that we get the double benefit of better care for patients and better returns for the taxpayer.
Tom Pursglove
Under the coalition Government, a new urgent care centre opened in Corby, which is providing an excellent service for my constituents. That is in addition to the service in Kettering. Does the Minister agree that it is important that care is not only accessible, but as local as possible?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend, and our hon. Friends in Northamptonshire, have worked hard together—as Northamptonshire MPs did previously on a cross-party basis—to find the best configuration of services for their county. It is a great shame that that model of cross-party working cannot be echoed or reflected across the House. In that vein, I would prefer it if the Opposition had come here to talk about plans for social care. They have two competing visions for social care. We sometimes hear thoughtful remarks from the shadow Minister for care and older people, but then there is the shadow Secretary of State’s repetition of the phrase about wanting a top-down reorganisation of the NHS around a social care model. None of that will deliver what we all want: an integrated NHS and social care model, which is what we are beginning the journey of creating. We are doing that by reflecting locally what local places need in terms of integration rather than creating a national model to which they have to adhere. Again, it is important to fix all this—
Ben Gummer
I will after I have finished this comment.
It is important to put all this in the financial context. I have been through the Lobby with the shadow Minister and with many Labour Members who were in the previous Parliament. We went through the Lobby just before the election when we agreed to cuts in public expenditure in the first two years of this Parliament and the former shadow Chancellor committed the Labour party to cuts in local government spending. Difficult choices are forced on us by the catastrophe and chaos that we were left in 2010. Labour Members need to confront those difficult choices. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, say that we need massive increases in payments for social care and, on the other, say that they are going to constrain public spending. The answer to that dilemma is surely to try to find a better way of integrating social care that I hope would see cross-party consensus rather than the politicking we have just seen at the Dispatch Box.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister is talking about the financial context. My worry is that a lot of NHS managers in London talk about a Lewisham-sized hole in the NHS budget in south-east London. We stopped the Secretary of State closing Lewisham’s A&E last time. Can the Minister promise me today that he will not be coming back to Lewisham for another go?
Ben Gummer
My right hon. Friend never planned to close Lewisham hospital. I give the hon. Lady this promise: I will certainly come and speak to her about her constituency before anything happens—in fact, if nothing happens—because I care very much about the provision of secondary and tertiary care there. That also goes for my colleagues on the Front Bench.
Let me give the facts of what we are doing in funding better social care and integrated social care in the NHS. We are already transferring £1.1 billion of NHS spending into social care funding as part of the additional £8 billion over the next five years. That money will be for social care as well as the NHS. It is part of an integrated system that NHS England envisages. Through the better care fund, funded to the tune of £5.3 billion, we are funding the local integration of social care and health care. That will produce a different solution in Manchester than in Ipswich, and that is a good thing because those two places are different.
Barbara Keeley
I thank the Minister for giving way eventually, because he has made a number of points about my local area. In Salford, we are moving heavily into integration—we are one of the better places in the country for that—but the work there is not assisted by a number of things. The better care programme funding is not extra funding. A large hole has been created, as in Lewisham, by cutting back on social care funding. Even at a smaller level, the closure of walk-in centres in Salford and the ending of active case management as efficiency cuts are made have not helped. All these things are part of the jigsaw. All we have seen is cuts.
Ben Gummer
Walk-in centre closures were supported by the hon. Lady’s hospital because that gave a safer service. I walked through the Lobby with her also. Because her party is unable to make a decision about money being spent on benefits and on the general budget for government, she would not be able to pledge any more than my party; in fact, she could only promise less funding for social care. She has to be straight with voters. Labour Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot spend money on the NHS, benefits and all the other things that they are pledged to increase funding on, and also claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. It just does not hang together.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the focus on integration, particularly in relation to social care. Enfield suffers from historical underfunding, with a lack of fairness in relation to the growing deprivation and age profile. We have made great progress, but we need to make more to ensure that there are winners, such as Enfield. That may lead to other parts of London, and inner London, being losers, but let us take these decisions now and make funding fairer, particularly in relation to social care.
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend is right. Again, he highlights a local solution to a serious problem, and one that will not reflect what is needed in other parts of the country. That is why it is so important that we concentrate the additional money that we are providing on local solutions rather than on a top-down reorganisation.
The shadow Minister spoke about primary care. He does not seem to have listened to my right hon. Friend’s latest announcements on the new deal for GPs to increase the workforce, support new buildings for GPs, and improve access through local innovation. We are trying to reduce the pressures that we understand are on GPs and that go back many years, not helped by the GP contract signed by his Labour predecessors. We have a choice in government about whether we declare an ambition—the ambition on primary care declared by Labour at the last election was, the Royal College of GPs said, an
“ill-thought out, knee-jerk response”—
or we can try to do something about it, listen to concerns, and remodel care so that it helps patients. That is what the Government have done. My right hon. Friend has spoken about it, and the work is being carried on by the Minister with responsibility for primary care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).
Ben Gummer
I am not going to take any more interventions, if my hon. Friend does not mind, because I want to cover the additional issues raised by the shadow Minister. Before I do so, I would like to know whether the shadow Minister agrees with our target for 5,000 additional GPs, which can be afforded only because of the £8 billion that we have committed to the NHS—a commitment that, again, he has been unable to sign up to.
Mr Jamie Reed
The Minister has touched repeatedly on issues of finance. He has not given an accurate reflection of the Labour party’s position going into the general election with regard to NHS funding. Let me ask him again: will he explain how the £22 billion of efficiency savings is going to be made, and will he give a guarantee that it will not affect hospital services, A&E services, staff numbers, or any front-line services in any community in this country?
Ben Gummer
I find it difficult to have to repeat to the hon. Gentleman, as I have to the shadow Secretary of State on a previous occasion, that this is a plan by NHS England. It is a plan that we supported before the election and afterwards, and a plan that the Opposition failed to support. The details of the plan have been worked out by NHS England and will be revealed in due course. Our part of the deal is that we provide the money that it has requested, which is £8 billion. We will see the plan as it is revealed by NHS England. It is an ambitious plan but one that we will fund from our side of the bargain.
The shadow Minister reveals in his comments and in the motion to which he has put his name that his motives are not pure. He speaks about the reporting targets for A&E departments around the country, but does not mention that the decision to change the reporting standard was made not by the Government but on the basis of a recommendation made by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, who did so as part of a general review of reporting standards. When the shadow Minister talks about reporting standards, he does not mention that we are bringing those for cancer waiting times forward from a quarterly to a monthly basis, which I would hope he would have welcomed.
The shadow Minister does not mention that, for the first time, we are introducing mental health waiting times, as well as putting into the NHS constitution parity of esteem, which was not in the original constitution written and instituted by the shadow Secretary of State. Those are two matters of vital concern to our constituents which we are correcting on the recommendation of Professor Sir Bruce Keogh. Nor does the shadow Minister mention that Sir Bruce recommends that the A&E targets are brought on to a monthly reporting basis so that they can have clinical parity with all other standards and produce a better quality of statistical reporting.
In this debate, the shadow Minister finds himself on the wrong side of the clinical evidence given by Sir Bruce; the Patients Association, which welcomed the change; and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, which said:
“The move from weekly to monthly reporting better reflects meaningful trends and will in fact increase the validity of this key metric, by reducing the effect of short term and unforeseeable events”.
The Nuffield Trust said that
“the replacement of weekly A&E figures with a monthly publication of indicators for many targets should help us understand changes in performance in a more meaningful way”.
The hon. Gentleman is on the wrong side of clinicians, academics, the Patients Association and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine—and on the wrong side of the argument.
The reason why is that the hon. Gentleman has made a choice. I appeal to the new Opposition Members who are sitting behind him: they can go through the next five years, motion by motion, vote by vote, opposing everything that is done on the basis of clinical evidence, just for the purpose of making political gain. If they do that, I, in turn, will remind the Opposition of the scandal of mixed-sex wards; the scandal of the highest hospital infection rate in the developed world; the scandal of a doubled pay bill for managers; the scandal of Morecambe Bay; the scandal of Mid Staffs; and the scandal of some of the worst cancer outcomes in the world. I will remind them of those every time they seek to oppose us for political reasons. The choice is theirs—or they can take the other tack and try to listen to clinicians, to be constructive and to de-weaponise the NHS.
I will seek to do what the shadow Secretary of State claimed to want to do, which is to come together and allow the NHS to get on with the job of building 21st-century services. However, if the Opposition make the wrong choice, all they will do is confirm in the minds of the British people that they put politics before the NHS, and that for the Labour party, the party comes first—always—whereas for Conservative Members, the NHS and patients always come first.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is obviously a lively debate on both sides of the House. As someone who is not long from being on the front line, as a surgeon in the NHS, I find it a bit sad to listen to how angry this debate is. The four-hour target should be a tool and not an end in itself. It is used to take the temperature and to understand what is happening underneath. We would not shove a patient in a bath of ice water if they had a temperature; we would look for the infection, try to understand it and try to treat it. Unfortunately, the four-hour target has simply become a stick, and today that stick just seemed to be being thrown backwards and forwards.
People working in A&E face great difficulty, which is why we are not recruiting trainees to A&E and why we are losing senior doctors at an incredible rate from A&E. Instead of being one of the most rewarding places to work, people see it as the most miserable.
Dawn Butler
Although the target is used as a measure, or to take the temperature, does the hon. Lady not feel that the fact that it has gone up 401% since 2009-10 is something to be worried about?
Dawn Butler
The time that people have had to wait for four hours has gone up—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Interventions should be kept to a minimum. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) is not on a time limit, but please be aware that many Members are coming in to speak. Thank you.
Dr Whitford
Absolutely, we have seen the performance drop across the UK. The Minister quoted a report showing that England was performing better than Scotland. I would be interested in seeing that one—where it is comparing like for like with core A&E services—because those are not the figures I have seen. However, we all face the same challenge. We are dealing with older patients, who are more complex. The figures from Scotland last winter showed that we did not have a huge increase in numbers, but far more of those patients had to be admitted. Nothing else could be done, and we will face that situation more and more in future. The problem is that we are losing the staff to deal with that, and we are talking about A&E, but in the vast majority of cases, they key issue does not lie with A&E. There are two simple things: the number of patients coming in, which relates to out-of-hours GP access, and patients getting back out, which is described by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine as exit block.
It is important to remember that the four hours does not involve someone sitting on a chair, waiting for four hours. People are often given that impression—that they turn up in A&E and sit there, and no one will touch them for four hours. However, they will be triaged, see a clinician, have a history taken and have investigations. They may well get sewn up or be given something, and they will go home. Those patients are moving through. Our problem is the patients who have to come in, and it results in a whole cascade of issues, such as people stuck on trolleys getting the start of a bedsore, or families made miserable, or staff very depressed at trying to look after people in a corridor. It also results in people ending up boarded to any ward—any port in a storm—so that people are not in the correct ward and not getting the correct treatment from the correct team. We know that that, bizarrely, results in longer patient stays, which exacerbates the problem.
What we need to do—as we have done in Scotland, where we set up the unscheduled care action plan—is to work with all stakeholders. That involves looking at how patients flow through. It is not about people being obsessed with measuring the target and counting it, but about people opening the gates in front of the patient. The data on how long patients wait should be automatically available to staff from their system; it should not require an extra body to generate that data.
If we have the data weekly, which means we are getting them timeously, we can see one week from the other and ought to be able to see the patterns. The problem with monthly data for something that is identified as a currently acute issue is that, by the time they are collated, verified and out, staff may not remember quite what made that a bad week, whereas with weekly data, they can see whether they are getting a response to their actions.
I support keeping weekly measurements, but I do not support them being used as a tool—and certainly not for beating one another across the Benches here. I can tell hon. Members that staff in the NHS feel that they are beaten over the head with these targets, so it is not about having a target, but about how it is used. In the paper released by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine here yesterday, one of its myths was that the four-hour target is a distraction. It pointed out that it allowed a focus.
To try and tackle the problem in Scotland, we have ensured that the majority of our A&Es have a co-located out-of-hours service. I mentioned before that achieving 8 till 8 in every GP practice is so far in the future that it cannot be reckoned on as a solution to this problem. We are unable to fill the GP vacancies we have now. Telling them that they will be working from 8 till 8 on Saturday and Sunday is not overwhelmingly attractive.
The pilots that have been done have started to report in the last fortnight, and they have reported a very poor uptake. When people want to deal with an out-of-hours problem, they come to A&E. Rather than trying to change the whole population, we could have a system in which people are easily diverted once they get there: “If you have this, please step next door to our primary care service.” We need to look at those solutions, and some are working quite well.
The other issue is health and social care. To get patients out at the end of their journey, they need to be able to get into care. We need to remember that, although extra money may be given to health and social care through the health side, if we are cutting local authority budgets at the same time, we end up cutting the legs from under the NHS.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady is making thoughtful comments and I am following them carefully. I agree with her that co-location can work in some places, but clearly it is not going to work everywhere. Does she not agree that most people who attend accident and emergency departments are neither accidents nor emergencies, and they would be much better cared for by general practitioners? To do that, however, GPs need to be trained for that case mix and incentivised for it, and most importantly, the public needs to be trained, too, about accessing the proper professional.
Dr Whitford
Before the movement of out-of-hours GP services under the banner of NHS 24, most local areas had a doctors-on-call service. In my county, we had Ayrshire doctors on call, which was provided by local doctors at rooms in the A&E departments in our two hospitals. Patients quickly learned where they could go to be seen quickly. We also had a car service that allowed us to make home visits. That functioned very well until NHS 24 came and pulled it away.
We have to get back to local GPs working like that as part of a co-operative in a focal position. Each practice cannot generate enough GPs or work to have someone sitting there all day Saturday and all day Sunday. When the Secretary of State talks about 8 till 8, it is not clear whether he means that that will happen in each individual practice or on a regional basis. Most of the pilots that have started to publish their experiences have quickly made it into a doctors-on-call service. There is more common sense behind that approach and it is more sustainable.
We have to look at the flow within hospitals. We should not have trackers running around bean counting when patients had what done, but people going in front of patients, opening the gates, looking at bed management and ensuring that patients are in the right place.
All these matters cascade back on to staff. We are struggling to maintain and recruit staff. There was only a 50% take-up of trainees for accident and emergency, and we are haemorrhaging senior people, which exacerbates the problem. We need the co-location of GPs and we need to look at the exit block, not only out of A&E and into the hospital, but out of the hospital.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
A 25% reduction in the number of GPs and practice nurses has been forecast over the next five years. I have the statistics to prove that. People talk about the cost of agency staff and locums in hospitals, which is out of all proportion. There are also massive increases in costs—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. It is essential that we keep interventions to the absolute minimum.
Dr Whitford
The problem with moving patients into hospitals is being exacerbated by the reduction in in-patient facilities. Every new hospital seems to have fewer beds than the old hospital it replaces. The Scottish Government finally accepted the view of clinical staff that that could not go on. We now treat people in a different way. People used to get a hernia done and lie there for a week. My breast cancer patients used to come in and stay for 10 days. That has changed, which is great for those patients, but there is an inexorable rise in the number of older patients who have complex needs. The problem is not that we are living longer. I get quite upset at the phrase, “the catastrophe of living longer”. I suggest that Members think about what the alternative is. At medical school, I was definitely given the impression that people living longer was the point.
People are surviving their first major illness and, actually, their second major illness. They may present with breast cancer in their mid-70s to someone like me and have four co-morbidities. Such patients do not get in and out quickly for elective surgery, and they do not get out quickly when something major goes wrong, such as pneumonia or a chest infection. We therefore need to stop the downward trajectory in the number of beds, because we will not get the flow of patients if we go on cutting beds.
For me, the key things that we need are the co-location of GPs; an out-of-hours service for out-of-hours issues that are better dealt with in primary care; and enough beds in the right places. Finally, we need to smooth the way of our patients to get back to their homes. In Scotland, we have free personal care that allows us to keep more people at home and stop them going into hospital and to get more people back out of hospital.
I commend the “Five Year Forward View”. Much of it is taken from something that was written in Scotland several years ago called “2020 Vision”, which was about integrating health and social care.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am not aware of the position on co-location in Scotland, but one barrier to the successful implementation of co-location in England is that the tariff and the funding mechanism mean that is it not efficient. Will the hon. Lady say what the position is in Scotland, because perhaps we can learn from that in England?
Dr Whitford
As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, we have a totally separate system, for which I am grateful. We do not have a system of tariffs. We have a single NHS, so we can sit around a table and try to work out a solution. That is one of my concerns about the situation that the NHS in England faces and it is where I would veer away from the “Five Year Forward View”.
The principle of working together and integrating health and social care is commendable. The integration boards in Scotland started work in April because “2020 Vision” is a few years older than the “Five Year Forward View”, but we face the same challenge: local authorities are struggling with their budgets, which can end up eating away at the health side.
The four-hour target is still useful as a weekly target to provide a quick response to what is going on in our hospitals. However, it should not be used as a stick to beat staff or to beat ourselves in this House and make public capital. The NHS is too precious for that.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). The House should listen to what she says about the point of targets.
I thank NHS staff across the UK and, given the subject of this debate, particularly those who work in the 181 emergency departments across England. Those people face immense challenges. Last year, they cared for 14.5 million patients—an increase of 500,000 on the previous year. As the hon. Lady said, this debate is about not just numbers, but complexity. We have to face that. It is a disappointment to those NHS staff when they see the debate descend into political diatribes. They want to hear constructive diagnoses and solutions from this House; they do not want to see this issue being used as a football. Let us move forward in that vein in this debate and look at the challenges.
This issue is immensely complex. Anyone who says that there is a single answer is not looking at the scale of the problem. In the few minutes I have, it would be impossible to address all the issues, so I will focus on the workforce challenge, which is key. That challenge does not relate just to emergency departments; there is a complex interaction that includes primary care, ambulance services and the voluntary sector.
We know that about 15% to 20% of people who are seen in emergency departments would be better seen in another context. How do we get the skill mix right? We need to consider the fact that not every place needs the same solutions. The solutions that are right in a rural constituency are very different from the solutions that are right in an urban area.
We need to look at the challenges of recruitment, retention and retirement. We have heard that 50% of training places are not being filled, but there is also the leaky bucket of those leaving the profession. We must consider the fact that it costs about £600,000 to train someone to senior registrar level in emergency care. The scale of the brain drain is enormous, particularly to Australia and New Zealand. How do we address that? Of course, there will always be junior doctors who want to spend a year working abroad and then return with the skills that they acquire. We should not discourage that, but we could do more to make it a two-way process. The main problem is the loss of those higher professionals who have not only the skills that are needed to look after the most unwell patients in our emergency departments, but the confidence and decision-making skills that are required to know when it is safe for patients to go home.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
I absolutely appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the leaky bucket. Does she agree that every school and every careers adviser should be advising people to go into the NHS, given the 300 careers that it offers?
Dr Wollaston
Indeed. I was going to comment further on the issue of the skill mix. This is about not only those higher skill professionals, but the mix within the NHS. I do not think that we should talk that down. We simply will not be able to manage unless we broaden the skill mix. Healthcare assistants, for example, make an extraordinary contribution to the NHS and social care. One of the reasons we lose so many of them is the lack of access to higher professional development; it is not just about a low-wage economy. This is about how we can create more pathways to becoming, for example, assistant practitioners and physician assistants, how we can use them and how we can bring in more pharmacists, who train for five years in their specialty, into what we do across the NHS?
Helen Whately
Picking up on my hon. Friend’s point about healthcare assistants, does she agree that improving the opportunities for healthcare assistants is a huge opportunity for the NHS at the moment?
Dr Wollaston
It is a huge opportunity and we must go further with that, because continuing professional development across the NHS workforce is part of addressing the burnout that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire talked about. We must do more to address the rotas and see what is causing our staff to leave the NHS, because it is not just about pay or the allure of working in a sunnier climate—we cannot do much about that. It is also often about the work-life balance they face and how that compares with abroad. We have got into a vicious circle of increasingly having to rely on locums to fill those gaps, and that money could be far better spent addressing why the NHS is haemorrhaging so many skilled staff abroad and to outside professions.
When we talk in this House about the challenges facing primary care and A&E departments, we must be careful not to talk them down. We know that medical students find going into A&E attractive, so let us not cut off the supply any further by talking about it in terms of doom and gloom. There are things we can do to improve the working lives of people in A&E, so we should get on and do the job, and I think that this House should do so in a far more constructive frame of mind. It is time to put aside the difference we have had in the election. We have five years to go until the next election. Let us show an example to those following this debate outside by looking at this in entirely constructive terms.
I want to return to an issue the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire touched on: seven-day working. Just as we should not be trapped by targets, let us not be trapped by political dogma. Let us look at what the unintended consequences sometimes can be if we are driven by the mantra that it must be 8 till 8 and seven days a week in every situation. I used to practise in a rural community. If we create a system in which we make it deeply unattractive to work in small, rural practices and in which we divert resources from the key priorities of seven-day working—which should be to reduce avoidable mortality and unnecessary hospital admissions—and if we take our eyes off that as the key priority and drive towards having to achieve 8 till 8 in every location, we could find that we have a further recruitment shortfall, as has happened in my constituency. That can translate into real unintended harms, such as the closure of many beds at Brixham hospital because the GPs could no longer safely man the in-patient beds. We could find ourselves in a spiral of unintended consequences. Let us listen to those on the front line and to our patients and keep them first and foremost in our minds when we consider what we are doing in the NHS.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an exceptional pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair. I hope that I will be forgiven for returning to the motion, which seems to have slipped Members’ minds over the past hour or so. It specifically states:
“That this House notes that hospital A&E departments have now missed the four-hour A&E target for 100 weeks in a row; further notes that trusts are predicting record deficits this year”.
The Government were asked to respond to that. As the Minister singularly failed to do so at the start of the debate, I hope that he will return to it in closing.
I have in my patch the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, where I first met a heart surgeon call Sir Bruce Keogh—I am not entirely sure what happened to him. I therefore have either the highest or the second highest proportion of constituents who are either doctors or who work in the health service, so the NHS and everything associated with it is something that I cannot escape. I thought that it would be useful to have an NHS tracker survey, which records over a period of time how the health service is seen not just by those who use it, but by those who work in it. I want briefly to share the results of the surveys with the House, because they show that the people who use the NHS and who work in it are becoming increasingly concerned about the conditions in which they are treated or in which they work.
I received about 400 responses to the last survey. Some 74% of respondents said that they were very concerned about the future of the NHS. One respondent commented:
“I work in a large university hospital Emergency Department”.
We have a number of large trusts in the west midlands conurbation, so people might be living in my constituency but working in a different trust.
“The hospital bed occupancy consistently exceeds 99%, with hundreds of well patients in beds unable to be discharged due to inadequate social care. Consequently, the A&E is overwhelmed with patients lying on trolleys while I scrabble around trying to get something done.”
Another respondent said:
“My work load leaves me worrying about my own health in the future.”
Another referred to
“staff shortage on wards leading to the use of more agency staff, wasting money on unnecessary management… staff are stressed due to doing more shifts to make ends meet.”
Another said:
“All parties want better 24-hour access but there are not enough trained doctors—especially GPs—coming through the system, and too much money is spent on bank staff and locums.
That is not political scaremongering; that is what people who work in the health service have said.
We have face up to that. It is no good sitting here and pretending that we have no control over it. Decisions on the NHS are political decisions, because we decide annually how much money to spend on it. That means that there has to be some element of control. University Hospitals Birmingham has said:
“Emergency Department activity has continued to rise with the Trust passing the 102,000 ED attendances a year… equating to a 4.9% increase”.
Those are enormous numbers—102,000 emergency admissions in one hospital—and they are going up year on year.
That brings me to the targets. I know that they are difficult, but I remember that when we introduced them they were about the only way we could get good consultants to change their way of doing things. They kept saying, “This is the only way of doing it,” so we said, “Let’s try with targets.” If we look at the most recent statistics on waiting times of four hours or less in the west midlands, we see that Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust has achieved 95%; University Hospitals Birmingham has achieved 95%; but University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust achieved 79%; Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust achieved 81%; and the University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust achieved 87%. That tells us that something is going on that is not quite right. I think that we ought to start debates such as this one by saying, “Both sides agree that something is going on that is not quite right.” These figures are not just inventions. They tell us the trend, so how do we address it?
The Government got rid of NHS Direct, and 111 did not replace it—[Interruption.] It is no good the Minister shaking his head. I set up NHS Direct, and the big thing was that there were trained nurses, not call handlers. They managed to deal with demand because the person on the other end of the phone could make a clinical decision, not just pass it on. We have had those knock-on effects. I hope that at least at some stage over the next two hours the motion on the Order Paper will be addressed. The trend is in the wrong direction and we need to think about what to do about it. People are waiting longer and the hospital deficits will be horrendous. This will be a problem for us all.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who made some very interesting points. When I read the motion, what struck me most was that if I had read it having just stepped off the Mars to Earth express, I would have believed that Britain’s national health service was a total disaster and that nothing was being done to improve the services that were being delivered. Yes, there are still problems in the NHS, particularly in lots of our larger general hospitals, such as Medway Maritime hospital, which provides services for my constituency, including A&E cover. Medway Maritime has faced big challenges for a number of years, including under the previous Labour Government, and among those challenges was a failing A&E department. There were a number of reasons for the challenges, including the limitations of the site on which it is located and the demography of Medway towns in general.
Last year, those challenges came to a head and Medway Maritime was put into special measures. Following the appointment of a new chief executive and new trust chairwoman and with the buddying arrangements that have seen Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust provide Medway with advice and expertise, the hospital is beginning to see some improvement. Of course, much more needs to be done before Medway Maritime can provide my constituents with the health service they deserve and to which they are entitled.
There is general agreement that one way to relieve the pressure on the hospital is to transfer more of the services it provides into the community. In my constituency, I have two excellent community hospitals, Sittingbourne memorial hospital and Sheppey community hospital. They both provide local people with a very good service, albeit for a limited range of healthcare needs. I would like the services they provide to be expanded. Okay, we will never see a fully fledged accident and emergency department in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, but there is no reason why my two community hospitals cannot provide other services. Today’s Opposition motion contains the statement that
“the pressures on hospitals are a consequence of declining access to out-of-hospital services”.
There are a number of things going on in my neck of the woods that belie that statement, with a number of initiatives and pilots taking place that in the long term will benefit not only my constituency but the wider NHS. Let me tell Members about a couple of them.
Last week, I met managers from the South East Coast Ambulance Service, SECAMB, who told me about the vanguard initiative in which they are involved in Whitstable, just outside my constituency. It is one of several initiatives nationwide that will provide specialist out-of-hospital care in the local community and involves a SECAMB paramedic team, led by a specialist paramedic, working with local GPs to provide people with home treatment rather than their being taken to hospital. SECAMB is keen to replicate the model in other areas, including the Isle of Sheppey in my constituency.
Dr Mathias
Does my hon. Friend agree that with home treatments, the patient becomes the patient expert, which is another way of moving forward local solutions and the community helping itself?
Gordon Henderson
I very much agree, and I shall come onto that point in a moment. I am interested in getting that model on the Isle of Sheppey and I hope that NHS England will see the merit in the initiative and provide SECAMB with the necessary funding.
I mentioned earlier the excellent Sittingbourne memorial hospital in my constituency. It, too, is running a pilot that I believe should be extended into other areas. Last December, a wound medicine centre was opened in the memorial. It is a specialist service for patients across Swale who have chronic, complex or surgical wounds and it is operated under the care of the Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust. The centre uses telemedicine, with community nurses visiting patients in their home. By using mobile computer tablets to photograph wounds, nurses can send pictures back to specialists based at Sittingbourne memorial to provide an instant professional opinion. The system can also track the progress of healing wounds and use the data to work out the best treatment options, including the correct type of dressing. That has the potential to save the NHS thousands of pounds in the wasted procurement of unnecessary dressings.
Last month, I was honoured to open the HEM ultrasound clinic in my constituency. It is a new unit that provides a wide range of ultrasound scans and is the first static clinical ultrasound service in Medway and west Kent. Although it is a private clinic, it is just been contracted to Medway Maritime to help bring down its waiting lists. HEM is undertaking an average of 35 scans on behalf of the hospital every day, seven days a week. The cost to the NHS of the clinic’s service is the same as if the hospital undertook the scans itself. Let me tell those who accuse the Government of wanting to privatise the NHS that using facilities such as HEM is not about privatising the NHS but about the sensible use of private facilities to supplement NHS treatment and reduce waiting times for worried men and women.
I want to mention one particular concern. My local Swale clinical commissioning group is led by an excellent team whose members are fully committed to providing local people with more local services to reduce pressure on Medway Maritime, but Swale CCG is one of the smallest in the country and its size presented big challenges, as does the historic health deprivation in some of the wards in my constituency. Last year, Swale CCG received an above-average increase in its budget and I want to take this opportunity to urge the Government to ensure that it receives an above-average increase again this year.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
It is the ultimate honour to be here today to deliver my maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for Dewsbury, Mirfield, Denby Dale and Kirkburton. To every man, woman and child living in my wonderful constituency, I promise to be their champion and stand up for them at every opportunity. I warmly congratulate my fellow new Members on their excellent and eloquent contributions and I continue to enjoy my whistle-stop tour of the UK through their speeches. In keeping with tradition, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the input of my predecessor Simon Reevell, and I wish him well for the future.
The suffragette movement fascinated and inspired me from a young age and visiting the cupboard where Emily Wilding Davison hid in order to be included in the census as a resident of this building reminded me of the ongoing struggle that women have both in society and in politics. It is refreshing that 65% of the new Labour intake are female, but there is a lot more to do and I look forward to contributing to that cause. As James Brown famously sang, “It’s a man’s world, but it ain’t nothing without a woman or a girl.” It is therefore a particular privilege to be the first female MP elected in the constituency since Ann Taylor, who now sits in the other place. Every corner of the constituency still holds great affection for Ann for both her unstinting commitment and her no-nonsense approach. I have big shoes to fill and I thank Ann for the generosity of her advice and support. I aspire to make her proud. On the subject of inspirational women it would be remiss of me not to mention Betty Boothroyd, born in Dewsbury, the daughter of textile workers, who broke new ground by becoming the first woman to be elected as one of Mr Speaker’s predecessors.
The Dewsbury constituency is a wonderful place in which to live, work and indeed play. Dewsbury itself is often referred to as the heavy woollen district, a nod to the manufacture of heavyweight cloth that saw a significant population of South Asian origin relocate there in the late 1950s, many of Kashmiri and Gujarati heritage. Indeed, the town maintains a rich manufacturing industry and has something of a monopoly in the bed and mattress industry.
In common with many other northern market towns, Dewsbury is struggling economically, with the town centre crying out for regeneration. It is therefore most welcome that Dewsbury has been earmarked as an enterprise zone. Dewsbury is also famous for its hospitality and the warmth of its welcome. It is perhaps unique in that, when visiting a constituent’s home intending to stay a short time, I can be greeted with a three-course banquet and an invitation to the family wedding. Many people will have shed a tear watching Mushy overcome his stammer on “Educating Yorkshire”, the fly-on-the-wall documentary filmed at Dewsbury’s own Thornhill Academy.
The town of Mirfield has strong socialist roots. The Community of the Resurrection, an Anglican religious community for men, was founded there in 1898 and hosted Keir Hardie and Emmeline Pankhurst in its incredible outdoor amphitheatre. Denby Dale and Kirkburton comprise a number of small villages and arguably boast some of the finest scenery in Yorkshire—or God’s own county, as it is better known. I always know I am near home when I catch sight of the splendid Emley Moor mast, which, at 1,084 feet, is the tallest free-standing structure in the UK.
Many will know that I am a trade unionist, having previously acted as a shop steward and equalities officer. I will continue to seek to strengthen the bond between the Labour party and the trade union movement. The trade unions were instrumental in creating the Labour party to fight for working people in Parliament, and in this time of insecure employment, zero-hours contracts and exploitative labour, the unions have never been needed more in the workplace, just as the voice of working people has never been more needed in Parliament. This Government’s shameful attempt to weaken that collective voice should be universally condemned throughout this House.
I must also acknowledge my parents, Barbara and Michael, who taught me that I did not have to go to university to achieve my dreams and that I should maintain the courage of my convictions and never give up on my principles. I am proud to bring over 20 years’ experience on the front line of our public services to this Parliament. After some time working with the victims of crime, I worked in a front-line healthcare role for 13 years prior to taking my seat in this place. The last two years of that were challenging, as the service I worked in was privatised.
On my first day working for Virgin Care, I was advised that my political beliefs did not fit in with the company objectives. As my beliefs involved free healthcare at the point of need and always putting patients before profit, that affirmed my fears that the health service was moving away from its fundamental principles. I shall have more to say about Virgin Care in future debates. I will also continue to campaign tirelessly for a fully renationalised NHS and, on the subject of today's debate, I will fight for the future of Dewsbury hospital, which remains under threat of significant downgrade and whose accident and emergency service is fighting for its life.
Dewsbury has many challenges ahead over the next five years, not least in relation to the growing inequality we now see in our country. I intend to use my time diligently as Dewsbury’s Member of Parliament to redress that, and to fight for the fairer, more equal society that my constituents deserve.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) on her eloquent maiden speech. It is great to see another strong woman in the House.
I am mindful of the time constraints in the debate and, although I would love to talk about GP access and hospital finances, I shall concentrate on accident and emergency targets and, in particular, the target of 95% of patients being seen within four hours. I speak as a nurse who has worked in A&E under the last Labour Government when the four-hour target was introduced. I hope that my clinical experience will be used to inform the debate and take it forward.
I want to make four key points on A&E targets and the four-hour wait. First, like the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I am not a fan of targets. As a healthcare professional, I found them increasingly frustrating. They are great as a tool, but they are being used as a political stick with which to beat healthcare workers and the system. There was no clinical rationale for choosing the four-hour target. There is no evidence that the morbidity or mortality of someone who waits for four hours and 30 minutes is compromised. Similarly, there is no evidence that the healthcare received by someone who has waited for three hours and 30 minutes is any better than that received by someone who has waited for four hours. The four-hour target is actually not that helpful.
Maria Caulfield
I will not take any interventions owing to the restriction on time.
I shall give the House an example. When I worked as a nurse in A&E—under the Labour Government—an elderly gentleman was brought in during a busy night shift. He had fallen at home and broken his hip, and he was put in a corridor to wait. After three hours and 30 minutes, he called me over, saying, “Nurse, I desperately need to go to the toilet.” I had nowhere to put him. The best thing I could do was to wheel a curtain around his trolley, and there, in the middle of a busy hospital corridor, that elderly gentleman with war medals on his chest went to the toilet. He was seen within four hours. That box was ticked and he was deemed to have had good healthcare, but I was not particularly impressed with that care. Let us not kid ourselves that meeting that target always means that the patient experience is good or that the outcome is any better.
My second point, which relates to my worry that this debate is being used as a political football, is that the four-hour target is not being seen in the context of the bigger picture. Other targets show that, even with the increased numbers attending A&E, more and more patients are getting their treatment within four hours. Similarly, the clinical outcomes—surely the most important factor—relating to diseases such as heart attacks show that morbidity and mortality rates have improved. There have also been better outcomes for people who have had strokes and for trauma victims. So outcomes for patients are improving despite the four-hour target not having been met during the past 100 weeks. We should welcome that and congratulate our NHS staff on achieving it.
Thirdly, if this is a serious debate about A&E services throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, which we are surely all here to represent, why are we not looking at the rate in Scotland of only 87%, in Labour-run Wales of 83% and in Northern Ireland of 79%? This debate is a political one, and as a healthcare worker, I find that distressing. It is interesting that those Members who have worked in the NHS believe that the four-hour target is a useful tool but that it should not be used as a political stick.
Dr Philippa Whitford
I would like to know where the hon. Lady got her figure of 87% from. Our figure is 92.6%, and we measure it every week.
Maria Caulfield
It is an NHS figure.
I shall attempt to move the debate forward with my fourth point. If we are serious about tackling the issues resulting from the number of patients using A&E services, we need to acknowledge that 15% of patients who go to A&E could receive treatment elsewhere, in local community facilities. We need to look seriously at the Government’s proposals for seven-day-a-week health service, and if Opposition Members are serious about working with healthcare professionals to improve the experience of patients, they should surely welcome the introduction of out-of-hours services to take the pressure off A&E.
The thing I find most distressing about the motion is that it is full of criticism and complaints but offers no solutions. My plea to Opposition Members is that we should work together for the benefit of patients. We cannot continue to have patients whose care is being compromised even though they have ticked the four-hour box. We have only to look at the example of Mid Staffs, where the four-hour target was met time and again while terrible incidents were happening behind the scenes. Let us stop using the NHS as a political football; let us start working together. I would welcome the efforts of all Members to work together with the Government to deliver out-of-hours services and take the pressure off A&E units and the staff who work in them.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am extremely pleased to see you in what I think is your rightful place.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) for her excellent speech. She is part of a very talented 2015 intake—far too talented for my liking, I am afraid to say. She has already demonstrated a strong reputation for standing up for her constituency—often in the face of terrible attacks—in terms of fairness, tolerance and decency in public services. She is a strong asset to this House and I welcome her.
The issue of accident and emergency services is important for Hartlepool, because we lost our A&E in August 2011. That closure has been felt very deeply by my constituents, who now have to travel to North Tees, which is some 13 miles away, for accident and emergency services. Given the appalling provision of public transport, the low level of car ownership and the relative levels of deprivation, that is too far to travel for far too many of my constituents.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend comment on the impact of that A&E closure on, and its implications for, areas below the River Tees, including my constituency? In South Tees, despite the best efforts of our NHS staff, waiting times have increased and the A&E target in particular continues to be missed.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Having fewer A&E departments puts further strain on other parts of the system, such as A&E at James Cook hospital, and other parts of the NHS, such as ambulance services. They are queuing up outside James Cook hospital, but it does not have the throughput it needs.
It is important that A&E returns to the town of Hartlepool. Given the level of health inequality, as well as the high proportion of older people relative to the rest of the country, there is a greater risk of accidents and, therefore, I think it is fair to say, greater reliance on A&E than other areas.
To be frank—this is not a party political point—the closure was based on clinical safety factors. The number of medical staff to cover two rotas at both Hartlepool and Stockton was deemed insufficient, and the supervision of junior medical staff was deemed inadequate, as it did not meet modern guidance criteria. Additional resources will need to be provided for adequate staffing to ensure that A&E can return to Hartlepool. North Tees and Hartlepool Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has a financial deficit of £4 million, which is expected to worsen over the coming years.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
In the coming winter months the Royal Free hospital in my constituency will once again face pressure in A&E and other services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the extra winter NHS funding should be allocated sooner rather than later so that hospitals can start planning, and that it should be included in the forthcoming Budget?
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. On the additional resources, the north-east region has not been provided with anything, despite the level of health inequalities and the additional pressure on resources.
Lynne Hodgson, the director of finance at the trust, has said:
“The whole system is stretched financially.”
The situation is so bad that the trust has recently taken out a £2 million loan. That is not for investment in health services—it is not helping to pump prime the return of A&E to Hartlepool—but for paying the wage bills of current staff. When an organisation has to borrow to meet obligations for something as fundamental as its staff’s monthly pay packets, something is fundamentally wrong with the system.
I am arguing for the services to be returned to the town, but given the precarious finances of the trust I am fearful that most services will move further away or simply cease to operate, putting further pressures on the local health economy, such as James Cook hospital, and other parts of health and social care. What will the Government do to ensure that the finances of the North Tees and Hartlepool trust are put on a more secure footing while at the same time allowing such essential services to return to the town?
I fully accept that clinical safety for A&E services is paramount—I will never argue against that—but I have to question the model of acute accident and emergency services in my area. Over the past two decades or so, there has been a tendency to centralise services at North Tees, to the detriment of patients from Hartlepool and those slightly further away in south-east Durham. The momentum programme was going to centralise services on to a single site, culminating in a new hospital at Wynyard that would serve the populations of Hartlepool, Stockton, Easington and Sedgefield. The Government have made it perfectly obvious through their actions that Wynyard will not go ahead, which, together with NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View”, shows that smaller hospitals can thrive. Indeed, we have seen that across the region and the country. Darlington, whose population is only slightly larger than mine and which comes under the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, is able to maintain an A&E. Hexham has a population not of 92,000 like Hartlepool, but of 13,000, and it is able to maintain an A&E at Hexham general hospital. Clearly, centralisation is not the answer everywhere. Different clinical models and reconfigurations are available to allow smaller towns to retain their A&Es.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more transitional care, with step up, step down facilities, and that we need to address the skill mix of different clinicians in those facilities?
Mr Wright
That is an incredibly important point. I started with staffing and I will end on it.
I want to make a vital point. The Minister spoke of local solutions, and the people of Hartlepool, Hartlepool Borough Council and I, as the MP for Hartlepool, want that to be the approach, but we are not being heard. I understand that there are always tensions between the wishes of the public with regard to where health services are located and the essential requirements of clinical safety, but, as shown by the examples I have given, there are other ways. The local trust is simply not listening. Given that I, the people of Hartlepool and the local authority—regardless of its political complexion—want this, what will the Government do to ensure that, in the shaping of local accident and emergency services, the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives are genuinely heard?
As I said, I started by addressing staffing and I want to finish on that, too. I hope I have made it clear that I want A&E to return to Hartlepool, but it is clear that the pressure on acute services would be reduced if there was more access to primary care. The GP per head of population ratio is low in Hartlepool, with 63 GPs per 100,000. That is significantly lower than the north-east regional average—only Stockton has a lower ratio—and it is lower than the average in England. Greater access to GPs and better integration of all health and social care services has to be the way forward, but that also includes giving the people of Hartlepool what they want, which, put simply, is a fully functioning hospital in the town and an accident and emergency department at its very heart.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I join other hon. Members in welcoming you to the Chair? This is the first time I have spoken with you in your place, and it is very good to see you there. May I also extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) on her maiden speech? Like other hon. Members, I thank sincerely the people who work in our NHS and perform such an important task on behalf of the nation’s health.
When the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), introduced the debate, I intervened and mentioned the fact that, in 2005, under a Labour Government—the decision was made in the then Labour Department of Health—Crawley hospital lost its accident and emergency unit. In the six decades of Crawley new town’s history, that will prove to be the worst possible mistake. The people of Crawley, which is the natural population centre of the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust area, had to travel up to 10 miles up the road, on single carriageway highways, to access East Surrey hospital. The result has been at best inconvenience and at worst dangerous situations for many patients trying to reach the hospital. The South East Coast Ambulance Service does sterling work, but it has been a great challenge.
I am pleased that, in the past five years, hospital services have returned to Crawley hospital. We have an urgent treatment centre that is open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. We are about to have new GP primary access at the Crawley hospital site in West Green, and I was delighted a few years ago to open the new digital mammography unit. We have increased beds and staff at Crawley hospital, and I was pleased to open a new MRI scanner earlier this year.
None of that would have been possible without the previous Government’s commitment to increase funding on the NHS. Through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, they ensured that many more decisions are made locally by the Crawley clinical commissioning group, which means that local doctors and clinicians have far greater influence to meet the needs of my population and my constituents in Crawley. It was a very welcome development.
I support the Government’s commitment to invest further in the NHS and to increase its funding, and their commitment to ensure that GP services are extended, not only for patients’ convenience, but to ensure that, as far as possible, we divert those unnecessary attendances at the urgent treatment centre at Crawley hospital and A&E at East Surrey hospital. That initiative will have a significant impact on reducing the pressure on A&E.
In addition, I support and welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that social care plays an important part, so that people who should not be detained in hospital any longer, not only for their own health needs but for the health of the healthcare system, are moved into appropriate care settings. That will mean more capacity for A&E.
Finally, on the future of healthcare in the Crawley area, my constituency contains Gatwick airport. Next week, we will hear the results of the Airports Commission into runway expansion. If Gatwick is the commission’s choice, an awful lot of infrastructure investment will need to be placed into the area, not only for transport such as rail and roads but for healthcare. Should Gatwick airport be the Government’s final decision—for the reasons of infrastructure pressure, I do not believe Gatwick is the appropriate location—an absolute necessity would be a new acute hospital with full A&E.
I welcome what the Government have done to support our national health service and their commitment in this Parliament, and I look forward to playing my part in ensuring that the needs of our patients and the needs of our NHS remain a central priority.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this debate.
Earlier this year, our A&E department at Salford Royal hospital—a flagship of NHS excellence—endured a period of crisis that was a symptom not just of the national shortfall in funding but of the far wider challenges we face in my constituency of Salford and Eccles. None the less, Salford, Eccles, Swinton and Pendlebury collectively make an amazing place to live, in terms of both the spirit of their people and their ambition to achieve the unthinkable.
We have a rich political history. I am a proud socialist, and if any city personifies the struggles of the working class and the Labour movement, it is Salford. Salford was pivotal in the creation of the trade union movement, with Salford and Manchester trades councils founding the TUC in 1868. On 1 October 1931, thousands swarmed to Salford town hall, where a violent demonstration took place. It came to be known as the battle of Bexley Square. They were protesting at the 10% cut in unemployment benefit introduced by the new national Government. Sadly, we face similar struggles in Salford and Eccles today.
Freidrich Engels’s pioneering work, “The Condition of the Working Class”, was inspired by the struggles he witnessed in Salford, where he owned a factory and could often be found drinking in The Crescent pub with Karl Marx. Members will be delighted to know that Engels’s magnificent beard has inspired a climbing wall sculpture in Salford. The 16-foot beard statue—a “symbol of wisdom and learning”—will stand on the University of Salford’s campus. Members will be able to scale the impressive beard to a viewing platform at the top, where they might find time to rest and contemplate.
We are a city facing the legacy of post-industrial decline. Members may recall the song “Dirty Old Town”, penned by Ewan MacColl and later sung by, among others, The Pogues, about finding love in 20th century industrial Salford by the gasworks wall. The gasworks wall still exists today, but Salford’s gas industry has largely disappeared, along with our mining community, destroyed in the 1980s, as was our large shipping, engineering and manufacturing base. Thousands of lives, hopes and dreams were shattered, with generations locked in a cycle of low-paid unskilled work. We were told that free market globalisation of industry would eventually see wealth trickle down from the top. We are still waiting.
We were a city on its knees and we can be thankful for the foresight of Salford’s Labour councillors who encouraged investment and growth. They championed the transformation of the derelict docks into Salford Quays, now a residential and cultural quarter housing the Lowry gallery, theatre and shopping centre. Again, it was the Salford Labour Council and our local MPs who ensured the building of Media City, the new headquarters for the BBC and ITV, against resistance from a southern-based media that saw anything north of the Watford gap as a social and cultural backwater.
I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Hazel Blears. Elected alongside a record number of women MPs in 1997, Hazel is admired by many, including me, for breaking the glass ceiling not just for women in Salford but for all women from working-class back grounds like myself. Indeed, much of Hazel’s time in the House was dedicated to promoting schemes that would give young people from disadvantaged areas the chance to forge a career in politics and other vocations.
I would also like to honour Ian Stewart, who served as MP from 1997 to 2010, for the now abolished constituency of Eccles. Ian was a proud trade unionist, like myself, who never forgot the poverty and struggles of his childhood. Recently, in his current role as Mayor of Salford, Ian urged the Government to rethink the savage cuts to the Salford City Council budget, austerity measures that are neither justified nor necessary. These cuts are now sawing through the bones of our already fragile public services and they severely impact on the most vulnerable.
It might startle hon. Members to hear that life expectancy in the more deprived parts of my constituency is lower than the life expectancy of people living in the Gaza strip. Some 30% of children in parts of my constituency live in poverty. Our unemployment rates are above the national average and our wages for those in work far below it. Many families are trapped in a cycle of poverty and low-paid and insecure work. The gap between rich and poor is now growing at a faster rate than in the Victorian era. Evidence from the world over indicates that health outcomes are linked not just to material poverty but economic inequality. It reduces social cohesion, leading to more stress, fear, and insecurity, which places even greater strain on our NHS and public services. Our NHS will only truly succeed when we invest in people and their quality of life. That means adequate funding for our public services, decent and affordable housing, well-paid secure jobs and a clear and apparent reduction in income inequality between those at the top and those at the bottom.
My constituency and its people have a proud socialist history. I intend to use my time in the House to fight for them to have a proud socialist future as well.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Before I move on to the comments I intend to make, may I pay tribute to an excellent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey)? Her pride in her home town is obvious. It shone through in a very punchy and effective maiden speech, and I thank her for giving it.
My mother spent most of her professional life as a midwife in Lewisham hospital, the hospital of my birth. I used to go to her office and do my homework there after I left school, so I was literally born and brought up in Lewisham hospital. Both my sons were born in Lewisham hospital—a hospital I love and am proud of. I do not doubt for a second the passion of Opposition Members for the NHS. I remind them, however, that they do not have a monopoly on passion and respect for the national health service.
We are talking today about waiting times in A&E. There are many complicated and compounding pressures that drive those waiting times. This debate could and should have been an opportunity to discuss them and look for solutions and mitigations. I was taken by the calm and professional speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). While she was speaking, it was impossible to be in the Chamber and not to be heavily influenced by the remarks she made. We would all be in a significantly better place if, during the rest of this speech and the rest of our time in this Parliament, NHS debates could be conducted in the manner in which the hon. Lady delivered her speech.
James Cleverly
I will not take interventions, because I am conscious of how many others wish to speak.
A&E waiting times are driven by three factors: the number of people coming in; the time it takes to treat them; and the ability to discharge or transfer patients. I do not have time to discuss the process that happens while patients are in an A&E department, so I will let others with more direct operational experience do that. It is ridiculous for any of us to pretend that the changes to the GP contract of 2004 did not have a significant and detrimental effect on waiting times for A&E. The fact that 90% of GPs chose to opt out of out-of-hours provision must have had an effect on the number of people going to A&E departments.
James Cleverly
I am not taking interventions.
The fact that the ability to discharge patients back into the community is dependent on the ability to care for them while they are in the community means that adult social care must be considered an essential and integral part of the A&E mix. If general wards are not able to discharge into the community, they are not able to make bed spaces available and, in turn, A&E departments are not able to transfer to other wards within the hospital.
I therefore pay tribute to the excellent work done on the Manchester model, putting together NHS provision and adult social care, so that the obvious inter-relationship between the two could be looked at holistically. I am happy that some Opposition Members—perhaps only some of them—welcomed the introduction of the Manchester model. Again, if we could work in a cross-party, collegiate way to learn the lessons from that integrated service model in Manchester and roll it out nationally, I think we would be in a much better place for looking at and subsequently dealing with the problem of A&E waiting times.
It has been alleged—I am sure Opposition Members will all leap to their feet to deny it—that Labour Members were keen during the last general election to weaponise the NHS. [Interruption.] Those were not my words. This is too important an issue to turn into a party political football. I will make this commitment—[Interruption.]
James Cleverly
I am obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me make this commitment: if I perceive that my own Front Benchers are trying to turn the issue into a political football, I will be as critical of them as I am of Opposition Members.
Money is a very important part of the NHS mix, and I welcome the fact that my party has committed itself to funding the NHS to the levels recommended by experts in the field, but money alone is not enough. More money has been given to GPs’ surgeries, but the St Lawrence medical practice in my constituency is still struggling, which is forcing a number of people to use local A&E services.
This is an important issue; let us discuss it with decorum. I commend the Government’s actions.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you and the House will indulge me if I spend my six minutes giving an update on the “Shaping a healthier future” programme, which afflicts west and north-west London. I have done so several times during the three years since—to the consternation and disbelief of 2 million people in those areas—the programme was announced, although there was something of a hiatus over the election period.
I do not want to be self-indulgent, but I think that the subject of “Shaping a healthier future” is one to which all Members will wish to pay attention, because it is the biggest closure programme in the history of the NHS. Four out of nine A&E departments and two major hospitals have been substantially downgraded. Many see the programme as a prototype for the Keogh review of urgent and emergency care. I wonder what has happened to the latest stage of that review; we heard nothing about it from the Under-Secretary of State. It was put on ice last year because a proposal for the downgrading of most of the type 1 A&E departments in the country was seen as political suicide, but it now seems to have disappeared completely. I hope that there are good clinical reasons for that.
Reference has already been made to the excellent briefing with which Members were provided yesterday by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. Here are three of the statistics that the college came up with. The increase in A&E attendances last year was equivalent to the workload of seven large A&E departments; only 2% of A&E attendances involve major trauma, stroke and heart attack patients; and a maximum of 15% of patients who attend A&E departments could be seen in a non-hospital setting. Even that must be subject to a caveat, because I suspect that a fair number of the people who go to A&E departments are not knowingly accelerating their symptoms or time-wasting, but have genuine concerns, perhaps for a child with a fever that might be a symptom of flu but, again, might be due to meningitis.
The solution proposed by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine is co-location. Its briefing states:
“Costly and time-consuming efforts to encourage patients to seek advice on urgent care by telephone or to attend elsewhere…have not reduced A&E attendances. Rather than blaming patients for attending A&E, when we know they have great difficulty accessing supposed alternatives, RCEM advocates a completely new approach. We believe that the issue should be dealt with by collocating”.
However, many hospitals in west London are already co-located, so that cannot be a solution for them.
There have been a number of developments in the past three or four months. Chelsea and Westminster hospital is about to take over West Middlesex University hospital. That new trust will believe that it can maintain two fully functioning type 1 A&E departments—unless another is to close in the area. Why, then, is Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust expected to manage with only one major A&E service in its three hospitals?
Ealing hospital’s maternity unit will close on 1 July. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who could not stay for this part of the debate, asked me specifically to mention that, because it is a matter of great concern, not least because it will have an impact on other maternity services in the area.
We are still suffering the effects of the closure of the A&E departments at Hammersmith and Central Middlesex hospitals last September, including four-hour waiting times at other hospitals such as Charing Cross hospital in my constituency, which is persistently below target. At the same time, stroke services are being centralised at Charing Cross for at least the next five years, having been transferred from St Mary’s hospital, although the plan is to move them away in due course.
In the last two years, £33 million has been spent on consultants just for the purposes of the “Shaping a healthier future” programme, of which £12.5 million was spent on a single consultant, McKinsey. That is £27,000 a day, and it could pay for 300 new nurses. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust is spending one eighth of its staffing budget on bank and agency staff, and the most recent figures show that it had an £18.5 million deficit.
Against this crisis—and it is a crisis—in A&E, the proposal in relation to Charing Cross, a major emergency hospital in my constituency, is that all its buildings be demolished, that its beds be reduced from 360 to 24, and that it lose all consultant emergency services. The population of London, and of west London in particular, is going to go up massively over the next 10 years. That is unprecedented. This is a very poor scheme, not just clinically for the reasons that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine gives, but logistically, spatially and financially.
I am grateful to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the opportunity, at last, before the summer recess to meet and discuss these matters in depth. I will therefore say no more about them today. I look forward to that opportunity, and I know the Minister will attend in good faith and look at the concerns we all have about the “Shaping a healthier future” programme. These are not idle concerns. It is obviously in the Whips’ brief for Government Members to say, “Let’s not make the NHS a political football,” but I do not think any Opposition Member is doing so. We are not in an election period.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a bit rich for Government Members to accuse us of using the NHS as a party political football, when prior to the 2014 local elections the Ilford North Conservative Association put out a leaflet claiming that King George hospital’s A&E would not close, when before the general election we were told its closure would be reprieved, and when the NHS trust chief executive has now told us that the closure plan will be published in the next six to nine months. That was playing party politics with the NHS, cynically.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I make sure that every time I refer to what is happening in my local NHS now, I look into the voluminous papers on “Shaping a healthier future”, or what the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust actually says, so that I am clear that I am describing what is happening, not giving my opinion or saying something that has come from a party political standpoint. I simply wish that the Government would listen and respond in kind.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for coming late to my hon. Friend’s speech. The reason why is that outside Ealing hospital there are currently 200 people demonstrating because of the maternity unit’s closure, which will put undue stress on the local community. He has listened to many of the arguments regarding its closure, and none of them stacks up. Perhaps those 200 people will be listened to.
Andy Slaughter
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. No one does more than him, directly and positively, to draw attention to the crisis in the NHS in west London. His local hospital, Hillingdon, is not closing, but throughout the process over the past three years he has been absolutely steadfast in defending and supporting those of us whose local NHS is being downgraded, not just because he is a good comrade, but because he knows that the knock-on effect of hospital closures will make it impossible for any of the 2 million people throughout north-west and west London to receive a decent health service.
I shall say no more today, as other Members wish to speak. I again thank the Minister for the opportunity we will have to make our case. I hope the Government are listening on this matter, which is the most urgent matter that I have dealt with in my 30 years as a councillor and as an MP. It is about the preservation of the NHS for a substantial part of London’s population. These are genuine and legitimate concerns, and I hope the Government will listen to them.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the two new Members, for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who have spoken. I made my maiden speech a couple of weeks ago and know what a terrifying experience it is.
As Members from all parts of the House may already know, I have watched the NHS provide first-class healthcare to my mother, who has had a debilitating long-term musculoskeletal condition for the past 20 years. I am absolutely certain that without the support of the NHS her pain and suffering would have been an awful lot worse. Having said that, I should note that on a number of occasions she has needed to visit A&E to make her condition a little better, and, although improvements have been seen, her experiences have been mixed. I appreciate that my family’s case is just one example of this care. Improvements have been seen but people from around the UK are facing a mixed picture on care received at A&Es.
From the outset, I wish to stress, in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), that turning this issue into a political football is not helpful and that this is not a new issue. I have worked alongside the NHS for seven years and have given advice and support to four Health Secretaries, both Labour and Conservative, with each saying that they would do all they could to improve A&Es across the UK and more than their predecessor to cut unnecessary bureaucracy for medical professionals. As I said, this issue is not a new one. Emergency medical professionals have been warning that a hiatus has been on the horizon for a decade or more. I am therefore pleased that this Secretary of State has recognised the need to look at the issue much more seriously and holistically.
I would like to spend some time correcting a number of myths that have been espoused by the Opposition. First, and most importantly, I should say that the increase in A&E attendance is not because funding has been cut. The better care programme, designed to integrate health and social care services between national Government and local authorities, is predicted to reduce A&E admissions by 3%. The 111 service launched in 2013 directs 8% of callers to A&E departments, whereas 30% of these people would have gone to A&E if the service were not available. In addition, £150 million has been provided to fund evening and weekend GP appointments, through the Prime Minister’s challenge fund, meaning that people can access care through GPs instead of having to go to A&E.
Given that picture, we are clearly not going to be able to provide the high-quality care that is needed without proper investment. I am pleased that this Government have decided to take on board the recommendations of Simon Stevens and invest a further £8 billion in the NHS. That, of course, will have a significant positive effect on A&Es. Last year, the Government invested a record total of £700 million, ensuring local services had the certainty of additional money and time to plan how best to use it. As the Royal College of Emergency Medicine said:
“This represents the largest annual additional funding yet seen.”
I know from speaking to people at the Royal United hospital in my constituency that this additional investment has really helped.
The Opposition spend most of their time trying to do down our achievements, which the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), espoused in his opening remarks, but the protection of the NHS budget and the additional funding since 2010 has enabled A&E departments’ capacity to increase significantly since 2010. That additional funding has paid for 2,500 beds in both acute and community treatment, and the equivalent of 1,000 new doctors. We have now added almost 1,200 additional A&E doctors, including an additional 400 A&E consultants, and 1,700 additional paramedics since 2010. The additional £2 billion being invested in front-line care in 2015-16 will go a long way to supporting the NHS into the next winter.
My next point relates to weekly reporting of A&E data. The Opposition will be very much aware that the best healthcare decisions are clinically led, although it seemed as though they disagreed with that earlier on. As Sir Bruce Keogh rightly explained in his recent letter to the chief executive of NHS England:
“There is concern that, in a small number of instances, some targets are provoking perverse behaviours and the complexity of others is obscuring their purpose and meaning.”
I agree with him that the A&E standard has been an important means of ensuring that people who need to get rapid access to urgent and emergency care do so, and we must not lose that focus. I also agree with him that we do not need to review the four-hour standard at this time and that we need to look at a wider range of measures if we are to drive improved outcomes across the entire system.
I totally agree with the suggestion that we standardise reporting arrangements so that performance statistics for A&E, referral-to-treatment times, cancer, diagnostics, ambulances, 111 and delayed transfers of care are all published on one day each month. That fits very nicely with the calls from medical practitioners across the UK for a reduction in the burdens of bureaucracy that have been crippling productivity at the heart of our NHS. One key reason for my brother and his wife leaving this country to practise medicine in New Zealand was this overarching issue of bureaucracy. I very much hope this plan will show medical professionals and patients that we all look to improve the quality of data collection.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend had this experience, but during the election campaign a number of constituents told me how excellent the services were in A&E. Of course we have a brand new unit at the Lister hospital, but did he have the same experience?
Ben Howlett
Yes, absolutely, I did. When I was speaking to countless residents on the doorsteps across Bath, I found that the quality of provision of the Royal United hospital and other hospitals around the rest of the UK was tremendous. I spend a lot more time than Opposition Members do in thanking NHS professionals for the work they are doing in my constituency and elsewhere.
Ben Howlett
I am coming to my conclusion, so I will not take an intervention.
In conclusion, I very much hope that the Secretary of State will continue to find the investment that is needed in our A&Es to keep up with the pressures; think about the need to encourage better access to primary care and community care; and reduce the burdens of bureaucracy that have afflicted our NHS for so long, and that resulted in my brother and his wife fleeing to New Zealand to escape.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
It is indeed a huge honour, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be called by you today to make my maiden speech in this very important debate on A&E services in the NHS. As an introduction, I can report with a small measure of glee that the NHS in Dumfries and Galloway has treated 96.8% of all A&E out-patients within the Scottish Government’s target of four hours. The NHS remains safe in public hands north of the border.
As is customary, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Russell Brown, who was elected to this House in 1997 on a tidal wave of Blairite euphoria, ousting the seemingly immoveable Sir Hector Monro. My election to this House has absolutely nothing to do with Russell Brown as a person or as a constituency MP. He was merely a victim of the political reawakening that has occurred all over Scotland, and the resultant Scottish National party tsunami, and he was let down badly by his party. My message to Russell is simple: thank you, Russell, for your tireless dedication to the people of Dumfries and Galloway.
The Labour party has left the people of Dumfries and Galloway and of Scotland; it is not the other way round. My message to those on the Labour Benches is simple: can they please get their act together? We had an opportunity to defeat this Tory Government last week to create a referendum fairness board, and they blew it. They would rather sit on their hands or vote with the Tories than support an SNP proposal. They should ditch the tribal opposition and work with us so that we can put this wafer-thin majority to its full test.
This SNP group is determined to dismantle the myths that surround our brand of nationalism. Perhaps I am in the best position to dispel those particular myths, because I am not from a traditional SNP nationalist household. Independence is not an argument that I used to subscribe to; I actually voted no to devolution in 1997, and I only joined the SNP four days after the independence referendum. My conversion has been protracted, evidence-based and not led by blind patriotism. As a dual qualified lawyer and businessman, I was invited to speak at a town hall debate, a mere 15 months ago, during the referendum, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh). I kept getting invited back—almost 50 times in fact. Here I am, 15 months later, in this world famous Chamber representing the people of my home region. What a privilege it is. A special mention goes to my wonderful wife, Anne, whose dedication to our two young children allows me to take up the privilege in this House.
Dumfries and Galloway, or the Scottish Riviera as I prefer to call it, is a constituency of serene beauty, abundant wildlife, vast forestry, rolling hills and a coastline that stretches almost 200 miles. It runs from my home town of Stranraer in the west to Wigtown, Newton Stewart and Whithorn in the Machars, to Gatehouse of Fleet, Kirkcudbright, Castle Douglas in the Stewartry, all the way across to Dalbeattie and Dumfries in the east. There is something for everyone. It is a place that I love dearly, and we are indeed a resilient bunch. It is, and should be even more, a tourist mecca. There are so many festivals and community initiatives—simply too many to mention in total. Members should visit the book town of Wigtown, the artists’ town of Kirkcudbright, and the Wickerman festival. They should watch out for the UK’s finest oyster festival in Stranraer, coming soon. We are a region of entrepreneurs, innovators and inventors. We invented the pedal bicycle and discovered electro-magnetism, and we gave Christianity to Scotland in the fifth century through St Ninian of Whithorn.
In my view, Dumfries and Galloway is dynamic and growing, with more small businesses employing fewer than 10 people per head of population than any other constituency in Scotland—a remarkable statistic, given the rural economic disadvantages that we suffer. Small businesses are our largest employers, the lifeblood of our community and the lifeblood of our economy, but they need serious help to fulfil their potential. Throughout my constituency, 3G networks are very rare and 4G virtually non-existent; fibre-optic cables do not reach the outlying areas. That is simply not good enough. Would it not be fantastic if 5G was rolled out with 100% geographical coverage in the rural areas of the UK that need the help the most—places like Dumfries and Galloway? That is the real way we can rebalance our economy and it is something I pledge to fight extremely hard for in the coming years.
No maiden speech by an MP for Dumfries and Galloway would be complete without reference to our national treasure, Robert Burns. Although he was born in Ayrshire, we in Dumfries and Galloway claim Scotland’s national bard as our very own. Burns wrote of the River Nith, which runs through the heart of Dumfries,
“The banks of the Nith are as sweet poetic ground as any I ever saw”.
It is hard to disagree. Dumfries was inspirational to Burns, who was at his most productive when living there, composing classics such as “Auld Lang Syne” and the masterpiece “Tam o’ Shanter”. However, poverty and hunger were ever present in Robert Burns’ life. We have food banks in Dumfries and Galloway, frequented not only by the poor and the disadvantaged, but by victims of draconian benefits sanctions and, more important, the working poor—people who work full time but still find themselves living in poverty. In 2015 in my constituency, children are going to school hungry. Austerity policies are literally starving our children not just of a happy childhood, but of a successful future. Burns’ gratitude for good nourishment was clear when he wrote:
“Some hae meat and canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it,
But we hae meat and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call Andrea Jenkyns. The time limit is now four minutes.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) on his passionate maiden speech. I know how nerve-wracking it can be to speak here.
I have experienced the good and the bad of the NHS. I have lost a loved one, but also seen the excellent care that my mum received when she had a knee replacement recently, and that my sister has received for her multiple sclerosis. For my university research dissertation, I looked at healthcare systems around the world, their per capita spend and outcomes. I can honestly say that my research showed that no country and no Government get it right 100% of the time, but I for one am proud of our NHS and I urge Labour Members to stop talking it down and to drop their selective amnesia. Every Member of this House has something to learn from our party history and I would like us all to pull together for the NHS.
We all have lessons to learn, so let us look at the UK statistics on A&E services. NHS England has a 95% A&E target and achieves 93%; the figure for Labour-controlled Wales is 83%, and for SNP-controlled Scotland, 87%. [Interruption.] Those are the figures from NHS Scotland, so perhaps hon. Members should check that out.
Andrea Jenkyns
No, as I have only three minutes.
My point is that every Member of this House has lessons to learn. I think we should be critical friends, looking honestly at what works and what does not, and sharing best practice. If we look at our record, we see that NHS England has the best emergency care of any western nation. We should celebrate that fact. In Yorkshire and Humber alone, we have 582 more doctors and nurses than in 2010, and I celebrate that. I have worked for healthcare charities for the last four years. Today I met a patients’ association and, together, we are setting up an all-party parliamentary group on patient care. We need to do things in a constructive manner, rather than using this issue for political means. It is only through collective working, including working with patients’ groups and healthcare charities, and by looking at strong local leadership on a ward-by-ward basis, that change can happen.
I welcome the Government’s decision to have a seven-day NHS. We will need to look at how that is managed, but it will take pressure off our A&E services. I will finish by saying that we need to be a critical friend. We need to be honest and make sure there are consequences when things go wrong, and that lessons are learned. We also need to celebrate our fantastic NHS, in which we are still investing. I urge every Member in the House to support that.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
First, I place on record my condolences to the friends and family of the two people who tragically lost their life at Ealing Broadway station yesterday. I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in that.
Who was it who said,
“I think of the emergency nurse practitioner in Surrey, still in his overalls, telling me that closing A&E means an hour long drive to hospital for some people, and potentially lives lost”?
Does anyone know? It was the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) in 2007. In my constituency, that possibility is becoming a reality. Four of our A&E units have either been closed or are closing. Charing Cross hospital has numerous specialisms, but 55% of the site has been earmarked for luxury housing—you couldn’t make it up. Both Hammersmith and Central Middlesex hospitals’ A&Es have already shut their doors, although Central Middlesex’s was a brand-new, well-rated facility. People are being diverted to Northwick Park, over 7 miles away from those two, which the Government’s own Care Quality Commission has rated as a failing hospital.
The Government claim that these units have been saved, but their replacement—urgent care centres—cannot be used for emergencies, are staffed by general practitioners rather than consultants, and do not take ambulances. In short, they are not A&Es. Ealing hospital—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has gone now—loses its maternity services this month. The last projected birth is today, 24 June. People see that as a precursor of things to come, given what is happening to A&E.
Ealing hospital is where I lost my dad in September, so it is a place I know well. I remember the building going up in 1979. My dad was nearly 80 and had been ill for a long time, but we hear of cases such as that of the two-year-old in north London who was taken to what people thought was an A&E, but it had closed down, and he died. These cases are dismissed as anomalies, but they will become more and more frequent, if not the norm.
In my constituency, Mrs Khorsandi lives in the next road to Central Middlesex hospital. In November, after its closure, she had a seizure and was taken to Northwick Park. Her daughter Shappi Khorsandi told me that the hospital discharged her, even though she was not well enough. It was clear that there was no room for her. Her daughter said, “As I don’t drive, she came home in a taxi. She has no recollection of that.” The mother had another fit at her daughter’s house, hit her head on the sink, was taken to hospital again, and had a third seizure in front of the doctors. The daughter told me that they were amazing. Out of nowhere, five people appeared, and they were excellent; however, they had no time to breathe, let alone answer questions. NHS staff are doing the best they can, but they are operating in incredibly uphill circumstances.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while her urban constituency contrasts dramatically with my rural constituency, Government Front-Benchers should recognise the challenging geographical differences between our constituencies? The reason why the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust may run a £26.3 million deficit is our challenging rural area.
Dr Huq
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Another constituent of mine, Mr Anand, lives near Hammersmith hospital and its now closed A&E. He wrote to me describing what he called “near third-world conditions”, and a queue of 10 ambulances. NHS North West London has had the worst waiting times in the country. We have witnessed cutting corners in a process that adds up to its fragmentation and selling off.
The Tory promise, “No top-down reorganisation of the NHS”, did not come to pass for my constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) described, NHS North West London has spent £33 million in two years on consultants. It spent £13.2 million this year alone, including on Saatchi and Saatchi and McKinsey, through its programme “Shaping a healthier future”, which the locals see as trying to justify the closure of hospitals. Do not get me started on the famously airbrushed poster from 2010 that proclaimed, “I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS”. In west London, that does not ring true. Ealing used to be known for comedy, but what has happened to our NHS locally has gone beyond a joke.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We have had a good debate. I pay tribute to hon. Members who made their maiden speeches. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). Having been a student at the University of Salford, I had not realised until now that I followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels by supping in The Crescent; you learn something new every day. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) also made his maiden speech. I congratulate them on their contributions. It is clear that all three will make their presence felt in the House of Commons in the coming years.
I thank the other Members who have contributed, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who leads on health issues for the SNP. On the Government Benches, we heard from the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), for Crawley (Henry Smith), for Braintree (James Cleverly), for Bath (Ben Howlett), and for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns). Many Conservative Members stuck very closely to their party’s policy research unit paper, a copy of which I was conveniently sent earlier today. I congratulate them on being so loyal to their Whips Office.
It would be very remiss of me not to place on record my own tribute to the doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants and other dedicated NHS staff who provide such extraordinary and professional care. Many Members of this House who have been here for a number of years will know that I had a run of bad health about five years ago. As a result, I became far more familiar with my own local hospitals, Tameside general and Stepping Hill, than I had hoped to, even given my position as a constituency Member of Parliament and a shadow Health Minister. I have experienced the very best of NHS care. If I am honest, I also experienced some care that did not meet the standards that we perhaps expect of our NHS. I know, however, that we have a workforce who are completely dedicated and caring.
The House should be in absolutely no doubt, though, that those staff are under a great deal of pressure—sustained pressure that has been building over the past five years. The facts need to be laid out in the open, and Ministers need to be challenged on their fictions. They made all sorts of desperate promises to get them through an election campaign, and now they need to show where the money is going to come from to pay for those promises and to set out exactly how they are going to deliver them. Yet what have Ministers been doing since the general election? I do not disagree with Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s decision to improve the publication of data for mental health and for cancer—that is welcome—but I do disagree with what this Government intend to do in relation to A&E data. Instead of dealing with the pressure facing the NHS in England, they have decided to stop publishing weekly data about those pressures.
Helen Whately
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the NHS leads the world in transparency, and that an excessive focus on one data point—the four-hour target for A&E—is detrimental overall to patients?
Andrew Gwynne
We should remember, of course, that the last Labour Government started that transparency with heart and stroke data.
I think we all know what is going on here. There can be no clearer sign of the Tories’ failure on the NHS than the fact that hospital accident and emergency departments have now missed their own four-hour target for 100 weeks in a row. This is a landmark failure, to which the Prime Minister promised he would not return. The reality is that this Government caused the crisis by making it harder to see a GP and by stripping back social care services.
Let us be under no illusions—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State can chunter, but social care cuts are NHS cuts. The Government made damaging mistakes that have seen the number of people going into hospital soar. The best thing that they could do is to admit it and explain what they are going to do to fix the problem. It is stunning that their only solution is to spin their mistakes and to make the NHS less transparent.
Let me briefly come on to nurse staffing problems. Only this week, we have seen yet another example of poor policy coming out of the Department of Health. If it insists, along with the Home Office, that migrants not earning £35,000 after six years must go home, that will cut a hole right through the middle of our NHS. The Royal College of Nursing estimates that 6,620 nurses will have to leave the country by 2020. Because of the Government’s failure to train adequate numbers of nurses in the UK, those nurses will have cost almost £40 million to recruit from overseas. People coming from other countries to work in the NHS make a huge contribution and our health service would not be able to cope without them, but this is now a mess entirely of Ministers’ own making.
The short-sighted cuts to nurse training in the early years of the last Parliament left NHS hospitals with no option but to recruit from overseas or hire expensive agency nurses. That is also one of the main reasons why many hospital trusts are now in deficit. It was an absolutely profound error and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that. As ever with this Government, patients and taxpayers will pay the price for the Prime Minister’s mismanagement of the health services.
There have been further mistakes. On GP access, it stands to reason that if it is made harder to see a GP, people will be more likely to end up in hospital. As we have heard, the reasons for the crisis are many, but the lack of access to GP services appears to account for much of the problem. No amount of obfuscation and massaging of figures can hide the fact that this Government have made it harder to get a GP appointment. All Members will know of constituents who have had to phone their doctors only to be told that no appointments are available and that they should ring back the next day—which they do, only to experience the same problem again. That they end up in frustration in A&E should not come as any shock.
The Prime Minister has now repeated his 2010 promise to provide access to GPs seven days a week, but he cannot even provide access to them five days a week. When patients want up-to-date information on how their local hospital is performing, this Government plan to publish the data less frequently. I hope that the Government will now see sense, and I commend our motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
Time is rather short, but I want to start by acknowledging one or two things. First, it is nice to see at least one signatory to the Labour non-grandstanding pact present for the closing speeches, if not the opening ones.
More importantly, there were three maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) mentioned James Brown, and the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned The Pogues, so a musical theme has run through the debate. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) took us to the Scottish Riviera, via a wonderful Burns quote. We all enjoyed their maiden speeches very much. We also heard some thoughtful speeches from people with experience in the service.
I say to those who are new to the House that those of us who were here in the last Parliament have a sense of déjà vu about this debate and, indeed, the motion. We want to move on from that. The public gave us a mandate in the election based on our record on the NHS, our commitment to safeguard its future, our honesty in accepting the challenges that lie ahead and the need to find long-term solutions. A number of right hon. and hon. Members alluded to those challenges and solutions. The public saw through the Opposition’s tired attack at the election and realised that we were the party that was not only acknowledging the long-term pressures, but committing the resources that the NHS said it needed to continue to be the best health service in the world. That remains the big challenge for the Opposition.
As was said by the Chair of the Health Committee, whom I congratulate on her re-election, the election is behind us and we need to look forward; we need to look at the areas where there is consensus and remember the impact that debates in this House have on the wonderful staff in our NHS.
Let me put on the record what is happening in our accident and emergency services. The NHS in England achieved 94.9% of people in A&E being seen, treated and discharged in four hours. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who spoke for the SNP, underlined just what an achievement it is to deliver on those targets. We all enjoyed her thoughtful and measured contribution very much.
The change from weekly to monthly A&E performance reporting is based on the clinical advice of Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, as other Members have said. Far from reducing transparency, the change will increase it because, from August, NHS England will publish the key NHS performance data together. That will include more frequent reporting of cancer waits—something that is widely welcomed by cancer charities. The change is not only clinically based, but is supported by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Nuffield Trust, the NHS Confederation and the Patients Association. The Opposition are way out of line with all those bodies in their criticisms of the change.
There has been talk of deficits in NHS providers. Of course that is cause for concern, but we are taking action on those deficits. As I said, during the general election campaign we talked about what we could do to address such long-term challenges. In opening the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) mentioned the specific measures that are being taken to address trusts’ deficits and help them get back into a better situation.
On GP access, the fact is that four out of five people are able to get an appointment when it is convenient. We are building on that by investing £175 million in extending GP access. By March next year, the Prime Minister’s challenge fund will cover 18 million people, who will get extended hours and weekend appointments if they need them.
We have heard from hon. Members that GPs and other health professionals are responding positively to the challenges that the circumstances have set them. I was interested to hear of the innovations that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) told us about in his area. We heard about the focus on increased access to mammography in Crawley. There were many other great examples of how the service is innovating.
To meet demand, we have 1,200 more GPs than in 2010. The Secretary of State spoke only last week about a new way forward for GPs and an increased focus on under-doctored areas. That came out in a number of contributions, including that of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright).
Providing the funding to support the NHS’s “Five Year Forward View” has only been possible because of our long-term economic plan. We remain committed to listening to and supporting the NHS as it works through the detail of the delivery of the “Five Year Forward View”.
We are building on our record of achievement. Compared with five years ago, our NHS performs over 1 million more operations; has 9,100 more doctors and 8,800 more nurses; and sees, treats and discharges 3,000 more people within the four-hour target. We intend to build on those achievements in this Parliament. It is a great track record. However, the NHS simply cannot go on treating more people at that rate, so as Simon Stevens has said, we need to go up several gears on prevention—a subject to which I hope we will return at another time.
There is growing political consensus on the need to integrate health and social care, which hon. Members have spoken about, and this Government have started to do that. It is all right to talk about it, but with the better care fund the Government have started to do it.
A strong NHS needs a strong economy, and that remains the unanswered question for the Opposition, both in the election and every time they sponsor one of these debates. We are committed to supporting our NHS, not running it down. We are backing the NHS’s own plan for meeting the challenges and opportunities of the future. That promise was not matched by the Opposition, and the public knew it. It remains the elephant in the room for their Front Benchers.
As we go forward, that is where we on the Government side will be putting our collective energy: patients before party; prevention as well as cure; backing our NHS, not running it down. I urge the House to reject the motion.
Question put.
Sport and the 2012 Olympics Legacy
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 250 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I beg to move,
This House notes that the number of people participating in regular sport or physical activity has fallen significantly since the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games; fears that the Government has squandered the Olympic legacy it was bequeathed in 2010; believes that increasing participation in a wide range of sports is key to creating the next generation of elite athletes and to improving the health and wellbeing of the nation; and urges the Government to take urgent action to boost participation and support local grassroots sports clubs and associations.
Nobody seriously doubts that the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games were an enormous success. They were a beacon for the world; we showed how these things can be done and should be done, from the magnificent opening ceremony with its celebration of the industrial revolution and Labour’s part in creating the NHS through to the best-attended Paralympic games ever. Team GB won 29 gold, 17 silver and 19 bronze medals at the Olympics, and 120 medals at the Paralympic games. There were so many great moments: Mo Farah; Jessica Ennis; Charlotte Dujardin; Alistair Brownlee; Ellie Simmonds; Jade Jones; Nicola Adams; Chris Hoy, winning his seventh Olympic medal; Victoria Pendleton, winning her third; Rebecca Adlington and Katherine Grainger, winning their fourth medals; and David Weir and Sarah Storey, wining four golds each in just one games.
The very fact that the baton was passed from Labour to the coalition underlined basic British values: democracy, fair play—or, as we say in Wales, chwarae teg—and the rule of law. They were great times, but the point of hosting the games was never just to run a big event; there had to be a legacy. We were spending a lot of taxpayers’ money and diverting £675 million of lottery funds away from good causes, including the arts. The total cost of both games came to just under £9 billion, so there had to be a legacy; otherwise, it was just the most expensive party in our history.
When we were in government and made the original bid, we said that we wanted to see
“millions more young people—in Britain and across the world—participating in sport and improving their lives”.
The coalition reaffirmed that in 2010, saying that it wanted to
“foster a healthy and active nation.”
That is why Labour set a target of getting 2 million more people in England being active by 2012 and set up a £140 million fund to provide free swimming to the over-60s and the under-16s.
In December 2010, the coalition set itself four legacy aims: increasing grassroots sporting participation; exploiting opportunities for economic growth; promoting community engagement; and ensuring the development of the Olympic Park after the games, to drive the regeneration of east London.
What has happened since then? Frankly, it has been an own goal, a dropped baton, a belly flop. The primary legacy aim was to increase participation, but, in virtually every region of this country and in virtually every sport, that has not happened—quite the reverse. It is striking. The figures are down in the north-east, the north-west, the east midlands, the west midlands, the south-east, the south-west and the eastern region. There are 62,100 fewer people participating every week in the north-west, and 72,200 fewer people participating every week in Yorkshire.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the decline actually started before the Olympic games? Is it not possible to pinpoint it to the scrapping of the schools sport partnership, which did such good work in spreading best practice and sports participation among young people in schools?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point and I hope the sports Minister was not booing in disagreement, because she made that point herself on 18 December 2013. I look forward to her joining us in the Lobby later this evening.
This is not just about every region in the country; it is about every sport. Participation is down in non-Olympic sports, including cricket by 73,200 and squash by 79,900. Participation is also down in Olympic sports, including archery by 23,600, badminton by 119,800, basketball by 46,900, football by 121,400 and table tennis, or whiff-whaff, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—who bears some responsibility for all this—has often referred to it. Most striking of all, participation in the one sport that is participated in equally by men and women and boys and girls—it is the most popular sport in this country—is down by a massive 818,500. Thirty-three out of 45 funded sports have seen a fall or practically no increase at all in participation since the Olympic and Paralympic games.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
On the schools sport partnership, it is a fact that low sports participation is heavily correlated with deprivation. One of the greatest problems in recent years is the decline in participation in areas of deprivation, which is exactly where the schools sport partnerships were doing such a superb job, including in my own constituency and in parts of London where space and external space are at a premium and where we have to work hard to overcome that.
Chris Bryant
We should rename my hon. Friend Mystic Karen, because that is the exact point I was going to come on to. She is right. It is one of the most depressing factors—[Interruption.] I can hear some chuntering from the Government Front Bench. Yes, it is true that trampolining figures went up a little bit, but the problem with trampolining is that you always come back down.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major drivers of school sports and sports inclusion in areas of deprivation is the local council? Given the excessive cuts to local councils, is it any wonder that sports participation has gone down?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Interruption.] I think I have managed to hear another little squeak from the sports Minister. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I would not want to malign her. Perhaps she will agree with my hon. Friend later in the debate. In 2013, the Minister pointed out that it was a disgrace that so many schools had sold school playing fields since 2010. Why did they do that? They did it because of the problems that local authorities had. Whichever way we cut the figures, they are a disaster.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He is talking rubbish.
Chris Bryant
I have been dealing with the hon. Gentleman since I was at university with him, and I know when to give way and when not to give way. He will just have to wait a little bit longer.
Hon. Members might have thought that the success of the Paralymics would have encouraged more people with limiting disabilities to take part in sport, but one major problem is that the figure for people with limiting disabilities taking part in sport has fallen dramatically, by 171,000.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to the former Secretary of State.
Boris Johnson
If the sporting legacy from the Olympic games is as bad as the hon. Gentleman says—by the way, he is completely wrong, because as far as I know, another 1.4 million people are playing sport in this country since 2005—can he explain why, in London since the Olympic games, there has been an increase of 400,000 people playing sport? Is that something to do with the great work done by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) as the commissioner for sport in London?
Chris Bryant
I warn Conservative Members who are enjoying a little moment of Borisonics that the truth of the matter is that the hon. Gentleman likes to elide his figures. It sounded as if he was comparing like with like, but of course he was not. He was comparing 2005 with now. It is true the Labour Government dramatically increased the participation in sport from 2005 to 2010, but his lot—his Government—managed to destroy that legacy. He can try to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we will see whether he can recount better statistics.
All hon. Members can perhaps congratulate the new award-winning “This Girl Can” campaign. With such campaigns and with all the talk of improving female participation in sport, we might have thought that the figures for women would have improved, but unfortunately not: 212,000 fewer women take part in sport every week than at the time of the Olympics. That is why we needed that excellent campaign, run by Sport England, to try to fix the Government’s failures.
Mrs Miller
The hon. Gentleman might be being a little selective in his use of statistics. When my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) mentioned the 1.4 million extra people playing sport, he was rightly referring to the time at which the bid was secured. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman rightly refers in the motion to the fact that the Olympic legacy started well before the Olympic games were staged in London.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but the former Secretary of State does not seem to understand that she is praising the Labour Government. We had significant success between 2005 and 2010, and I would argue that the success we achieved up to 2012 was significant, before she and her Government managed to get their hands on the situation. The problem is the legacy after the games, which happened entirely on the watch of the Conservatives. I noted earlier in Prime Minister’s questions that he kept referring to “the former Government”, but the former Government is his Government. The Conservatives can no longer run away from their own record on such matters.
Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of the statistics is what has happened to participation among those on lower incomes. In 2005-06, the year that the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman referred to, when the bid was won, 27.2% of people on the lowest incomes participated in sport. When we left office, that had risen to 27.9%. In the post-Olympic year, 2012-13, which we are using as a baseline in these debates, participation had risen again to 29.3%, but in the most recent statistics, participation has fallen to 25.7%. Who can wonder why those on the lowest incomes are finding it difficult to participate in sport when it is expensive to take part in sport, local authorities are under the cosh financially, and many of the services they have relied on have simply disappeared?
Things are no better in Scotland. The Scottish Government do not keep accurate statistics on sport participation, perhaps for an obvious reason, but people living beside some of Glasgow’s most prominent Commonwealth games venues are now playing significantly less sport and taking less exercise than they did before the event last year. In particular, many people have complained that the games felt as though they were intended for posher and better-off parts of Glasgow and Scotland than for the people on the very doorsteps where the games were taking place.
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I had the privilege on Sunday of taking part in the Great Notts bike ride, where there were more cyclists than at any point in the event’s history. Surely, the hon. Gentleman would recognise, just by stepping out on to Bridge Street, that the number of cyclists making use of cycle roads in London, courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), has increased dramatically. Surely, that is a success of the Olympic games and the Great British cycling team?
Chris Bryant
Everybody would like to praise Chris Hoy, Bradley Wiggins and the many others who have led by example and the 46,000 additional people who have taken up cycling, but there are still significant problems that the Government and local authorities need to tackle and that is a small drop in the ocean compared with the overall figures, which have fallen significantly. In Labour-run Wales, by contrast, the figures are considerably better. Some 70% of adults participated in sport or physical recreation in the four weeks before the most recent survey, compared with just 44% in England.
Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I really must take issue with hon. Gentleman’s comments about Glasgow, particularly since his own party runs the council there. The price of using local football pitches has quadrupled because of that Labour council. That is why it is an issue—nothing to do with the Scottish Government.
Chris Bryant
Oh dear, the Scottish National party always love to find somebody else to blame. The truth of the matter is that Scotland is run by the SNP, and that 80% of local authority budgets in Scotland are determined by the SNP in Holyrood. When the hon. Gentleman starts attacking Glasgow Council, he needs to start looking into his own backyard.
The coalition Government said they would ensure the development of the Olympic Park after the games, but here there are further legacy worries. So far, the cost of transforming the venue into a stadium ready for football has reached £272 million: £15 million coming from West Ham, £1 million from UK Athletics, £40 million from Newham Council and £25 million from the Government. The overall spend on the venue will now top £700 million for the 54,000 seat arena—considerably more expensive per spectator than the £798 million lavished on the 90,000 capacity Wembley stadium. The project is now over budget by about £35 million, which comes close to the total cost of converting the City of Manchester stadium after the 2002 Commonwealth games. This has the feel, frankly, of a fiasco cooked up somewhere between the Mayor’s office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury, which is why, in the interests of transparency, I urge the Government to publish the full details of West Ham’s secret deal as a matter of urgency.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will agree with me on this matter.
Boris Johnson
I will agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. It was indeed a mess cooked up between the Mayor, the Treasury and DCMS: it was the Labour Mayor, the Treasury under Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown who decided to go ahead with a stadium that was completely unsuitable for the purpose.
Will the hon. Gentleman have the decency to admit this single fact? The economic legacy in east London is absolutely superb and the sporting legacy in London—it was called the London Olympics—is that more people are playing sport after the Olympics than were before.
Chris Bryant
If the people of east London felt that there had been such an enormous success due to the hon. Gentleman’s antics in the Mayor’s office there would probably have been more people voting Conservative in the east end of London, whereas I note there are quite a lot of Members sitting around me on the Labour Benches representing the east end of London. I note, and the Secretary of State should note, that the hon. Gentleman agreed with my call for the Government to publish all the details of the deal with West Ham.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Education Committee visited east London as part of its inquiry into the Olympic legacy for school sport in 2013, and we warned the Government then of the lack of legacy and the fall in participation in physical activity generally. In their response, the Government acknowledged that, yet we have still seen a failure. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worrying for everyone in this country that the Government chose to ignore the advice they were given by the Committee and their own comments on that Committee’s report?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He, too, is mystic, as that is a point I am coming on to.
There has been this signal failure because, immediately on coming into office in 2010, the coalition abandoned the target on getting more people active. They scrapped the free swimming fund, putting local authorities under real pressure. They sold off school playing fields and they scrapped ring-fenced funding for sports school partnerships, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned. They abandoned all targets for PE and sport in school. They have had four Secretaries of State in five years, and three sports Ministers all peddling their own preoccupations, rather than laying out a clear 10-year strategy for sports and activity. Their lazy, laissez-faire, hands-off attitude to sports has simply wasted our Olympic legacy.
Frankly, all that is very Conservative. We should remember that Mrs Thatcher did not close only the mines; she closed all the lidos in London as well. It is a fundamental principle of the Tories. How do I know that all this is the fault of the Government? Because the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told us so herself. She said the other day:
“Government is in part to blame in that we have got a sport strategy that is very much out of date”.
Five years of your Government, seven years of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip as Mayor—it is all your fault. They have had plenty of warnings, too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said. The Education Committee report of 2013 was absolutely explicit:
“There is clear evidence that the ending of the school sport partnerships funding has had a negative impact”.
It continued:
“School sport is too important to rely on occasional efforts at pump-priming”.
Its starkest warning of all was:
“We believe that the opportunity to realise a London 2012 legacy for school sports has not yet been lost”.
It said that in 2013. Well, it has now been lost because that warning was ignored.
The Secretary of State used to chair the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Even that Committee warned last year:
“We are very concerned about the lack of communication and co-operation between Government departments, which we think presents a serious obstacle to the DCMS in its attempts to deliver the Olympic legacy.”
This week, in national school sports week, the Youth Sport Trust has said that we are at a “critical crossroads” where
“action is needed now to modernise the approach to PE and school sport”.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I am sure that the Mayor of London is a lover of statistics and will enjoy this one: 71.2% of adults in Brent would love to do more sporting activity, compared with 55% in the country as a whole. Unfortunately, however, the lack of access and opportunity prevents that from happening. I declare an interest in being the Member of Parliament representing Wembley stadium, where we should have seen a lasting Olympic legacy.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a delight to see her back in her rightful place in this House.
There are further dangers ahead. Let us take swimming, for example. As I said, this is the one sport in which participation among girls and boys is equal. Swimming is the most popular form of activity in this country, with 2.6 million people taking part every week. There are, however, many things that put people off swimming, including communal changing rooms, lack of privacy, tired facilities, never learning to swim in the first place, particularly among poorer families, and simply the cost of using a swimming pool. Every Member will have heard of the problems faced by local authorities in maintaining leisure centres, and many of us might have had to fight for swimming pools to stay open in our own constituencies. In fact, the number of pools is pretty stable, at about 5,000 in England alone. More than half of all local authority pools, as opposed to pools in expensive private members’ clubs, were built before 1985 and require significant investment to continue to operate and be attractive to modern swimmers. There are dramatic challenges ahead in respect of just that one sport. We must ensure that more people go swimming.
Chris Bryant
I have already taken one intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart McDonald), and I am sure that he will have an opportunity to speak later, but I have not yet given way to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
Huw Merriman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt his fantasy. What he is saying is not correct: it does not apply throughout the country. My local authority, Wealden, has redeveloped all its swimming pools with the help of the Government’s house building premium,
Chris Bryant
What I am saying is perfectly correct. It comes straight from the Amateur Swimming Association. Local authority swimming pools all over the country face problems because a small majority were built before 1985. They are less attractive facilities, and they therefore require significant investment. Such properties are difficult to maintain.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) says that things have improved in his part of the world, but that proves another point. The Government have slanted funds away from some parts of the country to other parts. In Gateshead, a bowling centre that is a lifeline for hundreds of elderly people will have to close simply because my council has lost 48% of its budget over the last five years.
Chris Bryant
I think that all Members understand the basis of local authority funding, which is that 80% of it comes from Westminster and 20% from council tax and other sources. The problem is that—particularly in deprived areas where many people rely on council services for the elderly, for the protection of children and for their livelihoods and living standards—local authorities are under the cosh, and are finding it very difficult to maintain supposedly non-statutory services such as leisure and libraries. That is undoubtedly having an effect.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the latest Sport England data show that, in respect of the last two comparable years, he is quite right: the number of people involved in swimming did fall. However, the number of people involved in athletics, cycling, football, rugby and cricket rose. What analysis has he made of those statistics?
Chris Bryant
I said earlier that the number of people involved in four sports had risen. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the football statistic, and I am quite happy to have a row with him about it. The overall point, though, is that fewer people are taking part in sport. We have not seen the dramatic increase for which we all hoped. We hoped that spending significant amounts, and diverting moneys from other lottery good causes, would produce a dramatic legacy, and that all the leadership shown by elite athletes would bear fruit in the form of a healthier nation, but that has not happened.
What are we calling for? First, we are calling for a proper, 10-year sport strategy, with a particular focus on involving more women, on disability sport, and on those in areas of multiple deprivation and with the lowest incomes. I think that the sports Minister agrees with us, because she suggested some of that last week.
Chris Bryant
If I am agreeing with the Minister and she is agreeing with me, this is quite a love-in—and all the more reason to support Labour at the end of the debate.
Secondly, we are calling for a renewed determination to make the premier league divert more of the proceeds of its broadcast rights to grass roots football, funding coaches, kit and pitches. Football does not belong to those at the top; it belongs to the kids who put up posters in their bedrooms, and to the parents who take them to play soccer every Saturday and Sunday morning and afternoon. It belongs to the grass roots, and more of the money should be going down to them.
Thirdly, we are calling for immediate action to divert money away from dormant betting accounts and unclaimed betting winnings, and towards the grass roots of the 45 funded sports. Fourthly, we are calling for the restoration of two hours a week for sport and physical education at schools. We used to talk about five hours a week; is it too much to ask for two hours? Fifthly, we want the Government to set a proper target, and aim for an increase of 2 million in the number of people who take part in sport. Surely to God, we can get more of our countryfolk engaged in an active lifestyle.
Finally, we are calling on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health and the Department for Education to present an annual report on school sport to Parliament, so we can all agree on the facts, which would be brought to the House on a cross-party basis.
Why does all that matter? A more active nation will be a healthier nation, see more people physically able to work, see fewer people succumb to long-term debilitating illnesses and see fewer people die prematurely. Engaging more people in a healthy lifestyle is the best, most effective and most efficient form of healthcare. If we want to tackle ischemic heart disease, diabetes, stroke and many mental health conditions, we have to build a healthier, more active nation. As Sport England put it:
“If a million more people across the country played sport each week, it would save the taxpayer £22.5 billion in health and associated costs.”
Sport is an essential aspect of rehabilitation, improving people’s sense of self-worth and of wellbeing. As the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, under the current Secretary of State’s chairmanship, put it last year:
“It is widely acknowledged that one of the major health issues facing the UK is the decline in physical activity by the population, leading to a rise in obesity and associated conditions.”
So it must surely be a scandal for all of us that we spend more in this country—three times more—on weight loss surgery than we do on the Change4Life health campaign. We should be spending more money on preventing obesity than on surgery to tackle it.
I believe, therefore, that we should lead by example, so I make an offer to the Secretary of State. There will be a London marathon next year. I am quite happy to run, if he is happy to run.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for giving the House this opportunity to celebrate not just the fantastic success of the London Olympics and Paralympics in 2012, but the amazing legacy that this country has enjoyed as a result. It is right that we consider it now: we are just over a year away from the Rio 2016 games, and it is a little more than three years since we hosted the games in London.
There is not a lot in the hon. Gentleman’s motion with which I disagree. It is unfortunate that he has adopted some rather snide language, as that makes it impossible for us to support it, but once we take that out and remove the synthetic outrage that permeated many of his remarks earlier, we will find there is quite a lot of agreement across the House, and that, I hope, will come out. I certainly agree with the start of his speech, when he talked about the enormous success of the 2012 games. Without any question, they gripped the public’s attention and fired imagination right across the UK.
Almost to the surprise and disappointment of some detractors in the press, we managed to construct the facilities on time and within budget, and we then had the superb organisation, for which congratulations are due not just to Lord Coe and Lord Deighton, but to the thousands of people involved in the games, both employees and volunteers. That sent a clear and long overdue message to the world that we can still put on a magnificent event with a degree of friendliness and good spirit, which impressed the whole world and showed that this country is prepared to welcome any visitors to our shores.
Our athletes were outstandingly successful, coming third in the medals tables for both the Olympic and Paralympic games. One reason for the original success of our bid was that we put the question of legacy at the absolute core of our plans right from the start. I remember going to talk to a Greek Minister about the legacy of the Athens games, when he confessed to us that his main concern had been getting the facilities prepared in time and he had not even thought about what would happen to them afterwards. That was not the case here. We were always clear that legacy was at the heart of our preparation, and we focused in particular on regenerating a particularly disadvantaged area of east London, on our economy and the potential boost to tourism, on volunteering, on the lives and perceptions of disabled people and, yes, on sport, both elite and in terms of participation and healthy living. We have made strong progress on all those five themes.
On the regeneration of east London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has said, we have a secure future for each of the permanent venues on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Nearly 5 million people have visited the park since it reopened two years ago, including hundreds of thousands who have been able to swim in the aquatics centre or ride in the velodrome or on the BMX track. All eight of the permanent venues have their long-term futures secured, and this is the first time a host city has managed to achieve that within a year. In particular, we have secured a long-term future for the Olympic stadium itself—that has not always been the case for previous host cities. I can remember visiting the Olympic stadium in Athens, where grass was growing out of the running track.
In the next two years alone, the Olympic stadium in east London will host the world athletics championships and five matches during the rugby world cup, including the semi-final. It will also become the permanent home to one of the UK’s most famous football clubs. In addition, the athletes’ village has been converted into housing, with more than 4,500 people already living in this new community. We should also note that those residents will have not only world-class sport on their doorsteps, but world-class culture. The House will be aware that the Government are contributing towards the costs of a new cultural and educational quarter on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park—Olympicopolis. I am delighted that it will provide a new campus for my own university, University College London, as well as a campus for the University of the Arts London, and that already Sadler’s Wells and the Victoria and Albert Museum have committed to being a part of it. We are now in discussion with the Smithsonian about it establishing its first permanent museum outside the United States.
Chris Bryant
While the Secretary of State is on the physical legacy elements, will he respond to the request that I and others have made for the full details of the deal with West Ham to be made public, in the interests of transparency?
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that things such as the terms of the rent are commercially confidential and to reveal them may jeopardise future negotiations with potential tenants. There are good reasons why doing what he suggests is not possible, but we will of course respond to him and set those out in more detail.
Let me finish my remarks about the physical legacy by saying that the transport links to and from the park have also had a huge impact on that part of London. There has also been an economic legacy more generally. There is no doubt that the games provided a showcase for British business—in construction, in event management and across a number of other sectors. Where other countries have followed suit, in Rio, in Baku and in the Commonwealth games and elsewhere, it has often been the expertise that we have developed in this country that is now winning jobs and orders for this country across the world. The total international trade and investment benefits from the games and games-time activity has already exceeded £14 billion, against an already ambitious target of £l1 billion.
The games were also the opportunity to show off the United Kingdom to the world and, as a result, we are on track to deliver tourism targets of an extra 4.7 million visitors, spending £2.3 billion, over a four-year period. An evaluation of the legacy benefits from the games by an independent consortium has estimated that the total economic benefit in terms of UK gross value added will be between £28 billion and £41 billion over the period from 2004 to 2020.
Stewart McDonald
We would get through this debate a lot better if Members on both sides of the House stopped kidding themselves that we have any of these benefits in Scotland. This was a games for London. They were great and I do not seek to take that away, but the only benefit I can remember was when the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was hanging from a zip wire and all of Scotland laughed. So let us not pretend that these economic benefits came to Scotland, because they did not—they came to London and that is where it ended.
Mr Whittingdale
The economic study I just referred to said that the impact on Scotland was a boost to the gross value added between 2004 and 2020 of between £2.3 billion and £2.75 billion and the creation of between 51,200 and 62,400 jobs in Scotland.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Earlier today, I had the honour of visiting the Association of British Travel Agents’ Travel Matters conference, where comments were often made about the legacy of the Olympic games, including the 33.4 million in-bound visitors to the UK last year, many of whom also went to Scotland, the significant economic benefit from that and all the tax that was raised from those visits.
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The benefits that we gained from those games have been felt, and are continuing to be felt, right across the United Kingdom.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We have heard much about one region of England, but Wales missed out on several hundreds of millions of pounds of Barnett consequential funding as well as structural investment and foreign direct investment both before and after the Olympic and Paralympic games. Will the Secretary of State inform the House what he and his Department will do to right that wrong?
Mr Whittingdale
I regret to say that I do not have the figures for Wales on the economic benefit of the Olympic games, but I have absolutely no doubt that they are of the same order as that which I have already quoted for Scotland, and I would be happy to provide them to the hon. Lady in due course if I can obtain them from the report.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I can tell hon. Members of one economic benefit. There is a brand-new half marathon in Swansea, which is now in its second year. That development certainly has a lot to do with the growth in athletics. Just this week, I ran round St James’s park in my Eastleigh 10 km T-shirt, trying to get back into running. There is a new all-party group of Members who want to return to running after the campaign. I would certainly like to see Members joining in if they are training for the London marathon. Innovation is really important, as, too, are the financial benefits. In Eastleigh, young women are returning to exercise. They are going to spin classes and bringing their babies with them. Innovation is certainly important.
Mr Whittingdale
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am delighted to hear what she has been doing to increase sporting participation on a personal level. I absolutely agree with her. I am about to come on to the issue of sporting participation in due course. Before I do so, let me touch on one or two other aspects of the legacy, particularly the volunteering legacy, which was one of the most extraordinary achievements.
Mr Whittingdale
The motion is on the legacy of the Olympic games. This is an absolutely critical part—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have been very lenient with the way the debate has been going, but the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) knows that he must not point—[Interruption.] Nor must the other hon. Gentleman to whom he is pointing. Neither of you should be pointing from a sedentary position, especially when the Secretary of State is speaking.
Mr Whittingdale
Let me just point out to the hon. Gentleman that the title of his motion includes the words “2012 Olympics legacy”, so it is relevant to talk about it.
On volunteering, one of the greatest successes of the games were the 70,000 games makers, who gave up their time and enthusiasm to make the games as welcoming as they were. They have left a very real legacy. We have seen games-makers style volunteers at the rugby league world cup, the Tour de France Grand Départ, the Glasgow Commonwealth games and we will see them at the rugby union world cup this autumn. They have also inspired thousands of others to volunteer in their communities.
Mr Nick Hurd (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is extremely telling that the shadow Secretary of State had absolutely nothing to say about volunteering, because he does not want to talk about one of the great success stories of the games and of the legacy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that community-based sports volunteers have a crucial role to play in driving participation in sport? Will he join me in congratulating the independent charity Join In—it was set up by the coalition Government—on recruiting and retaining more than 100,000 volunteers a year since it was set up?
Mr Whittingdale
Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that charity. He is being unduly modest in not taking credit for the part that he played in establishing that initiative. It is the case that volunteering is continuing, and that many, many grassroots sports clubs simply would not be able to survive without the efforts of hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers. Like many Members in this House I suspect, I will be going this weekend to the rugby club in my own constituency to see the NatWest RugbyForce, which is renovating and working on that club. That initiative has been signed up to by more than 650 clubs.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It was my pleasure on Sunday to take part in a 100 km Williams Farm Kitchen cycle ride in Hornsea in my constituency. That follows the Tour de Yorkshire, which followed the Tour de France coming to Yorkshire, and it all follows from the Olympics, where volunteers made such a difference. We see elite athletes all the way down to people at the opposite end of the spectrum, such as myself, riding out on Sunday.
Mr Whittingdale
I am hugely impressed by my hon. Friend’s sporting participation, like that of our hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies). There has undoubtedly been a great boost to participation in this House, although I will not promise to take up the hon. Member for Rhondda on his kind offer. None the less, I am delighted that so much activity is taking place.
I want to talk briefly about the Paralympics, because they also had a terrific legacy.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Before the Secretary of State moves on from the legacy, what does he have to say about the legacy for lottery-supported charities that are still hurting from the billions of pounds that were diverted from their activities and that are greatly concerned about how this is going to be resolved? What does he have to say to lottery-supported charities that feel they lost out so dramatically because of the London Olympics?
Mr Whittingdale
One of the purposes of the lottery was to support sport in particular, as well as charitable activities, and it seemed to me to be an extremely good use of lottery money to invest in something that has produced such enormous benefit in many different areas. Also, the lottery will benefit from some return, once the sale of the Olympic village has fully gone through.
To return to disabled sport and the Paralympics, one of my greatest moments was to have the opportunity to present flowers to some of the medal winners in the Olympic stadium during the Paralympics. The atmosphere in the stadium at that time was quite extraordinary. According to a survey taken the year after, more than half the population felt that the Paralympics had a positive impact on the way they viewed disabled people, and nearly a quarter of a million more disabled people are now playing sport than was the case when we won the bid 10 years ago.
The hon. Member for Rhondda talked about the sporting legacy of the games. At the elite end, we have talked about the huge success of Team GB in the games themselves, but we have gone on from that. We are currently sitting fourth in the medal tables in Baku—I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who attended the opening ceremony in Baku on behalf of the Government. As many hon. Members know, the England women’s football team is now playing in the World cup quarter final this weekend. We wish them every success. We achieved our best ever results at a winter games in Sochi; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all finished in the top 15 in the Commonwealth games medal table last year; and we are going to Rio next year in a spirit of optimism of even greater success.
The hon. Gentleman addressed the question of participation levels. It is correct that the figures in the recent Active People survey are disappointing. There is no question but that one of the prime aims of the games was to increase participation, and we did achieve that: there was a huge boost to participation after the games. As has already been pointed out, some 1.4 million more people are participating in sport than when we won the bid.
Andrew Gwynne
The Secretary of State mentioned the Rio games next year. Does he see in the fact that they are fast approaching an opportunity to reinvigorate school sport in particular, so that we can get young people active and involved in sport, and fired up for the Rio games?
Mr Whittingdale
I absolutely do. The games in London, and particularly some of the wonderful role models established in many different sports, certainly led to growing enthusiasm among young people, and hopefully the games in Rio next year will have a similar impact. Some of those effects are not picked up in the Active People survey, because young people do not yet come into the statistics.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State touched briefly on women’s participation in sport, but there is a key issue, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred. We already had a gender gap of 1.8 million, and 200,000 fewer women are taking part in sport, but the only activities that are growing are things like park runs and the 10 km runs hon. Members have mentioned. There is a serious problem when that is the only type of sport that is increasing.
Mr Whittingdale
I agree, which is why the Select Committee that I chaired in the last Parliament carried out an inquiry on women and sport. As the hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned, the barriers to women’s participation are varied. A lot have to do with image, embarrassment, and the nature of the facilities available. It is a complicated picture. That is certainly something that I am keen to see addressed. There are few people more qualified to talk about women’s sport than the Minister with responsibility for sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is a very active participant. This is an issue to which we both attach considerable priority.
Mr Whittingdale
I am conscious that many people want to speak in this debate, but I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley).
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his compelling speech, and his new position. Does he recognise that there is growing cross-party support for outdoor recreation and its important role in physical activity? Does he agree that outdoor recreation should be part of our future strategy for modern sport in the 21st century?
Mr Whittingdale
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The simple answer to his point is: yes, we entirely agree with him. There is no question but that recreation has a considerable part to play in increasing participation.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
There is a real risk of everyone being a bit negative about the legacy of the Olympics. In my constituency of Gloucester, the Government have rejuvenated the Blackbridge jubilee athletics track. That is making a huge difference in an otherwise slightly deprived ward. Also, funds have gone towards a brand-new Gloucester rowing club, which has some of the best women rowers in the country and is on the Sharpness-to-Gloucester canal. That will make a significant difference. My right hon. Friend should see that as cause for optimism.
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that example, which is mirrored up and down the country. He is absolutely right that we should not be negative, because we have made a huge amount of progress, and benefits are still flowing from the games. I do not want to speak for much longer, as a lot of people want to speak in the debate.
Mr Whittingdale
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to bring my speech to an end. We share the concerns of the hon. Member for Rhondda about the figures that came out. That is why my hon. Friend the sports Minister has already announced that we will review our sports strategy and look to adopt a fresh approach to seeing what more we can do to increase participation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said, we should not be negative, so I conclude by quoting the International Olympic Committee president, Thomas Bach:
“Ensuring a positive legacy from the Olympic Games for a host city…is very important…This is why I am delighted to see that our British partners have succeeded in maximising the legacy of London 2012 across a number of different areas…I see that London and Britain have also understood that the Games can be a catalyst for positive long-term economic, social and sustainable legacies.”
That is the true legacy of the games. On that basis, we are not able to support the Opposition’s motion.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Mòran taing, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to give my maiden speech and hopefully inject notes of calm and good sense in what has been a very robust debate.
I am the first woman to rise to speak in this place representing Edinburgh North and Leith and, I believe, the first woman to represent any part of my constituency in this House. I am pleased to play my small part in changing politics by making the profile of the population of this place more closely match the profile of the population that we serve, and I am absolutely delighted to represent Edinburgh North and Leith. My immediate predecessor was of course Mark Lazarowicz, who represented the constituency for some 14 years and was held in high regard by many of my constituents. I wish him very well in his future endeavours.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you may have heard in recent weeks a succession of Members extolling the virtues of their constituencies and claiming them to be unsurpassed. That can only be because they have not yet visited my constituency. From the elegance of Edinburgh’s New Town—completed a couple of centuries ago, but still the new town to us—to the Shore at Leith, which may have been tamed a little in recent years but still loudly proclaims its independence from Edinburgh, despite the treachery of 1920, my constituency embraces variety, and rebellious spirits are cheek by jowl with more douce residents. It hugs the Forth from Seafield to the Birnie rocks at the foot of Granton, and that relationship with the firth and the sea has shaped the place. International trade in and out of Leith for centuries meant that our links were well enough established that when England took the huff with France and banned claret, we imported it in vast quantities and smuggled it into England—keeping the best for ourselves, of course.
The people of my constituency have always been inventive and resilient, and those qualities have served us well over the years, but it seems we will need them afresh now. While Edinburgh North and Leith has areas of affluence and more than its fair share of professionals from the legal and financial worlds, it also has areas of poverty and deprivation, and communities full of people whose life experiences are not comfortable. In my few weeks as an MP and in my role as a councillor before that, I have seen people in desperate situations. They face grinding poverty and their hope has been bulldozed from their lives.
In 1922, James Maxton rose to make his maiden speech here and talked of the people of Glasgow living in poverty, with the equivalent of benefit sanctions forcing children to the parish council to be fed, just as they are now being sent to food banks. A century on, and it seems little has changed. The voices of the Red Clydesiders would still be regarded as revolutionary in here.
The Chancellor recently informed the House that he intends to cut more deeply than he already has—that the austerity orgy would continue. Leaving aside the fact that austerity has never worked, and wherever it has been tried it has caused long-lasting damage, we can perhaps look at the human face of the cuts—the suffering and the misery—and decide that we should decide a different path; that we should choose a different future.
In his maiden speech, Maxton said:
“We have had many lectures on etiquette, manners and conduct from right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, and from the Press of this city, addressed particularly to those of us who come from the West of Scotland. We admit frankly that perhaps on the nicer points of good form we have different ideas from hon. Members on the other side of the House. Our dialect is somewhat different also, and perhaps our mode of dressing is slightly different. But we think it is the very worst form, the very worst taste, that it shows very bad breeding, to kick a man who is in the gutter, or to withdraw a crust from a starving child.”—[Official Report, 8 December 1922; Vol. 159, c. 2231-32.]
We have had something similar here in the past few weeks. We on the SNP Benches may not have the delicacies of this House’s customs and manners perfected, but we too think it is the very worst form, the very worst taste, and that it shows very bad breeding to kick people who are in the gutter or to withdraw a crust from a starving child.
We might have been entitled perhaps to expect that the loyal Opposition would have had something to say about the crushing weight that austerity is for the poor. We might have expected a party that was built on a promise of creating fairness in society to consider that it had a duty to stand up for those with least. Instead, today we find ourselves with a motion in the name of the interim Leader of the Opposition that talks of the supposed squandering of the London Olympic legacy. Given the amount of infrastructure spending that was denied other areas of the UK, as we have heard, to be focused on London for those games, some of us may be forgiven for asking whether the legacy in question should be thought of as a positive one.
I shall be generous, though, and leave that aside, and say that creating the next generation of athletes, elite and otherwise, and improving the health and wellbeing of our people cannot be done unless there is investment in facilities, in coaching provision, and in society. For a child lacking nourishment is far less likely to perform well at any sport, never mind excel, and a parent queuing up at a food bank is not really in the best position to encourage their children’s participation in sport. The same applies to education, health, and life chances. Poverty kills hope, kills opportunity, and smothers ambition. We have to do exactly the opposite.
It seems to me that we stand at a crossroads—a junction of decision—but our duty could not be clearer. We have an obligation to offer hope and ambition. We cannot be the doom-mongers, the nay-sayers, the harpies of hardship. We should be lighting the way to a better future for individuals and communities. A broken society, shackled to a future of despair and trying to hold itself together by its fingertips, is surely too high a price to pay for a marginally improved economic performance now, even if austerity could work. The orgy of cuts must end and rebuilding what has been broken must start. That has to begin with investment in our infrastructure, in our public services and most urgently of all, in our people. No more despair, no more distrust—it is time to invest.
I say to Members on both sides of the House that we have a chance now to make sure that Maxton is not still relevant in another century, and that there is a different way. Come to Scotland. Find a politics that has been rescued by hope, where people are engaged and talking about the future and possibilities. While Members are there, they can take a look at the investment that the Scottish Government have made in community facilities through the Cashback for Communities scheme, financed by money recovered from the proceeds of crime. The next generation are being given somewhere to hone their talents, somewhere to get fit and somewhere to respect each other. Come to Scotland and see the difference it makes, and while you are there, come and see Edinburgh North and Leith. It is the best constituency in the country. I will show you around and let the people tell you that they need more than you are offering, and then you can come back here and make a difference.
We Members were not sent here to mark time and hope that we get out the other end unscathed. We were sent here to do a job. The people we represent need more from us than we have given so far. They need hope. The question for each of us in this House is: are we good enough to deliver that hope, to offer it? If people cannot look to Parliament, they will look elsewhere. If we cannot offer hope or its associates, we will be offering exactly the opposite: alienation. Failure to act would be a crime against society, a demonstration that we are incapable of mending that which we have broken.
I appreciate that the election of so many SNP Members must have seemed, to some honourable incumbents, akin to an uprising. I have heard it called “Ajockalypse Now”. We may have ruffled a few feathers since we got here, but I really want to extend a hand of co-operation around this House. Anyone who would like to work with us to address poverty, reverse the effects of austerity, and start building for a future where we can do such things as improve the health and wellbeing of all the nations of the UK through encouraging physical activity, will be more than welcome. This is not a one-time offer, nor is it a deal that ends at midnight; this is an offer that lasts. For those interested in taking society forward, work with us, and by God, we’ll work with you.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May I just say that, unfortunately, there will be a four-minute limit on speeches?
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on a rather challenging maiden speech—perhaps not in the best traditions of the House, but I congratulate her on putting her points over in a forceful way.
Looking at the legacy of the Olympic games is one of the most important things to do. My noble Friend Lord Coe opened the 2012 Olympics by saying:
“London 2012 will inspire a generation”,
and he was right. Our games inspired people not just in the UK, but abroad as well, and we should be very proud of that.
It was the very first “legacy games”, with the legacy, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, built in from the outset. It challenged an outdated, crusty image of a faded Britain and it demonstrated that after a great recession, Britain was open for business, once more thriving and leading the world, not only in sports, but through its Cultural Olympiad, its culture and its arts. It regenerated huge swathes of our capital city and gave us pride in our country.
The success of the London 2012 Olympics for Britain was not a success just for one political party or another, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might like to imply. It was a success for the whole nation, because it brought our nation together. We presented ourselves to the world with confidence, passion, professionalism and, above all, fun.
I am somewhat surprised at the focus of the Opposition motion. It rightly talks about the importance of the Olympic legacy, yet in his opening statement, the hon. Member for Rhondda talked about very little of that legacy. He talked simply about increasing participation in sport, which, although important, is only one part of the Olympic legacy that he should have covered. He fundamentally missed the true scope of the legacy of the event. He should perhaps put that right later on.
The motion states that the Government
“squandered the Olympic legacy it was bequeathed in 2010”,
which was some two years before the games were held. In fact, participation in sport has increased by 1.4 million people since the London bid won in 2005. I fear that the shadow Secretary of State is breaking the first rule of his job by trying to score political points off the back of sport. It simply does not work and he should not do it.
I will make three observations in the short time available to me. We should continue to be proud of the success that was London 2012 and should not pull it apart. A lasting legacy was built in from the start and, as we have heard, it has been hailed as a blueprint for future hosts by the International Olympic Committee.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
My right hon. Friend said that to ensure that there is a legacy, it must be built in from the start. Does she therefore agree that the Rugby Football Union was right to appoint a legacy group for the upcoming rugby world cup, which means that the advantages of the tournament will be seen in future years, in exactly the same way as she is describing in respect of the Olympics?
Mrs Miller
I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
There are other parts of the legacy, such as the cultural Olympics, increased participation, and the challenge to the way in which disabled people are viewed, so that people are viewed for what they can do, rather than for what they cannot do. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) mentioned the importance that was attached to volunteering, which successfully reversed a long-term decline started under a Labour Government, resulting in more people putting themselves forward.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs Miller
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will continue because other Members want to speak.
We have touched briefly on women’s sport. The Olympics challenged the views of the media and sponsors on the appeal of women’s sport. About 40% of the UK’s medals were won by women and the audience levels that those events commanded demonstrated the huge, untapped appetite for mainstream coverage of women’s sport. I applaud the BBC and Sky Sports for the work that they are doing, which I am sure they will continue, to put women’s sport at the forefront.
London 2012 put Britain on the world stage and promoted the regeneration of one of the poorest parts of our capital city, but Members are right to say that we need to scrutinise carefully the investment that is being made into increasing participation in sport, because we are putting a huge amount in. We are investing £1 billion in youth and community sport through to 2017 to instil a sporting habit for life. We need to hold the national governing bodies to account for the money they are spending and the work they are doing on our behalf.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on her maiden speech.
I welcome the sports Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to their roles. I hope that the sports Minister will continue in the long tradition of sports Ministers working across the political parties. I also hope that she will try, as many of us have over the years, to get the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to work together, because together we can solve a lot of problems.
I am sad that we have used the word “squandered” in the motion. If I am honest, I do not think that that is a sensible word to use. This is a difficult issue. A legacy is not something that happens overnight, but something that has to be worked at. All the people who were involved in the Olympics knew that increased participation would not simply happen just because a few people won a few gold medals. That is not how it is done. We have to start from the bottom up.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady has a passionate interest in shooting sports. The one sport that was not mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State in his introduction was clay pigeon shooting, in which Peter Wilson won a wonderful gold medal. Does she recognise that fantastic win, and does she feel that more could be done to introduce young people to shooting sports?
Kate Hoey
I am a great supporter of shooting sports and the discipline they bring. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that gold medallist, because he comes from an area I know very well in Northern Ireland, and I know that it brought great pleasure to people there.
I want to say a few words about how I think we can get a legacy. I will point to London. As many Members will know—some Opposition Members were not too happy about this—I have been the Mayor’s commissioner for sport. I wanted very much to ensure that the Olympics would leave a legacy for grassroots sport. I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), because when he became Mayor there was no sports unit at the city hall and grassroots sport was not seen as important; there was something going on about the Olympics, but grassroots sport did not really matter. He made sure that we had some ring-fenced money, and with that we were able to work with Sport England, local authorities and the London Marathon Charitable Trust, for example, bringing a co-ordinated approach to try to get London to speak with one voice, because one of the crucial problems was that London was not speaking with one voice.
As a result of all the money that has gone in—the £20 million, the extra £30 million in additional match funding and the investment in sports facilities, such as our mobile swimming pools, and in different sports right across London—we are the only part of the United Kingdom where participation has increased. However, that alone will not solve the problem. We really need to look at what makes it work. We have to get local authorities to see sport and physical recreation as a priority. I am delighted that Southwark, a Labour borough, has just decided to introduce free swimming, so local authorities can do more if there is the push and the intention to make it happen.
It is very important that we look at our schools. I remind Members that I was the sports Minister when the school sports co-ordinators were introduced. The reality is that it was never meant to be long term; it was meant to raise the standard in schools, so that they themselves could help make sport and physical recreation a really important part of school. I welcome the ring-fenced money—the only money that goes to schools that is ring-fenced, at just over £8,000 for each primary school. In London alone, £15 million is therefore invested in school sport. If those 1,900 primary schools work together, as they have been doing in some areas, we will see a huge amount of good things going on.
Graham Stuart
One of the recommendations of the Education Committee’s report on school sport and the Olympic legacy in the previous Parliament was the need to extend the woefully small amount of training that primary school teachers, in particular, receive in physical education. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to comment on that.
Kate Hoey
Training is absolutely crucial, and I used to be a qualified physical education teacher, back when we had physical education colleges that taught it in a much better way than it is taught now. Teaching physical education in our primary schools is important. Money is hugely important, but this is also about people and about motivation, getting people to want to instil in young people an enjoyment of sport early on. That is what we have to work towards.
One of the things we are doing in London that is really crucial relates to major sporting events, which are very important and draw millions of people to London. We have to ensure—the Mayor has made this happen—that no big sporting event comes to London without the governing bodies first having to prove what they will do for grassroots sport and what will be the legacy, so it is not just a case of people coming along, having a wonderful two or three days and then nothing happens.
The thing that I am most proud of in London is that we have finally brought together what would be called the county sports partnerships outside London and the pro-actives in London under something called London Sport—Sport England wanted that to happen as well—so we now have a partnership right across London. Instead of people coming to London and thinking, “We have to go to all these different London boroughs,” we will all be working together to ensure that the money goes a lot further. That is absolutely crucial.
I do not think that we should be negative. I genuinely think that sport is one of those matters that we should be able to have a mature debate about, rather than just playing ping-pong with statistics. We should be able to work together closely. I suggest that one of the things the Secretary of State might want to do is have a proper, full debate in Government time, so that we do not have to rush through things in three or four minutes. Members could then have a proper discourse and welcome the fact that sport does so much in this country.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
This is an important debate, because participation in sport is not simply about improving elite sport or the success of our Olympians and footballers and cricketers at an elite level. It not only improves people’s health and wellbeing but all the studies show that it is incredibly important in turning around the life chances of many young people, including those who have been involved in crime or who have fallen out of education. It gives them back structure and confidence, and that is why it is such an important part of the fabric of our society.
Of course, we should be ambitious to increase participation in sport and we should hope to see a boost in that, particularly after the incredible success that was the London Olympic games. We can look at the figures in Sport England’s most recent study on sports participation and say that we would like to be doing better. That should be our aspiration. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the shadow Minister, said at the beginning of the debate, in some sports, such as swimming, the figures are down, but in others, such as football and athletics, in the past two comparable years—
Damian Collins
No, according to the figures I have seen, participation in football, athletics, cycling, rugby and cricket was up in the last two comparable years.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions football, but does he not think that we have things to learn from other countries? I believe that in Belgium the aim is that any 19 or 20-year-old from across society will have touched the ball in football about 200 million times. That is building quite a high pyramid of talent, as we have seen in the Belgian national team at the moment, from what is being done at the grassroots. We could and should be learning from other countries.
Damian Collins
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Last Friday, I was in Folkestone to see the opening of the new 3G football pitch at Cheriton Road. We want to see more investment in such pitches. The Government have provided an additional £8 million for such facilities, but we should see more. I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda that with all the billions of pounds coming into football we should get more of that money into the grassroots. We all want to see that. In his excellent book, “Bounce”, Matthew Syed gives a clear analysis of sports participation. Proximity to good coaches and facilities and the opportunity to engage increase the number of people who will participate and makes it more likely that we will find elite performers from almost any walk of life. It is a question of getting the combinations right.
Participation, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State, is important. The participation figures, as they are collected by the national sports bodies, are something of a blunt tool. One person who participates in three sports might decide to concentrate on one and spend more time on that one sport than they did on the three, but that is shown as a net drop in participation even though the hours involved in sport might have gone up.
We should be targeting interventions to get people who do no sport at all to start doing something, and we should focus on the most deprived communities, where people do not have access to facilities, coaches or the opportunities to participate. That agenda was set out by the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I think that it will be an important step forward in how we incentivise investment to get people who play no sport to play some sport.
We should question whether voluntary groups and charities should be able to access some of that funding and whether they are better placed to tackle some of the harder-to-reach places than the national governing bodies. Some of those organisations are supported by some of the national sporting bodies. For example, the Rugby Football Union’s HITZ programme has done a fantastic job in supporting young offenders and focusing their lives around sport. Kicks, the Premier League’s programme, has done a fantastic job. There have been some excellent studies of its benefit in London in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. That should be our priority and our focus.
School sport is important, but encouraging people to partake in sport outside school is even more important. There will only be a certain number of hours in the school day, so participation outside school is significant. A lot of good work has been done by the school sports partnerships, but the link between schools and sports clubs in the community is important.
Caroline Nokes
Last Friday, 2,200 children took part in the Hampshire youth games. One of the best things to see was the link with the sports clubs that volunteered and ran the different sports, such as the Trojans club in my constituency, which spent all day running the hockey.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In my constituency, an organisation called the Shepway Sports Trust is independent of the council and the schools. It is supported by funding from the Roger de Haan Charitable Trust, but it seeks funding from other sporting bodies as well. Its primary purpose is to connect schools with sports clubs, to drive up participation in sports outside school, as well as proactively recruiting new coaches. An organisation can have all the facilities in the world, but if it does not have the coaches to lead people through its programmes, they will not get the best out of it. That is the kind of co-ordinated approach that we need to see, with a focus on increasing participation among people who are outside the organisations that qualify for support and those who have otherwise missed out.
We should look at the sports in which participation has increased over the past couple of years, particularly those I mentioned earlier. Has that increase happened because they invest in community facilities or because they link up sport in schools with sport in clubs? What lessons can be learned, and how can we match funding to increase participation?
How can we set about getting funding from other areas of Government activity? Why should not people be able to get Home Office funding for sports programmes set up to deal with antisocial behaviour and crime in the community? Why should not the Justice Department pay for some of the work of programmes such as HITZ, which is turning around the lives of young offenders? Reports reveal incredible statistics, showing that one or two big successes in keeping a young person from reoffending can almost pay for an entire year’s programme in the community. Relatively small amounts of money are involved, but the return that we get on the investment in community sport is enormous. That should shape our strategy. I have had a couple of extra minutes as a result of taking interventions, so I shall call it a day now.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It is good to see that the cross-party consensus that won us the Olympics is still alive this afternoon. I have heard a bit of grumbling, but I am not going to grumble about money going into east London for the Olympics because my constituents and I loved the Olympics. Nor will I be grumbling about money going to Glasgow for the Commonwealth games; we loved them as well. I am sure that the Ministers would agree that it was part of the deal, when we all backed those games so unanimously, that areas such as mine that have not had the honour of hosting such events will have higher priority in the coming years, and I look forward to that happening. As we find that we want various things, I hope that the Ministers will be prompting and pushing to ensure that we get them.
I hope that, when the Government re-examine their strategy, they will acknowledge that the increase in pitch prices is a problem that has to be addressed, because it is turning people away from sport. I also hope that they will admit their error on school sports co-ordinators. It is honourable for new Ministers to admit that errors were made by others in the past, and to make changes. That was a serious error, but something can now be done to improve the situation. There has been a tail-off in participation in schools as a result of it.
Since the banking crisis, a lot of families have had a lower income. That means that the poorest in society—the lowest 20% in terms of income—are spending between £2 and £4 per household per week on sport, and they are suffering disproportionately from the lack of access. StreetGames is a charity that I know the new sports Minister has great affection for, and I hope that it will get more resources. It has produced an equity index on volunteering which shows that the brilliance of volunteering disproportionately benefits those in higher-income areas and works against those in the lowest-income areas. So the poorer you are, the less likely you are to benefit from volunteers and the less likely it is that you will participate in sport. One of the key reasons that the BBC needs to retain the major sports events as free to view is that those on the lowest incomes cannot afford to watch pay-per-view events. They would be still further excluded from major sporting triumphs such as the Olympics if the BBC were to lose those free-to-view events. That is a vital choice for the Department.
UK Sport’s gold event series has 70 events over the next six years, and the Government must give more of a push to that. Its pop-up rugby league sessions, in conjunction with the Chorley Panthers, were a great success, as I am sure its pop-up tennis will be, across the country, coinciding with Wimbledon. The shortly-to-emerge Bassetlaw sports village is not there yet, but it is on its way. It will have an athletics track and an all-weather football stadium, putting the resources back where they are needed. When we did it before, with girls’ football at Manton miners welfare club, we saw the biggest increase in girls’ participation in the football world. Give us the tools and the facilities, and the people will come forward to participate in sport.
Finally, I say to anyone out there who has not participated in sport that the all-party group on mountaineering will take you up to the hills. Anyone can participate—do join us.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who spoke so eloquently in her maiden speech.
It is a great honour and privilege to be here as the new Member for Cheadle. Cheadle is a vibrant and beautiful constituency situated in Greater Manchester and on the border with Cheshire. It is a constituency that values communities and volunteering, business and enterprise, parks and sport.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mark Hunter, who represented Cheadle for 10 years. He will be remembered not only for his party role here as deputy Chief Whip, but for his hard work in the constituency. Like his Liberal Democrat predecessor, Patsy Calton, he used his maiden speech to highlight the need for a major relief road through the constituency. I am delighted to say that, after waiting decades for this vital relief road to Manchester airport, it is now off the drawing board and under construction.
My constituency is made up of a number of villages and small towns. It has a long and interesting history, but before hon. Members become concerned that I may be tempted to narrate it in its entirety, I am aware that my time is limited.
My constituency stretches from Woodsmoor, parts of Hazel Grove and Davenport, on the outskirts of Stockport, right down to Heald Green, Cheadle Hulme and Woodford on the Cheshire border. Indeed, for some of my constituents, their feet may be in Stockport, but their hearts are still in Cheshire.
The settlements of Cheadle and Bramhall date back to Domesday records, and the village of Woodford has a proud history, too. It was formerly the home of aircraft manufacturers Avro, and at its height in the second world war more than 29,000 people were employed at the site and more than 20,000 aircraft were manufactured there, including Lancaster bombers, Vulcans and Nimrods.
Communities are really important to me, and the Cheadle Civic Society is a great example of community in action. Formed more than 50 years ago, its aims are to encourage higher standards of architecture and planning in the village. Recently, its dedicated members and volunteers invested more than £100,000 in bringing new life to the village green.
Indeed, it is in our parks and clubs that the Olympic legacy is most clearly visible in my area—from the cricket clubs of Cheadle Hulme and Woodford receiving grants for improved facilities, to local cyclists benefiting from the excellent new BMX track in the award-winning Bruntwood park.
Our amateur football clubs are also important. They include well-known teams such as Cheadle Town FC, who last season hosted the Russian under-19 team. We wish the number 19 had been reflected in the score, as Cheadle were unluckily beaten 22-0. However, pride was restored when the home goalie was named man of the match. When asked why he thought the Russian team had won, he said that the under-19s had the wind behind them. How unlucky it was that the wind turned around at half time.
I have a number of aims that I want to achieve for my constituency. For example, there are many small businesses in the area and their enterprise needs to be encouraged.
I am proud to represent Cheadle, where communities value their local parks, sports clubs and the facilities they provide. There is a great spirit of volunteering by people who give freely of their time, which was demonstrated to great effect in the games. As I serve the residents of Cheadle, I will do all I can to support and promote the spirit of volunteering and community.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I am proud to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), who made an excellent speech, speaking eloquently about her constituency, its character, its history and its needs. I am sure she will have a successful Parliament standing up for her constituency. I congratulate her on her speech and on her election to the House.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and not least to pay tribute to Feltham’s own Mo Farah, who, in his success in the Olympics and in other competitions since, has shown his commitment to sport and excellence, which continues to inspire many in my constituency, in Britain and throughout the world.
All hon. Members recall the Olympics—the excitement, the expectation and the pride. It was exciting to take part as the Olympic torch travelled around the country. Winning the Olympics was a truly national achievement. This week is national school sports week, which is an opportunity to send a strong message about sport and the importance of young people’s participation.
That is why the sports legacy from the Olympics is sad in that participation has declined in almost every region and across a range of sporting disciplines, which has been mentioned consistently in the debate. It is saddening that the school sport partnerships had their funding cut. I believe that that impacted on the ability of schools to participate in sports in the same way in my constituency.
Last year, I was proud to attend the launch of Motivate Hounslow, an important initiative that shows the need to motivate and encourage people to take part in innovations to bring about greater participation in support. The initiative was launched with Mo Farah and his former PE teacher, Alan Watkinson, who continues to play an important part in sports participation in Hounslow and in my constituency.
In the short time I have, I want to make a couple of points that have been made to me on the lack of a comprehensive strategy. There is a feeling that, in secondary schools, sports provision is in decline. There might be pockets of excellence, but provision is not reaching all areas. Participation has fallen in poorer areas and among those who are more deprived. That voice needs to be heard. We need to hear much more from the Government about how they will ensure that there is a comprehensive and longer-term strategy to encourage participation that takes advantage of our school system. We should ensure that there is a strategy for those aged 11 to 18.
I recognise the work of the Youth Sport Trust, which has published a manifesto for PE and sports. This week, it launched “Class of 2035”, its report on young people’s relationship with physical activity, and on the need to think about how the digital revolution can be used to encourage PE and sports participation, and to empower young people to take part in, and responsibility for, their activity levels.
This needs leadership from the top. We need the Government to show that they will take responsibility, so that we see not a decline but an increase in the years ahead.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
The debate has improved steadily as it has gone on, and Members on both sides of the House have made sensible points. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for their excellent maiden speeches.
The language in the motion is unfortunate. Most international observers would say that to say Britain has “squandered” the legacy of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games is utterly nonsensical. I think most fair-minded people would say there has never been an Olympic games of modern times that has produced such a substantial legacy of every kind.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
The idea of the legacy having been squandered cannot be true when one takes into account the transport logistics, the amazing Olympic volunteers—who were almost at the level of the absolute hero, Ben Parkinson, the torch carrier—and, thankfully for Twickenham, the rugby world cup. We are benefiting from those transport logistics and the volunteers. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that “squandering” is absolute rubbish?
Boris Johnson
I wholeheartedly agree that “squandering” is totally wrong. The reason the International Olympic Committee said that London offers a blueprint to the rest of the world is that it has been around other post-Olympic cities and seen, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the buddleia sprouting from the athletics tracks and the dustbowl stadiums. It has come to the Olympic park and seen the exact opposite: all seven key venues with a long-term private sector solution and contractor.
Since the park opened only a year ago, 800,000 people have gone to the swimming pool, 600,000 have gone to the VeloPark, 600,000 to the Copper Box, and tens of thousands to the Lea Valley hockey and tennis centres. As Members have pointed out repeatedly, we are about the only Olympic city on record to have solved the problem of what to do with the stadium. We have a long-term future for the stadium, in spite of the catastrophic errors made by the previous Government. There will be not only premiership football, but rock concerts, baseball, rugby and all manner of entertainments. Our park in east London is going to be a centre of sporting excitement for generations to come. The Secretary of State rightly listed a procession of world championships: athletics, rugby, hockey, wheelchair rugby, swimming and so on.
We are succeeding in getting people from the poorest boroughs to play sport and to take part. Some 45,000 people have taken part in the Active People, Active Park project and 26,000 have enjoyed Motivate East, a programme to get disabled people more active in sport. I am absolutely confident, as my friend the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) rightly said, that those numbers will continue to rise. The area is changing out of all recognition.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the excellent work being done to engage schools and clubs to make sure that more grassroots sport is played by schoolchildren?
Boris Johnson
Absolutely—I acknowledge that completely. I acknowledge, too, the work of the grassroots sports teams. Much of that success flows from the increasing prosperity we are seeing in east London and at the Stratford site.
The village is already complete and occupied, with 4,800 new inhabitants. We have the largest green park in the UK for a century. Some 24,000 homes will be built on the site, many of them low-cost and family homes. That would not have happened without the Olympics. We will have tens of thousands of new jobs as a result of the Olympicopolis project, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State identified and which the Government are rightly funding. Just this very morning—in another capacity, I am happy to say—I was privileged to give planning permission for a new tech hub on Fish Island in Hackney Wick, an absolutely beautiful structure that will echo the Victorian warehouses there and incorporate all kinds of artist studios and tech start-ups. It is inconceivable that that kind of private sector investment would have come to that part of London without the Olympics. That is a phenomenal legacy.
Two university campuses are going to the Stratford site: not just a £270 million new campus for University College London, but a campus for Loughborough University, one of the great sporting universities in the world. Their mission is to help local kids to take up sport. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall that taking up sport is not just a symptom of prosperity; it is a cause of prosperity. That is why she and I have campaigned so hard on this issue. I am proud to say—she is absolutely right—that we have had 400,000 more people doing some kind of sport since 2012 in London, which is a point that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) totally failed to concede. Sporting participation, as well as every other kind of legacy, is up in London.
The London Olympic and Paralympic games of 2012 boosted sport across the city in which they were held. They are transforming east London and the lives of some of the poorest people in our society. As several Members have rightly pointed out, they have left a legacy of volunteering and engagement, which we are continuing to support through Team London, and they have brought untold billions of investment into this country. They projected an image of London around the world that was so attractive and so exciting that, for the third year running, we are going to achieve what we have never before achieved in my lifetime—to be the No. 1 tourist destination in the world, knocking Paris and New York off the No. 1—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. [Interruption.] Mr Johnson, you are back in the House and your behaviour should be better than that. We expect more from you. The Mayor of London should do better.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
There is little doubt that the 2012 London Olympics inspired people. From the majesty of the opening ceremony featuring Britain’s greatest artistic talents through to the astonishing achievements of our athletes and of the world’s best sports people, it was impossible not to be inspired by the games, as I was inspired when I went to the Munich Olympics as part of the GB youth team.
I am passionate about sport and the opportunity it gives to our children. Yet the legacy and the ambition of inspiring a generation to be physically active and to get hooked on sport have not been realised. Three conditions need to be met to encourage and enable people to be physically active: inspiration, access and infrastructure. Although there was no lack of inspiration present during and after the Olympics, the 2012 games were held in the early years of Tory austerity against a backcloth of crushing local government budget cuts, a strangulation of budgets within DCMS and the channelling of lottery funding to support the games themselves, so the other two conditions were missed.
Across England, just as young people were being inspired to take up athletics, swimming and gymnastics, local councils were closing the doors on leisure facilities. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were in charge for the 2012 Olympics, but they were also in charge for the unprecedented degradation of sports infrastructure across England, so the consequence of a Tory policy of promoting the Olympic games, but cutting off access to physical activity has contributed to a worsening of public health statistics and the deprivation of opportunities for people to be engaged in sport and physical activity.
How can the people who have suffered hardest through austerity afford pitch fees, court fees, gym fees and equipment hire? How, as a consequence of this Government’s tearing apart of the welfare state, could people on the lowest incomes hope to access childcare in order to attend fitness classes or sports club activities? The lack of a coherent physical activity strategy during and after the Olympics demonstrates how the Government walked away from a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to inspire and activate a generation.
In Wales, during the same period in which the previous UK Government stripped local government bare, the Welsh Labour Government protected council spending. This protected not only social care, in contrast to what happened in England, but sports and leisure centres. Protecting council budgets gave Welsh councils time to transform services and gave time for leisure and sports centres to be turned from making losses in some cases to making a profit that enabled trusts and social enterprises to be formed.
The results of the Welsh Government’s continued support for their sports budget resulted in a record medal haul at the Glasgow Commonwealth games. Wales won 36 medals in total—20 bronze, 11 silver and five gold. This was more medals per capita than any other nation. Alongside this, levels of physical activity have increased since the Olympic games. The lesson of this contrasting picture on either side of Offa’s dyke is that investing in an event but afterwards cutting away access and infrastructure to the activities promoted by that event will achieve no positive legacy. In Wales, partnerships between the Welsh Government and the national governing bodies has led to a record number of 3G pitches being built, to multi-use leisure centres and learning centres opening in communities, and to the location of crèche facilities within sports, leisure and library services.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It would be very helpful if Members could shave a little bit off their speeches. I am not going to reduce their speaking times, but any help that they can give will help me to be useful, because I want to be able to call everyone who wishes to speak.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall bear your stricture in mind. Of course I had a great speech to make, but given what you have said and given that some of what I was going to say has already been said more eloquently by others, I shall make just two points.
It was a great privilege for me, nearly 10 years ago, to congratulate the then Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, on bringing the Olympics to London, and on her assurance that the work to secure a legacy would be done on a cross-party basis. I therefore found it disappointing to see the word “squandered” in the motion. I do not think that any analysis of the regeneration to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred, along with the cultural legacy and the increase in participation that we have seen—notwithstanding some of the more recent falls—would prompt the use of that word. As Lord Coe said, the Olympics lit up the world and inspired a generation.
Let me make a serious comment. Perhaps those who want to use the word “squandered” should consider the legacy itself. There are a couple of points that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) did not make in his speech. First, a legacy is not something that happens two or three years after an event. The legacy of the Olympics will be judged by whether we have champions in 2020, 2024 and 2028, because that is where the grassroots come in. However, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that from 2005 onwards—and, indeed, from 2012 onwards—participation in sport had increased, but since October 2014 the increase has begin to tail off. That information comes from Sport England’s campaign for active participation in sport. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants to query it, but it is true.
The question that we must ask ourselves is whether we can sustain the legacy, and that is not true only of the Olympics. As many Members will know, I represent one of the greatest constituencies, and it is going to host a little tennis tournament next week. I remember being told time after time in the House that the legacy in that regard was that we were not producing champions, despite the money being spent year on year by the Lawn Tennis Association.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
In the context of participation in tennis, is it not a disgrace that the Labour-run council in my constituency closed the public tennis courts and then put money into private tennis courts that only the most affluent can afford? The Scottish Government are trying to improve access—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Interventions are meant to be short. Members must not just come out with lists. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has understood the hon. Lady’s point. I am trying to save time so that Members who have been waiting all day have an opportunity to speak.
Stephen Hammond
Given your stricture, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not respond to the hon. Lady’s intervention,
My second aim in this short speech was to—well, to get the press release in, obviously. I would have liked to say more about the legacy, but our legacy in Wimbledon is a new floodlit BMX track, which is open, is being used and has a growing membership, and the new beach volleyball courts that have opened in Wimbledon Park, which also has a growing membership. London, in contrast to a number of other places, is experiencing growing participation in sport, and I think that that is part of the Olympic legacy.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I want to talk about women’s participation in sport. As I said earlier, 212,000 fewer women have participated since 2012. That is a real issue, because there is already a wide gender gap: 1.8 million fewer women than men engage in sport once a week, and 80% of women do not get enough exercise to benefit their health. That is why this is a serious issue, and that is why we should be discussing it.
Even before the recent falls in participation, there were reasons for us to be concerned about the gender gap. Nationally, 40% of men participate in sport every week compared with 30% of women, but the figures for women are much lower in some parts of the country. It is all very well for Conservative Members to talk about London, but the position is not the same in Greater Manchester, and it is not the same in Salford, where the figures are 20% and 24% respectively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, the low participation rates in some parts of the country will lead to diabetes, coronary heart disease and strokes. That is why this is a serious issue.
A number of barriers have been identified, as the Secretary of State said, to increasing female participation in sport, including practical, personal, social and cultural issues, but there are also financial reasons, which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) laid out so well. I co-chair the all-party group on women’s sport and fitness with Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson. One of its three main aims is to investigate the participation of girls and women in sport and to reduce those barriers to participation. Its first meeting is next Tuesday and I urge hon. Members to attend, if they can, and to join if they care about this issue.
I congratulate the new sports Minister on her role. I know she cares about these issues. She was a member of the all-party group in the previous Parliament, and she has said that the Government have an out-of-date sports strategy. She says she is going to rip it up and start again. I hope she does.
The Minister might want to think about a couple of things as she does that. Unequal funding is the key issue running from school sports through to the unequal pay and poor sponsorship levels in elite women’s sport. Yesterday was the 43rd birthday of the Title IX legislation in the United States: landmark civil rights law that prohibits gender discrimination in any educational programme or activity that receives federal support. It has been law since 23 June 1972 and is famous for its transformative effects on girls and women’s athletics. The US has the highest level of participation of girls in sport in the world, largely due to Title IX bringing in equal funding for girls and women. Figures show that participation has increased by 990% in high schools and by 560% at college level since the law was passed.
In this country, however, we do not have that law. We have very poor media coverage of women’s sport and a lack of sponsorship. The Select Committee that the current Secretary of State chaired looked at those issues, but we have to do something about it. The sports strategy must include working with the media to ensure better coverage of women’s events.
Finally, on pay and sponsorship, the pay levels of women footballers playing in the women’s super league and in international competitions are very low and probably a surprise to many. The majority of centrally contracted players earn about £20,000 from their clubs, but there are players in the super league who are on as little as £50 a week. Those who are tempted to comment on the standard of women’s football need to think about that low level of reward. We won the women’s rugby world cup with a team who were not even paid professionally; nearly all of them had other jobs. How could any of us train and win at international level if we had other jobs to do?
There are so many other issues we could talk about, and they will, I hope, be explored in other debates; that is a very sound idea. We will definitely explore them at future meetings of the all-party group.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to the wonderful maiden speeches that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) made. My hon. Friend has done tremendous work to enter the House, and I pay tribute to that.
I cannot claim to be an elite athlete, but, along with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I am proud to represent what I believe is the peak of all-party groups, as co-chair of the all-party group on mountaineering. As we consider the motion before us, we should be concerned about levels of sports participation, but the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has missed the point and a real opportunity by focusing on, and calling on the Government to boost, participation in traditionally defined sports. That is important, but the real focus should be on getting people physically active—helping them to be less physically inactive. That has to be the focus, but it can be achieved only by looking at a much broader definition of sport, which includes recreation and, in particular, outdoor recreation. It is clearly time to think more broadly.
The sports Minister has been on an heroic journey to climb Cotopaxi in Ecuador, where I know she developed a greater love—maybe that is too strong a word—for the outdoors, but I think that she, like many Members, understands the real importance of outdoor recreation. It leads to improved activity rates. Some 30% of the UK population is inactive. The figure for Scandinavia is only 8%, because people there have a broader sense of getting active outdoors. The “Moving More, Living More” document produced by the Department of Health shows that the costs associated with physical inactivity come to £20 billion, so we should all have an interest in tackling that huge challenge. Clearly, there are also big health and wellbeing benefits to be had, through working with groups such as Age UK Cheshire East or the East Cheshire Ramblers and its 700 members. That is clear to all those who participate. It is clear to all of us who are involved with the outdoors that a vast blue and green gym outside this place is available to nearly all of us, if we just make that extra effort. I should also mention the benefits in another important area: the rural economy. The “Reconomics” report by the Sport and Recreation Alliance shows that outdoor recreation will boost the rural economy by £21 billion.
There is good news, there is a clear opportunity and progress is being made. As I have said, there is clear cross-party support for making further progress in this area. We have had extensive debates in Parliament on this subject, notably on 20 September, when the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) led an impassioned debate and many others joined in. There is a coalition of interested parties on moving this agenda forward, including the British Mountaineering Council, the Ramblers, the Youth Hostels Association and the Outdoor Industries Association. Last year, before the election, they made six key proposals for the Government to take forward, including measures on access and opportunities for young people. More than anything they wanted a clear focus. They were calling for a long-term strategy for outdoor recreation that is cross-departmental and that sits alongside or, even better, is integrated with the Government’s successful sports strategy. It was refreshing to see how the different Departments, from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Department of Health and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, are working together in this cause. We have an outstanding sports Minister and I give her every vote of confidence in the work she does. Please remember this broader definition of sport and recreation in that work.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Many thanks for allowing me to participate in this debate, Mr Speaker. I do so as a keen sportsman and a true believer in sport as an essential element in building stronger communities, improving public health outcomes and teaching our young people the value of team ethics and fair play. In my younger days, I played rugby for London Welsh at junior level and for my college at university. Clearly, the motivation for doing so was partly that I was doing my constitutional and patriotic duty as a Welshman, but of course it was also based on my love of sport as a crucial feature of Welsh culture and identity. In my constituency, every weekend I see rugby’s power to bring our communities together across generations. Of course rugby is just one example of the power of sport as a unifying force for good.
It is against that backdrop that I must express my deepest regret at the failure of the coalition Government to build on the Olympic legacy. The 2012 Olympics created a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the fitness levels of this country’s children and young people, but that opportunity was squandered by the coalition Government when they decided to scrap Labour’s school sport partnerships. Those partnerships played a crucial role in enabling primary school children to do competitive sport, and the decision to scrap them has led directly to the proportion of pupils doing two hours of sport a week collapsing from 90% under Labour to 50% under the last Government. Cuts to local authority budgets have also hit leisure centres and playing fields hard. In Wales, the £1.5 billion cut to the block grant has had a deeply damaging effect. In my constituency, the Cymmer community pool is threatened with closure, much to the despair of the local community, who are fighting hard to find a way to keep their pool, which plays a crucial role in community life and public health, open.
This Government must do better than their previous incarnation. The last five years saw a lack of strategy, piecemeal initiatives and announcements, and an absence of joined-up thinking. The coalition Government’s sports strategy can best be described as a litany of failure, with some of the lowlights including: scrapping Labour’s target for school children to do at least two hours of physical education and sport in school each week; undermining Labour’s successful school sport partnership, which was helping more children to do sport; watering down regulations on school playing fields; failing to carry out an audit of sports and recreation facilities available to local communities across the country; and failing to capitalise on the spirit and enthusiasm of the volunteer games makers.
The concerns that I am expressing are not narrow party political points. On the contrary, they are felt by a wide range of stakeholders, including the Olympic gold medallist Darren Campbell, who said back in 2013:
“I have grave concerns that cutting the funding to the School Sport Partnership network will have a hugely negative impact on the sporting opportunities that are available to our young people.”
Chris Dunne, headteacher of Langdon Park School in Tower Hamlets, London, described the Government’s decision as an
“enormously destructive act, verging on vandalism.”
He said that it was a tragedy that sporting opportunities had been cut back dramatically after the games.
The seductive vision was that the £9.3 billion invested in the games would not only hasten the regeneration of a neglected corner of east London and unlock a host of other benefits, but act as a corrective in Whitehall to the attitude of politicians towards sport. No longer would sport be left at the back of the policy queue when it came to funding discussions. Instead, it would be incorporated into policies on fighting obesity, tackling crime, boosting educational achievement and bringing communities together. If we fast forward to 2015, we see that a properly integrated, properly funded, cross-departmental plan for sport and wellbeing remains as frustratingly elusive as ever.
Meanwhile, childhood obesity rates continue to rise, PE in schools continues to decline, provision of facilities remains frustratingly patchy, and participation figures suggest a widening gap between the sporting haves and have nots.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Let me make it clear at the outset that our reference in the motion is to sports participation. We bid for the Olympics because we understood all the wider aspects of the success of the Olympics.
We have had a wide-ranging debate with some very interesting speeches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on her maiden speech. She questioned whether there was a legacy from the Olympic games for Scotland. If she goes back and checks the figures, she will find that there was a considerable spin-off from the games. But the purpose of this debate is to find out how we can all benefit more widely from the legacy.
We also heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson). She spoke very fondly and passionately about her constituency. I am sure that she will be a fine champion of her local residents and constituents in the years to come.
There have been a number of well-informed speeches. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke about the wider generational issues. I found nothing in her speech with which I disagreed. The Olympic games will continue to benefit people more widely on a whole range of issues that go beyond sport, which is why investing and bidding for these major sporting events is so essential for the country.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
While we are discussing participation, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to praise those who enable others to participate in sport—those who drive the buses, cut the grass, make the food and drink, and carry the bags week after week, as they have done in rugby clubs up and down my constituency for many, many generations? Do they not also perform a vital role?
Clive Efford
Absolutely, yes. A number of Members, especially the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), and my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann), specifically referred to people at the grassroots of sport. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), because it is time that we empowered those people. They are the ones who do the heavy lifting. They make a real difference in our communities. They know where the resources should go to make the biggest difference, and it is time that we had a long-term strategy for sport that empowered those people at local level, allowed them to make decisions about how resources are used and where they are targeted, and gave them oversight of local development plans for sport. When we use the term “sport” we must remember that we are talking about not just sporting activities but physical activities of all kinds. That point was made very well in one of the contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) called for a comprehensive, long-term plan for sport. When we talk to people at the grassroots, the one thing they consistently say is that they want an end to the stop-start approach that they get from politicians. In saying that, they criticise us all, not just the current Government. We need what many speakers asked for: a long-term plan for sport, where all of us, in all parts of the House, agree on how we can take things forward and engage with people at the grassroots. It is an unfortunate fact that, in the past, the only consistency has been a consistent run of bad figures on participation since 2012-13.
Our motion focuses on participation. On the back of winning the Olympic bid, participation went up by 1.8 million people from 2005 to 2012, but since then participation figures have been going backwards. It is no good hon. Members saying, “Look at all the figures for transport, regeneration and jobs.” We accept all that—we are not criticising that side of it—but one of the targets for winning the Olympic games was to drive up participation. That worked from 2005 to 2012, on the back of winning the bid, but under this Government’s watch, since 2012, performance has not been good enough.
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is saying some sensible things, but will he not, in all candour and intellectual honesty, admit that even since the 2012 games, there has been a continuous increase in sporting participation in London?
Clive Efford
I accept that there has been a boost in London, but we are looking at the overall figures. There are underlying issues, which were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). The figures for women’s participation are down, as are those for people with disabilities. There are some important issues that we need to address.
In a recent survey by the Chief Cultural and Leisure Officers Association, 70% of local authorities that responded said that they were looking to recover all or part of their costs through fees and charges. In the participation figures, the worst-affected sports tend to be those that rely heavily on local government facilities—sports such as gym exercise, dance, swimming, football and cricket. The impact is bound to be more severe on those who rely on those facilities—people from low- income households. Nearly half a million fewer people participate in sport now than in 2012. It is that form of social exclusion that we should be tackling.
I accept that the sports Minister was in earnest when she said that the figures are not good enough and that the Government have to accept part of the blame. Sport England has said that the figures are disastrous. We can bandy figures back and forth, but we have to accept that what people are looking for is consistency. All they have had consistently so far is bad figures, year after year since 2012. We need to work together on this. I wish the sports Minister all the best in convincing her right hon. and hon. Friends to give sport priority in the future, although I have to say that her predecessors failed woefully. I will be there supporting her all the way if she can convince them that we need a cross-Government, long-term plan for sport that we can all work towards.
We need to empower the people who do the heavy lifting: the coaches, PE teachers, school games organisers, volunteers, people who run the clubs and classes, academics, businesses, local authorities and county sports partnerships. Incidentally, if anyone recognises any of this, it is similar to the points Steve Hilton was making just recently, only I wrote it all down a year ago.
Sport governing bodies have a role to play. They have nothing to fear from being part of a strategy to increase overall participation, as they can then fish in a much bigger pool of talent for the next generation of elite athletes. We need a long-term plan, so that policy does not change every time we have a bad set of figures or the Minister changes. We need to empower the people at the grassroots, let them tailor what goes on in their area to meet local needs and oversee local sports plans, and trust them, because they can do it. Let us put the failures behind us. Let us do what people out there want us to do: trust them, and set out a long-term plan that we can all work towards, so that we get our nation healthy, happy and active.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
This has, on the whole, been an excellent debate, not just because of colleagues’ contributions, which I shall turn to shortly, but because despite the Opposition’s attempt to say otherwise, we have a good story to tell about London 2012 and its legacy.
I will briefly turn to the 13 contributions from the Floor of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on her excellent maiden speech. I am very fond of Edinburgh, which has much sporting heritage of which to be proud.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), as a former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, brings real expertise and knowledge to the debate. I pay particular tribute to her—and indeed my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant)—for progressing the issue of women in sport; my right hon. Friend was right to say that the Olympics started that process.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was of course the first female sports Minister—I am merely the third—gave a brilliantly measured speech. I reassure her that there will be a proper cross-departmental approach to the strategy, and I certainly share her passion to increase grassroots sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) spoke incredibly well. I am hoping that if I say wonderfully nice things about his excellent speech, he will be very kind to me, now that he has been re-elected to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.
I know how incredibly passionate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is about sport. He is a man of great foresight: we spent 21-odd days climbing a volcano for charity, and he lobbied me then on facilities for his constituency, 12 months before I was made a Minister.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on her maiden speech. I was delighted to hear her story about Cheadle Town football club and its score line. I believe the club was founded as Grasmere Rovers. She should not worry about the 22-nil drubbing; I have been a manager when we have won with a similar score line, but I have also been a player when we have lost with the same score line. Both are equally embarrassing.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) made some very interesting comments. She has been in the House for a while now, but I must pay tribute to her late predecessor, Alan Keen, who also served on the Select Committee and was a real advocate for sport. She has picked up his baton wonderfully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) of course made an excellent speech about a legacy that he helped deliver. As Mayor of London, he gave us a memorable games, and he is right to be incredibly proud of all that the Olympics and Paralympics delivered.
The hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) was right to talk about the link between physical activity and health outcomes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) was right to point out the long tail of the participation legacy. Those inspired by London 2012 may not yet be out of primary school. His points were well made.
I have worked incredibly closely with the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on the issue of women in sport. She raised important issues. There has been progress, but challenges remain, and I look forward to working with her on those.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) is a fantastic advocate for outdoor recreation, but it is his fault that my knees have not yet recovered from Cotopaxi.
Finally, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) focused on school sport. I assure him that the Government have committed to funding the physical education and sport primary school premium for a further four years—something that Labour has not done. Furthermore, according to an independent assessment, 96% of schools reported improvements in pupils’ fitness, and 91% observed an increase in the quality of PE teaching.
If unnecessary attempts at political point-scoring were an Olympic sport, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would win gold every time. He has done his best to impugn the legacy of London 2012, but the simple truth is that we have a great deal to be proud of, and it is shame that the hitherto consensus has been shattered. [Interruption.] I will come to participation shortly, but the legacy is more than that. There is the legacy of the park, the village, business, volunteers and the collective knowledge accumulated by those who delivered the games. The park is outstanding, with wonderful venues that are open to the public to enjoy. The Olympic stadium has an exciting and sustainable future. Unlike so many previous host cities, there are no white elephants from London 2012.
Tracey Crouch
No, because I do not have much time—I am sorry.
The London 2012 games were the perfect showcase for the skills of our people and our businesses, which led to £14.2 billion of trade and investment benefits to the UK. British business has already won £60 million-worth of contracts for the Rio 2016 games, with up to another £100 million to come. About 200 people who worked at London 2012 are helping to deliver the European games in Baku and assisting Rio in its preparations. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will be patient, I will turn to participation shortly. As the Secretary of State said, games maker-style volunteers have become a fixture at major sporting events. London 2012 changed the perception of volunteering, and the nation has embraced it—a direct legacy that appears to have been forgotten by the Opposition.
I now turn to participation. I am happy to have an open and honest debate on this. The fact is that 1.4 million more people playing are sport than in 2005, and sport participation has increased by 300,000 since October 2010. Yet that is not enough—it is as simple as that. London 2012 has, without doubt, inspired many people to get involved in Olympic and Paralympic sports. There has been an increase in the number of people doing athletics, cycling, archery, judo, sailing and many other sports. Let us not forget, though, that inspiration and measurement do not always run concurrently. The girls I met in my local boxing gym are in the ring because of Nicola Adams. They are not measured on any survey because they are under 14. We will have examples like that from all our constituencies.
The strapline of London 2012 was “Inspire a Generation”. The participation results show that our 16 to 25-year-olds are, on the whole, “steady”. That is good, but not good enough. When the last active people survey results were issued a couple of weeks ago, I made it clear that I am not happy with the decline in the number of people participating in sport. However, let us be clear: the last time an all-encompassing sports strategy was drawn up was in 2002, and it has been the template for sport delivery since then.
Clearly, as the Opposition have admitted today, their strategy is not delivering. This Government have been working on the basis of a strategy that was delivered in 2002 and is no longer fit for purpose. So I have ripped up the old strategy, and before the recess I shall publish a consultation on a brand-new sport strategy that will reform how we deliver sport in this country. I am sure the Opposition will embrace this opportunity to revive the consensus that helped deliver such a successful games.
We are absolutely committed to continuing to make the most of the opportunities that London 2012 gave us and to make sure that generations to come benefit from that fantastic summer three years ago. It is unfortunate that through the wording of their motion the Opposition sought to denigrate the legacy of London 2012. For that reason, we shall oppose the motion.
Question put.
Public Health England: Porton Down
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The first debate I secured as a Member of Parliament was five years ago on Monday, and it was on the future of the Public Health England site at Porton Down in my constituency. I did not imagine then that the first debate I would secure in the 2015 Parliament would also be on the future of that critical site, but I can think of no issue of greater significance to my constituency.
Porton Down is known across the world for the work that Public Health England and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory do there. It would not be right to open this debate without first paying tribute to all the staff for the work they have done to tackle Ebola in Sierra Leone in recent months. It has been truly humbling to hear the stories of my constituents, who have travelled at great risk and put themselves on the front line in the fight against Ebola. Their expertise has been vital to the people of Sierra Leone, and it is testament to the UK’s reputation for excellence in infectious disease research. I welcome the recent decision to award a medal for their commitment and dedication, which I know a number of my constituents will be very pleased to receive.
It is almost seven years since the Department of Health authorised Public Health England, then the Health Protection Agency, to develop an outline business case for the refurbishment of the facilities at Porton Down. That was after the Science and Technology Committee found the category 4 containment laboratory facilities at Porton Down
“to be in need of significant investment given their age”.
It recommended in 2008 that
“the Department of Health consider the redevelopment of the HPA’s Porton Down site as a priority”.
Project Chrysalis, the proposal for that multi-million pound redevelopment, was put forward shortly after the Committee’s report was published. In January 2010, a former GlaxoSmithKline site where Public Health England could consolidate its assets in one place was proposed as the preferred option, and a business case was put to the Department of Health just six months later. That was rejected—rightly, in my opinion—after scrutiny and further work were commissioned, but not as part of Project Chrysalis. Instead, Public Health England began putting together the case for a single science hub programme, which some might argue was a clear signal of an intention at an early stage to centralise before the business case work had even concluded.
The new outline business case was finalised in July 2014, and recommended that the facilities at Porton, Whitechapel and Colindale should move to a single campus in Harlow. The PHE board asked for a decision to be made by September 2014. I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister why, if the outline business case is so rock solid, it has still not been signed off nine months after Public Health England wanted it to be and 11 months after it was submitted.
There are certainly doubts remaining among many of my constituents about the decision, for a number of reasons. First, co-location in Harlow was recommended as, according to Public Health England’s officials, it
“offers the best value to the taxpayer and delivers the lowest cost over the 60 year life of the programme”.
PHE also stated in its publicly disclosed annexe, however, that
“the differences in cost between the options are relatively small”.
Professor George Griffin estimated in his review of the single science hub work in 2012 that the difference amounted to 2.6% over 68 years, which I maintain is disputable given the complexities associated with modelling over such a long period. The resultant cost to the taxpayer might well be marginally smaller, but it is important to remember that the costs to my constituents will not be. The fact remains that they are being asked to uproot their lives and transplant to Harlow. For many of them, Salisbury has been their home for years. It is where their children go to school and where their family responsibilities lie.
Increasingly the trend in science is not to co-locate assets on single sites, but to harness the power of technology to work across larger areas. Centralisation remains an approach that the private sector left behind, in many cases a long time ago, in recognition that smaller specialist sites can be more effective. The direction of travel towards greater use of genomics and big data reinforces the argument for smaller entities such as Porton to continue to leverage global partnerships. I was previously told by Public Health England that it favoured the single hub model because of the approach taken at the Francis Crick Institute, but this is not a co-location of one entity’s assets; six distinctly different players all operate across multiple sites themselves and, in many ways, will continue to do so.
Secondly, the unwillingness to grasp the potential opportunities at Porton or fully to engage in a conversation about them is disappointing. Public Health England says that
“the Harlow campus has the potential to become a campus with an international reputation for public health science”.
Porton Down already has an international reputation. It has 250 external partnerships across the world and is supported by $55 million of investment from the US Government. It already partners more international universities than universities in the UK, eight US Government agencies, five international health bodies and nine global pharmaceutical companies.
Public Health England has not yet articulated publicly precisely how being in Harlow will improve on that. How many new commercial partnerships does it believe will be generated from the site? What will be the impact on Public Health England’s revenue streams? Have those factors even been modelled thoroughly as part of the business case? I have long been concerned that the outline business case focuses too narrowly on Public Health England’s objectives as an organisation and the benefits it allegedly accrues from centralisation, not the wider opportunities for UK life science industries.
Thirdly, centralising in Harlow flies in the face of the Government’s agenda to promote more prosperous regional economies. The Chancellor said:
“The south-west contains some of Britain’s greatest economic strengths. It should be as central to our nation’s future prosperity as any other part of these islands”.
He said that it
“already has a strong reputation for life sciences”,
and even asked the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer to
“explore the potential for new proposals for investment in life sciences in the south west”.
In the light of that ongoing work, will the Minister assure me that the chief scientific adviser has been consulted about the single science hub, given its implications for the entire south-west?
I appreciate that not all of Public Health England would move to Harlow, should the business case be approved, and that Porton would retain the manufacturing facilities. I also recognise that Public Health England management have given an assurance that they will not be abandoning those remaining facilities, and that they are meeting representatives of Wiltshire Council on Friday to examine how Public Health England can facilitate the optimal exploitation of opportunities that will derive from a new science park, which this Government have supported, right on its doorstep. However, it is unacceptable to assume that that would be appropriate consolation for the loss of the remaining facilities and capabilities, and I remain concerned that, if the Porton site were cannibalised in that manner, the temptation to examine commercial opportunities for those remaining facilities would be high.
Indeed, I understand from a letter that was recently sent by the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), to an interested party on 10 June that Public Health England is
“continuing to investigate commercial opportunities for its activities at Porton”.
I have long been an advocate for greater capitalisation on the commercial potential at Porton, but I would like assurances that the vaccine manufacturing facilities will be treated with the respect they deserve and not simply sold off to provide a quick win to allow the Government to balance the equation. This is not just a vaccine factory, and any proposal to maximise its potential needs to recognise its value to the south Wiltshire and regional life science economy.
More importantly, how do these concurrent agendas best serve the interests of my constituents? Can the Minister reassure me that individual Government Departments are not operating on different agendas? It seems to me that any discussions about commercialisation in advance of a decision on the outline business case would be premature and potentially misaligned.
Fourthly, the opportunity to consider the more effective use of existing public sector assets has still not been fully considered. The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, located on the same site, has existing synergies with Public Health England and the two organisations work together closely. DSTL also has category 4 containment facilities which were refurbished relatively recently and are considered to be of the highest standard. Indeed, it has spare capacity in its facilities, and when the size of refurbished labs at the Public Health England site was being discussed, the decision was taken to request a smaller facility on the basis that DSTL would be expected to provide back-up capacity in an emergency. Professor George Griffin also told the Science and Technology Committee in 2008 that
“the Ministry of Defence has a facility at Porton…there is spare capacity there, we know, and we would be able to use that if necessary”.
However, I have been told that there are conceivable emergency scenarios in which DSTL and PHE would need to occupy the entire space at the same time, resulting in a conflict of interest with severe implications for national security. Those scenarios have never been articulated—they may well be considered above my pay grade—but I would ask the Minister to put on record that the DSTL collaboration option has been fully explored with DSTL management and examined independently, and that the security concerns about the laboratories proved irresolvable.
DSTL and PHE have an important collaboration that benefits from their physical proximity. They are treated as the “Porton campus” by the regulator, enabling pathogenic samples to be transferred between the two sites without the need for additional licensing. Both are licensed for animal work, and I understand that PHE manages some of the sensitive resources occasionally used by DSTL. They can currently be safely transported at minimal risk, but a move to Harlow would completely remove that capability.
Fifthly, I again take the opportunity to emphasise that Porton Down is embedded in the Salisbury community. We support its staff and recognise the sensitive nature of the vital work they carry out. Porton’s relatively isolated location makes it an ideal secure site. Harlow remains untested, and rebuilding the relationship and acceptance of the sensitive work that Public Health England does will take valuable time and effort. As many of my constituents tell me, it is simply common sense to keep that work where it is, not move it to a more densely populated suburban area.
Finally, I reiterate that this is not just a conversation about keeping jobs in my constituency; it is a debate about what is best for our life science industry and the partners that depend on Porton’s expertise. I said in my previous Adjournment debate that my primary concern is that the decision is motivated by a desire to tidy up different entities within the PHE organisation on to a single site, when the advantages of co-location are notional, uncosted and unproven. Until I am permitted to see the full business case, my concerns will remain about the logic that is being used.
I appreciate that this is a decision that will have significant implications for our national security and I have always stressed it is imperative that we get it right. However, the Department of Health was informed in 2008 that the category 4 labs at Porton were
“built over 50 years ago and refurbishment and upgrading work is becoming increasingly difficult.”
In my debate five years ago this week, the then Minister with responsibility for public health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), told the House:
“The site is 60 years old, the building structures are in a poor state of repair and the laboratories clearly do not meet modern safety standards, so something must be done.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 273.]
I believed her, yet five years later nothing has been done. The facilities are deteriorating and my constituents have lived in the shadow of this decision for five years, not knowing if they will be moving to Harlow, although we have had the positive news of a science park, which will, I hope, open in the next year or so. I will persist in my questioning on this matter, because, frankly, some of my questions have gone unanswered.
When I last met the PHE leadership team in November, I was told by the most senior official that he was the boss and he would decide how any re-examination of Porton’s potential would be evaluated, but I have heard nothing from him for six months. I have a responsibility to my constituents to seek assurance that the decisions that will have an impact on their lives are being made on the basis of rigorous analysis of the facts. I urge the Minister to finally clarify for my constituents, one way or the other, where their future lies. We owe the staff based at Porton Down that much.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on having secured a hat-trick of debates on the future of Porton Down, which is a very important subject not just for his constituents, but for the whole country, given the work done there on a wide range of public health threats, including the Ebola outbreak in west Africa. I join him in paying tribute to his constituents for their service both in the UK and on the frontline in Sierra Leone. The medals are hugely deserved.
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for his constituents on this matter and on the creation of Porton science park, which I will turn to later. Through this campaigning he has shown a passion for growth and job creation in his area, and we all admire that.
Scientists have been doing invaluable work at Porton Down since the 1950s. As my hon. Friend has said, in previous debates it has been stressed that the buildings are more than 60 years old and are increasingly becoming unfit for purpose. I know that my hon. Friend agrees with the need to find a solution to the problem—indeed, he devoted his speech to that—to ensure that the vital work can continue. It is important that scientists have the benefit of state-of-the-art facilities that reflect the latest technological advancements, including the shift from Petri dish to big data. So much has happened in recent years and so much change is going on. There is a clear consensus that the status quo is not acceptable and that it will not enable Public Health England to deliver the public health scientific expertise that the Government and the nation require.
My hon. Friend ran through the options. He knows that Public Health England has looked at a number of options to meet the challenge it faces. It has had to consider a wide range of longlisted and shortlisted options, all of which have to demonstrate the best value for money to the taxpayer. The main focus of the options has been on the existing Porton Down and Colindale sites, and the former GlaxoSmithKline facility in Harlow, Essex.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, Public Health England has briefed him and the local MPs, local authorities and other key stakeholders, and has consulted the chief medical officer and chief scientific officer, about the three sites affected and considered in the option appraisal. As my hon. Friend will be aware, PHE’s case is that there are significant benefits from bringing together the range of public health science functions that it manages at disparate sites. I accept that he expressed scepticism about some of the arguments, but PHE believes that creating an integrated national science hub rather than reproviding the same facilities on the same sites would be its ideal. For that reason, in the PHE outline business case, the preferred option was to create a public health science hub based at Harlow.
My hon. Friend asked what was included in some aspects of the outline business case. I can confirm that no additional revenues from any relocation have been included, in line with the rules and guidelines of what is and can be included in such cost-benefit analyses. However, it is hoped that new facilities will lead to increased academic and commercial income.
As I have said, it is essential that the proposal taken forward offers the best value for money for the taxpayer while protecting the vital heath protection functions carried out by scientists. The scrutiny of the business case has included two external reviews organised by the Major Projects Authority. Both have concluded that the business case properly evaluates the options, including options based at Porton. Since our last debate on this topic last September, the review process has continued and the business case has been through a Major Projects Authority gateway process. I can assure my hon. Friend that that has been and will continue to be a thorough and robust process, and that the outline business case continues to be scrutinised by Ministers at the Department of Health, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.
As I have said, PHE has considered a wide range of options in the outline business case, including those that would involve remaining at Porton Down. Alternative, third-party proposals have been put forward, including those of the Porton life sciences group, which were kindly forwarded to me and to other Ministers by my hon. Friend. I assure him that the proposals have been carefully considered.
We recognise the need for collaboration between Public Health England and its neighbours at Porton and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, in the interests of national security. PHE is committed to being collaborative, including having discussions about the use of specialist high-containment facilities. However, we need to be clear that, although PHE and DSTL will continue to collaborate closely, PHE needs dedicated high-containment facilities to ensure that it can properly respond to the threat our nation faces. PHE is the employer of the specialists that are registered to handle human health specimens. The DSTL facilities provide additional resilience, but they were built to meet military requirements. In addition PHE’s facilities provide resilience to the military if DSTL’s facilities are for any reason unavailable. Whatever the final decision, national security, and capabilities for national response, are paramount. It is therefore key for DSTL and all other potential agencies involved in the response to work with PHE to protect public health from current and future threats.
Public Health England has confirmed that it remains committed to the Porton site, even if it is decided to relocate the Porton research functions and staff. That would involve the PHE facilities remaining at Porton consisting of some 300 staff in development and production and regional laboratories. That has continued, with PHE spinning out development and production as a corporate company called Porton Biopharma Ltd, which is wholly owned by the Secretary of State for Health. That will allow for Porton Biopharma Ltd to take a commercial approach to growing the business. I note my hon. Friend’s consistent support for that—he has not spoken against the idea. That allows more people across the world to benefit from the specialist products it manufactures. PHE has briefed my hon. Friend on that work and on maximising the commercial potential of the production facilities at Porton. As he said in his speech, that principle has his support.
The work to increase the commercial potential of the production facilities at Porton will be closely linked to the Porton science park, which I know my hon. Friend has worked hard to bring to his constituency. Porton Biopharma Ltd is next to the new science park and PHE is working closely with Wiltshire County Council on the further opportunities in the life sciences sector that this important development could bring to his constituency.
My hon. Friend rightly focused much of his remarks on the need to support staff in the most appropriate way, and on how unsettling it is for any group of staff to not quite know where their future lies. One third of the posts currently at Porton will remain there, even if research functions and staff are relocated. If those functions are relocated, PHE would work with each member of staff at Porton who is working in a post that would move to Harlow under the new proposals, to support them in decisions about their future. He is absolutely right to make that paramount and I take it very seriously. Some staff may want to relocate to Harlow and others may wish to retire or move to other roles outside PHE. The business case includes support packages for staff that are in line with the Government standard. I hope that gives him some reassurance.
As I have set out, the work conducted at Porton Down is of local, national and international importance. However, there is a consensus that, given the ageing facilities, doing nothing is not an option. PHE has looked at a wide range of possibilities for the future of health protection laboratories in the UK and at the benefits of combining various public heath functions. This has led to a preference for the Harlow site at the outline business case stage. Regardless of the final decision, PHE remains committed to the Porton site, as expressed through the commercialisation of its development and production arm. This will be closely linked to the Porton science park. The outline business case has been through, and continues to go through, rigorous, thorough and robust scrutiny before a final decision is reached by Ministers.
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued keen scrutiny of this important issue. I congratulate him once again on securing the debate and on continuing to be such an ardent champion for the interests of Porton as a science centre of excellence and for his constituents and their future.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Science and Research
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered science and research in the UK and regional economies.
I am delighted to do so with you in the Chair, Mr Owen, and I take this opportunity to welcome the new Minister for Universities and Science to his job. I am looking forward to having many engagements with him on issues relating to higher education.
I move this motion as a Member representing a city whose wealth was built on innovation, from Benjamin Huntsman’s invention of crucible steel production in the 1740s to Harry Brearley’s invention of stainless steel in 1912 to the work today of Sheffield University’s Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. Science, research and innovation have driven our city’s economy, just as they have for the country as a whole.
However, we face a challenge, because a generation ago the UK was one of the most research-intensive economies in the world and now we are one of the least. We have slipped from leading the OECD countries in research and development spend as a percentage of GDP in 1979 to our position now, where we trail behind all our competitors. The US invests 2.8% of its GDP in research; on average, OECD and EU countries invest 2.4% of their GDP in research, but the UK now spends only 1.7% of its GDP on research. That is less than half the 3.9% of its GDP that is invested by South Korea, which, as a result of that investment, remains a major manufacturing nation.
Where have research and innovation been lost? Most strikingly, they have been lost within the private sector. The old world of R and D was dominated by the big companies—the likes of GEC and ICI—and their loss took out big chunks of our innovative capacity. The obsession with short-term returns for shareholders, which distorts our equity markets, has changed the attitudes of investors. The dynamic of long-term investment for long-term reward that drove the industrial revolution and built our economic strength has gone. Today there are just two UK companies among the top 100 companies around the world for R and D investment.
For some time, the impact of the decline in private sector investment in R and D was masked by the continued public sector investment of successive Governments, but that changed under the coalition, despite the best efforts of David Willetts, who occupied the Minister’s job for most of the coalition’s time in office and was a real champion of science and universities. As the Campaign for Science and Engineering highlighted in its “Science is Vital” campaign last year, publicly funded research slipped to less than 0.5% of GDP in 2012.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the situation is all the more perverse given that for the research investment that is made—particularly significantly through universities—we get more bang for our buck than other countries in citations and innovation, and therefore that if we put in more bucks we would get more bangs?
Paul Blomfield
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and he makes a point that I will come back to and reflect on shortly.
The drop in our publicly funded research to 0.5% of GDP takes that research to its lowest point for more than 20 years. The latest figures, published by UNESCO in March, put the UK’s publicly funded research at 0.48% of GDP, which is well below the EU average of 0.67%, the OECD average of 0.71% and the G8 average of 0.77%.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has dwelt a lot on the percentages and on where the UK stands in the league table, but is that situation solely down to investment and finance? What does he put it down to? What is the difficulty? He said that the UK now has only two companies that are ranked highly in the world for R and D. What is the fundamental problem?
Paul Blomfield
The fundamental problem in relation to private sector investment in R and D is the dominant culture of short-termism in investment. People are looking for quick gains, but what we need to rebalance our economy is the long-term investment that drove economic growth in this country in the first place.
Echoing the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) made, according to a report produced by CaSE last year, “The Economic Significance of the UK Science Base”, private sector R and D output rises by 20p per year in perpetuity for every £1 spent by the Government on R and D, so there is a real return on public sector investment and it stimulates the private sector investment that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) referred to by raising the UK’s knowledge base.
That is the real challenge, but there are also real opportunities, because as a country we have enormous strengths, above all our universities, which are highly productive. To echo again the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East made, despite representing only 4.1% of the global research community, UK researchers produced 15.9% of the world’s most highly cited papers in 2011, the last year for which I have figures available. That puts us at No. 1 in the world in the sector. Crucially—I make this point as a northern MP—at a time when we all share a concern about the regional imbalance of economic growth, universities are one of the few assets we have that are spread evenly across the country, and they are able to generate economic growth in all regions and all nations of the UK.
Clearly, universities draw their investment widely, from several sources, and not just from public funds. They have grown their own investment in R and D by 40% in the past decade and now generate more than £3.4 billion a year. However, public investment levers in other funding, and academics in receipt of research council grants have been shown to be more outward-facing and more engaged in the commercial application of their research.
The strength of that research in our universities attracts foreign investment to the UK, as well as international students. According to a British Council survey of 5,000 18 to 34-year-olds from China, India, Brazil, Germany and the US, the fact that the UK had world-leading academic research was the primary attraction for them to come here and study in our universities. Those international students bring more than £10 billion of economic benefit to the UK, including to our regional economies. I know that in Sheffield alone the net value of our international students, who are approaching 9,000 in number, is £120 million a year. Thousands of jobs depend on that money, and not just in the university sector.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a profound point about the impact that our first-class universities have on regional economic development. However, is he as concerned as I am that more than 90% of non-university research in the UK takes place within the golden triangle of Cambridge, Oxford and London, which means that, outside universities, the regions are starved of scientific investment?
Paul Blomfield
I am indeed, and my hon. Friend—a fellow northern MP, albeit on the wrong side of the Pennines—makes an important point.
Paul Blomfield
Indeed—I know that my hon. Friend is proud to be a graduate of Sheffield University. He makes an important point, and we need to be careful that even with the positive developments such as the Francis Crick Institute in London, public investment in research does not get sucked into the golden triangle that he referred to at the expense of universities around the country. As I said a moment ago, the great strength of our university network is its dispersal around the country. We need to ensure that funding for research is spread across the sector and across the country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York has two excellent universities. The University of York is ranked in the 10 top universities for research, and five of its departments are in the “excellent” category, right at the top of their league. Yet the relationship between jobs and growth in our city and academic achievements in research and development is not being built. Should not the two come together for economic growth across our city?
Paul Blomfield
I was a student in York and am well aware of the strength of the two universities. My hon. Friend is right; linking research with its commercial application is critical. Some progress has been made with the impact approach taken in the sector, although there is more to be done. We considered that issue in the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills during the last Parliament. Although there is more to be done, we should recognise that a huge amount is already being done to link research and its application. I shall mention a few examples from Sheffield.
We would be foolish to lose our advantage in world-leading research, but that could happen if we do not take care. “The Plan for Growth”, published by the Chancellor and the Minister’s predecessor in December 2014, acknowledged the challenge:
“If we fail to move quickly to secure our position in a globalised world, then it is highly likely that other countries....will do so ahead of us. We not only run the risk of missing out on new opportunities, but also of losing the position of strength that we have today”.
The Government acknowledge that we can and must do more.
Innovation policy now needs to focus on developing industrial and private sector research and development capacity, building on the UK’s strong and well connected science base. It will do that by working with universities. For example, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the University of Sheffield works closely with Rolls-Royce, Boeing and more than 100 supply chain companies. Also in my constituency, Sheffield Hallam University secured Toshiba as the first technology partner in the Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, designing new products to help promote the integration of exercise into people’s daily lives and address common health issues. Hallam’s new National Centre of Excellence for Food Engineering is supported by more than 40 companies, including Mars and Nestlé UK, to support growth in the food industry through improved manufacturing technology and staff capability.
Across my city, and across the university sector, science and research are creating jobs, but we could do more.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about research in universities, but it starts earlier than that. On Saturday, I was privileged to visit the excellent Hopwood Hall Further Education College in my constituency, including its excellent animal studies facility. Small amounts of research are being done there, which helps students on their path towards university. However, funding for FE colleges is being cut, and I wonder what impact that is having on the availability of fledgling research for those wanting to go to university.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes an important point about acknowledging research taking place outside the university sector. I said earlier that foreign investment is driven significantly by countries with strong research capacity, but it is driven equally by countries that commit to the development of skills. The cuts in the adult skills budget that my hon. Friend mentions, and particularly in further education, will weaken our capacity and our potential for economic growth.
We could do much more than is being done in the examples I have given. We could build partnerships in developing infrastructure for low-carbon energy, which we could then export to the world. If we shrink away from such a challenge, China will pay for the new generation of power stations to be built and we will miss out on the opportunity to help shape our own future. We will have little leverage in insisting that some of the investment is spent on creating jobs in the UK, and we will pay for it through increased electricity bills for decades.
What should we do? I have three suggestions. First, let us stop making things worse. We should recognise the damage done to the UK by the structural shortcomings of our economy. Research and development is a national asset and we must not incentivise companies to do less of it, or make it harder for our universities to transform our economy.
Secondly, we must certainly not threaten the important stream of research funding that comes through our membership of the European Union, because as I am sure the Minister knows—I am sure he will endorse it—the UK does disproportionately well from European Union research funding. In 2013, for example, the last year for which data are available, we won €1.11 billion out of the €9.6 billion allocated under the seventh framework programme, FP7, which was the predecessor of Horizon 2020. Were we to exit the EU, that would clearly be at risk, at enormous cost to our universities and the communities in which they are driving economic growth. Similarly, we must not undermine the flow of talent into our country by the types of measure that we have already seen affecting students or by new restrictions on tier 2 visas. I am sure the Minister agrees with me on that point as well, although whether all his colleagues will is another question.
Thirdly, we should recognise and maintain our strengths. We should build on what we have that is positive and do more of it. The UK catapult centres, where universities and industry work together, are making an important start. At the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in the Sheffield city region, more than 100 companies partner with university research to win jobs and orders for the UK. Some of them are giant companies, such as Rolls-Royce, and others are the high-tech supply companies that support them.
It is not only the companies that benefit. Research demands skills, and more than 600 young people are now training as advanced apprentices at catapult centres. They are fully funded by companies, as recognised by Times Higher Education in its widening participation initiative of the year award. Those people are working in a research environment and have the opportunity to progress to degrees, even MBAs and PhDs, all within a research setting. How was the AMRC in Sheffield built? By universities and industry working together, and through European funding and regional funding under the old regional development areas.
We should invest in other areas too, with a sense of national purpose. Our ageing society will face huge human and social costs as incurable neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s become even more common. Social, technical and medical innovations are urgently needed to deal with this, as the NHS struggles to deliver more with more limited resources. Places such as the Sheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience will make that possible. We know that we need to decarbonise our energy supply, but the existing low-carbon alternatives are just too expensive. Research and innovation will change that.
We also need to build capacity. The Chancellor has talked about our economy needing an “extra gear”. That extra gear is research and innovation. We need more capacity in our industry, but that will not happen if we do not support the research strengths of our universities. Every industry—every city and region—needs transformational research to drive the growth and wealth that we all need. In the last Parliament I served on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and we highlighted that challenge in our report on business-university collaboration, in which we recommended unanimously—in a cross-party Committee dominated by Government Members—that the Government aim for 3% of GDP to be spent on R and D by 2020. Above all, I would welcome the Minister’s response on our Committee’s challenge.
We are at a crossroads. The erosion of the UK’s capacity to innovate technologically was not inevitable; it was the unintended consequence of a series of choices made over decades. But we can reverse it. If we do not, we will be condemned to continue on our trajectory of low growth and poor trade performance and will ultimately lose power over our own economic destiny. I urge the Government to recognise the vital contribution of research innovation to the UK, to ensure that we can thrive in a globally competitive environment.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. A number of Members wish to speak, but I will call the Front Benchers, including the Scottish National party spokesperson, from 10.30 am. I will also allow a few minutes for Mr Blomfield to wind up. Mr Byrne had indicated to me that he would be late, and I will allow him to respond from the Front Bench.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate; we have worked together on a number of university and immigration issues. He made slightly disparaging comments about some Government Members’ views on immigration, but I suspect that he was not including me among them. We have worked together in particular on the importance of being an outward-looking nation and attracting the brightest and best people. That applies not only to our universities, but to many other areas that are important to research in the corporate world.
The Government correctly aspire to make the UK the best place in the world to run an innovative business or service. Instinctively, we know that to achieve that requires a strong financial sector, a plentiful supply of highly skilled people from across the globe—ideally, of course, with significant numbers of the indigenous population being trained—and progress in creating intellectual property and a thriving science and research community. All those ingredients can be found in London, the part of the country that I represent in the House. The capital’s universities have put themselves at the heart of innovation and of the drive to bring finance and business together to commercialise that innovation.
My constituency is home to three of the capital’s—indeed, the world’s—top universities: Imperial College, King’s College London and the London School of Economics. Their relentless rise in the university league tables coincides with our city’s seemingly unstoppable growth as a premier destination for global talent, capital and ideas. Just as the metropolis has married financiers with start-ups to create a booming tech sector, our universities have become adept at collaborating with the city’s business, philanthropic, government and research communities, and that is beginning to reap huge dividends. I am not suggesting that we should in any way be complacent; I take on board the statistical concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, who made valid points.
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) pointed out that there is a golden triangle, which is sadly some way south of the Pennines. The London-Oxford-Cambridge golden triangle has more science and tech workers and faster industry growth than California. In 2007, Imperial College integrated its medical faculty with St Mary’s and Hammersmith hospitals. Only eight years on, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust is a globally respected centre for medical research, with patients benefiting from cutting-edge care and academics able to trial state-of-the-art treatments on London’s uniquely diverse population.
Imperial is similarly collaborating with Aviva Investors on a new White City campus, Imperial West, to support science start-ups and ensure that the UK benefits commercially from breakthroughs made in its university labs. A problem going back to Victorian times is that we have cutting-edge research, but do not glean the commercial benefits once the research makes its way into general products. We clearly have to get that right. I am not suggesting that there are easy solutions, as this problem goes back 120 years. The Minister might have some bright ideas, but I would not blame him if he felt that this is a work in progress.
The plan for Imperial is that the university will soon be virtually independent of public funding. One of the spin-outs based on the campus, DNA Electronics, is already transforming academic discoveries into serious commercial propositions, offering affordable chip devices that can test for genetic diseases and drug intolerances within minutes.
Amid healthy rivalry between London’s top institutions, there are significant partnerships that we should applaud and relish. Imperial, King’s College and University College London, for example, have joined forces with the Government and others to build the groundbreaking Francis Crick Institute for biomedical research in King’s Cross. Once open, it will complement the arrival of Central Saint Martins in nearby Granary Square.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman refers to the friendly rivalry between universities in his constituency. We need to encourage such rivalry right across the United Kingdom, so that organisations such as Innovate UK can develop and progress. Does he agree that it is in all our interests for the progress he sees in London to be replicated across the entire nation.
Mark Field
I very much agree. Perhaps understandably, there was a certain amount of cynicism when the Chancellor of the Exchequer first talked about the northern powerhouse two years ago—he represents a northern seat, albeit in leafy Cheshire—but it is none the less important. I have battled with a number of colleagues in London on both sides of the divide on the issue. I think that we should be investing money in High Speed 3 well before we even consider putting money into High Speed 2. There is a strong case for building high-speed rail—indeed, high-speed transport—connections between our regional centres.
We could debate the broader issue of London’s dominance. I understand why there is a lot of hostility towards that dominance, but this country has a single global city of 8 million people and a cluster of cities with populations of about 1 million. In an ideal world, we would build another city from scratch with a population of about 3 million to be a global player, to try to counter London’s dominance within the UK.
A huge amount of the investment that comes into London, however, would not come to the UK if it did not come to London. It is not a zero-sum game between London and the rest of the UK. More importantly, a huge amount of the construction and contracting work that comes in for London-related projects often goes out to the regions, not only to the Oxfords and Cambridges of this world but to Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and many of the country’s second-tier cities—I do not mean that disparagingly—where huge amounts of work can be done.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being generous with his time. London is my capital city, and he is absolutely right that it has technology and transport attractions that nowhere else in the United Kingdom has. However, London and the golden triangle get a disproportionate amount of scientific funding—not the universities—that could just as easily go to the regions and probably have a greater benefit. The Diamond Light Source was moved from Daresbury in the north-west to Oxford. The Francis Crick Institute, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, could just as easily have been placed in Manchester, Sheffield or Newcastle.
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman makes a point that I am not sure I can necessarily answer. Given his criticisms of Oxford, he might get a kick from directly to his right, from the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith).
Amid the great strides in technology and science, London is also an important centre for leading global research in the social sciences sphere, with the London School of Economics at the forefront. The sheer quality of research undertaken by the LSE is regularly attested by peers to be world leading. In the recent research excellence framework, the LSE was ranked as the top institution in the UK for its proportion of four-star, world-leading research. All that means that the LSE and the nation have extensive global reach, in particular within the public policy and governance sphere, to institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the OECD and World Health Organisation. In the social sciences, however, it is harder to commercialise that work. Without mainly public funding, the LSE could not undertake the high-quality research that underpins its impact and provides the UK with considerable soft power globally.
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash, there was much feverish gossip about the pressing need to rebalance the economy away from an over-reliance on banking and finance. That task has been successfully undertaken here in the capital city, with the creative, tech, research and education sectors drawn together in what I regard as a virtuous circle, which in some cases has helped to spur physical regeneration. I touched on King’s Cross, a classic example of that—the Olympic site will be another. That has served only to entrench the dominance of the capital in the wider UK economy and has not addressed that rather more elusive rebalancing act: boosting the regions and other nations of the UK. As a London MP, I recognise that that is important—not least because of the ever-louder klaxon call of hostility towards London, something worrying for the rest of the UK.
The real challenge is how the rest of the UK’s universities, innovators and start-ups compete with the London and Oxbridge research powerhouse, and I look forward to hearing the views of other Members on that. One fifth of Government research funding is now claimed by our top three universities—that golden triangle—and the capital city has more than 100,000 square metres of new research facilities in the pipeline. Furthermore, the south-east and east of England and London account for some 52% of the research and development carried out in the UK.
If the Chancellor’s northern powerhouse and the broader devolution agenda are to work, he should examine how London’s universities have not just integrated academic excellence into the heart of this global city but provided a compelling educational offering to the world through the relentless building of links with the worlds of industry, commerce, Government and finance.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that I will be calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am, and six Members have indicated that they want to speak.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate and on setting out so eloquently the vital role that science plays in his city, across the north of England and in the wider UK economy.
My hon. Friend demonstrated clearly the need for policy that supports an environment in which research can flourish. His concerns are clearly shared by colleagues across the UK, including in Nottingham and the wider east midlands, where they are felt not just by people working in our universities but by businesses large and small, and our local enterprise partnership, D2N2. Everyone recognises the key role that science—the life sciences, in particular—has to play in the future success of our region.
Our local authorities are also keen to promote regeneration and the creation of good jobs, and have identified the potential for science and technology to be leading sectors driving growth in our economy. But local and regional success requires national support, and the UK cannot meet the economic, health, security and environmental challenges facing our society without a Government who champion science and research.
My hon. Friend has already set out how Government investment in science and research creates a virtuous circle, leveraging investment from industry, raising productivity and creating more high-value jobs. Quite simply, if we want to grow the economy and make the UK globally competitive, investing in science and research is an effective use of public money. Indeed, a failure to commit to future investment will not only break that beneficial cycle, but undermine the UK’s competitive advantage and damage our economic outlook. Any Government who were serious about long-term economic planning would not be cutting the science budget, yet, unfortunately, over the past five years that is exactly what has happened.
As my hon. Friend said, the “Science is Vital” campaign has highlighted the fact that freezing the science budget disbursed annually to universities and research institutes in cash terms means that its real value has fallen by around 15% since 2010—a decline that puts the UK firmly at the bottom of the G8 on Government support for science. In the UK, university research makes up a higher proportion of total R and D compared with our competitors. Far from crowding out other investment, that Government support attracts outside funding in; as my hon. Friend said, UK universities themselves have grown their own R and D investment by 40% in the past decade. We also have a very efficient research base, producing a much higher proportion of highly cited publications than might be expected. We punch above our weight.
A 2014 analysis paper by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recognised, however, that the UK’s long-term pattern of under-investment in public and private research and development was holding the UK economy back, and concluded that
“a level of R&D spend consistent with securing future economic success is likely to be closer to the 2.9% average of our comparators. Public sector expenditure may need to rise more sharply in the short-to-medium term, partly to develop the necessary talent and partly to catalyse private sector investment.”
Last December, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee reached a similar conclusion, recommending that the Government aim for a target of 3% of GDP to be spent on R and D by 2020. My first question is, how will the Minister ensure that the UK does not fall further behind or miss out on new opportunities, thereby risking the strengths that we have?
This is not simply an issue of the UK’s place in a global race; it is also a local issue—one that matters directly to my own constituency. Nottingham’s strength, particularly in life sciences, is long standing and well recognised. We have two world class universities, in the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University, and one of the largest teaching hospitals in Europe. We are proud that BioCity, the largest bio-incubator in the UK, was established there in 2002, as a unique collaboration between our universities and the East Midlands Development Agency. It now sustains more than 650 employees working for around 70 companies on its main site, undertaking innovation and turning science into economic propositions.
Those more recent developments build on our heritage. Nottingham has been home to Boots for more than 150 years. Its Lenton headquarters and manufacturing and logistics centres make it one of the largest private sector employers in the city. The development of the Nottingham enterprise zone, which includes the Boots site, provides huge opportunities for future growth, and MediCity, a collaboration between Boots and BioCity designed to support innovators in consumer healthcare, medical technology, diagnostics and beauty products, is already home to 40 start-up companies. Just last week, the D2N2 local enterprise partnership approved a £6.5 million grant of local growth fund towards a new state-of-the-art life sciences complex being built by Nottingham City Council to expand BioCity and create hundreds of new jobs in the city.
I welcome that and other Government-backed investment in capital infrastructure, but although high-profile announcements sound good and the strategic commitment to new facilities and equipment over the period 2016 to 2021 is welcome, without sufficient resource funding such new facilities will not meet their potential. Nottingham has all the building blocks in place, but adequate Government support for research remains critical. As has already been said, it is a question not only of the total value of research support, but of its regional distribution; my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made that point forcefully.
Glenn Crocker, chief executive officer of BioCity, has also highlighted the fact that London and the south and east of England continue to receive a disproportionate share of investment, both public and private. If the Government are serious about economic rebalancing—that is about not just a northern powerhouse, but the midlands—that needs to change. I hope that the Minister will set out how he intends to address the distortion and ensure that Nottingham, which certainly has the people, facilities and strong and viable business propositions, also gets the financial support it requires to build the thriving technology sector to which we aspire.
As an MP without a background in science, I have been fortunate enough to participate in the Royal Society’s pairing scheme, and the opportunity to build links with practitioners has been very valuable. I approached my former pairs for their views before today’s debate, and one thing that they expressed was that concern about resource funding. As physics professor Philip Moriarty succinctly put it:
“There’s no point funding bright shiny new pieces of kit if there aren’t researchers there to use it”.
I would like to say more about the Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research at the University of Nottingham, which I visited last week, its huge contributions and how it operates in a multidisciplinary environment, which is one of the most important aspects of our universities and can be a catalyst for new thinking. People may remember the story that appeared in the press about a 10th-century potion for treating eye infections, which was discovered by an Anglo-Saxon expert from our school of English. It was tested by bio-medics and found to be successful in tackling MRSA, which scientists have been trying to do for some time. The ability to work in a cross-disciplinary way is important.
The importance of blue-skies research should not be forgotten. Peter Mansfield is famous in Nottingham for building the first magnetic resonance imaging scanner, but he started with a physics experiment on solid-liquid interactions and did not anticipate the impact of his work. Often the impact of work is difficult to predict or quantify, and we must not lose blue-skies research in the drive for value for money.
I have three things to say to the Minister in concluding: first, what commitment is he making to knowledge transfer partnerships? They are among the most important long-running Government growth and innovation initiatives. They celebrate 40 years this year and are valued in my city. Secondly, is he willing to discuss with the Home Office the effect of immigration rules—particularly those on post-study work visas, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central mentioned? At a time when we are particularly conscious of women’s role in science and research, and when it has been in the press spotlight—yesterday was National Women in Engineering Day—what do the Government intend to do to ensure that we celebrate the talents of everyone who would like to be involved in science research? There is a persistent gender imbalance.
Finally, I invite the Minister to visit both the universities in my constituency, if he comes to Nottingham. Alternatively, if he and his colleagues find themselves in Ningbo in China or Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, I invite them to visit the extraordinary campuses of the University of Nottingham. More than 11,000 students are studying there for British degrees, and carrying out cutting-edge research, creating a bridge between the UK and Asia.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. I am not putting time limits on speeches, but, as I said, I will be calling the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30, so hon. Members can do the maths. There are four hon. Members wanting to speak, including Mr Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I will certainly keep within the time limits. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for bringing this topic to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has left the Chamber, but at one stage my party had the second largest number of Members present, and that shows how important the subject is to us in Northern Ireland.
I want to talk about research on health technologies, and disease prevention and cure. The UK is renowned for its research capabilities. The importance of science and research has been recognised by successive Governments who have sought to protect the science budget from significant cuts. That speaks volumes, but many people in the science and research community have said that our spending is mediocre by international standards. That is a fact of life, so how can we work better with private partnerships to make things happen? The impact of science and research is tangible across the regional economies. In Northern Ireland we are lucky enough to be home to fantastic research universities, which are trailblazers for scientific research across the board.
Queen’s University Belfast is a pioneer and has made breakthroughs in medical treatments and disease. Its work on improving patient care in the treatment of bowel cancer is one example. It uses the latest state-of-the- art techniques to define the genetic make-up of bowel cancer cells and that will no doubt bring significant advances in diagnosis rates and treatment. There is also a company in Portadown, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), that has projects to develop better diagnostic texts for prostate, ovarian and breast cancer. Yesterday’s ovarian cancer figures showed that Northern Ireland has the worst recovery rate and life expectancy rate in the UK; 70% of those who get it die within five years. Advances are needed, and they are happening at Queen’s University.
Terumo BCT—a blood technology company—has made great contributions domestically and globally to the detection and treatment of disease. Terumo is based in Larne, and 280 skilled people are employed there. In my constituency, TG Eakin manufactures high-quality medical supplies and has made significant contributions to the science, health and research community. In 2005 it launched its own research and development department, and is now successful beyond Comber in my constituency. Its 280 employees are in Comber, Cardiff and the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). Those companies make real-life contributions for the long term, to people’s lives, wellbeing and health.
I want quickly to talk about schools and the post-16 group, and about the focus on careers advice. What discussions has the Minister had with other Ministers to ensure that such advice encourages young people to look towards science? We need to focus on the science skills necessary to improve the core of a modern British and global economy. Science and research play a significant part in the creation of wealth and jobs, and we need to help prepare young people to exploit the opportunities in the market and to get well paid skilled jobs. That will require us to take into account the role of the secondary sciences, as the Science Council urges us, and not to consider only what are conventionally thought of as the science sectors.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I will try to speak more quickly than the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on obtaining the debate, which gives me the opportunity to praise the stellar success of science in Oxford, and the enormous benefits it brings to our city, our region and the country. The gross value added of the Oxfordshire local enterprise partnership is the highest in the country outside London. The University of Oxford and Oxford Brookes University are crucial to its success, providing many of the projects for the local growth fund, as well as driving Oxfordshire’s strategic economic plan, which is entirely innovation-based.
The best thing about science, research and the economy in Oxford, however, is the sheer excitement and ambition of so much of the work being done. I want to give a couple of examples: with the pulling together of big data and advances in molecular biology, and with the work of the Precision Cancer Medicine Institute and the collaboration of 200 interdisciplinary teams from across Oxford University feeding in to that, there is a real chance that Oxford will be in the lead globally in work to personalise cancer treatment properly, and to increase the rate of cure—not just treating cancer, but curing it.
Secondly, the Higher Education Innovation Fund set up the Sustainable Vehicle Engineering Centre at Oxford Brookes. That has been used by BMW and all the major automotive companies in the development of electric vehicles. The university has just launched an innovative new undergraduate degree in business and automotive management, in partnership with BMW. That is university innovation in the lead in a crucial national industry.
That quality and potential in the field of innovation and breakthrough is replicated across the universities, centres and science parks that we are fortunate to have in Oxfordshire. At the annual SET for Britain poster presentations locally and here in Parliament, it is a privilege for me to see that there are always so many stunning and prize-winning entries from young Oxford scientists. Research in Oxford is sustaining thousands of jobs, and is spinning out companies, having been an early pioneer of university spin-outs with Oxford Instruments. That was set up in 1959 and is now a global leader. Many others are treading the same path, and more could do so.
There are three key ways in which Oxford’s potential is being held back by the state, which should be helping us. First, shortage of housing supply is driving the price to earnings ratio and rents to the highest in the country outside London. That risks damaging the ability of the science community locally to recruit the brightest and the best, as well as making life hard for all the technicians and others whose teamwork supports the innovators and entrepreneurs. Please will the Government allow us to relax the green belt in a measured way to let Oxford and its science grow.
Secondly, I make a plea, as others have done, to the Government to change their rhetoric and practice on immigration. Many young scientists, in particular, are not on high earnings, and face a hand-to-mouth existence climbing up the research ladder. There is a danger that the earnings thresholds on settlement will discourage talented young scientists and their partners from coming here. Yet the forefront of scientific research is a global labour market and the Government should remember that. An all-party group on migration report earlier this year on UK post-study work opportunities for international students showed good evidence that the abolition of the old post-study work visa has damaged the access of students from many countries—notably India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia—to higher education in the UK. When they do not come here to do science courses, domestic students lose when the courses are closed down. The Government need to change their stance.
The third point is that, as others have said, we need to get the Government to commit to increasing research funding as a proportion of GDP. The previous Government ring-fenced research funding, recognising it as a powerful catalyst for economic competitiveness and recovery. Compared with our global competitors, the UK under-invests in R and D, and we must remember that a much higher proportion is undertaken in universities here than in competing countries. I therefore ask the Government to commit to increasing research funding in general, and in particular in those universities, such as ours in Oxford, that have shown that they can deliver the outcomes that the country needs.
I echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seize the opportunity of the forthcoming Budget to commit to increasing research funding and thereby stimulate economic growth.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I will attempt to speak even faster, Mr Owen.
In the Marx Brothers film “Go West”, the brothers realise that the train that they are embarked on simply does not have enough fuel on board and they spend quite a long time running through the train and smashing up the carriages to get wood to burn in order to get the train to the station. The train gets to the station, but unfortunately it is not a train any more. That is where we are with research and development, particularly higher education R and D, in this country. We are smashing up our own resource to keep the show on the road. It is a very good show. For example, we have 12% of global citations for 1% of the world population. We are home to 29 of the world’s top 200 universities. We are first in the G8 for scientific papers. That is a very good story to tell, but how long will it continue if we continue to invest less than 0.5% of GDP in public R and D, as we have heard is happening? What does the future hold? Will the train get into the station in a clearly recognisable form and be able to get out of the station for future journeys, especially as other countries are stepping up their efforts? China is aiming for 2.5% for public R and D by 2020. Sweden is developing substantially its R and D spending as a percentage of GDP. In South Korea, the amount for R and D was 2.3 trillion won in 2012. Many countries are going in precisely the opposite direction from us.
This is not a debate about the future in abstract terms. Let me take as an example my university, the University of Southampton, which is one of two universities in the city. Southampton University is not only among the top universities in the country, but makes, as was recently enumerated, an enormous contribution to gross value added not just nationally—we are talking about £2 billion gross value added and 26,000 jobs—but regionally and locally. Its research has clear outcomes. For example, the fibre-optic research that Southampton did over years has spawned a photonics industry in the UK—it is worth £10 billion and has 70,000 employees—and a substantial photonics cluster in Southampton.
Southampton’s SETsquared initiative brings together a number of universities to incubate businesses and spin-offs from the research done at universities. That is now regarded as the prime business incubator involving the university sector in Europe. In the science park, there are 86 companies; 29 are start-ups or spin-offs.
The research and development funding that the university obtains has a real impact in the local community, in the region and nationally. The question is what will happen if that funding tap is turned off in the future. I am not saying that there have not been substantial capital innovations recently. The £200 million centre for advanced materials research, which we have talked about, represents a substantial capital improvement. It is the business of just keeping the whole thing going that we are falling down on in this country.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
On those threats, does my hon. Friend agree that a further danger is any threat to our position within the European Union? In my university, the University of Cambridge, 12% of the research budget comes from the European Union, but even more important are the collaborative networks with other EU countries, which people tell me are vital. Is that a further threat?
Dr Whitehead
It is a substantial further threat. Indeed, if we shut ourselves away from Europe, we will throw away the advantage that we have in this country from our membership of the EU in terms of our future R and D. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
This is something that we perhaps do not notice happening. It is easy to miss it, and there are not catastrophic consequences from disinvesting in R and D as far as universities and research centres are concerned, but it is potentially catastrophic for the future competitiveness of this country and the future of the sort of arrangements that I have explained exist in Southampton and have an impact in the area, the region and the country as a whole. I urge the Minister to take careful note of this debate and ensure that the investment that should be there for the future is put in place and that commitments are made to ensure that that carries on coming in to support our universities and our research activities, which are so valuable and such a source of potential fuel for this country’s ambitions across the world.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Members who cut their speeches short, because like me, they probably had a lot to say. I do not want to go through all the benefits of research and development, because those have been well outlined in previous speeches. All I want to say is that the two universities in Northern Ireland—Queen’s University and the University of Ulster—have an excellent record on research. Indeed, Queen’s is ranked eighth in the United Kingdom for research intensity. That research benefits not only the Northern Ireland economy, but almost every individual in the country.
We can look at an example of the benefits here in London. I am talking about the buses, which are cleaner, quieter and more efficient as a result of work that started in the 1990s at Queen’s University and was then transferred to Wrightbus in Ballymena. It has now resulted in new buses running around the streets of London. That has helped Wrightbus become one of the leading technology and engineering companies in Northern Ireland.
Another example concerns food safety. Queen’s University took the lead in that regard. Indeed, Professor Chris Elliott of Queen’s University was asked to set up the taskforce to deal with food safety after the horsemeat scandal, and much of the research that was done at Queen’s now enables laboratories around the world to detect multiple contaminants in food. I could talk about all that extensively.
However, there are challenges that need to be faced. The first has been mentioned already. The Government need to give a commitment on the amount of money available for research and development. I recognise that the previous Government ring-fenced research and development spending, but a commitment to spending 3% of GDP on research and development, even in times of austerity, would help productivity and growth and have long-term consequences, even though the lead-in period is sometimes quite long, as Queen’s University research has shown.
It has been identified that although a lot of research goes on, the link between research in universities and small and medium-sized enterprises in particular has been weak. Some larger companies see the value of devoting resources to research, but some smaller companies do not. That is a big challenge, whether we seek to address it through tax incentives or by encouraging the universities to be more proactive, because productivity and product range need to be increased the most in small and medium-sized enterprises.
Another challenge is EU funding. There are huge opportunities on which we are not capitalising. What can the Government do?
Skills shortages are another issue. Universities are already identifying skills shortages, especially in the teaching of science, technology, engineering, maths and languages, which means that we need to start from primary school and continue through secondary school, and also that we need teacher training. We need to encourage universities to get a cohort with those skills.
The last challenge, which has been mentioned, is immigration. Much of the research at the University of Ulster is undertaken by students from overseas, and some schools would not be viable if we did not have that influx of overseas students. The Government need to think about that when they consider their immigration policy.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I call Mr Roger Mullin to wind up on behalf of the Scottish National party. I welcome him to Parliament.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, and it is a particular pleasure to respond to this debate, secured by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I have heard much about his inspiring leadership in the higher education sector.
I start by making a declaration of interest. I am still an honorary professor at the University of Stirling, and in recent times I have undertaken a number of ethical reviews of research proposals on matters such as tobacco. One great strength of UK universities that has not been mentioned in this debate is their approach to ethical research, of which universities throughout the UK can be tremendously proud. Our universities’ strength of ambition to conduct high-quality, leading ethical research is increasingly becoming a selling point. In a few days’ time I will give advice at the request of the University of Dundee and the University of St Andrews, for which I will be paid the princely sum of nothing—I think that is a fair reflection of the quality of my comments to come.
In another context—it is not exactly a declaration of interest—I wanted to say this at some stage in my parliamentary career and now is an appropriate time: my late brother, Jim, who died not all that long ago, graduated from Glasgow University before emigrating to Canada, where he became a leading scientist and, after a number of years, was chairman of the OECD science and technology committee. I hope he would be pleased that I am speaking in this debate.
Scotland has a remarkable tradition in higher education and research. Even today, 77% of all research by Scottish universities submitted to the research excellence framework is classified as “world-leading” or “internationally excellent,” which is ahead of the UK average. Some 86% of Scottish research is judged as being “outstanding” or having “very considerable” impact, which compares with the UK average of 83.9%. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talked about impact brilliantly in his three minutes and 57 seconds.
Scottish universities also excel, and have a great tradition, in science. Hon. Members gave many examples from their constituencies, but I will give just one example not from my constituency but from Glasgow University, which ties in to the importance of considering these matters not merely in the context of a constituency, of Scotland or of the UK, but internationally, too. South Glasgow University Hospital, as well as catering for more than 1,000 patients, hosts a campus of Glasgow University and its world-leading Stratified Medicine Scotland innovation centre, a state-of-the-art clinical research facility for clinical trials. The hospital will also be the site of the university’s Europe-leading imaging centre of excellence. A number of hon. Members have pointed out the fundamental importance of European connections to our universities. I would say that it goes beyond Europe: our global connections in the UK, and in Scotland, are of fundamental importance and are to be treasured.
Scotland’s universities are proud of their Scottish roots, but they are equally proud of being outward-looking and highly collaborative within the UK, within Europe and internationally. What might be described as the best of our universities are in a worldwide research ecosystem. Such interchange is important to everyone. Engagement is important to Scottish universities, and they also have something to offer when they engage with others.
In practical terms, we want to see the continuation of the dual support system for research funding in the UK. We want to see more UK-wide and Europe-wide collaboration that underpins excellence in research. Some hon. Members talked about the value of localised competition in small places such as London, but, looking more widely, I am pretty sure that many London universities benefit from how they relate with universities in, for example, California, South Africa, Germany and many other parts of the world. The same is true for Scotland and every constituency with a university.
I am slightly surprised that nobody has made significant mention of the Nurse review of UK research councils. The consultation phase closed in April, and Sir Paul Nurse is considering the evidence. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government have already arranged to have further consultations with Sir Paul in the coming weeks, as has Universities Scotland. From that review we hope to develop more imaginative approaches to research funding that recognise, for example, the connection to innovation, which others have talked about so eloquently in this debate.
On European research partnerships, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central mentioned the importance of the seventh framework programme for research. It indicates the importance of that European connection to Scottish universities that, by the time the programme ended in 2013, Scotland had been awarded €636 million in funding. Scotland has received 11.2% of the UK’s European Research Council funding, which is well above our population share. For Scottish universities it is fundamentally important that we have strong and continuing links with the European Union, as well as with others across the globe.
I will conclude with a couple of questions for the Minister, one of which I have not mentioned thus far. The immigration policy pursued by this Government is a barrier to attracting leading research talent from across the world, as some Opposition Members have already mentioned. That is critical. We are particularly concerned in Scotland, and we call for the return of the post-study work visa to enable people who are here to study for higher research-end degrees to continue contributing. It is completely and utterly insane that the Government are discriminating against such people when they have so much to contribute to this country. We ask the Government, in the coming Budget, to address the fears of some of our universities about what may occur. They fear that there will be a squeeze on research funding at a time when, as many Opposition Members have said, we need increased investment in R and D for the benefit of productivity and innovation.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate. I add my congratulations to the Minister; it is good to see him in his place. I am obviously sad that I am not sitting there. None the less, if there has to be a Conservative Minister, I am glad that it is him. He is a fully signed up member of the thinking classes, despite what his father has to say, and I am sure he will distinguish himself in his new office.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It is good to see him back with such an increased majority, which is testament to his extraordinary work in his constituency and in the House over the last Parliament. It is with characteristic speed that he has secured this debate.
We have managed to achieve a degree of consensus on science policy over the past 20 years that has served this country well. We need to preserve and enhance that consensus during this Parliament. However, now is the time to begin making progress on a number of substantial policy issues. In this morning’s debate, some of those issues have become clear. As we set about that task, it is important that we keep our eyes on the prize that is there for the taking with science policy over the next decade or two.
Last year was a bumper year for British science, with extraordinary achievements from landing probes on comets to advances in medical science, but, as Sir Paul Nurse said—it is important that we pay tribute to Sir Paul’s leadership of the Royal Society—the progress last year represented the fruits of years and years of patient chipping away at the coalface. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and others have said this morning, we are in jeopardy of destroying the foundations of the progress that we saw last year unless important policy changes are made.
Over the next 10 years, we could seize the fruits of the very different world taking shape around us. The majority of the world’s people now live in cities; the majority will soon be interconnected with the cloud, and the internet of things will bring new networks to bear. We are now able to work together in a completely different way, and of course there is a new premium on us as a world making the right decisions. The decisions that are made over the next five to 10 years will have a critical bearing on whether we succeed in keeping global temperature rises below 2° C. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South spelled out, there is the potential for great progress in medical science and beyond if we make the right decisions over the next few years.
We in this country have a parochial interest in some of those decisions being taken in a correct way, not least because of the impact of science and innovation policy on our lamentable productivity performance. I am glad the Chancellor has now woken up to the crisis in British productivity growth, which is worse today than it was at the end of the 1970s when we used to call it the British disease. What the rest of the G7 now finishes making on a Thursday night takes us until the end of Friday to get done. We will not raise living standards in our country unless we close that yawning 20% productivity gap with the rest of the G7.
Liam Byrne
I will in a minute.
We have heard three clear policy priorities that I hope the Minister will attend to. The first relates to money. As we have heard this morning, Britain is seeing not growth but substantial decline in its science budget, yet we are at a crossover moment in global science spending. China will probably spend more on science this year than the EU28 put together. By 2019, China will spend more on science than the United States of America. Four of the 10 biggest tech firms in the world are now Asian. Shanghai’s results in the programme for international student assessment are well in advance of our PISA results here in the UK. We are now at a crossover point that we perhaps last saw in 1455, when the good jobs in the world were created in the east and the cheap labour jobs were created here in the west. If we are to guard against that, we must make more progress on funding.
The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee was absolutely right to say that the right target for science spending in this country is 3% of GDP. There is a cross-party consensus about that figure in Germany, Korea has already exceeded it and it is the norm in parts of Scandinavia. What we need to see in the Budget in a couple of weeks’ time is the launch of a consultation by the Chancellor on the measures that would most effectively bring in private sector money. Some of those measures would be national policy, but, as we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and for Nottingham South, some would ensure that science began to regenerate our cities and towns. This is about not just crowding global spending into the UK, but making sure that we unlock the regenerative power in science throughout the country. I hope that one of the ideas put on the table as part of the consultation will be a radical expansion of university enterprise zones, which are a good idea that is confined to only four towns and cities in the UK. We should use university enterprise zones far more radically in the years to come.
Secondly, we need a new consensus on technical education. The Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Skills, has said that he is interested in agreeing high-level principles that would guide a technical education system for the future. We go through this crisis decade in, decade out in this country, and we have got to begin making progress. I suggest that the right place to start is by putting a serious submission to the Treasury that calls for the Chancellor to save our further education system. We will not be able to build a world-class technical education system if we kick out its spine, and as Alison Wolf made very clear this morning, that is precisely what is coming. We cannot build a world-class technical education system if we are shutting down further education colleges all over England and closing down adult education. That is a good place to start rebooting our technical education system for the 21st century.
Thirdly, we need changes to our immigration system, which we have heard a lot about this morning. We in Parliament should be calling for the free movement of scientists and students. That is the only way we will be able to make sure that this country is connected to the best brainpower, wherever it happens to be born. I was the author of the first post-study work visa when I was the Minister responsible for immigration. It was not perfect, but it was a lot better than the system that we have today. If we are to ensure that we train and educate the best students for the years to come, we have to look again at how we put in place a much better post-study work visa, and I would be happy to work with the Minister on getting that right.
Finally, I underline the call that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central made for a new consensus in Parliament. Some 350 years ago, two groups of men from different sides of the political spectrum came together at Gresham College, on the site where Tower 42 now stands, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). On one side of the divide were the royalists and on the other side were the parliamentarians. At that moment in November 1660 they decided to put aside historic divisions and work together in the interests of science. The Royal Society was born on that afternoon after an astronomy lecture delivered by Sir Christopher Wren. We need such consensus again. If the royalists and parliamentarians could do it in 1660, the Labour party, Conservative party, Scottish National party and others could perhaps make the same move. I hope the Minister will work with us constructively and creatively, and I hope he will take to heart the points that he has heard this morning. Over the days and weeks to come, in the run-up to the Budget, he would do well to read again the excellent opening speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I welcome the Minister to his role. I remind him that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central has two minutes to wind up.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, on this important subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on prompting discussion on a key aspect of Government policy.
The UK regions are at the heart of the Government’s economic strategy. The Government are mindful to ensure that investment should not get sucked into hyper-concentrated areas, such as the golden triangle, at the expense of the excellence that can be found in many other parts of the country. That is a matter to which I have been paying close attention in my first few weeks in my role.
We believe that science and research has a central role in the regions and the Government want the national economic recovery, which has been under way for a number of years, to continue to benefit all parts of our country. Investment in research based in the regions is an absolutely key part to that. The extra gear our economy needs is to be found in R and D capabilities in the universities in our regions as well as in the golden triangle.
UK science is an international success story and a major driver of growth and attractor of inward investment, as hon. Members have mentioned. It is not always recognised that it can make a huge contribution to local and regional economies and to rebalancing the economy, a goal to which the Government are strongly committed.
By way of illustration, I will take a quick regional tour of the investments we have made in recent months, starting from Land’s End and going all the way up to John O’Groats, many of which will contribute to our goal of rebalancing the economy. In the south-west, synthetic biology has been assisted by a £14 million investment in a centre for synthetic biology in Bristol. I will detour via London, which, as Members have already mentioned, has well-known strengths and new investments in institutions such as the Francis Crick Institute and the Alan Turing Institute. Just north of London, we have recently invested £12 million in a centre for agricultural informatics and sustainability metrics near Harpenden and work will start there this summer on modelling more efficient food systems.
Further east, we have just invested £44 million in Babraham and £26 million in Norwich in research agri-tech. In the west midlands, not far from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), we have an example of what will help our ambition to make the midlands an engine of growth. As part of the Government’s £270 million investment in new quantum technologies, Birmingham University has just secured £35 million towards developing an internationally leading centre of excellence and a quantum technology hub. That is in addition to plans for a new national college for high-speed rail, which the right hon. Gentleman described as a
“once in a generation opportunity to transform our local economy.”
The manifesto we published before the general election had a strong commitment to building the northern powerhouse. That is becoming a reality and our investments in centres such as the Hartree Centre and the square kilometre array, the largest scientific experiment in the world, will support that objective. I could add to that list our various investments in graphene such as those at the National Graphene Institute and the Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central will be impatient for me to cross the Pennines. He will know that, in the Sheffield city region, £10 million has just been invested in a new facility for aerospace and other sectors at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. In York, we have invested £27 million in a quantum communications hub as part of our national programme.
As we head further north to Scotland, we continue to support Scotland’s fine scientific tradition. Just last year, the Chancellor announced a £16 million contribution to a new stratified medicine imaging centre of excellence in Glasgow, which will unite world-leading clinical academic expertise in stroke, cardiovascular disease and brain imaging to aid our understanding and treatment of a range of human diseases. Other examples in Scotland include Edinburgh University’s national computing centre, which has benefited from funding for ARCHER, the UK’s top supercomputer, which is now being used by 1,000 academics and people in industry.
I turn to issues raised by Members, and by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill in particular. I thank him for his generous welcome; it is a pleasure to be in this relationship to him. I have always enjoyed talking with him and I hope that we can have a productive and cordial relationship in the months ahead.
There is strong cross-party agreement about the role that investment in science and research can play in solving our productivity challenge and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are truly committed to that. Our manifesto is evidence of it: investment in science and research runs through it like words through a stick of rock and it is a personal passion of the Chancellor. Science and research therefore is front and centre of our solution to the productivity puzzle and such investment in our regions will be one of the key ways in which we will try to plug the productivity gap that holds us back.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the 3% target, which has been an ongoing question in public policy debate for some time. As he will know, previous Governments attempted to introduce R and D-related targets without success. An isolated target does not lead to behavioural change in and of itself; it needs to be complemented by additional policy measures. It is not clear that 3% is the optimal target and there is no evidence that it would lead to optimal investment for the UK. Evidence suggests that the UK under-invests compared with other major research economies and that there would be economic benefits from increased investment, but the aim of achieving 3% GDP spend on R and D is set out at EU level and is not a UK target. The investments we make as a country are recognised as being particularly fruitful. We are recognised as being an excellent place in which to innovate and get very high returns on scientific R and D investment.
Mark Field
Without pre-empting the battles that the Minister will no doubt have with the Home Office, the immigration question is close to our hearts. He will appreciate fully that if the brightest and best from across the world come here, they will go back to their countries as ambassadors for this country for the rest of their lives and often build up businesses with links to us. We lose that at our peril: such links will then go to Canada, the USA and Australia, and the point has been made that, without significant numbers of overseas students, leading postgraduate courses will simply close down, which will be to the detriment of our own indigenous population.
Joseph Johnson
That is an important area, and indeed my first speech as Minister was on that subject at the Going Global conference a few weeks ago. I was clear about the positive contribution that international students make. Our postgraduate study options aim to attract the brightest and best, and we welcome any student who can secure a gradate-level job with a graduate salary. We need to clear up misconceptions that have arisen in important countries—India in particular—about our openness; we offer a warm welcome to international students. I note my right hon. Friend’s important points.
May I quickly turn to a couple of other points made by Members?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) kindly invited me to go to the various universities in Nottingham and I look forward to doing so. I note her points about women in engineering and yesterday I had the great pleasure of being at the Parliamentary Links Day, where I was delighted to see a packed room with so much consensus behind the need for greater diversity. In support of Government investment in Nottingham, I point to recent investment in the synthetic biology research centre. I am sorry that I do not have time to come to other Members’ contributions.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. Time waits for no man, not even a Minister.
Paul Blomfield
The number of Members present and the quality of the debate reflects the importance the House places on this issue, as well as the need for the Government to get it right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) made a powerful case about the impact of research in Oxford. That is important, because while Oxford is often seen as one of the classic ivory towers, he demonstrated how such research works with business to develop economic growth. Oxford is utterly engaged in driving the local economy, just as other universities are around the country.
I appreciated working on migration with the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) in the previous Parliament and I recognise that he is not alone in his thinking on the Government Benches. Indeed, I think it was three or four years ago that the Minister wrote a powerful piece in the Financial Times that explained where the Government were getting their policy wrong on international students and I hope that he will continue to make that case within Government.
The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) underlined the importance of research across the regions and nations of the UK.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Leaseholders and Housing Association Ballots
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered leaseholders and housing association ballots.
It is a pleasure to see you presiding over this debate, Mr Owen, and to see the Minister in his place. I and others have had an ongoing, constructive dialogue with him on these matters—on some of them, at least—as will become clear in due course. The title of the debate may be slightly misleading, as I intend to cover leasehold reform as a separate but connected matter to housing association ballots. I have advised the Minister’s office of that, and I am sure the Minister has been forewarned about the shape that my contribution will take.
I raised these matters on 6 March, in the dying days of the previous Parliament, and I welcome the opportunity to put them on the ministerial radar early in this Parliament, although I know the Minister is already aware of them—of the leaseholder issues, in particular. I and others are grateful to the Minister and his officials for arranging a meeting on 8 June about leaseholder matters with the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), me and representatives of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership. The hon. Gentleman has led on these issues for some time, and I am pleased to be assisting his significant efforts. Mr Martin Boyd and Mr Sebastian O’Kelly, campaigning as the LKP, have made much progress in engaging with the Government, securing charitable status and ensuring that millions of leaseholders have a voice and access to an organisation dedicated to advising and assisting them.
I do not want to labour this point, as I know the Minister’s officials are examining many of the anomalies and weaknesses that we have identified in the existing legislation on leaseholders, but the matters that concern us include the problems with retirement homes and the issues of commonhold versus leasehold and property ownership. Tribunal procedures are supposed to be relatively informal, but can become expensive if the defending freeholder brings high-powered barristers against local residents who are trying to get redress against problems they have identified.
There is also the issue of unscrupulous freeholders and predatory property management companies. The sector is doing a lot to improve its image and the professionalism of property management services, but there are some predatory organisations that prey on vulnerable people and take a lot of money unfairly. There is the issue of forfeiture, which we have discussed in depth with the Minister. There are also recognition issues. Leaseholders often find it difficult to get their association recognised by their property management company or freeholder because of difficulties in securing numbers, identifying the owners of properties and the like.
We have also talked to the Minister about the different roles and responsibilities of the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice. This policy area has implications for both Departments, so we must look at how well those arrangements are working. I know the Minister is well aware of all those issues, as they were reinforced in our previous meeting. I acknowledge that he has tasked his officials to examine them and to report back. We look forward to continuing our discussions on those issues in due course. If, however, the Minister has anything new he wishes to add, his comments would be welcomed by all who take an interest in leaseholding. I fully accept that his officials have done a lot of work on this matter, and, given that we have had a recent meeting, there is probably not a lot to report back.
The hon. Member for Worthing West, ably assisted by Ms Katherine O’Riordan, has organised another roundtable discussion on leasehold reform on 9 July, to which the Minister and his officials have been invited. They will be very welcome. Such successful forums, which have been taking place in recent years, allow people to share information and experience on these issues.
On the issue of housing association ballots, the Minister may be less informed about the concerns I raised on 6 March; the Deputy Leader of the House responded to that debate, although I am sure he reported back to the Minister. The Minister’s officials will have read Hansard and will be aware of the questions I was asking.
As the Minister knows, hundreds of thousands of tenants in recent decades voted in stock transfer ballots to leave local authority control—i.e. to move the management of their properties from the council to a housing association. Thousands—probably tens of thousands—of my constituents are among those who agreed to do that. The driver was that housing associations are able to modernise and refurbish run-down council properties and raise them above the decency threshold for homes because they can raise the finance, while the rules prevent councils and council housing organisations from doing the same. New kitchens, bathrooms, windows, central heating and security measures were installed. Many of the schemes, including a number in my constituency, were very successful, although not all were.
A number of issues arose. Some are ongoing, such as the quality of work and the materials used, the fact that some people have been overcharged for the work, and transparency. There were recently two contradictory reports on the schemes: the Evening Standard reported on bribery and corruption at a housing association in Hackney, while Inside Housing reported on a positive contract in Brighton that created hundreds of apprenticeships and new jobs. There are different experiences of schemes in different parts of the country. A number of other issues were raised, including the costs and service charges and the appeals procedures. Many tenants were able to resolve such issues with the assistance of their registered social landlord. The Government changed the regulations to level the playing field, in terms of transparency, accounting and information, but not all the concerns were addressed.
In a few cases, the offer promised by some housing associations to entice council tenants to vote for the stock transfer were never fulfilled. In such cases, tenants were powerless to have their complaints resolved. After they have voted to hand over their property to the new landlords, there was and is no mechanism to vote to sack the housing association for poor performance.
Such a sanction exists for the regulators—the Homes and Communities Agency and the housing ombudsman, following complaints of failures, can order mergers and takeovers of failing housing associations, but residents are powerless. Incidentally, leaseholders who exercised their right to buy their council property are powerless and voiceless, as they have no vote when the estates in which they live are transferred unless the local housing associations included them in the consultations, as good registered social landlords did. The Government have introduced a welcome cap on charges, which is a positive change.
My main question to the Minister is about the rights of housing association tenants and whether they should be empowered to sack poorly performing housing associations. Leaseholders in the private sector, despite the anomalies in the recognition procedure, are entitled to a ballot if their property management company lets them down, and they can vote to award their contract to a new company. If it is good enough for the private sector, why cannot it work in the public sector? It is an essential element of consumer protection that customers who are disappointed with a purchase are able to ask for redress, return the goods, seek compensation or purchase alternative products elsewhere, but those who live in housing association properties cannot. I was going to say “social housing”, but of course council tenants can switch initially by stock transfer ballot, which I mentioned. They have an initial choice, but then are locked in; having transferred, they have no further rights.
Obviously, the Minister will publish his housing Bill in this Session; I am not sure when, but he might be able to indicate the timing, even generally. Just as an aside, but an important aside for many of us, I should say that there are real concerns, which have been expressed publicly, about aspects of the Bill, such as the sale of housing association properties under the Government proposals and the economics of whether there will be like-for-like replacement. That issue has been raised by a number of people.
The second anomaly, for me and others in Tower Hamlets, is that of requiring higher-value council properties to be sold. Both those elements will have a huge negative impact on Tower Hamlets; as an inner London borough, all our property is very expensive. However, the three, four and five-bedroom properties, which are absolutely essential for the kind of community we have, are particularly expensive properties. If they go from the social housing stock, that will create major difficulties for local people.
In conclusion, and to go back to my main question about tenants getting control of their estates, may I ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to consider an amendment to his Bill to allow housing association tenants, with all the appropriate safeguards that would be required, to vote to transfer the management of their properties from one housing association to another, or to return to arm’s-length management organisation or council housing control?
This is a big issue for many thousands of my constituents. As I say, I have raised it before and it has got quite a bit of interest, because it would be a brand new right for housing association tenants. Clearly, the Government have housing associations in their sight for reforms, and I am eager to hear whether the Minister is interested in this one. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise these matters and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I call the Minister to reply, and I welcome him back to his place.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
Thank you, Mr Owen, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for my first appearance in Westminster Hall in this Parliament. I appreciate your comments.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) work very hard to raise issues for leaseholders and tenants generally; the hon. Gentleman’s particular interest is issues that affect the residents of Tower Hamlets. It is to the credit of them both that they continue to represent their constituents’ and the wider interests of people across the leaseholder sector. I am keen for us to find some common ground and a way forward, and I appreciated the chance to meet them both a couple of weeks ago; the hon. Gentleman referred to that meeting.
I know that the hon. Gentleman in particular has looked to explore the possibility of creating a new power that, as he outlined, would allow tenants of an underperforming housing association effectively to sack their association. I will express my specific views on that matter in a few moments, but I will say now that we would like to find a solution to the concerns that have been raised within the current framework of powers. That is achievable.
It is, of course, important that tenants are protected and sufficient safeguards are in place. The Localism Act 2011 gave tenants and their representatives the power to hold landlords to account. It enabled recognised tenant panels to play an important role in resolving complaints at a local level, and that was an important development. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, some of the changes have recently led to a big step forward, and we feel that that is right.
Landlord and tenant issues are often local issues. Clearly, the range and seriousness of those issues can vary, and it is right—absolutely right—that tenants are offered a level of protection at the national level as well. However, I am firmly of the view that, where possible, the issues themselves should be sorted out locally using the framework that we have put in place.
If it is clear that complaints cannot be resolved locally, obviously they can be referred by tenants to the housing ombudsman. When the ombudsman finds in favour of a complainant, they can order the landlord to pay compensation or take other steps to provide redress. Furthermore, it is open to the ombudsman or tenants to raise concerns directly with the regulator.
We would not want tenants to jump directly to the ombudsman; as I said, our view is that the vast majority of these issues can and should be resolved locally. The Homes and Communities Agency has a regulatory function, but it does not have the responsibility or power to mediate in or resolve individual cases. However, it will investigate where there is evidence of a breach of regulatory standards, and—in relation to landlord and tenant issues—serious harm. In extreme cases, it has far-reaching powers to intervene where there is evidence of serious mismanagement.
It may be helpful to give the House examples and outline the kinds of approaches that the regulator takes when issues are raised that it judges to be serious. I provide them to demonstrate how seriously the regulator takes its role. In February this year, it was found that a provider broke consumer standards owing to the poor quality of emergency repairs for many tenants over a very long period. A regulatory notice was published, representing the first time that such a finding had been made for widespread service failure. In April, the case took a further step forward when it was found that the underlying cause of the emergency repairs issues was a failure of corporate governance. As a result, the provider in question is now focusing on addressing the issues, and rightly so.
If non-compliance is not addressed, the regulator has statutory duties to intervene formally, which could lead to interventions in the management structure of a particular provider. It is right that the powers available to the regulator should be used only as a last resort. I provide that information to reassure the hon. Gentleman, and others who may read the debate in Hansard, that where issues are serious the regulator can and will take appropriate action.
Having outlined the current approach and the potential impact on housing associations, I want to spend a moment outlining some of the wider options available to housing association tenants themselves. Although it would not be legally possible for tenants to be given the right to sack their housing association, they have other routes to explore that would hand them a much greater degree of control.
Housing association leaseholders in blocks of flats have the right to manage. That enables a group of leaseholders to take over the management functions of their properties. The hon. Gentleman may draw a parallel with his proposals for tenants to have the power to sack their association. One area on which we might slightly disagree is my view that the power of right to manage is enough. The substantial, important difference between the approaches is that under right to manage the properties would still be owned by the housing association, which is different from the ability to manage them and ensure that repairs are done properly. I do not think it possible to draw a complete comparison in the way he outlined today and in previous debates. Leaseholders can also buy the freehold of their blocks of flats—known as enfranchisement—subject to certain criteria. Doing so would give them even greater financial and legal interest.
We have set out a clear policy ambition, which the hon. Gentleman outlined, to give housing association tenants the right to buy their homes to match the social housing opportunities in council housing at the moment and to ensure that everyone in social housing has the same right to buy. Tempting as his invitation to outline the details of the Bill this morning is, he will appreciate that I must ask him to bear with me until we publish the Bill and outline the details behind it in due course. I am hopeful that after the Bill receives Royal Assent, housing association tenants will be able to take the opportunity to move into home ownership.
I will touch on a couple of other points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked how the policy would be implemented, as did other hon. Members in an Opposition day debate in the main Chamber a couple of weeks ago. I will be very clear: as we have said all along, there must be one-for-one replacement. I am pleased that the reinvigorated scheme has one-for-one replacement; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for highlighting that we have seen the numbers move from one in 170 under the previous Labour Government to one for one under the reinvigorated scheme. Councils have three years to provide the replacement. If they have not done so by the end of those three years—although the indications at the moment make me confident that they will—the money, with interest, comes back to the HCA, which will provide the homes. It will be one for one.
I must stress our view that a new power to allow tenants of an underperforming housing association to sack their housing association is, with the framework already in place plus what we are looking at with the housing Bill, unnecessary and unworkable. A solution to the concerns raised must be achieved within the current framework. The hon. Gentleman has tempted me to accept an early amendment to a Bill that we have not yet published; I am sure we will discuss his idea later in the year when the Bill is introduced. My officials and I will happily liaise with him on that, but as tempting as his pitch was—and it is probably the first I have had so far—I suspect that we are on a slightly different page.
I hope that the outline I have given has been useful. I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue to the attention of the House so early in the Parliament; he has made sure that the concerns and thoughts of leaseholders have been aired. I am keen to ensure that tenants know how to resolve their local concerns and that they fully understand and appreciate the powers and opportunities they have. I have to make it clear—the hon. Gentleman will already know this—that I cannot intervene in such matters personally, but I recommend that hon. Members and residents involved in such situations write directly to the regulator if they feel that any regulatory standards are, unfortunately, not being met.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the Minister. Under the new procedures in Westminster Hall, the Member who brought the debate has a right to reply, should he wish to.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I thank the Minister for the information he has given, which I am sure we will look at very closely. I know that my local authority, Tower Hamlets Council, is closely engaged in this process. I am not sure whether local councils have a role to play, but because the affected tenants are residents in the borough the council has a moral, if not legal, obligation to engage, and I know it is looking to speak directly to certain housing associations.
I note what the Minister had to say about the Bill. We will look at tabling an amendment in due course and would be grateful if he would consider it at the appropriate time. As he said, we are having ongoing discussions, which will continue, and I look forward to future meetings in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Superfast Broadband
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered superfast broadband roll-out.
Members who had the pleasure of being at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today will no doubt think that we have already considered superfast broadband roll-out, because it was by far the most popular subject for Members to ask the Prime Minister questions about.
What we are discussing today is by far the most important infrastructure programme that we will consider in our lifetime. There has been much discussion of new train lines. In fact, during the past five years the progress we have made on superfast broadband roll-out has been immense, and I will begin by covering some of the progress that we have made in the last few years.
I intentionally asked for this House to consider superfast broadband roll-out rather than simply the rural broadband programme, because we must acknowledge that there are serious problems in cities as well as in rural areas. Geographically, the rural broadband programme remains an enormous task, because it covers about 40% of the country, but I ask that we also consider today the huge numbers of people in cities who often have very slow connections.
Back in 2010, shortly after the formation of the coalition Government, the then Culture Secretary announced that we would have the best broadband in Europe by 2015. As a journalist covering that, I remember being convinced that, if we were to have that, we would have it only by fiddling the figures. In fact, it turns out that, measured against comparable nations such as Germany and France, Britain has indeed made incredible progress. More to the point, we have by far the most competitive marketplace in broadband, so our constituents pay a good price for the service that they get receive.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Public Accounts Committee has looked at this issue in detail, and I warn the Minister that we will no doubt look at it again. The hon. Gentleman talked about there being good competition, but does he agree that there are technology companies based in my constituency and around the country that would like to break into this market but find that there are barriers, partly because of how the rural broadband programme was rolled out? Does he also agree that the Minister needs to look seriously at the issue again?
Matt Warman
I am delighted to hear that the PAC is interested in considering the issue again; I know that the Minister will agree with me on that. Of course, it is important that we are genuinely technology-neutral when it comes to establishing the best way of getting from 90% coverage to 95% and 100%.
That brings me to my second point, which is about where we are now and where we will be within the next five years or so, so that we can get from 95% coverage to 99%, and then perhaps up to 100%. I should begin by saying that in my own county of Lincolnshire, BT’s roll-out is not only ahead of schedule but £7 million under budget. I may not be the only person who expresses a view on BT in this debate, but I should say that there are some examples of areas where it has delivered the programme that it was asked to deliver. However, I suggest that where we have a challenge is when it comes to delivering the next stage of that roll-out.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, but I am concerned that what we are talking about is “up to 95%” and not “past 95%”. In other words, we are asking for something that will possibly be delivered, but it will probably not be delivered in quite a lot of constituencies.
Matt Warman
I agree, and it is interesting to note that the target that we will have in Lincolnshire is 86%, which is obviously some way below 95%. In Herefordshire, I believe that the target that people will end up with is about 40% superfast coverage, so various rural counties have big issues.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I have the pleasure of representing the east of Lincolnshire, which stretches from the sweeping coastline across to the rich agricultural fens and the rolling hills of the wolds. The only cloud in the sky is the fact that BT tells me—with some pride, it seems—that overall coverage in Louth and Horncastle is 22%. Can we please remember that when we talk about 95% coverage, that figure is very much an aspiration in Louth and Horncastle?
Matt Warman
I am delighted that my hon. Friend reminds me of the variation in BT’s performance even within Lincolnshire, and it is crucial that we discuss that variation today.
The next point to consider is that when we are talking about moving from 95% coverage to 99%, BT is by no means the only game in town. In other parts of the country, contracts have already been signed with companies such as Gigaclear, and I hope that Members who ask themselves how their own counties can get the best out of BT will look at those other contractors, which have been able to remind BT that there are other options available, because their existence sometimes seems to produce a marked improvement in BT’s performance.
The other issue affecting our move from 95% to 99% coverage remains the provision of 4G and subsequently 5G; I think that is the first time that they have been mentioned in this debate. Many Members have applied to speak in the debate, and the two questions that I would like them to ask themselves are, “How do we get the best out of the contracts that we have already?” and “How do we apply maximum pressure to best fund the roll-out, which will be expensive but more than worth while, to go from 95% to 99%?” I contend that a big part of that movement from 95% coverage to 99% should be not only fibre broadband but 4G and 5G, and there is also a place for satellite broadband.
I have a final point to make, which is that BT’s relationship with BT Openreach is currently being considered. I know that there is a range of views in the House about BT and Openreach. I urge only that the competition authorities seriously consider whether the best interests of the consumer are being served by BT’s current relationship with Openreach. I look forward to other people expressing different views during the debate.
I will close by saying that when we talk endlessly about the vital importance of infrastructure, it is often roads and railways that we emphasise, but when I talk to constituents it is almost always broadband that comes up as the most important infrastructure project for them, and they would like to see faster speeds, including in their own houses.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
At the risk of turning this into a Lincolnshire-only debate—important and desirable as that would be—I must say that my hon. Friend is making a great case for the fact that, as we all know and as is shown by the number of attendees in this debate, broadband is now absolutely essential. At a parish council meeting last night, a parish councillor who is a constituent of mine told one of my district councillors that her children want to move from Wilsford to Sleaford, because there is better broadband in Sleaford. They have to link to the school computer for their homework, and they cannot get that link.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is so important now because we simply cannot conduct our lives, and everything that we have to do to interact with Government and everybody else, without access to good broadband? That is why it is so important, not only in urban constituencies but in rural constituencies; indeed, it is particularly important for rural Britain.
Matt Warman
My hon. and learned Friend pre-empts my final point. Superfast broadband is important not simply because it allows our constituents to watch all the stuff that is associated with broadband—all the entertainment from the BBC and all the gaming that we hear so much about—but because it allows the business of government to become so much more efficient, whether telehealth or rural farm payments.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I should like to fire a non-Lincolnshire shot. My hon. Friend has talked about the infrastructure. As one gets to London and Surrey, where there have been enormous efforts, it is other infrastructure—railways, roads and so on—that causes the difficulty. Has he noted that the BT contracts seem to be selective or blind-eyed, so that when it becomes difficult the company works around such infrastructure and we are left with islands and pockets, which should have been prevented in the contracts?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. We must, when we consider how state aid works, go to the areas that need the help, rather than subsidise a commercial roll-out that would take place none the less. The construction of such contracts is crucial, as is councils having the expertise to ensure that they get the best out of those contracts. I know that a number of colleagues want to mention that.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I should like to press him on urban “not spots”. Often, the most isolated areas have good broadband coverage where the commercial contracts have worked, but little bits are left, often in residential areas, and we cannot even get the commercial firms to be transparent about where those areas are, let alone do what is necessary. Does he agree that a lot more transparency and co-ordination is needed between operators, and often with local authorities?
Matt Warman
I agree. I hope that the House will look forward a couple of months, when more detailed maps of phase 2 roll-outs will allow us to look into phase 3. That will give constituents some clarity, which we so urgently need, so that we can say to people, “We know that superfast broadband is finally coming to your area, but it won’t be here for another two or three years,” or however long. That will at least allow some communities to make up their own minds about whether they would like to put their own money into helping to jump the queue, or whether they are content with the wait.
The lack of clarity has been damaging. Our postbags are full because people often tell us that an update on a website saying, for example, “Your cabinet will be upgraded within the next three months,” has remained the same for the past six months or longer. That is deeply unhelpful to us, to councils that are trying to oversee the process and to BT itself. We should acknowledge that sometimes the companies have been their own worst enemies.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It is always interesting when a journalist comes into the House and speaks with authority on a subject, which does not always happen.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned state aid, and there is an important point to be made in that regard. A big concern expressed by many of BT’s competitors is that, given that every contract was won by one player, there is no clear, transparent evidence that state aid was not used to advance BT’s original intentions rather than meet the real needs of the country.
Matt Warman
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for transparency, which is a key point. Many hon. Members have questioned, outside this debate, whether the process that we undertook with Broadband Delivery UK would necessarily be the way we went if we ran it again, or indeed if it is the way we should go when we think about further phases. That is also an important part of the debate, but the most important factor is that we should not allow our foot to be taken off the gas. We should not allow anyone to think for a moment that we are not all committed, on a cross-party basis, to getting Britain from 95% coverage to 99% and beyond, in the best possible way for both the taxpayer and our constituents.
Finally, before I allow many other hon. Members to speak, I add that what we have achieved over the past five years is remarkable. The risk is that in looking at the final 5% we will not only fail to close the gap between 95% and 99% but leave tiny “not spots” that will effectively be ruled out of serious coverage forever because they are not part of a co-ordinated, serious national programme. I hope that a serious case is made in this debate for acknowledging all that BT has done in trying to make its best practice standard practice across the country, and for its continued ongoing investment in the programme. I also hope that a serious case is made for no community being left behind.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, I have some guidance. There are 26 Members who have put in to speak today and just over 70 minutes to allocate to them. I know that Members will be mindful of each other, given that three Front-Bench spokesmen will speak later, in the final 30 minutes.
In addition, interventions should be short. Be mindful of the fact that, if you intervene more than once, you may slip down the list. I am not sure, but you may. I thank Mr Phillips, who has withdrawn his name having made an intervention, allowing other Members a little more time—notwithstanding his Lincolnshire roots.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). He talked about rural issues not being the main issue, and I accept that. However, there is a double whammy for people on the periphery of a rural area. It is a great place to live, but businesses complain that it is not a great place to do business. I speak on behalf of businesses, including tourism, and on behalf of many others.
We are not a semi-detached area. I believe Ynys Môn is the heart of the British Isles. It is very close to Ireland and to England, and south of Scotland, so it is the centre of the British Isles. Business is in many ways London-centric, and Cardiff-centric in Wales, so we do feel left out.
I welcome the Government’s making progress, which has been mentioned, but I am afraid it is not sufficient in areas on the periphery of the United Kingdom.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned peripheral areas. The Faroe Islands, between Scotland and Iceland, are a peripheral area in Europe. Each and every house in the Faroe Islands has wired broadband: that is a choice their Government made and it has happened. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if we made such choices, we too could achieve that. In the meantime, 4G surely has a huge part to play in the inevitable “not spots” continuing to exist in the UK, although not in the Faroe Islands.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman makes the case well. The Faroe Islands is a great example. I have learnt something today. Where there is the political will, there is a way. In the 21st century, this should be a necessity for rural areas, not a luxury.
The Minister highlighted some good working practices in previous debates. The Welsh Assembly has a good working relationship with the UK Government and the European Union in delivering superfast broadband in Wales. That has been working well, to an extent.
Albert Owen
I will give way for the last time, because so many hon. Members want to speak.
Guto Bebb
Given how the relationship between the Welsh Government and BT has worked in Wales, is the hon. Gentleman proud that Wales has nine of the 20 worst performing constituencies in the country? Those constituencies have no broadband connectivity whatever, despite the fact that the Welsh Government levered in more than 50% of additional funding from Europe.
Albert Owen
If I have the opportunity, I will come to some of the figures comparing the nations and areas within Wales, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—there are some poor performing areas in Wales, as there are in the rest of the United Kingdom. He is a close neighbour of mine and there are issues with the roll-out in his constituency, but I want to concentrate on the second-class service in peripheral areas, not only in broadband, but in mobile connectivity.
Broadband connectivity is essential for competition, enterprise and accessing public services. Limited and slow access to broadband in peripheral areas is against the Government’s policy of increasing online public service resources. They say we need that, but farmers in my area are always complaining that they have difficulty submitting their tax returns online, for example. The Government are encouraging them to do their tax online, but there are connectivity problems and I am sure that people are getting fined as a consequence of being late.
We have a great example. We heard about the Faroe Islands, but in the 20th century throughout the United Kingdom, in the whole of Great Britain and Ireland, the Post Office was able to deliver the same quality of phone line to every house, regardless of its location. The Minister will be pleased to hear that I am not advocating full renationalisation of all telecoms systems, but I am boldly making the point—[Interruption.] I know that the Minister is laughing at the first part of that, but he should not laugh at this: the market is letting areas of the United Kingdom down. That is why the debate is so important. We want to see the one nation that we all hear about—we are all agreed on it and we all use that terminology—but the United Kingdom is becoming two nations when it comes to telecommunications. The market is not working for parts of Britain.
The Minister has been in his post for some time, and I welcome him back to it, so he has heard the arguments, but I want to hear something different in his reply—I want to hear some answers. I do not want to hear him blame the devolved Administrations or local authority partnerships. I want to hear what the Government will do to close down black spots, which are not “not spots”; they are black spots, because they have little or no fast mobile or broadband coverage. Let us remember that peripheral areas pay more for their petrol, diesel, utilities, gas and electricity. They pay more for goods in many ways, and the wages are often lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I was on the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change and, when talking about smart meters, I questioned the companies that have been delivering them on behalf of the Government. We have been discussing 95% coverage and, similarly, I can guess where the 5% of “not spots” will be from day one; they will be in peripheral areas. Smart meters are not in the Minister’s brief, but generally we should be starting pilot schemes in some of the rural and peripheral areas, then rolling out from there, rather than doing what the companies want and basing schemes on the number of people living in an area.
These are not left-wing or liberal views; they are the views of many ordinary constituents of mine, as well as of the Countryside Alliance, which has lobbied me, the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales. The Minister should take note of not only what we are saying here on behalf of our constituents, but what such groups are saying collectively. They are making the case to improve commerce in their area.
The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), talked tough with the mobile and broadband companies but failed to deliver. To be frank, he let them off the hook in the previous Parliament, and I do not see much improvement in speed and access. Goalposts are being moved by the Government. The former Economic Secretary was good at giving us updates in the House, but all he did was delay and push 2015 back to 2016 and then 2017. The mobile phone companies in particular are now repeating that mantra.
I realise that we are short of time, but slow speeds need to be improved quickly. To help the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) with some of the figures, parts of Wales are behind, with an average of 60% superfast broadband, including the large conurbations. Northern Ireland does exceptionally well, with 94% superfast broadband, so it can be delivered to peripheral areas where there is political will, and the Northern Ireland Assembly has proved that. England has 80% superfast broadband and Scotland has some 64%. We need to ensure superfast broadband throughout the UK quickly. I want to see BT and the Welsh Government working with the UK Government and the European Union to ensure that we have the funds to make that happen.
Many of the cabinets and exchanges in my constituency have the facility and the infrastructure, but we are talking about the last mile—although when it comes to rural areas, it is not one mile but many, and that is the problem. Many commercial companies do not see the value in rolling out from the cabinets and exchanges to households and businesses in my constituency. I speak for many people in peripheral and rural areas when I say that we need superfast broadband as a matter of urgency. We want the 21st-century access to goods that everyone else in the large towns and cities of the United Kingdom has.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I cannot comment on the content of the speech, but I can observe that it was nine minutes long, which I hope can be avoided in the next speech.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for securing the debate.
Lincolnshire is a hilly part of the world, but it is probably not quite as hilly as Devon. In the Blackdown hills, which are part of my constituency, we have huge problems in getting broadband. We talk about 95% broadband being delivered to the country, but we are bordering on 50% in my constituency and most of the Blackdown hills are not getting any broadband at all, with many villages being left out.
There is also a lack of transparency. The confidentiality clause in the last contract let by Devon and Somerset has led to huge problems. In the new contract that Devon and Somerset are being asked to sign, BT is asking for an extra £35 million and three more years to deliver the broadband, most of which should have been delivered by 2016. What sort of deal is that, I ask the Minister? It is no sort of deal whatever. We are being held to ransom for the simple reason that the waiving of the state aid rules lasts only to the end of this month, in a few days’ time. BT is holding a gun to the head of Devon and Somerset and saying, “If you don’t sign, you’ll be outside the state aid rules. What will happen then?” That is wrong.
BT is a very good company, but it is dominant in the marketplace. It is delivering good broadband in many parts of the country, but in others it is simply not delivering. What are we doing as a Government—what is the Minister doing—to stop that happening? I have every confidence in the Minister, who I have had many meetings with, but I want action—not warm words—to ensure that BT delivers.
All our constituents are being put at a disadvantage, and many farms and businesses will probably not get broadband until 2020 or beyond. In the 2020 election campaign, do hon. Members from any party in the House want to go around the villages that do not have any broadband and face the consequences? That is the reality, because all the time BT is rolling the programme further back—not further forward—and that is the real issue. I want a clear indication from the Minister that, if we are to have a dominant BT in the marketplace, which I have no problem with, I expect the Government and Ministers to ensure that a deal that can be signed is brought to Devon and Somerset.
The other issue for the Government is that Devon and Somerset have had some £100 million of taxpayers’ money from council and Government taxes for this; if BT does not deliver, the Government cannot deliver the 95% target by 2020, because of the size of the scheme—it is as simple as that. If Devon and Somerset are prepared to sign another contract with BT, I ask again that BT honour its commitments, deliver the broadband it has already said it will and put in the contributions it said it would make—we have yet to see the colour of BT’s money, which does not bode well.
My final point is that Dartmoor and Exmoor have a new arrangement with a company that is delivering the scheme by wi-fi; that seems to be getting under way very quickly. BT has said it has looked at new technologies, but is still rolling out fibre-optic cables and cabinets. If a place is a long way from the cabinet, broadband costs a fortune and may not even be put in. Why is BT not using new technologies? I would like the Minister to answer that.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing this debate.
I will be brief, as the main themes have been well aired already. I want to raise specifically with the Minister the issue of two areas in my constituency that are being appallingly served by BT, Askham and Kirkby-in-Furness. I have been deluged by complaints from constituents who have just about managed to get internet access to email me in advance of the debate, because they knew I intended to speak today.
The situation in Askham concerns a particular cabinet. It is the sort of case that will be familiar to many hon. Members present—indeed, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness gave a good account of how BT seems to shift the goalposts. People in Askham were promised a cabinet. They were then given the excuse that the road around the cabinet site was eroded; if the Minister wants to come and look at the cabinet—I am sure that will be high up on his to-do list at the start of the new Parliament—he will see that that excuse is a nonsense. They were then given a second excuse, namely that there was no land on which the new cabinet could be sited that was not private. But anyone looking at the site would see that those excuses do not hold water. Hundreds of people in Askham are tearing their hair out.
The situation is similar in Kirkby. The service is going significantly backwards and BT has not given a date by which it will be fixed. I do not like having to name and shame a company for poor service, but I am afraid that is what we have to do in Parliament, given BT’s intransigence on this.
Mr MacNeil
Might it be a solution to have a specific fund for cabinets? Once the network is laid out, the problem will be getting cabinets that can be spurs off the network to local communities.
John Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion and one that the Minister may want to consider, but as far as I am concerned—and as far as my constituents are concerned—a promise was made by Government to deliver superfast broadband and another was made by BT to facilitate that, and we should hold both to account, whether or not a separate fund for cabinets is created.
I do not like having to raise this issue in Parliament, but we are going to keep banging on about this to BT until it fixes the issue. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance that the Government will intervene, if necessary, to sort the problem out.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing the debate. I suspect he will not speak to such a full Chamber for much of his first term in Parliament. The attendance today reflects the importance attached to this issue by all hon. Members.
It may not have escaped my hon. Friend’s notice that I do not have the most rural of constituencies, but there are also significant issues with superfast broadband in urban areas. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) is well aware of that, as it is something we addressed in the last Parliament.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I believe that I know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say. In advance of his speech, may I say that, despite the fact that he sits on the Government side of the Chamber, I am likely to agree with everything he says on behalf of my constituents in Islington South and, in particular, Tech City?
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, I will just remind the hon. Lady that she has only just arrived in the Chamber, so did not hear my earlier comments about the number of interventions and their brevity. I hope next time she will arrive a little earlier in order to hear the Chair’s remarks.
Emily Thornberry
I hope that my intervention was short enough, Mr Pritchard.
Mark Field
London councils will have a chance to have their say as well. I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. She tempts me to start a different speech—there are various things I should love to say today if she is going to be agreeing with every word.
One of the most significant delays in connecting a business or resident to broadband infrastructure, even in the heart of London, is the time taken to negotiate the legal permissions that are needed to allow that infrastructure to cross the public highway or to take it into a building. That is particularly the case in built-up areas. It can take some 18 months for the parties to conclude those negotiations; the usual period is about eight months. During that time, of course, a broadband provider will not be able to supply the building.
To speed up the process, the City of London corporation is leading a group of central London boroughs—including Islington and Hackney—known as Central London Forward in a project to produce a standardised agreement for permission to install broadband infrastructure. I am pleased to say that Westminster City Council, my other local authority, is also a main leader on the project. The City and Westminster councils have invited all the key players to participate, from broadband providers through the great estates in the west end to major developers across London.
The product of all that activity will be a standardised agreement known as a wayleave, which all parties will be able to use as a template for their negotiations. I have no doubt that such a standardised agreement will speed up connections to broadband infrastructure, because parties will not have to start their negotiations from scratch. The Minister has played a leading role in the process, and I thank him for helping to contact the key parties and for championing activities to improve broadband connectivity.
Although the Minister can happily say that Greater London compares favourably with other world cities, with 88% coverage, that figure is not reflected in what is the economic heart of the capital, and indeed the country. It is not just my constituents who are missing out but the entire UK economy, and he will appreciate just how important it is that digital infrastructure in central London does not fall behind that of rival global cities.
Locally, BT’s approach seems to be based on a belief that there is insufficient demand to invest further. I share some of the concerns that have already been raised about that. As well as the more distant rural parts of this United Kingdom, large swathes of urban areas—with important small and medium-sized enterprises—are poorly served, and are restricted to woefully outdated copper broadband. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, the European Commission is preventing the Government from subsidising the roll-out of superfast broadband in inner cities and beyond. Perversely, that means that remote villages sometimes have better broadband connections than those available in my constituency, which contains the political, business, cultural and technological heart of the UK.
There has been a significant market failure. I may not express this quite as robustly as it was put earlier, but I will be interested to learn what the Minister is doing to address the problem. I accept that it requires co-operation with internet service providers, Ofcom and the European Commission, but it is time we stepped up to the plate. Although I hope we will not have such a well-attended debate in future, simply because I hope many of the problems will have been solved, I look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. Members from both sides of the House today. It is beholden on the Minister to recognise that this is a very real problem, not just for outlying rural areas but for the heart of our cities.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I am here today—I am sure it is the same for many other hon. Members—because access to decent broadband is extremely important to individuals and to businesses in my constituency. More and more business transactions are now taking place online. In rural areas such as my constituency in Cumbria, banks are closing branches, making broadband more important as a way for people to be able access banking. Children and students are also encouraged to use online learning resources, which can be difficult. There is talk about getting access to doctors through Skype in Cumbria, but of course we cannot do that without decent broadband. I could go on.
Connecting Cumbria is managing the roll-out of superfast broadband in Cumbria. It has delivered phase 1 successfully, but we are moving on to phase 2 and, I hope, phase 3. The difficult geography of Cumbria makes that extremely challenging. I hope that the Government will continue to treat roll-out in rural areas as a priority for funding. The mere fact that outlying areas are considered hard to reach should not mean that they are left behind.
I declare a personal interest, as I live in a rural part of Cumbria with a diabolical broadband speed. I often struggle to open emails, and give up. The problem is not just speed but consistency. It is hugely frustrating when a broadband connection keeps dropping in and out. I avoid doing my banking online at home, because I worry about the security issues if the connection drops out when I am logged in at my bank. Most days I have to jog up and down the stairs a few times, because the router is upstairs and I have to switch it on and off to try to get connected. It drives me mad.
I fully understand the frustrations of constituents with similar problems who have got in touch with me about broadband—very many of them, despite the fact that I have not been an MP very long. A particular bugbear is the fact that many services and companies are switching to online access only. Will the Minister consider whether rural communities’ access to reliable broadband can be assessed before the decision is made to switch a service to online access only?
I have some recent relevant personal experience with the Rural Payments Agency. Last year we completed our forms on paper, but this year my husband and I were told we had to do it online. We had the most ridiculous Saturday afternoon trying to do that. Not only did that mean battling with the poor internet speed but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned, our mobile signal is not good, and we were told to input a text code to the system. I was running around the garden with the phone trying to get the code, so I could shout it to my husband before the five minutes were up and he could input it. That is absurd. It is a ridiculous way to carry on.
I welcome the roll-out of superfast broadband, which is incredibly important to my constituency. Rural areas, as well as the more urban ones that have been described today, must not be disadvantaged. The Government must not assume that there is decent access when they make services online only. As the roll-out continues, will they please take connectivity into account?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing the debate. It is pretty clear from the large attendance that the issue features strongly in our mailbags and inboxes—when people can email us at all.
It would be incredibly easy to knock BT as effectively a monopoly supplier, but that would be too easy a goal. I represent a rural seat, and I am very grateful for the way senior BT executives have made themselves available to come here for meetings to discuss the future and the service. Only 43% of North Dorset is covered by superfast broadband. That might seem to be the Elysian fields to some hon. Members, but in my judgment 43% is not particularly good. I would like the Minister to consider three key points. One is the huge amount of irritation caused by descoping, which is totally bogus in my opinion. I do not think that the contractor—in this case BT—should be allowed to descope areas that it has previously included in its submissions. I am thinking of Durweston and Stourpaine, which are the Blandford 8 cabinet box number in my constituency, and Motcombe and Bourton, which are served by Shaftesbury 15 and 16. Those have suddenly been dropped out, because they appeared either too difficult or too expensive. The rules should not have allowed the possibility for such areas, and indeed many others, to be dropped out of the scope of the contract.
Third parties are also, as I understand it, holding up delivery. I understand that some problems have arisen with regard to wayleaves from the Forestry Commission and in particular, in my constituency, the Crown Estate. If the Minister used his good offices to bring pressure on to those and other executive agencies of the Crown that would be enormously helpful.
We also know, I think, that BT was incredibly heavy-handed in the bidding process. I know from my previous experience as a councillor in Oxfordshire that there was quite a lot of arm twisting by BT at the county council to go totally with BT—otherwise it would not play ball—even though others were trying to come in and fill the gaps. I am sad to say that was also the experience in North Dorset where a community-led initiative, Trailway, wanted to fill the gap, but BT told Dorset County Council clearly that if it supported the group or gave it any cause for hope, BT would walk away from delivery for the whole county. In what, to use the old term, we might call the big society, such community and rural groups, which are well known for their self-sufficiency, resource and ingenuity, are exactly the people we should champion.
That is done and we are where we are, but I ask the Minister to consider putting on pressure in any further discussions and negotiations with BT, so that where it has decided not to fill in the gap, black hole or whatever we care to call it, it must be able to provide all the relevant data and information to community groups and other providers, such as Wessex Internet in my constituency, who want to fill the gap.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend and neighbour agree that the issue is one of the most important for Dorset infrastructure, along with road and rail? It relates to the whole of Dorset—east Dorset, Purbeck and Poole, and we are making the argument for businesses, tourists and residents alike.
Simon Hoare
Prescience about what we might say in our speeches is not restricted to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), because my hon. Friend takes me neatly on to my next point. It is worth while reminding a large company such as BT— I have little or no doubt that it will be listening to the debate with keen interest—that such macrobusinesses have the future of microbusinesses in their hands.
However, it is not just a question of business. Other hon. Members have talked about the importance of broadband connection to schools and colleges. There is a primary school in my constituency, Spetisbury, that has no access to broadband at all, and none in sight. Other hon. Members have spoken about the problems for agriculture. Farmers are increasingly asked to make submissions online, but there are swathes of the Blackmore vale where people might as well try to write on vellum with a quill, for the speed they can manage on the internet. In North Dorset we often call it the superfast bridle path.
Businesses such as Goldhill Organics, an online business in my constituency, and an award-winning maze designer in Durweston, are all significantly held back from growth and the creation of jobs—from bringing people back to paying tax and getting them off the dole queue. That is all fundamentally constrained by an inability to get access in a rapid and reliable way to what I think we would all now agree is effectively a basic utility.
Tourism and events in a rural area are absolutely key. I am thinking of pubs with letting rooms, such as the Talbot in my own village of Iwerne Minster. Again, they are held back from growing their business and seeing a return on their investment. BT has done much and is to be congratulated. We are leading the European league table, but please let us not sacrifice the 5%; please let us not forget the rural areas. In closing, I press again the three key points that I made to the Minister in opening.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on initiating this very important debate. You will be relieved to hear, Mr Pritchard, that my carefully crafted, 10-minute speech will be jettisoned and my comments compacted into two or three minutes, I hope.
First, it would be churlish not to acknowledge the great progress that has been made. An additional 2.5 million homes and businesses were linked up to superfast broadband as of May. However, there has been much talk of the last 5% and peripheral areas, and I want to talk about the peripheral area that I represent. My comments will be very much in the spirit of those from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who talked about his experiences there.
Ceredigion ranks 646th out of the 650 constituencies for internet speed. Superfast broadband is available to 12% of my constituency, ranking it 639th out of the 650. When we reflect on phase 3 of the roll-out, I would like to know from the Minister what timetable we are now operating, because, like other hon. Members, I have many impatient businesses and householders in my constituency. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which I have to say after the great speech earlier is now in the incredibly safe hands of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—I say that as a former coalition Member, but I genuinely mean it—said in February that it wanted a timescale for the final roll-out of phase 3, and we anticipate a response from the Minister on that. I would also be interested to find out the outcome of the research and trials that have been taking place as part of phase 3. This is about the necessity of those new technologies to get to the scattered communities that make up the bulk of my constituency.
The critical issue for me is businesses and the development of a rural economy. Reliable internet access has been identified by 94% of small businesses as essential. Ofcom recently called for lower prices for high-speed business lines, which will be welcome news to many of my constituents —at least, the few who can access high speed—but of course the technology needs to be available in the first place. Many of my local businesses genuinely struggle. Two weeks ago, the Gomer Press, a historic printing firm and a growing business in Llandysul in the south of Ceredigion, approached me with its genuine concerns that the speeds that it is receiving with BT are harming its business, as it struggles to receive the files that are necessary to undertake the printing work required of it.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked about tourism. That is a growing sector in west Wales. I commend to the Minister the Conrah hotel in my constituency, which is a good, four-star hotel. If he comes to west Wales, he should come to that hotel. Its owner, Mr Hughes, tells me that although his broadband is provided by BT, the service is so shockingly bad that most of his clientele are reluctant to come back because of the inadequate broadband. We are letting down key businesses in rural, peripheral areas—key businesses that have a huge impact.
Let me reflect on some other issues. Our constituents are increasingly required to undertake business online. A constituent wrote to me last week about the new Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency regulations for a digital counterpart driving licence. How can that be possible in an area where people will not be able to access the digital component? Other hon. Members have mentioned the members of the farming community who come to us with genuine concerns that they cannot undertake what is required of them, such as the reporting of cattle movements to the British Cattle Movement Service, online completion of single farm payment forms and the checking of market prices. Those are just some of the problems that farmers face. In addition, small businesses have to undertake electronic verification of VAT returns. One constituent was required to register his tax returns and he was fined because he was unable to do so. We managed to get the money back for him. He was told that he could register a paper submission, but when the note came back, the farmer was also told that next time he should go down to the local library, where there would be a broadband connection, to register his tax returns. I would challenge any Member of the House to go to one of the marts in my constituency and tell a farmer to go and register his tax returns online—they would get a spirited response.
This is a matter of necessity and of urgency. I am following your stipulation about time, Mr Pritchard, but we need some immediate action on the matter.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Before making my remarks, I must declare an interest. My husband is director of policy at the broadband provider Sky.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing the debate so soon after becoming a Member. Broadband is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity. For my local small businesses, for my farming community and for local families at home, access to the internet and all that it has to offer is a core requirement of day-to-day life. However, in many places—particularly in rural areas, such as my constituency of Wealden—people have to contend with a limited choice of service providers, slow speeds, regular service blackouts and general unreliability. My Wealden constituents should not have to put up with that in 2015.
I have received a number of complaints from constituents about their broadband services, and they demonstrate how lives can be blighted by broadband difficulties. I will share just two examples. A local mum who runs her own business contacted me about a service blackout that left her without an internet connection for 19 days. Can you imagine, Mr Pritchard, trying to run a business without the internet for 19 days?
However, the problem will not be solved by a roll-out of superfast broadband in the short term, because the problem is with the access network—something that is taken for granted by those pining for an upgrade to the superfast network, but that some of my constituents can only dream of. Any superfast roll-out cannot be at the expense of investment in the access network.
Another constituent, whose house is connected to the Ripe exchange, which is not enabled for fibre service, is in the dark over any possible upgrade. BT’s website shows that his area is in line for one within six months, but that notice has been on the website for 12 months already. My constituent has not been given a provisional timetable by BT, BDUK or the local council detailing when the negotiations will be brought to a conclusion, never mind when any upgrade might finally happen. BT and BDUK must become much more transparent.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I commend to my hon. Friend North Lincolnshire Council, which has done an amazing job of ensuring that at every step of the way residents know what happens. As a result, take-up is way in excess of what was expected. That is in stark contrast to my other local council, East Riding of Yorkshire, where communication with the public has been woeful at times. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This can be done, if local authorities and BT have the desire to do it—and it should be done, so that residents know when they will get their upgrade.
Nusrat Ghani
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.
Beyond the impact on businesses, there is an impact on older people. I am pleased to be the new co-chair of the all-party group for ageing and older people. Addressing ageing and loneliness is a priority of mine. The speed at which technology is changing is frightening for the best of us, but for older people it can be truly isolating. Ensuring that they have access to the internet is not just an economic or technological issue, but a social care issue. We cannot let anyone be left behind or left out.
This and the previous Government have taken encouraging steps with respect to broadband provision. The £1.7 billion being invested is welcome, as is the fact that, according to the Countryside Alliance, 90% of premises will be connected by early 2016. My concern is that the other 10% should not be left behind and that during the roll-out of superfast broadband, the responsibility to deliver basic broadband to those who fall beyond the limits of the BDUK project should not be overlooked.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I are constituency neighbours, sharing a border as we do. Given that 15% of our local residents are self-employed and more than half of them work for small firms, does she agree that this is even more of an issue for us in East Sussex and that it is important that the Government get it right?
Nusrat Ghani
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Most—90%—of my local businesses employ fewer than 10 people, and they tend to be run out of people’s own homes, so having rural broadband, whether the speed is slow or fast, is absolutely imperative. I thank my hon. Friend.
The Government predict that, by 2017, 95% of premises will benefit from speeds of more than 24 megabits; some of my constituents are asking for just 2 megabits, and they are not even getting that. The broadband connection voucher scheme, which allows businesses a grant of up to £3,000 for better and faster broadband, is also welcome, but it does not help my constituents one little bit; it is, for the moment, limited to businesses located within a certain distance of the 50 cities benefiting from the scheme. I hope the Government will consider expanding the scheme’s horizons and work to support other businesses.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I now have to call the Front-Bench spokespeople.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for securing this fascinating debate on an issue that affects everyone in this Chamber—we must ensure that we have effective broadband. I am particularly drawn to the comments of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) about the difficulties he faces in his rural constituency, which I share in Ross, Skye and Lochaber.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) spoke about 4G and 5G filling the gaps where we cannot get fibre broadband, which is one of the big problems in rural areas. We do not even get a 2G signal in large parts of my Eddisbury constituency. That option is simply not available because of the failure of the mobile companies to act in concert.
Ian Blackford
I agree with the hon. Lady. When we talk about the kinds of solution that we need to deliver in rural areas, we cannot consider broadband in isolation. We also need to consider the opportunities that mobile telephony would provide. She is right that it is not only the failure of broadband; it is also the failure of mobile connectivity. I met members of my business community in Lochaber and Fort William last week, and they add weight to that. There are four significant employers. Marine Harvest, for example, is a fish farming business that has great difficulty in connecting at any level with its fish farms around the constituency, which adds costs to the business. The same is true of Ferguson, a transport company, which has the additional cost of having to buy satellite phones so that it can connect with its drivers. That is the kind of cost of being in more disadvantaged parts of the country that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn was talking about. We need cross-party work. There will be opportunities when 5G is introduced in 2016, and we need to ensure that there is a competitive advantage for rural areas by ensuring that rural communities are at the front of the queue, not at the back.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about other methods and technologies, and many villages have asked me whether BT will consider fibre to the remote node options, which can join small groups of, say, 30 properties to a smaller cabinet. That method is being trialled, but BT will not put it into practice. I ask the Minister whether we can try some other methods.
Ian Blackford
I was going to come on to that, because there is clearly an issue, particularly in rural areas, with the distances from cabinets, which result in the degradation of broadband speeds. We talk about the delivery of superfast broadband, but the reality is that it is not superfast, so nodes, satellites and other such things must be considered in rural areas if we are determined to get it right.
Time is marching on, so I will omit many of the remarks that I was going to make. John Swinney, a colleague of mine in the Scottish Parliament, wrote to the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy in March 2015 calling for the introduction of a universal service obligation for broadband that would ensure that everyone in Scotland, and elsewhere in the UK, could access affordable high-speed broadband. The UK has a telecoms universal service obligation, which entitles every property in the UK to a telephone line, but it contains no meaningful provision for broadband, which it should. A broadband universal service obligation, working alongside significant Scottish Government investment, would help to address the digital divide and ensure that everyone in Scotland could access broadband services, regardless of where they lived.
All, regardless of location, deserve to benefit from the opportunities of connectivity. A recent report by the Boston Consulting Group stated that internet-related activity in the UK accounted for 8.3% of GDP in 2010, and it forecasts that that will increase to 12.4% by 2016. Data traffic is exploding worldwide, growing at a compound rate of 23%. To be able to compete, it is clear that our connectivity infrastructure has to be fit for purpose. Many UK cities such as Peterborough, York and Coventry, and Aberdeen and Edinburgh in Scotland, are seeing the development of fibre rings that will deliver speeds of up to 1 gigabit. The leader of Peterborough City Council stated that the development is the most important event in Peterborough since the arrival of the railway. I tend to agree, and I welcome the opportunity of superfast broadband from which businesses and consumers will benefit in those cities, but it raises the challenge of ensuring that we deliver appropriate connectivity in rural areas.
My SNP colleagues from rural constituencies and I are looking forward to working with hon. Members from other parties who face the same challenges as we do. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report on rural broadband and digital-only services, which was published in January 2015, graphically pointed to the challenges and opportunities to be met. The last sentence of the summary states:
“It is vital that the last premises in the UK to have access to basic and superfast broadband are treated just as well as the first premises and are not left behind or forgotten.”
There are particular challenges with the incumbent technology of fibre to the cabinet, in which the ultimate connection is by copper wire, and consequently we have the degradation of broadband speeds. As the report states:
“The fact that Fibre to the Cabinet is not a suitable solution in every circumstance or every community means that alternative solutions, such as wider satellite coverage or Fibre to the Remote Node, are necessary. Alternative solutions are required not only to ensure that the current commitments of basic and superfast broadband are met but also to ensure that the infrastructure being deployed is future proof and able to meet demands for increasing broadband speeds.”
It is in that context that the plans for next-generation capabilities, particularly 5G, are critical. We need to debate how effective mobile coverage in rural areas, and technologies such as 5G, could allow us to deliver efficient and effective broadband capabilities. The opportunities that the connected cities will have mean that the Government have to consider how we create competitive opportunities in rural areas. My party and I welcome many of the improvements.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that inviting in other technology providers is an option, albeit one that could prejudice access to Government money by showing that there is no market failure? That would leave a legacy of high costs for individuals in the provision of broadband.
Ian Blackford
That is a reasonable point. In the context of what we did in highland, rural and urban areas of Scotland, we suffered from the fact that there was no potential provider other than BT. We need to ensure that there are people who can provide such services at the right cost, whether in Scotland or in the rest of the UK.
My party and I welcome many of the improvements that are being delivered today in both urban and rural areas of the UK. However, more has to be done so that everyone can share in the opportunities that superfast broadband can deliver.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
As you know, Mr Pritchard, some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them. I have never quite worked out which it is with you. [Interruption.] I missed that, I am glad to say.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I think the shadow Minister has said enough. I call the Minister—[Laughter.] No, I’m kidding.
Chris Bryant
Fortunately, Mr Pritchard, you cannot call a Division in this Chamber, so we cannot put that to the test.
It is a great delight to take part in this debate, and it is also a great delight to see the Chamber so full, which is unusual. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) has chosen the right subject, on which I congratulate him. I look forward to hearing a great deal more from him. I hope he will be a little less opaque about BT and Openreach in future. He is no longer a journalist, and he is allowed to say what he thinks, even if Whips are listening in. An awful lot of Members now have significant concerns and will be carefully watching Ofcom’s inquiry into the roll-out and the relationship between BT and Openreach. We want to ensure fair and open competition, but we do not want to dismantle a company for the sake of some kind of prejudice.
The hon. Gentleman referred to this being the most important infrastructure roll-out in his lifetime. I hope he will have a long and fruitful life, and who knows what the future may bring? In my constituency, the roll-out of mobile has been complicated and difficult. I know that because when I wrote a letter demanding that Tony Blair stand down as Prime Minister, fortunately I had no mobile coverage in my house, so no journalists were able to get me for at least four days.
The point has been well made by many hon. Members that peripheral economies come in many different shapes and sizes. All too often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has said, the infrastructure problems with broadband also relate to physical access, roads, buses, transport and everything else. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) is saying.
Chris Bryant
I am not sure what devolution has to do with this particular issue. [Interruption.] If the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy wants to make a contribution, I am sure he might catch your eye later, Mr Pritchard, if I sit down. [Laughter.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made several points and said that the market is not working— many hon. Members have rightly expressed concern about how we have assessed state aid and market failure—and I am not sure that it has really delivered the significant outcomes that we would all like to have been achieved for the significant amount of money that the Government have put in.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) gave what I can only describe as a Julius Caesar speech, as its basic tenor was, “I come to bury Vaizey, not to praise him.” He made his points better than I can, so I will not make them again.
Throughout the previous Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) consistently made points about how his constituents are affected, and he was absolutely right to do so. It is good that he can now get emails on the matter, even if many in his constituency still find it difficult to get superfast broadband.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field)—I note that most constituencies have two names in them; few are as concise as Rhondda, unlike the Member for Rhondda—made the important point that the issue is not only about rural constituencies. Some of the most intractable problems relate to cities. For instance, all the cabling on the south bank of the Thames runs in and out of the side of the river, which makes for very difficult contention ratios along long copper wires. That has still not been resolved in many cases, so he is absolutely right.
Chris Bryant
We want to hear from the Minister fairly soon, so I am tempted to try to stop sooner—oh, all right, the hon. Gentleman is very beguiling.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is characteristically generous and courteous in giving way. Some hon. Members have rightly ensured that urban broadband has not been neglected in this debate. Nevertheless, does he agree that it is vital to retain a focus and determination to prioritise coverage in villages such as Seagrave and Thrussington in my constituency and in rural “not spots”?
Chris Bryant
Since the Rhondda is often described as semi-rural or semi-urban, I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman and—sitting next to him—the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, which is having one’s cake and eating it. However, the points are well made. In the end, universality is what we are trying to achieve, which is what we are not achieving as yet.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made a worrying point about BT’s aggressive bidding process. I hope that BT will have heard it. I am sure it will: there is probably someone from BT sitting in the Public Gallery, or watching on TV or via broadband. Who knows—perhaps they have superfast. But the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to talk about filling in the gap.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) has one of the worst sets of problems of all 646 constituencies. His points are well made and I hope the Minister will be able to answer them. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) is a new colleague who, like many others, is already raising matters of significant concern to her constituents. I am sure she will continue to do so, and we hope to hear from the Minister on them. The hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) made important points about the access network. Since we politicians are not necessarily experts in every aspect of technology, we sometimes get focused on broadband speeds to the detriment of other aspects of competition that also affect the subject.
I was slightly nervous about an SNP Member sitting behind me—at my back, as it were: the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I kept thinking of Andrew Marvell and “always at my back I hear the SNP horribly near”. However, the hon. Gentleman made some important points. If he can act as my PPS, that will be very helpful in these debates.
We all agree on the centrality of superfast broadband. That is absolutely clear. For home entertainment, many people now watch television via broadband, including—ironically enough, since much of this is being funded out of the licence fee—the BBC iPlayer. Also, children might be upstairs watching television programmes, playing audio-visual games on tablets, using Spotify and so on. The NHS relies on broadband not only for the booking of appointments, but for passing notes from doctors to hospitals and for the examination of X-rays, often in other parts of the world. Schools and children being able to do their homework have already been referred to. Of course, increasingly, the Department for Work and Pensions wants to move to a model where everything is done on the internet, which will require superfast broadband and reliable connections.
The creative industries now represent one in 12 jobs in this country. We can add value and guarantee our economic future by supporting our creative industries. Superfast broadband with speeds of at least 24 megabits per second, and I suspect considerably more in future, is going to be important to our economic future. It is in a sense a utility as important and as essential as electricity.
We all agree that some significant progress has been made, but the symbolic fact that so many Members from all political parties are here on behalf of our constituents is an indication to the Minister that not enough progress has been made. Phase one and phase two of the project aim to get to 95% of all premises by 2017. I originally thought that it would be the beginning of 2017. Since the Government had originally said it would be by May 2015, that was a legitimate expectation, but the Government are now talking about the end of 2017 for that target to be met.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury referred to the fact that some people still cannot even get the 2 megabits per second. That is a dramatic problem for people running the most basic of businesses that have to relate to the wider world, because everybody has at least a website and some means of getting in touch with a business online.
Our original target of 2012 has not been met, and the Government bear a measure of responsibility for that. I notice that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness referred to Prime Minister’s questions. I have heard the Prime Minister referring to the mobile infrastructure project many times. Some £150 million is devoted to it. It is meant to get to 60,000 properties, but, so far, it has got to just 1% of those in three years. so I think that the hands-off approach has not been suitable.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. The Standing Orders for Westminster Hall debates have changed. If Members have not seen them, I encourage them to read them. Matt Warman is entitled to wind up the debate, subject to the Minister allowing time.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I say that to all the Chairmen, but in your case I really mean it. You have your own experience of the broadband roll-out programme, because your Labour council refused to take part in the phase 1 programme; having seen how successful phase 1 has been, it has now, I gather, set up to take part in phase 2. That is down explicitly to the actions of the brilliant Conservative MPs in the area, who persuaded the Labour council to come on board the programme and connect 8,000 premises that otherwise would not have been connected.
I do not know whether to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing this debate, but I should thank him for bringing so many hon. Friends and colleagues here to support me this afternoon on a complex and difficult programme. I certainly thank him for the email he circulated earlier today:
“You may be interested to know that in my own county of Lincolnshire, BT’s rollout is ahead of schedule and well under budget.”
I think that that is true in many areas.
I shall give a brief history of time on behalf of my hon. Friends. Everyone knows that when we came into government, we found that the previous Labour Government did not have a plan to help get broadband out. They talked about a 2 megabit commitment for the end of 2012, but they had not put anything in place for that. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), when he was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, rightly decided that we had to push further and go for superfast broadband from the get-go. He knew full well that, if we had rolled out 2 megabits, I might have been able to stand up in this Chamber and say that we had achieved that, but all hon. Members would be screaming for superfast broadband. He made the right decision.
We set it out that phase 1 would cover 90% of UK premises and on many occasions I had to appear in front of the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the then Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, following various National Audit Office reports, and hear that we would not make that target. Indeed, I recall that some journalists in the sector thought that the target was too stretching and could not be achieved. However, lo and behold, by the end of 2015—or early-2016 at the latest—we will have reached it. In fact, we will shortly announce that we have exceeded 3 million premises, as the figures are increasing by 40,000 premises a week.
This is a complex engineering job that does not involve simply turning up at a doorstep and flicking a switch. An expensive cabinet, which needs power, needs to be put in and then it needs fibre run from it back to the exchange. All that requires highways, planning and power.
Meg Hillier
The Minister will also be aware that the Public Accounts Committee called for local government and BT to make further information available—including, critically, information about the speed of service. Is he content that his Government have done that?
Mr Vaizey
If someone goes to gosuperfast, a website provided by the Government, they can type in their postcode and find out whether they have access to BT Openreach, which gives access to Sky, TalkTalk and other over-the-top providers—or, indeed, access to Virgin Media. It is important to remember that this is an engineering project and some of the tasks achieved, such as getting fibre to the Scilly Isles, rank among the most complex engineering phases.
I will not go through every single speech—they were all brilliant, but there were a lot of them. Let me take two quick examples. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) talked about the need for rural areas to come first, but his area is a classic example for why the scheme matters. Precisely no premises in his constituency were due to get commercial superfast broadband from BT or any of the rivals that often say that they could do the job better because such investment is not economic. However, 93% of his constituents will get superfast broadband under the scheme, including those—[Interruption.] That is what is being delivered under the scheme. This is what we are up against: when superfast broadband is delivered to Opposition Members, they do not want to give us any credit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke with great passion and asked what I was doing to help him. This morning, I had another meeting with BDUK to discuss getting the contract signed for connecting Devon and Somerset and I have such meetings all the time to get local authorities together with BT. We have already provided £110 million for Devon and Somerset. We have passed 143,000 premises and we are due to pass 300,000.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I recognise the huge improvements that have been made and the manifesto commitment to roll out ultrafast broadband to premises as soon as possible. However, are we being ambitious enough? Australia will be delivering 100 megabit broadband to 93% of premises by 2021, Finland will deliver that by 2015 and South Korea will deliver 1 gigabit by 2017. According to a London School of Economics report, the Government’s investment—
Mr Vaizey
I have got my hon. Friend’s point; I am running out of time. We are being ambitious enough for him because we support him. That is why 100% of Torbay will get superfast broadband under our scheme—[Interruption.] Sorry, I got the wrong name—I heard the Chairman give the wrong name!
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Before the Minister completes his comments, I should say that there has been a lot of talk about roll-out but not so much about take-up. Will he refer to the fact that, in parts of Wales, take-up of this fantastic scheme is still in the low-20s? Everyone seems to think that that is someone else’s problem, so will he clear that up?
Mr Vaizey
I will. Take-up is extremely important and the good thing is that take-up brings money back into the scheme. For example, the money set aside to get superfast broadband to Cornwall was due to get coverage to 80%, but because of high take-up we have reached 95%.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—I got his constituency spectacularly wrong; I hope he will forgive me—mentioned other jurisdictions. He will be pleased to know that the previous Australian Government lost the election because their broadband plan was so poor. If he believes that those Australian plans will happen, he will have to think again. They are busily trying to revise their programme because it was far too expensive and due to deliver far too late.
All my hon. Friends will have the note from the Library that puts us first in almost every category in the big five in the EU. Analysis published today by Enders Analysis again puts us top on access to speeds of 30 megabits. We are beating the Germans, the French, the Italians and the Spanish on that as well as on average internet connection speed. Because that scheme has been so successful, we have gone on to phase 2, which is 95% coverage. That is also why we have signed almost every single contract apart from Devon and Somerset, which I hope we will sign on Friday. We can then get on to start planning how we will get to 95%.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister said that the cabinets are expensive. The European Commission’s report by Oxera, which evaluates the UK scheme, has a chart on page 4.5 that should say how expensive the cabinets are, but unfortunately that page is blank—it has been edited out. I happen to have got hold of that chart and it looks like cabinets are a lot cheaper than BT said. In particular, when Olivia Garfield, the former head of BT Openreach, said in “Strike Up Broadband” on 13 December 2013 that cabinets cost £100,000, she was, to use a technical term, talking crap, was she not?
Mr Vaizey
I do not know whether that is a technical term. I do know, however, that in my hon. Friend’s constituency some 33,000 premises will be delivered superfast broadband thanks to the plan. He will also know that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have validated the scheme for value for money. No contractor pays BT until the work is done and BT presents invoices, and the scheme is audited regularly.
Phase 2 is going ahead. Phase 3 is about no one being left behind, which is the theme of the debate. The key point about that last 5% is that we do not know how much it will cost. Back of an envelope costings can run into billions, but we need a proper figure. That is why we have launched the pilots, some of which are already delivering broadband connections to people all over the country. Better still, they give us an idea of the kinds of technology we can use to get to that 5%. That will include suppliers other than BT and other technologies that BT and others are using, such as wireless and satellite.
Hon. Members have talked about businesses. We do not want to leave businesses behind. That is why we have launched our successful business voucher superfast broadband scheme. This morning, we announced that that scheme has delivered vouchers to 25,000 small businesses in cities up and down the country. Better still, there is now more competition in the market. Virgin Media announced £3 billion of investment because of the success of our scheme. TalkTalk announced a 1 gigabit offer in York and it will roll that out to other cities. BT has invested £3 billion of its own money and let us not forget that we have the fastest 4G roll-out and take-up anywhere in the world.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify the timing of phase 3 for the final 5%?
Mr Vaizey
We hope to set out our proposals on phase 3 later this year. We are working on a series of proposals that we will look at in some detail and hopefully we will present those and take them forward. However, this is obviously a complex issue. Let us not forget that we are talking about the most difficult and expensive-to-reach premises. However, we do want to reach them; that is why we will carry out the scheme.
This is an unequivocal success story. I look forward to coming together again with all my hon. Friends and other hon. Members when we announce that we have reached the 3 million milestone. That may be in the summer recess, so I will invite them all to join me at a suitable seaside resort to make that announcement and release some balloons. Otherwise, they may want to put out press releases in their constituencies that tell their constituents how hugely successful the scheme is.
However, I do not want to be flippant or facetious. We have not forgotten those who need broadband. The tone of the debate was absolutely right. We are at a critical point where the engineering scheme we are rolling out is meeting the almost universal demand from our constituents for broadband. As a constituency MP, I know that those who get broadband under the scheme do not always say “thank you”—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Free Childcare and Nursery Providers
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered free childcare provision and nursery providers.
It is a privilege—[Interruption.]
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt. Would Members leave the Chamber quietly, please?
Julian Sturdy
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Bone, and to have secured this debate.
As was made clear in the Queen’s Speech, the Government are introducing measures to help working people by increasing the provision of free childcare. The announcement was welcomed by many people up and down the country and in my constituency, and it provides us with a great opportunity to launch a full review of childcare funding.
I secured a debate in this Chamber on nursery funding back in 2013, in which I explained that one of the main reasons for the continuing rise in childcare costs is the fact that nursery providers have to cross-subsidise the free entitlement funding provided by the Government. I stated that although the Government are the biggest procurer of nursery places, they are the worst culprits when it comes to paying for the places they procure. I am sorry to say that little has changed since then. For years, free provision has been subsidised by providers and parents due to a lack of adequate funding.
Doubling provision should benefit parents in my constituency and across the country. However, there is a danger that not implementing the change properly will lead to a more expensive system and more expensive childcare from the outset. The free hours could ultimately harm the very people the policy is supposed to help.
The Government have promised to include in the Childcare Bill a proposal to double free provision for three and four-year-olds in England. The current allowance is 570 hours of free early education or childcare a year, which works out at 15 hours a week for 38 weeks. It is thought that up to 600,000 families could benefit from the doubling of the provision and save as much as £5,000 a year. The change is due to come into force in September 2017, although there will be pilots in September 2016.
I have two children of my own, so I am fully aware of how expensive childcare can be. The cost of childcare is one of the biggest barriers that the UK’s 2 million single parents face to finding and staying in work. I therefore want to make it clear that I welcome and support the policy. At the same time, however, I want to offer a word of caution about the policy’s implementation and the impact it could have on nursery providers.
Since the announcement in the Queen’s Speech, I have been approached by several owners of nurseries in my constituency, who have all been keen to get clarity about exactly what the policy will mean for their businesses. Among them were the owners of Station House children’s day nursery in Dunnington and of Polly Anna’s nursery in Haxby. Both providers see the benefits of such a policy, but they agree that providers will be able to offer the increased number of hours only if the funding covers the cost of provision. In many areas, it does not.
Over the past few years, I have had the privilege of visiting a number of nurseries in my constituency—Little Green Rascals near Elvington, Sunshine day nursery in Huntington, Tiddlywinks in Osbaldwick, Quackers in Copmanthorpe and Polly Anna’s nursery in Haxby, to name but a few. Having met the owners of those nurseries and kept in contact with them over various funding issues, it is clear to me that they do a tremendous job. Nurseries carry out an essential service for parents and families, not just in my constituency but across the country. However, that essential service is increasingly under threat as a direct result of the funding issues.
As we all know, parents in the UK receive help with their childcare through free early education. In England, central Government allocate money to local authorities through the early years block of the dedicated school grant, with an estimated total spend of £2.2 million a year. However, there is a great disparity across the country in how much is spent on childcare by individual local authorities. Therein lies the problem. The National Audit Office found that free entitlement varied from £2.78 to £5.18 an hour, and that the national average was £3.95. My constituency receives only £3.38 an hour from City of York Council. The sad truth is that funding for the 15 hours a week of free provision falls well short of the cost. To be precise, the shortfall is about £800 a child, which results in nurseries running at a loss for those 15 hours. They therefore have to subsidise that loss through the price of childcare outside the free entitlement hours.
Following my previous debate, which centred on those issues, I secured a meeting with the former Minister to raise my concerns face to face, alongside a group of local nursery providers from York. The Government have been aware of the problem for some time. The Minister has been proactive in his discussions with nursery providers, and has met providers from my constituency. Some positive news is starting to come out, including the announcement that the Minister will oversee a funding review of the entitlement, which is due to start in the next few weeks.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s commitment to raising the hourly funding rates paid to providers for places. However, the review is being undertaken at a time when costs to nursery providers are set to increase further, with pension auto-enrolment responsibilities coming in for many small and medium-sized nurseries. The pressure increases when the payment for funded hours is delayed. More than 40% of local authorities are paying more than a month after the start of term, although, as we all know, the law requires them to pay within 30 days.
I am acutely aware that the burden of business rates and VAT is continuing to push up the cost of childcare, which constrains the ability of nurseries to offer more places. The average annual business rate paid by nurseries is almost £16,000, which is why I welcomed the intervention of the Department for Communities and Local Government. In January, it wrote to all English local authorities to ask them to consider granting business rate relief to childcare providers. Local authorities have had that power since the Localism Act 2011 came into force, and the Government will fund 50% of any discretionary relief schemes that councils introduce.
Following the DCLG’s announcement, I wrote to my local authority, City of York Council, to ask it to consider granting business rate relief to childcare providers in the area. Sadly, it refused. Interestingly, when the chief executive addressed the National Day Nurseries Association conference earlier this month, she reported that she had written to every local authority in England on the issue, but had been told that none would be implementing business rate relief for nurseries, which I find extremely disappointing.
Although there are political differences over childcare policy, there is broad support for the current approach of both supply-side and demand-side subsidies. However, compared with many other developed countries, the public funding of childcare in the UK is complicated to say the least. It is complex and expensive to administer for Governments and complex for providers and parents. I therefore believe that the policy to double free provision for three and four-year-olds provides a perfect opportunity to launch a full review of childcare funding and set in place the changes that will ensure simplicity, progressive levels of support, quality—that is absolutely key in this field—and accessibility.
Take-up of the current 15 hours of free provision for three to four-year-olds is at 96%, but it is much lower for two-year-olds. That is because some providers have opted out because they believe that the hourly funding rate is not financially sustainable. Many nurseries operate complex cross-subsidy mechanisms, and they rely on working parents of three and four-year-old children to purchase extra hours on top of their existing 15 hours of free provision. As I have made clear throughout the debate, I have sympathy with providers regarding underfunding. I hope that the upcoming funding review led by the Minister will bring meaningful reform.
Only quality provision helps narrow the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. The owner of Polly Anna’s nursery in Haxby in my constituency told me that when he opened his nursery in the early 1990s, only doctors and accountants could use it; it was unusual for women to go back to work. Now we have flexible working, and free childcare has opened up day care to a range of families. Doubling free provision will only add to that trend, but it can be successful only if it goes hand in hand with a full review of childcare funding.
Money is allocated to local authorities through the dedicated schools grant. For three and four-year-olds, the rate per pupil is largely determined by historical precedent; it is not based on the characteristics and needs of the children. Early years funding should be brought more closely in line with schools funding, whereby money is allocated on the basis of a larger number of criteria, which include pupil numbers, deprivation and attainment to name a few. That would ensure that funding matched children’s needs and the cost to providers of providing early education. In addition, we could consider a national formula with two rates—one for London and one for the rest of England—similar to the funding formula for two-year-olds, which is fairer and more transparent. Local authorities receive a flat hourly rate per child of £4.85, supplemented by an area cost adjustment in places where wages are higher. That would be a much clearer funding system and would help to streamline the number of complex formulas in place.
Overall, although childcare represents a significant outlay to parents, it is important to remember that by its very nature it will always be expensive. It is not fair to suggest that high childcare costs are simply the result of providers charging high fees to hard-pressed parents. The reality is more complex. Childcare should never be provided on the cheap, and we must ensure that measures to make it more affordable do not compromise its quality. For me, that is crucial. Although successive Governments have increased help with childcare costs, parents in Britain still spend a higher proportion of their income on childcare than parents in most other developed countries. On top of that, some childcare providers struggle to break even. All that is indicative of a childcare system that is not working.
I view the proposals to double free childcare provision as an opportunity to fix these long-standing problems once and for all. We have a chance to make a real change to help not only nursery providers but parents who use such facilities, and I hope the Government will grasp it with both hands. I am encouraged by what I have heard from the Minister in our previous conversations on the issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) for the opportunity to have this debate. It is timely in the light of the Government’s commitment to double the free childcare available for working families. Like him, I am a father; I have a 14-month-old who goes to nursery, so I experience the childcare market from the point of view of a parent, not just a politician sitting in Westminster making decisions about the sector.
My hon. Friend dwelt on the challenges that the nursery sector faces, but I would like to counter that: the childcare market is much broader than the nursery sector. The vast majority of places are provided by private, voluntary and independent providers. We also have childminders and school nurseries, but the bulk of the formal childcare that the Department is concerned with is provided by those three sectors. When we talk about the market and the challenges it faces, it is important to recognise how broad the market is and the different types of service offered. For example, childminders offer childcare in a domestic setting, whereas nurseries are more of an organisation and children are taken to them. Each provides slightly different challenges to and opportunities for parents.
For many families with young children, childcare is not an issue, but the issue. Many parents want to go back to work or work more hours, but find that the cost of childcare makes doing so unaffordable. The Government want to reward hard-working families by reducing their childcare bill. That said, policies are not just about the parents; we also recognise that childcare is about the child. A lot of development happens in the early years, so the quality of childcare provision is as important as making childcare available. That brings me to the key challenge we face in the sector: how do we make childcare affordable, ensure sufficient quality and ensure that it is available in the form that parents want? Every parent knows that the childcare needs of parents are not consistently the same across the board.
In responding to my hon. Friend, I will take the opportunity to make general points about our childcare policy. I am proud of our record to date. We are the first to fund 15 hours of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds as well as 40% of two-year-olds. We legislated to introduce tax-free childcare; the 1.8 million families who want to buy additional hours can get up to £2,000 off per child per year. It is important that the policy applies to children from age nought to 17, in the case of children with disabilities. Tax-free childcare can help parents not only with childcare in the early years, but with wrap-around care, whether that is breakfast or after-school clubs. We have also increased the child element of tax credits and introduced shared parental leave.
We need to do more to ensure that we are enabling families to make the choices that are best for their circumstances. In doing so, it is worth recognising, as my hon. Friend implied throughout his speech, that in many cases it is businesses that are delivering these services for parents, so we need to ensure that the funding is sustainable. That is why we have talked about implementing the funding rate for the new 15 hours in a way that is not only fair but sustainable, to ensure—crucially—that children have the best start in life, with affordable, safe and high-quality childcare.
More broadly, our businesses and economy depend on working parents, who themselves depend on access to high-quality childcare. However, what the childcare and early years survey tells us is that 22% of working parents have found it difficult or very difficult to pay for childcare; for lone working parents, the figure rises to 38%, so there is a lot more that can be done.
The conundrum is that the Government already invest £5 billion per annum to support parents with childcare. How can we be in a situation where we are spending that money yet some parents still say that they find the cost of childcare to be too high? The Childcare Bill will take further the support that parents can get, delivering on our manifesto commitment to support children at every stage of their life.
We will extend the entitlement of 570 hours for all three and four-year-olds, and I am happy to report that take-up of the existing entitlement in York is already higher than the average. With the new entitlement, working families will receive more childcare support than ever. It will guarantee them about 1,140 hours of free childcare, worth more than £5,000 a year per child.
I will make a comment about the funding rate, which was a key part of my hon. Friend’s speech. Yes, we need to look at the funding rate for the first 15 hours as well as for the second 15 hours, and I hear the complaints that nursery providers have made. However, it is worth making it very clear that the impact of the funding rate on a business is as a result of a number of factors and not just the rate itself, although it is important. For example, whether or not the local authority top-slices the funding that goes from central Government to providers determines whether providers receive more or less than the rate that central Government determine. Also, the flexibility that local authorities allow providers to deliver their 15 hours is important, because if local authorities are quite inflexible in the scope for providers to allocate the 15 hours in a way that works best for their business, that will invariably impact on the profitability of providers. Thirdly, the business model decisions that operators make impact on how far that money can go. When we consider the sustainability of this model, we need to look at all those things in the round, as well as obviously focusing on the funding rate available.
To support the market beyond the funding rate, I worked with the Department for Communities and Local Government in the last Parliament, urging local authorities to work with childcare providers and to ensure that charitable and non-profit providers benefit from the business rate relief that they are entitled to. Any nurseries that are registered charities will already benefit from rate relief. The smallest providers, including childminders, benefit from small business rate relief, although any further relief would require local authority discretionary relief.
I heard what my hon. Friend said about local authorities granting or not granting that relief. I intend to continue to work with the National Day Nurseries Association to find ways to ensure that the necessary action is taken to help reduce the cost of provision for childcare providers. I understand where he is coming from and I will take action, as he suggests.
Having said that, I counter the idea that somehow the childcare day market is not thriving; in fact, I would say that the opposite is true. The childcare day market for children aged from zero to five is vibrant and thriving. In 2013-14, it was estimated at £4.9 billion, which means it is about a third larger than it was a decade ago. The number of places in the sector has gone up by 12%, and roughly 230,000 places were created between 2009 and 2015. We recognise the challenges, but those are signs of a sector that is rising to those challenges.
To help the sector meet those challenges we are listening to its input. I have announced a review on the cost of providing childcare and it is now under way, with more than 300 responses in the first 24 hours or so. Clearly, the sector is aware of and engaging with the call for evidence. The review will report in the autumn and I encourage providers in York and throughout the country to respond.
As my hon. Friend pointed out and as I touched on earlier, the issue is not only about the funding rate, but about payment practices. I have heard that from all sorts of providers, including some of the largest ones in the sector, so we will be looking at that. The average paid to local authorities by central Government is about £4.51 per hour for three and four-year-olds; that is in excess of what he said providers in his York constituency are receiving. In fact, that rate is higher than the one in the Family and Childcare Trust survey, which showed that an average nursery is charged £4.47 per hour for children aged two and over. That is an indication of why we need to look at what is happening between the rate set by central Government and the rate received by providers. Why does it differ so much between local authorities and between types of provider? That is not to say that we do not accept the need to look at the overall rate, but we need to look at the other aspects as well.
My hon. Friend touched on the funding formula, but the funding system for three and four-year-olds includes historical inconsistencies that result in large variations in funding distribution between local authorities. There are also variations in the funding passed on by local authorities to providers. In the previous Parliament, we started to look seriously at such problems to create greater transparency for parents and providers. We now publish an annual benchmarking tool that lists every council’s funding and how much it passes on to different providers. That should help parents and providers to have informed conversations with councils, but should also hold them to account. I am confident that if we look at all such things seriously, the extended entitlement will provide an opportunity for existing providers to expand and for new providers to enter the market, giving parents choice and helping to build our economy.
The market is healthy and growing. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that in York 4Children has developed a fantastic childcare hub with a blended childcare offer, where schools and private, voluntary and independent providers are working together to provide high-quality childcare. That is one example of innovation in the sector that can be used to boost capacity, higher quality and flexibility for parents. Generally, to be able to deliver for parents in a cost-effective way we need more of such innovation, rather than having a sector that operates in silos.
My hon. Friend talked about nursery provision. Many maintained nursery schools deliver the highest quality early education, often in disadvantaged areas where it can make the greatest difference. I fully support such schools, because they are delivering high quality. We will ensure that they, as well as private and voluntary providers, can continue to thrive.
I am also proud to say that the quality of providers continues to improve. In York, 91% of early years settings are rated as good or outstanding, compared with 80% nationally. That is an encouraging statistic. Additionally, 64% of children in York achieved a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile, compared with 60% nationally in 2014. The Government’s childcare policy will have a direct and significant impact on the lives of children and families throughout the country. It is right that it should be subject to the most thorough scrutiny, such as that from my hon. Friend this afternoon.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
National Breastfeeding Week
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered National Breastfeeding Week.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to be lucky enough to have secured this debate during National Breastfeeding Week. I welcome Members in the Chamber and those who are breastfeeding as they watch our proceedings online.
Members well versed in social media might have noted that some great breastfeeding stories are circulating on Twitter under #celebratebreastfeeding—
Alison Thewliss
As I was saying before the Division, celebrating breastfeeding is the theme of this National Breastfeeding Week, and there is much to celebrate about that remarkable human act. Although completely natural, breastfeeding is also a skill that mothers and babies must learn together, and is not without its difficulties. I acknowledge that some women cannot breastfeed and others choose not to, and in holding this debate I do not seek in any way to judge them—those bottle feeding also require assistance and advice.
I will talk briefly about my experience of breastfeeding and why I am so committed to promoting it, before touching on its health and societal benefits. The UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world, and lags far behind comparable nations in the OECD. There is a lot we can do to improve the experience of families in our constituencies.
I have breastfed both of my children, and despite being in this place from Monday to Thursday have managed to persevere in feeding my one-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Kirsty. She is not here today as a visual aid but in fact is in nursery in Glasgow, so my determination has been at some personal discomfort. When I had my son I was a local councillor in Glasgow and took the view that I could not take the time off work for maternity leave, so I combined my role with being a mum. During the past five years I have fed my children while fully participating in meetings of Glasgow City Council, and have been made very welcome in doing so by my colleagues. That the right to feed is enshrined in law in Scotland has been a real reassurance to me, and whether I have been feeding in a café, waiting for a bus, or in the stand at Hampden—I have been lucky in securing the backing of the tartan army for giving the wee man his tea at the game—I have been made welcome.
My colleague and good friend Aileen Campbell MSP, Scotland’s Minister for Children and Young People, has taken her own children, Angus and Crawford, into the Scottish Parliament Chamber; her youngest was with her during a stage 3 debate just the other week. Aileen and I are lucky, as not many mothers can do that at their work. I understand from speaking to colleagues that doing something similar in this place would be frowned upon. I seek to gently challenge that. We should take a lead and seek to be creative in how we support women to continue breastfeeding in all workplaces once they return from maternity leave.
It is 10 years since the historic Breastfeeding etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 put on the statute book the right to breastfeed in public places in Scotland. It is:
“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make it an offence to prevent or stop a person in charge of a child who is otherwise permitted to be in a public place or licensed premises from feeding milk to that child in that place or on those premises; to make provision in relation to the promotion of breastfeeding; and for connected purposes.”
That important piece of legislation was a Member’s Bill proposed by the Labour MSP Elaine Smith. I pay tribute to her today for the work she did to make it possible for so many women in Scotland to breastfeed secure in the knowledge that no one has the right to stop them.
There are now greater rights in England and Wales, afforded by the Equality Act 2010, under which discriminating against a woman because she was feeding a child became unlawful. That is significant, and I commend all who made it happen. We far too often see tabloid tales of mothers being shamed for the simple act of feeding a hungry child. That is completely unacceptable, and every such story destroys women’s confidence; they need to hear from their elected representatives that breastfeeding is welcomed and that they are supported.
Getting the right support is absolutely crucial. Without that and without information, establishing breastfeeding can be incredibly difficult. As I said, breastfeeding is natural, but it is not easy. Without the assistance of the breastfeeding counsellors at the Princess Royal maternity hospital in Glasgow, who sat with me through the tears and the pain, I may have given up myself. Not all women will have experience of breastfeeding within their families or peer groups. Good public health information must be there to counter the ever-present adverts for bottles and formula milk, as well as perceptions and prejudices.
I recall that, at an event in Glasgow, Councillor Jim Coleman told me how women in some parts of the city were made to feel that breastfeeding was evidence that someone could not afford to buy formula. We know that runs absolutely counter to all wisdom on the benefits of breastfeeding, but those kinds of old wives’ tales persist and must be challenged by people in those communities.
Since this debate was announced, I have been contacted by various individuals and by organisations including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Midwives, the Breastfeeding Network, the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative, the UNICEF “Baby Friendly” initiative and the National Infant Feeding Network. I am grateful for the extensive briefings they have provided.
The organisations all reinforced the need for support. Their evidence demonstrates that women start breastfeeding, and initiation rates have risen from 62% in 1990 to 81% in 2010. But the drop-off rates are staggering: only 17% are still exclusively breastfeeding at three months, 12% at four months and 1% at six months. There are also huge variations across social class; other factors include deprivation, maternal education, age and ethnicity.
Scotland is lagging behind, and the Scottish Government are putting strategies in place to tackle that; they also held a summit on breastfeeding in February. Recent figures from the “Growing Up in Scotland” cohort survey found that breastfeeding was strongly associated with multiple socioeconomic factors. For example, 60% of degree-educated mothers exclusively breastfed to six weeks or more, compared with 18% of those with standard grades; 53% of mothers living in the least deprived areas breastfed exclusively to six weeks, compared with only 21% in the most deprived areas; and 45% of mothers in their 30s and 41% of those aged 40 or older at their child’s birth exclusively breastfed to six weeks or more, compared with 35% of mothers in their 20s and only 12% of teenage mothers.
Members will be aware that breastfeeding is good for maternal and infant health. Benefits to children from breastfeeding include reduced gastrointestinal, respiratory, urinary tract and ear infections, lower incidence of allergies and a reduced likelihood of developing obesity. For women who choose to breastfeed there are lower risks associated with breast and ovarian cancer, less chance of hip fractures and osteoporosis in later life, and the added benefit that it helps with getting back to their pre-baby weight.
UNICEF has done excellent work in documenting the savings that could be made to public health services through breastfeeding and its benefits, and I commend its document “Preventing disease and saving resources” to the House. “The 1001 Critical Days” is a manifesto that is also well worth a read.
Increasing breastfeeding rates in areas of multiple deprivation has a clear multiplier effect. James P. Grant, who was executive director of UNICEF from 1980 to 1995, said:
“Breastfeeding is a natural safety net against the worst effects of poverty…exclusive breastfeeding goes a long way towards cancelling out the health difference between being born into poverty or being born into affluence. It is almost as if breastfeeding takes the infant out of poverty for those few vital months in order to give the child a fairer start in life and compensate for the injustices of the world into which it was born.”
Those are striking words, and it is to areas of multiple deprivation that I believe resources should be targeted, but most certainly not in a heavy-handed way. Instead, local networks, existing organisations and women themselves need to be given the skills and knowledge to spread the word among their peers and to challenge the old wives’ tales I spoke about. They must work across the whole experience of pregnancy and parenthood. Public Health England found in March 2015 that the most effective strategies for promoting breastfeeding were among smaller local peer support groups. There is a lot of excellent information online, from KellyMom to Mumsnet, but there remains a digital divide, and at times of crisis having a local network to fall back on is hugely valuable.
That kind of work is often facilitated by the voluntary sector, and we need to ensure that that is maintained even in these straitened financial times. I understand that the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) will refer to a local case, and I have I have been contacted by mothers in Lambeth and Southwark who discovered that funding for their work would be cut. They have been hugely successful in increasing breastfeeding rates in their area. Such projects should be treated as exemplars, and their good practice should be taken on board.
In my contact with several organisations, there have been a couple of broader asks that it would be neglectful of me not to mention. The first is that there should be financial support for the National Infant Feeding Network, which I understand had its funding cut in 2014. The funding that was cut was a meagre £30,000, which went a very long way to organising and supporting a network of 600 infant feeding specialists. They are responsible in turn for the education and support of some 70,000 health professionals across England who reach 650,000 mothers and babies every year. That is crucial, for the reasons I mentioned. Breastfeeding mothers really need support, especially in the early days.
Secondly, the Department of Health should continue to strive for the implementation of UNICEF Baby Friendly standards in maternity, community and neonatal services. In the UK the percentage of services with full Baby Friendly accreditation are 49% of maternity services; 51% of health visiting services; 37% of university midwifery courses; and 9% of health visiting courses. It is important that those professionals should all have the skills to enable them to pass on information to the women they help.
The percentage of births taking place in fully Baby Friendly-accredited hospitals stands at 44% in England, a wonderful 84% in Scotland, an even better 92% in Northern Ireland, and 60% in Wales. The impact of services being Baby Friendly-accredited is that mothers get consistent advice and support throughout their pregnancy and in the early months after the birth. It is not just about hospitals, but about embedding good practice across the range of provision. That means that there should not be any kind of postcode lottery, so that women and families can feel confident about breastfeeding.
Thirdly, I implore the UK Government to reinstate the national infant feeding survey across the UK. The main basis for the statistics I have given to demonstrate the need for more support today is that five-yearly study, which I understand has been on the go since 1970. It fits into the World Health Organisation’s global strategy for infant and young child feeding, which recommends that Governments carry out a survey to track rates and target support effectively. Without the data, we lose touch of where we stand in the world and what work we need to do. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments have all committed to keep it going, and I urge the Minister also to commit to it, to complete the statistics for the whole UK.
Fourthly, I seek the Minister’s advice on where the UK currently sits with regard to full implementation of the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes, which was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. I support calls by groups such as Baby Milk Action for the UK Government to play their part in protecting the public from aggressive and damaging marketing by the formula industry.
My final plea is a personal one. I have come into this place as a breastfeeding mother, which has been hard for me, even in this position of relative privilege. I ask for the consideration of all parents in this place—Members, staff and visitors—and of how we can make it easier for them. I ask colleagues to consider what they can do in their own constituencies to celebrate and support breastfeeding in this and every week of the year. Could our local cafés be more welcoming? Are our own offices a safe space for nursing mothers? Could we encourage investment in support services in our areas, and do we know where they are so that we can send them recommendations? We all have a role to play in encouraging the uptake of this most basic human need.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
It might help the hon. Lady to know that I will come back to her for a few minutes once the winding-up speeches are finished.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this important debate.
I breastfed my two children, who are now aged nine and six. I was fortunate because that experience was relatively straightforward, but it was not without issues or a need for support. A few days after having my first baby, I remember experiencing toothache and wondering, in my slightly dazed state as a new mother, how toothache could possibly be a post-natal complication. I then realised that I had given myself toothache from clamping my teeth so hard because of the pain every time my baby fed. Those first few days were difficult and painful, and there were tears, but once I had mastered it, it was a hugely rewarding experience. My second baby could not tolerate cow’s milk, which made the transition to any type of formula very difficult, but I was glad to continue breastfeeding her for much longer because it benefited her health enormously. The health benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and babies are well established and proven, as rehearsed by the hon. Lady.
I want to highlight a pressing issue in my constituency: the potential loss of the breastfeeding cafés that operate in Sure Start centres in my constituency, in Streatham and in Camberwell and Peckham. Those cafés, which are resourced by experienced midwives from King’s College hospital, are a vital resource for new nursing mothers. They are under threat because the support from King’s College hospital is going to be withdrawn, due to the midwives who staff the cafés being needed on the labour wards. The hospital is otherwise unable to recruit to a series of vacancies in its midwifery department.
This is a grave situation. The breastfeeding cafés operate in Sure Start centre locations where many mothers are deprived, successfully extending the reach to those areas and increasing breastfeeding rates there. The benefits of addressing nutritional disadvantages, helping those babies to be healthier and getting them off to a good start in life are vital. I am concerned that a shortage of midwives elsewhere in the health service is putting those breastfeeding cafés at risk. I will certainly raise the issue with King’s College hospital when I meet staff there on Friday, and I will talk to the local authorities in Lambeth and Southwark about whether there is any way that those vital services could be continued.
I call on the Minister to help us in that endeavour and to help make additional resources available, so that experienced midwives can continue to staff breastfeeding cafés in my constituency and beyond. Extending breast- feeding to deprived communities in particular will save the health service money in the long term, so resourcing this service is money spent positively and spent well.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I want to speak particularly about the asks that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss)—I want to say Councillor Thewliss—mentioned.
My situation is similar to my hon. Friend’s. My children are not that different in age to hers and I was also a councillor when I had both my children. I was lucky to be able to go back to work so quickly and to take my children with me. That worked well for us in terms of breastfeeding.
My second child was an absolute dream to feed. She was wonderful and knew what she was doing from day one. She was just a dream come true. However, it was still painful at times. Even in the most ideal circumstances, breastfeeding is not plain sailing all the way. My first child was a nightmare to feed. We had a horrendous time. Nearly all the things that can go wrong with breastfeeding went wrong. My son was re-admitted to hospital at five days because he was not gaining weight, so for a while we had to pump exclusively and then he was weaned back on to breastfeeding.
The support networks and breastfeeding cafés, which hon. Members have mentioned, are so important. There are proven statistical outcomes from breastfeeding cafés and people having physical support. I am not sure whether hon. Members are clear about how the outcomes are achieved. My hon. Friend mentioned the huge online support network, including Mumsnet and Facebook groups. Those places are good and people can get a huge amount of information from others there, but that does not compare with having somebody physically present who knows what they are talking about. In those early days, when people do not know what they are doing, and when their baby does not know what they are doing, they need somebody there to help and show them what they are doing wrong, or what they are doing right, and to explain it. It is not something that can be learned from a video on the internet, because every mum and every baby is a different shape and every baby reacts differently. Somebody must be physically there, and they must have huge experience and know what they are talking about.
A three-day training session on breastfeeding does not, in many cases, equip a midwife or health visitor with adequate means to provide mums with all the support they need. Those people also need experience behind them: they need to see many babies breastfeeding and speak to lots of people before advising in all cases.
In terms of the support available, the Government in Scotland and the Government here—Governments all over the place—need to think about the voluntary organisations providing support. People who have been through breastfeeding and experienced the problems—and those seeking support—are getting involved in the La Leche League and with NCT breastfeeding support, for example, to help people. When I was being shown what I was doing wrong, those were the people I found most helpful, because they knew what they were talking about. Training systems are a great idea, but we need to make sure that voluntary groups and breastfeeding cafés, which have experienced staff, are kept going. If we lose that experience, we cannot get it back. We need to keep these groups going to keep up the breastfeeding rates.
There is a postcode lottery in terms of support. People without a local support group near them have either to travel a long way to get to a group or rely on the internet. That is not ideal.
The World Health Organisation guidelines suggest breastfeeding exclusively up to six months and that breastfeeding onwards to two years or beyond is desirable, advised and good for children and mothers. This is not widely known in the UK: people even get funny looks when breastfeeding a child over six months. People do not understand that that is actually good and has health benefits.
I breastfed my children for a total of three years—adding them both together—so I had that experience of breastfeeding a child who is running around. That is totally shocking for so many people and it should not be, because World Health Organisation guidelines and statistics suggest that there are health benefits from breastfeeding. There is a job of work for all of us to normalise breastfeeding and to explain it to people. If people say, “What are you doing?”, we should explain to them, “This is right. This is not in any way unnatural. This is totally the right thing to do and has benefits for everybody.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central mentioned formula milk and the way it is advertised and classified. I spoke to some of my online friends who have been involved in supporting people with breastfeeding, and one of their biggest concerns, and one of the things that makes them most angry, is the advertising of follow-on milk. Follow-on milk is allowed to be advertised because it is not aimed at mothers with babies, and the adverts for follow-on milk have very small babies who are obviously just six months old. That is the way that the companies can get round the rules, because they are not advertising to mothers with a baby who is under six months; they are advertising to mothers with babies who are older than six months. Before the ban on advertising baby milk was introduced, there was no such thing as follow-on milk; the companies have just invented it so that they can still advertise. That is a concern.
We should have formula, and women who choose to formula-feed—or women who end up formula-feeding not by choice—need to have options in terms of formula. But formula should not be pushed at every opportunity by the companies, and we should not allow them to do so. We should try to avoid that situation.
The last thing I wanted to mention was the pressure to breastfeed. It is very positive that we are promoting and encouraging breastfeeding, but there is a fine line; some women feel that they cannot give up breastfeeding in the very early days without experiencing a huge amount of negativity. Breastfeeding is hard for some women at the moment, particularly when the support is not there nationally.
I have heard of women who have said that not being able to breastfeed caused them to have post-natal depression. The issue was the expectation—that they felt they had to breastfeed, but nobody was there to support them. What they wanted was somebody to show them what to do and to help them, and not having that help is costing the Government and the devolved Administrations through the outcomes for those babies, as they are more likely to cost the NHS more in later life; through the outcomes for the mothers; and through the outcomes for some mothers who really struggle with having to give up breastfeeding, and end up in the mental health system as a result. That really concerns some of my friends and some of the other people I have spoken to about the issue.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Bone, for chairing this debate this afternoon. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this important debate, and other Members for their excellent contributions.
We need to keep our focus on this issue, and I am very pleased that all the Members who have spoken so far share my passion for extolling the virtues of breastfeeding. I am also pleased to note that the Minister present today is the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, who I respect hugely. Although at first I thought it was rather strange that breastfeeding came under his brief, I am now sure that it is simply the case that the issue is so important to the Government, and crosses so many departmental boundaries, that they settled on him, and it was not just a case of Ministers perhaps playing “pass the parcel” with this important debate. As I say, I am very pleased to see that he is here to respond to it.
I will start my remarks by putting my cards firmly on the table—for me, wherever possible breast is best. I breastfed both my children, as all the Members who have spoken so far breastfed their children, and I am evangelical about the merits of breastfeeding.
As other Members have said, and shared, breastfeeding sometimes hurts at first—although not for everyone—and that is why the right support is vital, to help women and encourage them to carry on breastfeeding. Having someone physically there really makes the difference, especially when a woman has a baby like my son, who did not like to open his mouth very wide when latching on. If he could get away with it, he would just suck on the nipple until it was red raw, and obviously he then got no milk. If nobody had told me that that is not how it is supposed to happen, I would have given up immediately. Support is vital. As with my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), my second child—my daughter—could not tolerate cows’ milk. Fortunately, I was able to carry on feeding her to about 16 months, but feeding a toddler in public draws lots of frowns, and eventually I succumbed. We went on to soya milk, and even now she does not really like milk.
We have a fabulous support network in the north-east called Bosom Buddies, which helps, supports and encourages new mums as they get to grips with breastfeeding during the early days. The network provides much-needed guidance and advice for mothers who may otherwise be unsure about even starting to breastfeed. Those services are replicated in various parts of the country, and many are in Sure Start centres. I have had the great pleasure of visiting many breastfeeding support groups in those centres, and I have seen their great work. I would love every new mother across the UK to have access to such services, because that support makes a huge difference, as we have all attested today. Sadly, as we have seen across the country in recent years, Sure Start centres are closing. More than 700 have closed since 2010, which limits the amount of support that mothers can get. What assessment have the Government made of the number of support services that have been lost as a result of the closure of more than 700 Sure Start centres?
National Breastfeeding Week is a brilliant idea, and over the years it has successfully highlighted, across the world, the importance of breastfeeding. I fully endorse and support the campaign, and I hope this debate will go some way towards making even more people aware of the virtues of breastfeeding. As we have heard, numerous studies have shown breastfeeding to be the healthiest way to feed a baby. Not only does breastfeeding provide essential nutrients and sustenance, it also greatly reduces the risk of a baby developing health problems such as gastroenteritis, asthma, diabetes and obesity. Furthermore, breastfeeding helps to protect women from breast and ovarian cancer. The World Health Organisation is unequivocal that, if possible, babies should be totally breastfed until they are at least six months old. On top of all that, there is the additional bonus that breast milk from source is always at the right temperature for babies, with no bottles needing to be sterilised. Best of all, it is 100% free. Breastfeeding is cheap; it is good for babies; it comes highly recommended; and, by preventing illnesses, it keeps babies safe while saving millions of pounds from stretched NHS budgets. Put simply, what is not to like?
Unfortunately, despite all of the positives that other Members and I have outlined today, certain obstacles remain for mothers who are looking to breastfeed their children. One such obstacle comes when mothers return to work after maternity leave. Breastfeeding mothers face a heightened sense of anxiety when they return to work from maternity leave, as they have the additional worry of how their baby will be fed in their absence. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central and other hon. Members spoke of their personal experience. Women may have to raise with their employer the issues of expressing and storing breast milk and fitting in feeds around their work and lunch hour. If they harbour fears that their employer lacks an understanding of, or concern about, such accommodations, it may delay their return to work, or stop their return altogether. Alternatively, such fears may make women give up breastfeeding sooner than they had planned.
Maternity discrimination, such as prohibiting mothers from breastfeeding in cafés or restaurants, is now against the law under the Equality Act 2010, but the Act does not apply in the workplace. Mothers can be told not to express milk or be denied breastfeeding breaks. Employers do not have to provide facilities for breast milk to be expressed or stored. Good employers provide such facilities, but they do not have to do so. I can tell hon. Members, as the Health and Safety Executive already has, that toilets are no place for expressing milk or breastfeeding. We all want parents to get back to work if they wish to do so. I hope the Government understand that breastfeeding responsibilities are holding mothers back from returning to work, and I hope the Minister will assure us that he is looking into ways to address that issue.
Over the past few years, we have seen that women in general are finding it harder at work. There were more unemployed women over the past five years than at any time under the previous Labour Government, and real wages for women have fallen year on year since 2010. There has also been a dramatic fall in sexual discrimination and pregnancy discrimination cases made against employers since women were priced out of justice when expensive tribunal fees were introduced. Figures comparing the years before and after the introduction of those fees show a truly staggering 91% fall in sex discrimination cases and a 46% fall in pregnancy discrimination cases. Such dramatic falls are utterly unacceptable in a country that wants to treat women with respect in the workplace. A Labour Government would have scrapped those unfair barriers to justice. I would love to hear the Minister say that his Government will reverse that unfair policy.
Alongside the structural issues affecting breastfeeding, there is a growing cultural obstacle that prevents new mums from breastfeeding their children. It is particularly striking, as we have heard, in working-class communities. The Department for Health figures show that in Brighton almost 70% of new mothers were partially or totally breastfeeding at six to eight weeks—that is relatively early to be taking a measure, given that the recommendation is that children should be breastfed for up to six months, but we can use it as a comparison—while in Hartlepool and south Tyneside the figure falls to 19.3% and 22.6% respectively.
In some communities today, there seems to be an anti-breastfeeding culture among young mothers, which we need to challenge and reverse. National Breastfeeding Week and this debate are great ways of starting to do that. Breastfeeding must be seen as normal and natural, and new mothers should feel utterly comfortable doing it. We need to focus on the areas and communities in which new mums do not even consider starting to breastfeed because it seems so strange or even repulsive to them. Government support is required. Role models must come forward to extol the virtues of breastfeeding and we need more mums on TV—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh. We need mums in our soaps and even on “The Only Way is Essex”, breastfeeding naturally and happily. We rarely see breastfeeding, and if we do it is usually by mums such as us—middle class, professional, older mums—which reinforces the image in some young mums’ minds that breastfeeding is something for a certain type of people, not for them and their friends.
We need to work to reverse that image and let new mums and young mums know that breastfeeding is not only good for their health and that of their babies, but it has immediate benefits, such as helping them lose their pregnancy weight much faster, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said. I was never as slim as when I was breastfeeding my children. If I could have carried on breastfeeding, I would, because the weight really drops off. It also means not having to get cold in the middle of the night making up bottles, and it helps mums to bond in such a special way with their babies, which cannot be imagined until it has been experienced.
Come on, TV producers, soap writers, celebrities and “TOWIE” stars watching this debate—get to it. Get breastfeeding on TV and get mums seeing it. I want mums to feel comfortable in public—even in Claridge’s, for goodness’ sake. We need to show that it is totally normal, natural and acceptable, and that those who have a problem with it simply need to get over it.
I once again thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central for securing this important debate and for all she has said and done on this issue in the short time she has been in this House. I thank the other hon. Members for coming along and making their expert contributions. I have rarely heard such strong and powerful arguments for the benefits of breastfeeding and I thank every hon. Member who came to speak here today. I am sure that with such powerful advocacy from hon. Members and from groups and organisations throughout the country, National Breastfeeding Week will be a huge success in raising even greater awareness among parents.
I hope that the Government will listen to the concerns about women getting back into work after having a baby and will address the specific issues that affect them to ensure that that transition is best for both the mother and her baby. We all want to see the best outcomes for all parties, but only by taking action to help can we see progress. Simply hoping for the best will not be enough, so for the sake of babies, their mums and our society in general, let us hope for a successful awareness campaign and an equally successful response from the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for initiating the debate and for her leadership of it. I particularly commend her for tweeting a picture of herself breastfeeding to help launch and publicise the Breastfeeding Network and the campaign this week.
I commend the hon. Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for raising in a short time a number of very important issues. They include issues about the importance of breastfeeding and about women in the workplace; issues, which we had all hoped would become legacy issues, about prejudice and discrimination; and important issues about geographic variation and inequality, including the importance of cultural leadership in changing attitudes.
There were specific questions on policy, which I will try to come to in a moment. I just want to take this opportunity to celebrate and promote National Breastfeeding Week, which runs from 20 to 28 June. It is an excellent initiative and it is particularly good to see it so active on Twitter, which may be to the credit of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, and to see the plethora of activities going on around the country and the sharing of good practice and experiences by women and health professionals in place-based and virtual networks. That is genuinely inspirational, and the Department and I look forward to seeing other activities organised by local groups around the country this week.
It will not have escaped your beady eye, Mr Bone, that I am, on a gender basis, the least qualified person in the room to be responding to the debate, but I am pleased that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, highlighted the fact that I am the Minister responsible for life and health sciences. This issue goes to the heart of our thinking more broadly about how we unleash the power of the NHS and our health system more generally to support and drive public health.
Before coming to the House, I worked in biomedical research. I had the great privilege of working at the Institute of Child Health, which is doing extraordinary work on the importance of pre and post-natal nutrition for long-term health outcomes. Extraordinary data are beginning to appear on the importance of early nutrition in determining our long-term health. As the Minister responsible for the National Institute for Health Research, as well as the whizzy high science of tomorrow’s technologies, I can say that we also have at the heart of the NHS a commitment to ensure, through the institute, that we are constantly using the power of our health system to drive public health and to promote best practice.
The Department of Health is working closely with our partners at UNICEF, the Royal College of Midwives, the Institute of Health Visiting, NHS England and Public Health England to co-ordinate our awareness messaging this week. This debate provides an invaluable opportunity for Members of Parliament to discuss these important issues.
It may help if I begin by setting out the Department’s view on breastfeeding in England, which is the only place for which I can speak. It is widely agreed that breastfeeding delivers significant health benefits for both the mother and her baby and is more cost-effective for mothers than other methods of infant feeding. A mother’s milk provides a perfect balance of nutrients and vitamins for the first six months of a child’s life. That is why the World Health Organisation and the Department of Health encourage exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months.
The Department is aware, however, that infant feeding choices are complex and personal, based as they are on individual and family circumstances. That is right. Not all mothers choose to or are able to breastfeed. In line with UNICEF’s Baby Friendly guidelines, all mothers should be supported to make informed decisions and to develop a close relationship with their babies soon after birth.
The evidence shows that, in addition to providing all the nutrients and vitamins that a baby needs, breast milk also protects him or her from infections and diseases. Breastfed babies are less likely to develop diarrhoea, vomiting and chest infections, leading to fewer hospital visits; and they are less likely to become obese both as children and in later life. Breastfeeding can also reduce the chances for some women of getting diseases such as breast or ovarian cancer later in life. The evidence and data also show that breastfeeding as soon as possible following birth helps to start the bonding process between a mother and her baby. We know that secure parent-child attachment results in better social and emotional wellbeing among children. Furthermore, evidence shows that that, in turn, has important implications in terms of life prospects for the infant.
I am pleased that the breastfeeding initiation rate in England has increased from about 62% in 2005-06 to 73.9% in the third quarter of 2014-15. The Office for National Statistics will publish the full-year figures in a couple of weeks. However, breastfeeding initiation rates vary widely across clinical commissioning group areas, from 43.9% in NHS South Sefton to 93.4% in NHS Lambeth.
While we understand that cultural differences exist in different areas, it is important that all new mothers receive the best quality of care no matter who they are or where they live. We encourage local commissioners and services to use their resources, and opportunities such as National Breastfeeding Week, to reduce such variations and increase overall breastfeeding rates.
Increased awareness of the health risks associated with not breastfeeding has brought about a drive in recent years to improve breastfeeding support and increase breastfeeding prevalence rates. Support and information is currently available to health professionals and parents through a range of channels such as the NHS Choices website under the Start4Life banner; the national breastfeeding helpline; the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly initiative; and local peer support programmes.
Parents-to-be and new mothers and fathers can also sign up to the Start4life information service for parents. Subscribers receive regular free emails, videos and text messages that offer high quality advice and information based on the stage of pregnancy and the age of the child. That service includes breastfeeding and signposts parents to other quality-assured information about parenting, relationship support and benefits advice.
In the past five years, I am delighted to say that we have recruited more than 2,100 more midwives into the NHS. We are training a further 6,400, who will provide women with the information, advice and support they need to breastfeed. In addition, appropriately trained and supervised maternity support workers play an important role in supporting women with breastfeeding and helping midwives to run parentcraft classes. In the past five years, 2,000 new health visitors have been recruited and we are on track to reach our target of 4,200 by the end of the year.
I will try to answer the important questions raised in the few minutes available; if I am beaten by the clock, perhaps I can write to hon. Members. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned the National Infant Feeding Network. In 2014, the Department of Health provided £30,000 to UNICEF UK to support the establishment of the network, which shares and promotes evidence-based practice on infant feeding and early childhood development to deliver optimum outcomes. It comprises 600 infant feeding specialists and supports 30,000 health professionals who, in turn, are responsible for caring for more than 650,000 mothers.
The network approached the Department for funding support in 2015. Unfortunately, its request could not be accommodated because it came in too late for the 2015-16 budget. However, we continue to work closely with the network co-ordinators on future funding.
The hon. Lady also raised the breastfeeding rights of women in the workplace. Specific health and safety requirements relating to new and expectant mothers at work are contained in regulations 16 to 18 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. A woman can ask her employer to provide a private, safe and healthy space to allow her to express milk and a fridge to store it in.
On the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly initiative, I repeat that we want to encourage more women to breastfeed. That is why we welcome the revised Baby Friendly standards that support feeding and relationship building. It is great to see that, across the UK, 91% of maternity services and 88% of health visiting services are working towards Baby Friendly accreditation. In the UK, 49% of maternity services, 51% of health visiting services, 37% of university midwifery courses and 9% of health visiting courses currently have full Baby Friendly accreditation.
On the infant feeding survey, I am happy to confirm that the Government’s policy is to improve outcomes for women and their babies. To do that, we need current information to inform policy and service delivery. The statistics that NHS England regularly gathers capture data from all women using NHS services, rather than from the periodic survey samples. From 2016, the maternity and children’s dataset will, for the first time, link a mother’s health and behaviours during pregnancy and post-natally to outcomes for herself. I will happily write with more details on that and on the issue of breast milk substitutes, since I am defeated by the clock.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
The Minister is certainly not defeated by the clock; it is at 5.44 pm that the debate will now finish.
George Freeman
Thank you, Mr Bone. I apologise; I was merely stretching my legs as I saw the clock hit the 5.30 button. I was not expecting the vote. I am delighted that I have more time to finish dealing with the two questions. There was an important question on breast milk substitutes.
For mothers who choose to use formula milk, it is important that measures are in place to protect babies’ health and that all the parents have the information they need to make the right choice. The Government provide advice for parents on maternal and infant nutrition via NHS Choices and the NHS Start4life information service.
The international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes is an international health policy framework to regulate the marketing of breast milk substitutes. In view of the vulnerability of babies in the early months of life and the risks involved in inappropriate feeding, the marketing of breast milk substitutes requires special treatment. Baby Friendly accreditation requires services to implement the requirements of the code, which goes further than UK law in regulating marketing activity. To meet the Baby Friendly standards, services must ensure that there is no promotion of breast milk substitutes, bottles, teats or dummies in any part of the facility or by any of the staff.
The Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (England) Regulations 2007 are designed to ensure that all types of infant formulae meet the nutritional needs of babies, while ensuring that breastfeeding is not undermined by the advertising, marketing and promotion of such products. The regulations include strict controls on the promotion, labelling and composition of infant and follow-on formula and set out clear guidance for infant formula manufacturers on how the regulations should be implemented.
Finally, there was a question about the National Infant Feeding Network, which I think I have dealt with. If there are any other issues, I will happily respond by letter. I shall leave enough time for the hon. Member for Glasgow Central to close the debate.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Minister and all the Members who have spoken today; the fact that they came along and participated is very much appreciated. I can see from Twitter that the debate has been getting a good and interesting response. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her contribution and for her support for the organisations in her area that clearly need it at this time. Where we have instances of good practice in breastfeeding in this country, we must absolutely support services in every way we can. It is absolutely true that if we lose the expertise and the service, that will set breastfeeding back hugely and it will be difficult to re-establish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke passionately about the support required, about the importance of the consistency of a network and about the importance of having experienced midwife support. Experienced professional advice must be given, and it can be given only, whatever the circumstances, by seeing somebody physically. The answer cannot always be to do things online.
The Minister made the point about follow-on milk, commercialisation and the implementation of the code. I still think that we have issues. We can go further to implement the code; it is clear that the implication of some of the adverts for follow-on milk is that if women breastfeed for a year or two, their milk might not contain enough nutrients for their child. The opposite is true—it contains all the nutrients that are needed. That is exactly and specifically how nature has designed it for the healthy development of children.
I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her contribution. She is hugely experienced and clearly very passionate about the subject, which is great. There are lots of obstacles in the way, not least women returning to work, and we need to be mindful of that and how best we can offer support. We need to make breastfeeding a normal process so that women do not feel embarrassed about asking to nip out to express milk or going to visit the nursery to feed their child.
I had a strange experience last summer as a volunteer at the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. It was the longest time I had been away from my baby at that point. I found it very difficult to explain to a room of strangers that I was nipping out for a couple of minutes to express milk and to ask whether I could hide it in the fridge somewhere. The situation is difficult and awkward; we need to be aware of that. Employers need to be aware of their obligations and how to make it easy for people, so that there is a private space where they will not be interrupted. People should not be offered a corner of a busy lunchroom and certainly never a toilet, because that is disgusting, frankly. We would not eat our lunch in the toilet, so we should not expect anyone else to.
The point about images and showing the world what breastfeeding looks like was interesting. The Minister commented that I had tweeted a picture at the weekend; someone came up to me yesterday and said, “That’s very daring of you!” and “That’s very brave of you!” To be honest, I did not think about it. I was holding a baby; there was nothing particularly to see in the picture other than me feeding my daughter. I thought, “What a strange reaction.” To me, it is completely natural; I do it almost without thinking.
I put the picture up to publicise the importance of the debate and National Breastfeeding Week. If we look at the hashtag, we will see women doing similar across the internet just now. It is a process of normalising the activity—perhaps making a breastfeeding selfie something that people do, rather than draw back from. The issue is about making breastfeeding part of everyday life that people see all the time. If people do not see women breastfeeding, do not know anyone who breastfeeds and all they see are women feeding children with bottles, they will think that breastfeeding is odd and may not feel brave enough—because it will feel brave—to attempt it themselves.
We need to think carefully about how we normalise breastfeeding and how families, extended families and friends can best support women when they are doing it. My neighbours in Glasgow were keen to help their daughters and daughters-in-law by taking their babies overnight when they were tiny to give the mother a break. Although that is a wonderful thing to do to help, it will not help breastfeeding at all and will make it all the more difficult. We all need to think about our roles as part of families, the things we say and the way in which we say them—not say, “You must be exhausted”, but rather, “Can I make you a wee cup of tea?” It is about finding ways to support people rather than passing comment or using phrases that almost feel undermining at every turn. We need to think about that as much as we can.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. We are all finding our way with the new system that we have only just implemented in Westminster Hall. The wind-up speech should really be very brief—probably about two minutes. I think the hon. Lady has been going for more than five minutes, so she might want to bring her contribution to an end.
Alison Thewliss
Thank you, Mr Bone. I have found it difficult because the time is not what I expected it to be, so I was unsure about whether I was running out of time and how long I had. I thank the Minister for his contribution. I still think that there are lots of issues that we, as individual Members, ought to take up in this Parliament to support mothers in any way we can. I thank hon. Members again for attending.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered National Breastfeeding Week.
Written Statement
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NATO Assurance and Deterrence Efforts: UK Contributions
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
Last year the UK was at the forefront of NATO’s response to the deteriorating security situation in Europe, and since the summit in Wales last September, the UK has taken forward NATO’s work to develop the readiness action plan. As part of NATO assurance measures the UK deployed 3,000 personnel during 2014 on exercise with eastern allies; we also based four RAF Typhoons in Lithuania as our contribution to NATO Baltic air policing mission. In 2015, we will deploy over 4,000 personnel on exercises with eastern allies and UK Typhoons will again undertake a Baltic air policing deployment.
In addition to our significant support to NATO assurance measures, we are also making a major contribution towards the very high readiness joint task force (VJTF). The UK will lead NATO’s VJTF in 2017 with a UK contribution numbering up to 3,000 personnel. This will include the brigade headquarters, armoured infantry and light role infantry battle groups plus communications, reconnaissance, intelligence capabilities, as well as combat support and logistic elements, which will ensure that the multi-national brigade can operate as a rapidly deployable and effective fighting force.
In addition to this, we are now offering two additional UK contributions.
First, I have offered a battle group of 1,000 personnel to the Polish-led VJTF in 2020. Our commitment demonstrates the leading role the UK is taking at the heart of NATO and it will assist in deepening our defence relationship with a key NATO ally. We expect a matched Polish contribution to be part of the UK-led VJTF in 2017.
Second, I have offered a deployment of a further four RAF Typhoon aircraft to enhance NATO Baltic air policing mission next year; 2016 will be the third year running that the UK has made such an offer, which demonstrates the importance of the longstanding Baltic air policing mission.
[HCWS53]
House of Lords
Message from the Queen
The Lord Chamberlain (Earl Peel) (CB)
My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
“I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament”.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Luke
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Prisons: Mental Health
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel of Bradford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to achieve parity of esteem between mental health and physical health in prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, achieving parity of esteem between mental health and physical health in prisons is a government priority. Following the 2009 review by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, we ensured that prisoners can access equivalent health services to people in the community. The Government’s mandate to NHS England has objectives to achieve parity of esteem, including in health and justice settings, and to develop better offender healthcare that is integrated between custody and community, including developing liaison and diversion services.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure he will be aware that a great deal of effort has been made to improve data accuracy and the quality of recording of mental health diagnosis in NHS trusts, including new coding standards, all as part of preparation for a national payment tariff for mental health, similar to those for people in hospitals with physical health conditions. Can the Minister describe, first, how this will be implemented in the prison setting? Secondly, what support will his department be giving to implement the standards for prison mental health services, which the Royal College of Psychiatrists published recently due to, as it said, the lack of a national blueprint for mental health services for people in the criminal justice system?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I thank the noble Lord for his two questions. On the first, about coding, it is very important that we get the tariff right and that it does not become just another measure of activity but that outcome is built into that tariff. Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind, is preparing a report for NHS England, which will include proposals for the tariff and payment systems. That will include health in prisons as well as outside prisons.
The second question was about the standards issued recently by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, in his foreword to The Bradley Report Five Years On, referred to the importance of having a national blueprint, which of course is now possible given that NHS England is the commissioner of specialist services throughout the country. I will also draw those standards to the attention of Paul Lelliott, the chief inspector of mental health within the CQC. I am sure that the CQC will wish to incorporate those standards into its inspection regime
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
Can the Minister say what qualifications are now required of doctors who are recruited to work in prisons? Can he further say what proportion of those who are now employed to work in prisons have had formal psychiatric training?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I hope he will think it acceptable if I reply to him in writing after this session.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister explain why we lock up so many mentally ill offenders in prison institutions that are not fit for the purpose? Has he read yesterday’s report by the prisons inspector, which describes one prison as containing “shocking” squalor, high levels of violence and drug abuse, and high levels of staff sickness? Would the Minister explain how many mentally ill offenders are in our prison institutions and what efforts are being made to place them where proper mental health care and social care are available?
Lord Prior of Brampton
There are, as the noble Lord knows, some 85,000 people in prison, of whom more than 70% have two or more mental health conditions. Many of them suffer from drug or alcohol abuse, and I think it is generally accepted that a number of those people could be better treated outside a prison environment. He will also know that the liaison and diversion services that were so highly recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, now cover 40% of the prison population. There is a proposal that that should cover the whole population by the end of the year, subject to evaluation of those pilot schemes.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, it is vital that a prison has all relevant information about an offender’s health needs when they arrive at prison reception. Does the Minister agree that an evaluation of the current health screen should be undertaken to improve the identification of mental health problems at prison reception and that the identification of learning disabilities should be part of that screen?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord raised this in his report five years ago and in the follow-up report that was published more recently. A very early assessment of a prisoner when he arrives in prison is of course extremely important.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, given the complex needs of so many prisoners and the fact that those needs have to be addressed consistently, does the Minister agree with me that the risks associated with such prisoners could be greatly reduced were all operational staff in prisons given training on mental health awareness?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The right reverend Prelate’s comments are true throughout the whole healthcare system and would also apply to nurses in physical health surroundings. Training in how to recognise and deal with people suffering from mental health problems would be a huge benefit.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, the figures that the Minister cited come from the last survey of psychiatric morbidity in prisons, published in October 1998. Since then, the morbidity profile has changed. Is there any intention to conduct another survey so that the figures are up to date and people know the size and shape of the problem with which they must deal?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I am not aware of any current plans to conduct a survey similar to the one to which the noble Lord referred from 1998.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, what action will the Government take in Wales, where health is devolved to the Welsh Assembly but prisons are part of the Home Office remit? How will those two different aspects of government work together?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord raises an issue to which, I confess, I have not given sufficient consideration to give a proper reply today. Perhaps I may take that away and come back to him. The simple answer to that question is: dialogue.
Renewable Energy
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Ridley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the cost (£/tCO2e) of greenhouse gas emissions abatement in the most recent year for which there is data from each of wind offshore, wind onshore and solar, taking into account the additional electricity system costs appropriate to each technology.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, based on support provided through the renewables obligation, the estimated abatement cost in 2014 was £65 per tonne of carbon dioxide for onshore wind, £121 for offshore wind and £110 for solar PV.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that reply and declare my interests in energy as listed in the register. Does he agree that the Ed Miliband/Chris Huhne energy policy that he inherited has been extremely effective at taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich but much less effective at decarbonisation—and particularly at decarbonisation in an affordable way? The numbers he gave for the abatement costs per tonne of carbon dioxide from those three technologies are higher than the numbers given for the total cost of climate change—the so-called social cost of carbon—as estimated by all economists, including even the noble Lord, Lord Stern. Would my noble friend guarantee to investigate these numbers to see whether we are getting value for money as consumers through these subsidies?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is fair to say that there is a decline in the cost of renewable generation technologies. The steepest decline is in solar PV. On my noble friend’s point about the fact that the last leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, had a policy on energy that was not in the interests of the country, I am pleased to say that one of the first actions of the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was to write to the energy companies to say that we look forward to seeing a reduction in bills consequent on the fact that the last leader of the Opposition is not now Prime Minister.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, by what date do the Government expect renewables to be cost-competitive so that hard-working families and businesses will no longer have to subsidise wealthy landlords and other green investors?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is not merely a question of cost. If it were the case that renewables were the cheapest form of electricity, we would not face the same challenge on climate change that we do. As I indicated, it is true that the cost of renewables is coming down. Meanwhile, it is the policy of the Government to focus on energy that is affordable, secure and clean.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, will the Government compensate the increasing number of British people forced into fuel poverty by the man-made climate change policy if climate change turns out not to have been man-made at all?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I suspect that the noble Lord may be in a minority of one in his view of the position on climate change. Obviously, we are very pleased that the fuel poverty statistics are on a downward trend and that fewer people are in fuel poverty this year than last year.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, thanks to the Government’s Energy Act in the last Parliament, virtually every element of our energy system is now subject to a subsidy, and we are currently paying to keep old, unabated coal stations open and paying to shut them. Is that not the real scandal, since all of this coal is now imported?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that by 2025 electricity generation from unabated coal will represent only 1% of our generation.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, in the context of this Question, what is the Government’s policy on tidal power?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the Swansea tidal lagoon has had planning permission, and we are now looking at the position of tidal power in relation to contracts for difference. It certainly represents an exciting possibility and one that has a lot of support—but I had better say no more than that as I made the planning decision.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, on a simple point of clarification, would the Minister confirm that these numbers are calculated from the actual delivered power and not the gross generating capability of these sources?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, a bear of small brain such as myself will have to get back to the noble Lord on that point, as I am uncertain.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
Order. This is one of these occasions when it is necessary for the House to recognise that there are a range of conventions. One is that each party in the House gets at least one go in a Question. There is also the respect that we pay to former Leaders of the House who are also trying to get in and ask a question. So I am going to sit down—bearing in mind that we have two minutes left and there is a former Leader trying to ask a question, and a Member of the Lib Dem Benches, and the Lib Dems have not yet asked a question—and leave it to the House to decide.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, I am grateful to the former Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The Committee on Climate Change report on the cost-effective path to 2050 indicated that nuclear and onshore wind are likely to have broadly comparable costs to new, unabated gas. Given the fact that the predominance of the situation in Scotland has been affected by the recent government decision, should not the Government be open to amendments to the energy Bill that could be coming forward to make sure that there is a distinct case for Scotland, so that support for Scottish jobs and the Scottish economy is put on a comparable level as support for Chinese investors and the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, when the energy Bill comes before us—it will come to this House first—we will have an opportunity to look the questions that the noble Lord raises.
Lord Richard
My Lords, the Minister said in answer to the Question today that unabated coal would account for 1% of electricity by 2025. On the last occasion, last week, when this was raised, he said in one column of Hansard what he said today, while in another column of Hansard he said that it would account not for 1% of electricity supply but for 1% of emissions. Both cannot be right, and I would be grateful if he could tell us which is.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, following a conversation with the noble Lord yesterday, I went back and checked. That is why the version that I gave today was the correct version.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, has the Minister considered the option, if we are going to take away subsidies from some energy sources, that we should take them away from all energy sources, including nuclear?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, nuclear is a vital part of the mix. We do not get through this energy situation without an important contribution from nuclear energy, not least because many of the renewables, such as wind and solar, are intermittent.
Severn Bridge: Tolls
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what analysis they have conducted of the economic impact of the Severn Bridge tolls.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, this Government and the previous Government have not made any assessment of the economic impact of the tolls on the Severn River crossings. However, the existence of the bridges, as funded by tolls, has provided significant economic benefits. The Government have announced that they will consider the future of tolls, working with stakeholders involved.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, tolls are rare in the UK, and the Severn Bridge tolls are by far the most expensive in the country. It costs commuters £1,500-plus per year to use the bridges. Surely that is an unfair tax on employment in the area. Does the Minister agree that these tolls should be scrapped, and does he agree with the Welsh Government report stating that the economy of Wales would benefit by £107 million a year if they were?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
We have of course noted the Welsh Government report but I do not agree with the noble Baroness. When the crossings were put together, particularly the second one, the financing necessitated operating the tolls to recover not only the maintenance costs but the ongoing costs. The concessions agreed at that time still need to be applied. Tolls need to be applied until the end of that concessionary period.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that employers and trade unions alike see these tolls as a direct tax on the Welsh economy that is militating against the economic development that is greatly needed? What is the Government’s estimate of the cumulative backlog of maintenance costs for the bridge? After the contract period is over, who will be responsible for paying for that maintenance?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises a valid question about the issue of maintenance costs. It is estimated that by the end of the concessionary period, £88 million of the actual costs of construction will still need to be recuperated. On current estimates, on the basis of what is currently collected, a period of one to two years will be required after that concessionary period ends. There is no specific calculation with regard to maintenance costs.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, few would argue that a toll was not justified in order to finance the construction and early development of the second Severn crossing. The question now being posed, as it has been posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is what is to happen in future. At the very least, should not the toll be hugely modified to cover the essential maintenance costs, while no longer being at a level that will impede the development of the Welsh economy by inflicting unnecessary and abnormal costs?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
This Government support the Welsh economy. Indeed, the usage of both crossings has actually shown a marked increase. The noble Lord raises the valid issue of the continuation of the tolling. However, if the tolls were taken away today, that would have an impact on the concession agreement that was reached. For that to be recovered, a further period of time would have to be taken into consideration. That said, at the end of the concessionary period all stakeholders, including the Welsh Government, will be part and parcel of the discussions on the ongoing maintenance and management of the two crossings.
Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)
I remind my noble friend that when the Dartford crossing was built, the plan was that when the thing had been paid for the tolls would be stopped. It was the party opposite who decided to continue with them, and they continue now.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am always grateful for my noble friend’s interventions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that in Scotland, all parties agreed to the abolition of the tolls? There have been no adverse effects and it has all been beneficial. If it is good enough for Scotland, why is it not good enough for Wales?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Crossings in Scotland are a devolved matter, as the noble Lord is aware.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister put travellers’ minds at rest and confirm that over the period of this Parliament the Government, through Highways England, will not introduce tolls on new roads in England? Clearly, tolls are a blunt instrument and should not be used for roads because they divert traffic—just as, indeed, the tolls over the Severn have diverted a lot of traffic through the villages of Gloucestershire.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that where tolls are used, there is a specific purpose. As I have already said, the issue concerning the crossing we are discussing relates to ongoing maintenance. As far as the Government’s commitment to the roads programme is concerned, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that we have already committed to £24 billion-worth of road improvements, and that will continue over the next five-year period.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, could my noble friend assist me? Is there any reason at all why the Welsh Government could not pay for this if they chose to do so?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
One of the crossings is actually in England. When we come to the end of the concession period, we will discuss such management issues with the Welsh Government.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, talking of Wales, Jones is a very good Welsh name, and 100 years ago today the body of Commander Loftus Jones was washed up on the shores of Sweden, his having fought to the last with his ship at Jutland, surrounded by cruisers and destroyers, manning the last gun even though his leg had been blown off and a tourniquet applied. I am sure the Minister will agree that in our country we are very fortunate to have large numbers of men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line and be brave. In the Navy’s case, is it not important that it has ships if it is to look after the country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I have said previously from this Dispatch Box, the lessons of history I gain from the noble Lord are always welcome. I put that down to the pages of history, as well.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the economic impact of the tolls is felt not just in Wales but in the Forest of Dean. I think the Minister said that there has not been an economic impact study. Will he consider doing one, because the tolls have a huge impact on the people of the Forest of Dean?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness raises a valid point about the people of the Forest of Dean—and, indeed, further afield in Gloucestershire. There have been some calls for a third crossing. That is a case to consider at local level, and I am sure the local LEP will put forward a case. On the economic impact study, once we have reached the end of this concessionary period, we will consider the Welsh Government report and that will inform the final decision on how these crossings are managed in future.
NHS: Immigration Rules
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what their response is to the Royal College of Nursing report concerning the impact of immigration rules on the employment of foreign nurses within the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, ensuring we have the right number of nurses is vital. That is why we are taking the issue of nursing recruitment seriously and have prioritised and invested in front-line staff, so there are over 8,600 more nurses on our wards. Health Education England’s workforce plan for England for 2015-16 forecasts that, following further increases in the number of training commissions, the proposed levels for nurse training will deliver over 23,000 more nurses by 2019.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the RCN report estimates that as a result of the migration rules around 7,000 nurses will be forced to leave the NHS because they do not reach the £35,000 per annum employment threshold. Despite the modest increase in the number of training places, is he confident that that gap can be filled, alongside dealing with the current recruitment crisis, the extra nurses needed for seven-day working, the extra nurses needed for improved patient-staff ratios and the Government’s indication that they want to rule out the use of agency nurses in future? When will all those policies be adopted alongside the 7,000 reduction in overseas nurses?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the Royal College of Nursing figure I saw was closer to 3,000 than 7,000, but in a sense that is not what is important. What is important is that over the long run we train our own nurses in this country. Although we recruit some exceptionally wonderful nurses from places such as the Philippines, it does not seem a good long-term strategy to rely on recruiting nurses, often from third-world, quite poor countries, so I am very pleased that we are going to train 23,000 new nurses over the next five years. That is the right answer to any short-term, temporary shortage.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, surely the central point is that we should review the policy of recruiting nurses from overseas, as I think my noble friend is indicating. Should we not in a bipartisan way now concentrate on training our own nurses in this country rather than permanently taking them from other countries, for example, in Africa, which often desperately need their care?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend; it cannot be right for a rich country such as ours to recruit nurses from much poorer countries. I will just say that the Philippines, for example, produces more nurses on a deliberate basis than it needs for itself, so that they can go overseas, usually for temporary periods, not permanently. Interestingly, over the last five years, the number of non-EU overseas nurses working in this country has reduced by 41%.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, if we need more home-grown nurses, what are the Government doing to address the flood of nurses leaving the profession, and the appalling attrition rate during training? My noble friend Lord Willis’s report on the Shape of Caring review showed that every year 20% of student nurses do not complete the year, and 40% of nurses do not complete the first five years in the profession. Since it costs £78,000 to train a nurse, is that not a terrible waste of money, and could we not do more to support student nurses to finish their training?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness makes a strong point. The drop-out rate of nurses is between 20% and 30%; it varies hugely from one nursing school to another. I am told that the peak of the drop-out rate is after their first clinical placement, which indicates that the way some nursing schools recruit their students is far from satisfactory. I hope that Health Education England will change the way it remunerates some nursing schools to ensure that they recruit the people with the right qualifications, temperament and vocation before they offer them places.
Baroness Emerton (CB)
My Lords, the Royal College of Nursing’s underlying concern in its report was the safety of patients due to shortage of nurses. The royal college is greatly concerned that there has been a cutback in training places because of the inclusion of overseas nurses over the last three years. Can the Minister see whether the report will result: first, in an increase of nurses in training back to the level of three years ago; and secondly, in revisiting the levels of safe staffing?
Lord Prior of Brampton
As usual, the noble Baroness is more than familiar with the latest developments in the world of nursing. Health Education England is committed to commissioning an additional 23,000 nurses over the next four years. On safer standards of nursing, I know that she has taken a keen interest in the work that has been done around nurse staffing levels in relation to the numbers of patients. It is the Government’s view that the actual decisions about safe staffing should be taken at a local level, based on the acuity of patients on the ward, and should largely be up to the judgment of the ward sister and senior nurses within the hospital.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. How are we to reconcile the dilemma that we have just heard about from the Department of Health and from Monitor—cutting back on agency staff—with the impact that this legislation will have on nurses in our hospital and in many others? It will affect not just nurses; lots of people who work in hospitals, whether in ophthalmics or pharmacy, will have the same kind of issue. How do we reconcile the fact that we are trying to run a hospital that ensures the best experience for patients while this will have the opposite effect?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness makes a strong point. There is a dilemma, but we have to differentiate between the long term and the short term. In the long term, it is very important that we develop enough nurses for our own healthcare system. In the very short term, there will be ups and downs. Unquestionably, in the light of the Francis report into the awful happenings at Mid Staffordshire, there has been a spike in demand for nurses, particularly those to be employed in acute hospitals. That has caused short-term difficulties, leading to problems with the agency staffing that she referred to. It is worth pointing out that last year 3,500 nurses—largely from the Philippines—came from overseas to this country. In the short term that provides an escape—a way out, if you like—but it is not a permanent solution.
Calais: Border Management
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place earlier today.
“Mr Speaker, industrial action by striking French workers yesterday caused significant disruption at the ports of Calais and Coquelles in northern France. This action resulted from a dispute between local trade unions and the owners of the French ferry operator, MyFerryLink. As a result of this disruptive strike, the port of Calais was shut for a period of over 13 hours and train departures were suspended at the Channel Tunnel rail port of Coquelles. Sadly, the strikers damaged SNCF railway tracks outside the tunnel, which led to the cancellation of all Eurostar services until 6 o’clock this morning. More generally, the disruption caused backlogs of traffic in the Calais area, which presented existing migrants around the town with opportunities to attempt to enter slow-moving lorries.
The French and UK Governments were well prepared for this event. Tried and tested contingency plans were quickly put into place. Despite the extra pressure caused by the French strikers, Border Force maintained border security by following plans to put additional staff in place to search freight vehicles passing through the affected ports during the industrial action and thereafter. All freight vehicles passing through the Calais ports undergo searching by both the French authorities and the UK’s Border Force before boarding a ferry or train. During the course of yesterday’s disruption and since, the Border Force and the French authorities have successfully identified and intercepted a significant number of would-be migrants.
Last night, I spoke with the French Interior Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve. He was as grateful as I was for the strong co-operation between UK and French authorities during yesterday’s incident, and I thanked him for the French police’s efforts to maintain law and order in the Calais area. Our two Governments have been working closely and constructively in recent months to bolster security at the juxtaposed border at Calais and other French ports. Last September, Her Majesty’s Government committed £12 million to this work. This has led to the installation of fencing around the port of Calais and the approach road and improvements to the layout of the port to speed up flows of traffic and create secure buffer zones for heavy goods vehicles. This is in addition to £3 million spent on the provision of new scanners and detection technology to assist with the searching of freight vehicles and additional dog searching undertaken by contractors. At the port of Coquelles, we have already provided significant investment in upgrading perimeter security and freight-screening technology. We will continue to work with Eurotunnel and the French authorities on installing additional security measures at the site to prevent migrants from making incursions into the port.
More broadly, the ongoing situation in Calais serves as an important reminder of why EU member states need to work together to tackle the causes of illegal immigration in source and transit countries. We are already co-operating closely with the French to tackle the organised criminal gangs that facilitate the movement of migrants into and across Europe. UK and French law enforcement organisations have already had considerable success in dismantling criminal networks behind people trafficking and smuggling on both sides of the channel, resulting in the prosecution of 223 individuals, and Monsieur Cazeneuve and I have agreed to build on this important work. As the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made clear, the most important step to resolving the situation in the Mediterranean is breaking the link between migrants making this dangerous journey and achieving settlement in Europe.
Traffic on both sides of the channel is moving again. There will, however, continue to be a significant border security operation as the backlogs of traffic are cleared at the affected ports. The inconvenience caused by the French strikers to the travelling public and lorry drivers is deeply regrettable. Though yesterday’s incident was caused by events that were beyond the control of Her Majesty’s Government, our law enforcement organisations reacted to the events extremely well. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in commending the excellent work done by the Border Force, Kent Police and others on both sides of the channel who have worked tirelessly to maintain border security and minimise disruption to the travelling public. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. The situation at Calais has, over time, reflected the humanitarian crisis and the activities of human traffickers, which are both issues that need to be addressed at source. Co-operation between the French and British authorities in their work is to be welcomed, but on the issue of the events of the last day or so, could the Minister say what specific action has been taken to protect British citizens delayed in northern France in the light of reports alleging harassment and threats to car and lorry drivers waiting to travel back to this country—also implied in the Answer—and reports that some hauliers no longer use Calais?
The Answer also referred to the interception of a number of would-be migrants by Border Force and the French authorities. What is the Government’s current estimate of the number of would-be migrants who are likely to reach this country as a result of the recent disruption in northern France, and how does that figure compare with the estimated usual number of would-be migrants thought to reach this country through the ports of Calais and Coquelles over a similar period?
Lord Bates
To answer the first question, the Home Secretary has spoken to Monsieur Cazeneuve about the safety of British and other travellers travelling to the UK. There is a promise to provide extra resources during this time to help secure vehicles. It is a very fast-moving and difficult situation, as has already been mentioned.
As to the effect on the number of people arriving into the UK, the juxtaposed controls, which are at the heart of this and were actually introduced by the previous Labour Government, have worked very well in Calais, Dunkirk and Coquelles. They are staffed by a pool of about 800 Border Force officers based in France. It is estimated that, in the past year, 40,000 people have been stopped travelling into the UK. The message to take from yesterday is very clear: the UK border was not breached. There was significant disruption for travellers and freight vehicles as a result of the action, particularly for those using the tunnel, but we do not anticipate that having a direct effect on the numbers entering the UK.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the problems we saw in Calais yesterday did not begin with the strike; they began with the plight of people many miles away in Africa. Will the Government continue to support spending 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid, as provided for under the Act that was proposed by the Liberal Democrats as a Private Member’s Bill and passed by this House in the last Session, to ensure that the reasons these people are seeking to move from Africa into Europe are dealt with at source?
Lord Bates
I am very happy to give that assurance. Reaching 0.7% was one of the great achievements of the previous Government and certainly something that we are committed to maintaining. We are providing the second-largest amount of money, in absolute terms, to Syria—some £800 million. We talk about committing £12 million to the work at the juxtaposed borders, but £800 million is going towards helping the people fleeing the awful situation in Syria. That is absolutely the right balance in trying to move this problem forward and tackle it at source.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, I was one of those trapped in a car just outside the terminal at Calais yesterday, together with a very large number of lorries and their drivers. The road was thick with would-be migrants to this country. I did not feel at all threatened by them—they seemed to be relatively benevolent. But I had great sympathy for the lorry drivers, who were faced with attempts to break into their lorries. I also had great sympathy for this large army of would-be migrants. What steps are being taken to find a permanent solution for their plight?
Lord Bates
The juxtaposed controls were introduced in response to the situation at the Sangatte camp. Some interesting things are going on at an international and even a European level—for example, the idea of trying to create secure areas within north Africa where people could be safely returned to and where their applications, if they were genuine, could be processed and tested. We should certainly look more closely at an idea of that kind.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, in the event of the Italian authorities giving temporary residency to boat people coming in from north Africa and landing on Italian shores, what would the position be at Calais? Would be we able turn those people back?
Lord Bates
There is an issue in relation to Italy. We would like to see the Italian authorities recognise that they have a major crisis on their hands and take care to ensure that, when people arrive in Italy, they are fingerprinted, registered and recorded as the Dublin regulations require. Her Majesty’s Government’s position is that, if that were to happen in Italy, it would reduce the flows heading north beyond that area.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, if non-EU citizens enter the UK from France, they are not entitled to claim asylum in Britain, because the rules require non-EU citizens who arrive in the EU to claim asylum in the first country that they arrive in?
Lord Bates
That is what the Dublin accord or regulation requires: such people should claim asylum in the first place in which they arrive. If it is Italy, it should be Italy; if it is Greece, then it should be Greece. That is a principle which everybody has signed up to and we want to see it implemented.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, in that case, why are these unfortunate people so desperate to come to this country rather than to stay in France?
Lord Bates
There could be a whole range of reasons. I am proud of this country; it is a wonderful country; it is a privilege to live here. I have no doubt that many people would want to come here. The point is that we cannot have an open-door policy; we need to have a managed immigration policy for people who have gone through the proper channels to arrive here. People who try to circumvent that clearly need to be stopped.
Lord Higgins (Con)
Following on from the previous question, has my noble friend noticed the comments by Mr Vaz, the chairman of the relevant committee in another place, who said that the attraction of this country is not simply the benefits system but the fact that illegal immigrants are able to obtain employment?
Lord Bates
I do not want to stray into what might be considered a partisan point, but when a country has created 2.2 million jobs while there is still a high level of unemployment in the EU, particularly in France, that will clearly be in the minds of people who are making economic decisions. Economic migrants should be returned—that is not what we are looking for. If people are genuinely fleeing for their lives and for asylum purposes, their applications need to be considered in the proper way.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, is there an answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours?
Lord Bates
I tried to give one; I accept that it might not have been adequate. I was simply making the point that we would prefer the boat people to be recorded and registered in Italy, as is specified under the Dublin regulations.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, is there not a risk of contamination of vegetables and food coming into this country when lorries are held up and contaminated with people?
Lord Bates
That is a fair point. My noble friend Lord Taylor, the Chief Whip, has mentioned that a lot of that food goes to waste, which is an unfortunate and sad by-product of the industrial action which took place.
European Union (Finance) Bill
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the delegation of functions to the deputy mayor who under Clause 2 would be appointed from the members of the authority by the mayor. They relate more generally to the sweeping powers contained in Clause 3 for the Secretary of State to render any function of the authority to be exercised only by the mayor or, even more remarkably, the deputy mayor or any other member or officer of the combined authority whom the mayor might choose. That represents a massive concentration of power in the hands of an elected mayor. It is an unacceptable vesting of power, which he can delegate to anybody, in effect, whom he chooses.
The very authorities that have blazed the trail of innovation that led to this Bill in the Greater Manchester area did so without this effectively unfettered power. The great local government leaders of the past—from Joseph Chamberlain to Herbert Morrison and others, some of whom adorn the Benches to this day—did not have such power. It is unnecessary for the Bill to include that measure.
Amendment 18 would require the consent of the combined authority to the appointment of the deputy mayor and Amendment 20 would require the consent of the authority to the delegation by the Secretary of State of the functions exercisable only by the mayor. Amendment 21 would require the mayor to consult the combined authority on the further delegation of general functions by the mayor to a deputy. Amendment 22 deals with the provision of Section 107D(5) under which:
“Any general function exercisable by the mayor”,
may be exercised,
“by the mayor individually, or … by a person acting under arrangements with the mayor”,
only with the consent of the combined authority. The purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that the combined authority has some influence over the delegation of hugely important powers otherwise left in the hands entirely of the elected mayor. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support the main aim of Amendment 18, and will speak in particular to Amendments 19 and 37 in this group. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, the Bill proposes a massive concentration of power in the hands of the mayor. In the context of the appointment of a deputy mayor, there has to be an appointments process that is understood publicly and has public consent. We cannot have a decision just emerging from a set of private decisions. Our Amendment 19 is designed to make the process more transparent. We do that by saying that the appointment by a mayor of a deputy mayor should be,
“subject to approval by the overview and scrutiny committee”,
and that approval can be secured,
“by a simple majority of members of the oversight and scrutiny committee”,
agreeing that the appointment should be made. We also say in proposed new subsection 1(D):
“An overview and scrutiny committee may”—
at its discretion—
“in pursuit of making a determination … hold a confirmation hearing for the deputy mayor”.
That is clearly defined in proposed new subsection 1(E) as meaning,
“a public meeting at which members of the overview and scrutiny committee may question witnesses and where the committee can compel—
(a) the mayor;
(b) the proposed deputy mayor; and
(c) any other persons that the committee considers relevant to attend”.
This is a much better way of proceeding. There are a number of examples around the world where such confirmation hearings are held, and it seems to me that it would be justifiable in this case, given the dangers that we addressed on Monday during our first day in Committee about the creation of a one-party state. So Amendment 37 would require the approval of the appointment of the deputy mayor by the overview and scrutiny committee.
This is an important issue of principle for us, and I hope that the Government will give due weight to the need to ensure that in a Bill which is proposing such a massive concentration of power, some protection of the public interest can be secured by means of our amendment.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to reflect on the clear problem that could arise, which is that you might well have a mayor and a deputy mayor who do not get on. The mayor of course is elected with a popular mandate and so has a clear mandate to take office under the provisions of the Bill. It is important that the executive of the combined authority should operate smoothly, efficiently and with a sense of common purpose. Given the limited number of members of a combined authority, how does the noble Lord propose that a mayor should seek to build relations with a deputy with whom they may have little in common?
Lord Shipley
It is possible that the mayor would not get on with the deputy mayor, but what the amendments are trying to secure is the approval of an overview and scrutiny committee of the mayor’s nomination. If the members of the committee refused, other people could be nominated by the mayor. It does not say much for local government if, among all the leaders of the councils which are members of the combined authority, there is not one who can get on with the elected mayor.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I want to support the view which has just been expressed by my noble friend Lord Shipley and to make a particular point about the process that we are now engaged in. This is an important issue of principle; in this Bill we are being asked to support a very novel procedure for which there is no precedent. I do not have a problem with major reforms, and indeed sometimes I feel that your Lordships’ House is not sufficiently radical, as other Members may be aware. But on this occasion we should pause and think carefully about what we are doing. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the recommendations made by the Constitution Committee, which says at paragraph 15 of its report:
“Although these proposals are the development of an on-going process started in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, we note that they are being taken forward very quickly. There has been no green paper, white paper or draft bill for pre-legislative scrutiny”.
That lays upon us particular responsibilities. When, in the normal course of events, we have had a Green Paper, White Paper and even discussions between the two Houses in a Joint Committee of a draft Bill, obviously such important and valuable proposals that we have before us could be examined in considerable detail.
However, it is an unfortunate fact that shortly after a general election when there is a change of Administration, they want to get going on new legislation very quickly. That is understandable, but it lays upon this House a special responsibility, particularly when a Bill comes to us first. Again, these are new procedures and the Constitution Committee is echoing concerns that we dealt with on Monday when we were looking at the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Paragraph 14 of the Constitution Committee says:
“One result is that local government in England is likely to become more complicated, as different combined authorities receive different packages of powers. This is a significant departure from past practice which has operated on the basis of a finite number of different council models. The Bill, by contrast, creates the possibility of bespoke arrangements for each combined authority. It might be argued that the proposed system is a paradigm example of demand-and-supply devolution, responsive to local needs. On the other hand there are real concerns about the complexity of the system that may result, and the degree of asymmetry which these changes may bring about. In particular, there is a potential for a significant divergence between urban and rural local government arrangements”.
We on these Benches very much welcome the statement constantly made by the Minister that these are bespoke arrangements, but there are potential dangers of confusion, not least in terms of the way in which the people of the areas concerned will view these new authorities. How precisely the relationship between the combined authority and the mayor will work out in practice is critical to that confidence in the new system. It is extremely important that the deputy mayor should at least be seen to be representing the confidence of choice of the wider group in that area, which is currently represented by the constituent authorities.
I entirely endorse the general concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and hope that the Government will think very carefully indeed about these arrangements before Report.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Government will in fact do exactly the opposite. That last speech explains why I am so much in favour of what is being proposed. One of the problems with Britain is that we mistake neatness for civilisation. We constantly think that if we get everything in the same sort of box we can then defend it. I want to compliment the Government on producing something that is designed to meet the needs of particular places and which will, in fact, be different from one place to another. There is an idea that it will cause confusion—but confusion for whom, and between what? It will not concern people in one place that, if they stood outside these shores, there would be a difference between their position and some other people’s position. Inside, there need be no confusion whatever. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that this is a good answer for a particular place. The Government may have the answer wrong but one cannot argue that the reason they have got it wrong is that it is different from the answer somewhere else. I believe very strongly that it is sensible to do what we are doing.
On the issue of the deputy mayor, the idea that you elect a mayor and then have a situation that makes it difficult for him to have a deputy mayor with whom he or she works is rather odd. I would much prefer to have the system that is being proposed, and if it is argued that we have not done this before, thank God, because we have not been very successful with what we have done before—so let us not be too pusillanimous about doing something new.
We should look at any of the successful cities in the rest of Europe—it is about time that we learnt from the rest of Europe instead of constantly telling them that they should listen to us. The British seem to have a very interesting one-way system: we know it all and tell them, and if they happen to have something that is more successful we complain about it. I want to learn from the rest of Europe because I think there is a great deal to learn. One thing is the way they organise cities. The urban success of most of the countries of Europe compared with us is very notable. Part of that is because we have been foolish enough to remove the local powers of finance and the rest. I accept that; I fought against it and lost, but that is one of those things.
Another part of it is that we have lost the historic position of quite distinguished individuals becoming, in a real sense, representative of their cities. It is suggested that they did that without all these powers; the noble Lord opposite made that point. But we live in a different world. I think that they did it by having those powers, whatever the law said. It is remarkable: if you look at some of the powers that these individuals used, they were very much closer to what is being presented now.
I hope that we will give this a fair wind because we need to give real expression to the feeling of place that, I am happy to see, is growing in our great cities. There has been a gap and I want that gap filled. The way to do that is to let people feel that this is their place. Let us do it differently, so that it fits each of them. Let us not be afraid of real experiment. In particular, let us not muck it all up by insisting that the elected mayor has somebody that they do not want as deputy mayor because that happens to fit some particular view of how you should run a democracy.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that I am not misrepresenting the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I think that he said the British have an obsession with constitutional neatness, or words to that effect. That is rather odd coming from a Member of this House. The one thing that this House does not have is constitutional neatness; none the less it works pretty well most of the time. Certainly most of our dealings on constitutional matters show exactly the opposite, if that is an accurate reflection of what he said; we certainly are not obsessed with constitutional neatness. For example, we have accepted for a long time that the government of Scotland is different from other parts of the United Kingdom; this long predates the strong movement that exists at present for independence. But that is not the main point that I wanted to make.
I have great sympathy with these amendments, but only because they are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, if I can put it like that. They all derive from a kind of fear or anxiety of this potential authoritarian figure without qualification or checks and balances that we are creating in the form of a directly elected mayor. As I have said several times, I infinitely prefer parliamentary systems to directly elected, presidential systems. These amendments express a recognition of what I have always feared about such systems: you elect someone and they can pretty well act in an untrammelled way for the next four, five or six years, or however long it happens to be. These amendments are designed to say, “Let’s be a bit worried about this now. Let’s write in a number of qualifications that ensure that the mayor is not in a position to do that”.
To that extent, I support amendments along the lines being proposed. But—and it is a colossal but—we must recognise that the system we have at present, both in Parliament in the House of Commons and in local authorities up and down the length of the United Kingdom, is one in which the Executive are subject to genuine, democratic checks and balances in the form of a council, or a House of Commons, that checks the Prime Minister or the leader of the local authority to make sure that they do not get too big for their boots, if I can put it in those terms. That is the joy of that kind of system. If, for some reason or another or for some ideological principle, we decide that it works well in the United States and we ought to do it here—or whatever the motivating factors are behind the obsession that all three parties seem to have with directly elected mayors—we certainly need to make sure that a directly elected mayor is subject to some kind of ongoing scrutiny, and checks and balances on the powers that he or she decides to exercise. So I support the drift of the amendments.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I would have sympathy with my noble friend Lord Grocott if the mayor were able to act in an untrammelled way. Coming back to the reality of the Bill rather than grand constitutional fears about what might happen if circumstances took a different course, new Section 107C says:
“The mayor for the area of a combined authority must appoint one of the members of the authority to be the mayor’s deputy”.
In fact, the choice of deputy is very severely constrained. The deputy must be a member of the combined authority, which will limit the choice to a small number of people.
The issue before us is not a great constitutional principle of whether the choice of deputy should be constrained in a way that acknowledges the representative credentials of the combined authority—it is so constrained under the Bill—but whether there should be a further process, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, of consent by the scrutiny committee to the choice of one of those members as deputy. This is a practical issue, in my view, not a constitutional issue. The practical issue is that it is important that the mayor, who comes with a mandate, appoints a deputy with whom he or she gets on.
Those of us who have been engaged in these relationships all know that in practice a deputy mayor will not be appointed who significantly constrains the authority of the mayor, because the mayor is sitting there with a large mandate. There are checks and balances. The combined authority has significant powers to constrain the mayor and to agree the mayor’s actions. If the mayor does not get on with or have confidence in the deputy, what will happen in practice is that the mayor will rely on advisers rather than the deputy mayor. That is not a healthy state of affairs. The mayor has a mandate. The mayor is constrained in the choice of deputy to appoint only a member of the combined authority. It seems a constraint too far to require that choice to be agreed by the scrutiny committee. Of course, in the nature of the political relationship between the mayor and the scrutiny committee, the scrutiny committee itself may well be fairly hostile to the mayor. It is perfectly possible that that will be the position that the scrutiny committee takes.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to Amendment 19 but what does he think about his own party’s Amendment 18, which requires the combined authority to agree the appointment of the deputy?
Lord Adonis
I would have more sympathy with that because of course that will be the colleagues from the executive of the combined authority agreeing. But there will still be an issue if it is not possible to appoint a member of the combined authority in whom the mayor has confidence. There are some practical issues here. The choice is already constrained. If you constrain it still further, that will not enhance accountability and democracy but may just oblige the mayor to rely on informal rather than formal officeholders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I will deal first with Amendments 18, 20, 21 and 22.
Amendment 18 would require the mayor to obtain the consent of the combined authority before appointing the deputy mayor. As the Bill stands, the deputy mayor is appointed by the mayor from the members of the combined authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said. The mayor may, if she or he thinks fit, remove the deputy mayor from office and appoint a new deputy mayor. The Bill’s provisions align with a local authority mayor’s current powers to appoint a deputy mayor. In practice, a mayor will consult some or all of the members of a combined authority about a deputy mayor appointment. At the very least, the mayor will consult the person she or he is minded to appoint, and may well take the views of other members of the authority about this.
For mayoral governance to be effective the mayor and the deputy mayor must be able to work together and the mayor must have confidence in her or his deputy, as again the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said. More significantly, the mayor has been directly elected by the people of the combined authority area and has a clear mandate, a mandate which the deputy mayor will have a role in helping the mayor to fulfil. It would be wrong in both principle and practice for the members of the combined authority to have an ultimate say over who is the deputy mayor, which would be the case if this amendment were made. It is wrong in principle since the mayor, with his or her mandate, needs to be able to have a say over who is the deputy who will assist the mayor to deliver what he or she has promised the voters. It is wrong in practice, since giving the members of a combined authority the ultimate say as to whether a person can or cannot be deputy opens up the possibility of appointments being made which would frustrate or hinder the mayor and create division almost from the outset, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said.
We need to remember the purpose of all this. It is not about forms of governance for their own sake. It is about putting in place the governance needed to support that devolution of powers which is now so urgently needed, as my noble friend Lord Deben said, if this country is to achieve the economic competitiveness and productivity on which the prosperity of all depends. Requiring the combined authority to consent to the deputy mayor’s appointment is not a sensible check or balance on the exercise of executive functions. It risks creating arrangements which frustrate the exercise of these powers, and hence I invite noble Lords not to press this amendment.
Amendments 21 and 22 would likewise simply risk frustrating the exercise of the mayor’s executive functions, and hence frustrate the very purpose of a devolution deal. These amendments would require a mayor to consult the combined authority whenever the mayor wishes to delegate a general function to the deputy mayor, another member or, indeed, an officer. As the Bill stands, the provisions relating to delegation align with the policy for a local authority mayor or leader, who may arrange for the discharge of functions by members of the executive or officers of the authority. Although the mayor may delegate functions, the mayor remains accountable for any actions taken. The mayor is accountable directly to the electorate.
I understand the motivation behind these amendments, which is to ensure that a mayor is indeed effectively held to account, that the executive actions of the mayor are transparent and that people can have confidence that the mayor will properly exercise his or her functions; in short, that while there is the capacity and scope for strong executive action, there are equally the right checks and balances to give that confidence, to ensure accountability and to deliver transparency. However, confusing executive and non-executive actions by involving members of the combined authority in decisions such as how the mayor decides to do his or her job is not providing these checks and balances. These are provided by strong and effective scrutiny, as we will discuss.
I turn back to Amendment 20, which would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the combined authority before making an order providing for a function to be exercisable only by the mayor. I must make clear again that a devolution deal will be agreed only where there is consent from the combined authority or, in the case where the deal also creates the combined authority, the constituent councils. The devolution deal would set out the functions to be exercised by the mayor—the mayoral functions—and those that are to be exercised by the combined authority. The details of the deal will be implemented through an affirmative order, so the arrangements regarding the scope of the mayoral functions will also be fully scrutinised and approved by each House of Parliament, and any order creating or modifying a combined authority is made with the consent of the constituent councils. Hence, we are very clear that the combined authority and/or its constituent councils must agree which functions are mayoral functions and which functions are to be exercised by the combined authority. I am ready to look to ensure that the Bill makes this clear in every circumstance that can arise.
I turn to Amendments 19 and 37. As the Bill stands, the mayor appoints a deputy mayor from the members of the combined authority. This is an action that properly belongs to the mayor and aligns with a local authority mayor’s power to appoint a deputy. The mayor has been directly appointed by the electors, with clear responsibilities and the accountability that goes along with them, and a deputy mayor will have a role in supporting the mayor to fulfil these responsibilities. For an effective partnership and the successful devolution of powers, the relationship between the mayor and deputy needs to work. The requirement for an overview and scrutiny committee to approve the appointment, and to have the power to void it, may frustrate and very much damage this relationship. In practice, a mayor will consult some or all of the members of a combined authority about a deputy mayor appointment, and may well take the views of other members of the authority about this. Adding an extra requirement of consent for a deputy mayor’s appointment is to add an extra layer of bureaucracy, which we are so keen to avoid, and may obstruct the successful devolution of powers that we are trying to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about confirmatory hearings. Those hearings are used but their place is usually where the executive is making an appointment to a public office. The appointment of a deputy mayor is not in this process; rather, it is part of the process for creating the executive.
My noble friend Lord Deben made the point about the clarity of the Bill, on which I commend the Government, and the need for individual areas to do exactly what fits their area; hence the bespoke nature of each deal. With these assurances and the explanations that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, maybe I should know this, and I do not, but what provision is there without going via the courts for the public removal of a mayor who is regarded as underperforming in their duties? A lot of the Minister’s comments were about transparency, accountability and the authority and legitimacy that they get from direct election, and therefore that they must have a deputy who is aligned with their own views. I understand that argument, although I do not necessarily accept it. But at the moment, within Parliament and certainly within local government, most leaders—apart from having to win their elections every four years—may be required to stand for re-election annually for votes of confidence by their group. They can be removed if they are not regarded as performing appropriately.
On the assumption that a mayor may be elected only every four years or every five—we do not yet know, as we have not had that discussion—how is the accountability to the electorate to be exercised unless the Minister is willing to consider some sort of recall motion? It is clear that the combined authority does not appear to have any leverage over the mayor, in the way that a group would at the moment over the leader of their local authority. Maybe I should know this and it is in some subset of the briefing on the Bill but I cannot find out how, short of going through the courts, you could hold the mayor to account for their actions until that mayor stands for re-election, which may be four, five or six years down the line.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Baroness has answered the first part of that question herself because it is indeed through the ballot box that the mayor could be removed. I do not know whether she is aware that there is an assumption now in local government that leaders have four-year terms, unless they are indeed removed at the ballot box through election.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
But does the Minister agree that the leaders would have four-year terms unless their group decided that they were not appropriately fulfilling the functions for which they were chosen, in which case there would be either quiet or less-quiet discussions, and that person would stand down?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, authorities which fail to fulfil the duty of best value go into statutory intervention. If things were that bad, that would be the process but there is now an in-built assumption in local authorities that a leader has a four-year term, unless removed by full resolution of the council. However, for the mayor it would be via the ballot box. On the recall mechanism, there is no such mechanism within local authorities and this provision multiplies the local authority provisions up. If a mayor is corrupt we are on to a different level, as I think the noble Baroness understands.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I understand absolutely that it is a different ball game when corruption is involved, as with some of the issues associated with Tower Hamlets. I am not talking about that. My experience of both district councils and county councils is that there may be a regular turnover of leaders within the four years if they are not driving through the agenda on which their group fought the election and they have failed to deliver the manifesto. Leaders on Norfolk County Council, in that case from the opposition party, have been overturned. In my city council, the leader has to be re-elected each and every year and there is occasionally, if not regularly, a change of leadership in the course of that because the leader has lost the confidence of their group. That is perfectly proper and usually happens because the ward councillors, one-third of whom may have had elections each year, are getting that feedback on the door-step from their constituents.
In other words, there are quite effective, if subtle, ways of ensuring that the current leaders of local authorities continue to deliver their manifesto and carry the consent of their group, who are also regularly standing for election. However, as far as I can see, once a mayor has been elected, he or she is free from any such scrutiny, let alone from recall, by his or her electorate. The leader of a group is indirectly elected, and can be recalled by that group; the mayor is directly elected but apparently cannot be recalled by the electorate. Could the Minister help me on this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly can. With other mayoral systems—for example, the Mayor of London and mayors elsewhere—accountability and the way to change the status quo is via the ballot box. There is no provision for recall within local authorities that I know of. Unless something has recently been introduced, there is no mechanism of recall. In the discussion that the noble Baroness is having with me—I am sure she will tell me if I am wrong—there is perhaps an additional suspicion around a mayor which there is not around local authority leaders. I take her point that local authority leaders are removed in subtle or not so subtle ways, depending on where you are, but for mayors the ultimate accountability is via the ballot box.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)
Can the Minister enlighten me on one point and agree with me on a second? First, when it is said that the deputy mayor must be a member of the combined authority, does that mean a councillor on one of the local authorities that comprise the combined authority rather than someone on the board, as it were, of the combined authority? Secondly, would she agree with me that, in practice, once one moves away from London, the number of local authorities that comprise the combined authorities is relatively small? We are not talking about 30 or more—in South Yorkshire it is four and in West Yorkshire five or six. It is inconceivable that an elected mayor could make an appointment without careful consultation and discussion with the leaders of that small number of constituent local authorities. In practical terms, the mayor would have to consult carefully, as he or she would consult carefully on any policy issues, because without that the mayor could not govern effectively. There is a degree, I think, of suspicion about the mayor. If a mayor is appointed, that person is not going to be dealing, in most parts of the country, with 30 or 40 local authorities. The proposal being put forward is unnecessarily cumbersome and flies in the face of the reality of how the mayor would have to work.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for that very useful intervention. First, he asked whether choosing a deputy mayor from the combined authority would mean choosing a councillor. Yes, it would, and that councillor would in fact be a council leader. Could the mayor make an unpopular appointment? He could, but it would be a very foolish mayor who made an unpopular appointment or chose someone who did not resonate and engage with the other members of the combined authority.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Am I right in understanding that it must be not simply an elected councillor but a leader of one of the constituent authorities? In practical terms, that means that a mayor would look extremely foolish if he or she selected somebody as a deputy who was not accepted by the leaders of a small number of local authorities.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I have a slight correction on this. In those cities with elected mayors—that is, Liverpool—those elected mayors are not councillors. They have to give up their local council position when they become the elected mayor.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, we must take into account and deal with the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which would mean that an elected mayor, whatever he or she does, cannot be dismissed. That could be a very serious problem. After all, the House of Commons in the last Parliament decided that Members of Parliament could be recalled if they do not produce the goods or do their jobs properly. Surely an elected mayor with enormous responsibilities ought to be able to be removed under certain circumstances in the same way as Members of Parliament.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, Members of Parliament can be dismissed via the ballot box. If Members of Parliament behave in a way that brings Parliament into disrepute by their actions, they can have the Whip withdrawn from them. In the same way, a mayor who behaved in a disreputable manner could see intervention by government and be dealt with in that way. There are checks and balances. We are talking about levels of unpopularity, bad behaviour or behaviour ill-fitting the position of mayor.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
The point I was making was that in the last Parliament new legislation enabled electors to get rid of their MP by a certain process if they did not come up to scratch. That was something new and never done before. I cannot see why Members of Parliament should be able to be recalled but not a directly elected mayor.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there is not a process for local authority councillors to be recalled—or for local authority leaders or any other local authority mayors. This would be an anomaly were it to be introduced.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I will stop pushing on this point, but I have one last question that I am still not clear on. That may be because we have not yet got to the point about the length of the mayor’s term of office and the co-terminosity or otherwise of other elections. However, one could easily see a combined authority with, say, five bodies where one or two might be NOC while the other three, because their elections do not occur at the same time as the mayoral elections, might have leaders of different political persuasions so that none of the leaders was of the same political persuasion as the directly elected mayor. I assure the Minister that, as I am sure she is aware, that will happen. We have seen it between elections for local government and elections for MPs where we get very different results. Indeed, some people quite deliberately cross-vote to get precisely that outcome. I have seen that in Norwich on many occasions. What then happens if the mayor has no leaders politically sympathetic to the views on which he was elected?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very interesting point. Other points have been made at length in this House about single-party states, but in terms of election periods or cycles being out of kilter because of different types of elections, I would imagine—although I will confirm this with the noble Baroness—that they are the sorts of things that would need to be ironed out when a devolution deal was done on how that combined authority’s elections would pan out. I am thinking of the Greater Manchester situation, where we are in thirds and all synchronise nicely. But I can foresee that process.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I am going to be helpful to the Minister, but would it be possible that, between elections, the Secretary of State could remove all the functions from the mayor, so that they would stay with the combined authority members?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, if that were to happen, the Secretary of State would have to disband the combined authority and something in its place would have to be set up.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps the Minister would reflect and write on that point.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I would like to correct the comment that I have just made and come back to it in a future group, because I have clearly got it wrong.
Lord Beecham
That just illustrates the complexity of the matters that we are discussing. I refer to one matter that the Minister mentioned, when she said that the deputy mayor must be the leader of a council which is part of the combined authority. I am not sure whence that arises, as it is not in the Bill. It may or may not be the case that combined authorities consist purely of council leaders.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is correct, in fact—it would usually be a local authority leader, but would not necessarily always be. It has to be a member of the combined authority, but it would in usual circumstances be a leader.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
That comes back to the clarification that we asked for—and we are getting a little lost in it. Is an elected councillor in one of the constituent authorities who is not a leader a member of the combined authority in the sense that it is being used? In other words, could a mayor choose somebody as a deputy who was a back-bencher in any of the local authorities, to put it simply, and not a decision-maker on the board of the combined authority? Would that be possible?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
That is a good question—particularly if there were no leaders in political sympathy with the mayor and therefore he or she had to scrabble around to find a deputy and had to go to a minority party, which might be very minority indeed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the deputy mayor has to be a member of the combined authority, not just a councillor in one of the councils.
Lord Beecham
So the shape and construction of combined authorities may vary, but there will be a distinct membership, as the Minister has just confirmed, of the body defined in whatever way ultimately emerges as the combined authority. That much is clear to me —it may not be clear to others, but then so much of this debate is, I suspect, not going to be entirely clear to all of us. I think we can move on from that point, unless the Minister wants to come back.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I just want to confirm that the noble Lord is correct.
Lord Beecham
Well, we have agreed on something. Whether there will be any more agreement before the afternoon is over remains to be seen.
Much of the discussion that has taken place has been about the appointment of deputies. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lord Adonis have spoken particularly about the question of the choice of deputies. That is an important issue, but by no means the only issue.
Lord Tyler
The noble Lord of course makes a very important point. One of our difficulties at the moment is that we have not yet reached the role and responsibility of the scrutiny committees. In addition to the point that he is making, consultation with the combined authority on these matters of delegated powers, which is absolutely valid, may well be something that we think in due course the scrutiny committee should have some sort of role in. At the moment, though, we have no idea what that role might be. I entirely endorse the point the noble Lord is making but reinforce it with my own point. As often happens in your Lordships’ House, we are trying to take carts and horses in the right order but they tend to get muddled up together.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will be less grateful to me when I say that I am afraid I do not agree with the amendment that his noble friend Lord Shipley moved in relation to the role of the overview and scrutiny committee in the appointment process; I do not think that that is a proper function for such a committee. We will come later, as the noble Lord has just said, to the functions of the overview and scrutiny committee, and it seems to me that its job should be to look at how the mayor and the combined authority are working, in terms of both looking at policy as it is made and looking forward to future policy. I do not think it appropriate for those committees to play a role in making the appointments, and we will not be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in that respect.
Between us, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I led Newcastle City Council for something like 20 years—with varying degrees of success over time, no doubt. There have been many distinguished local authority leaders. Right now I am looking at a distinguished local authority leader taking his place on the Benches behind the Minister, who was herself a distinguished council leader. My noble friend Lord Woolmer was a distinguished council leader, although I detect a slight difference of opinion between us on some of these matters today—but then nobody is perfect.
It seems to me that those who see in the mayoral system something infinitely better than anything we have had before are making a great mistake. What worries many of us—certainly on the Labour Benches, I think on the Liberal Democrat Benches and perhaps in other parts of the House—is the enormous concentration of power which will be granted or withheld by the Secretary of State in a manner which diminishes accountability locally. For those reasons, we shall certainly wish to return to these matters.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
Would I not be right to say that the noble Lord is going to have at least part of the privilege of deciding whether the north-east wants to have a system with a mayor and the devolved powers that will go with there being a mayor? If he does not like the system, I assume he is going to decide that the north-east should not have a mayor in its combined authority.
Lord Beecham
Much as I would like to be able to take decisions on behalf of the whole population of the north-east, I would not be able to do that. My view, which may be shared by others, is that we would much rather not have imposed upon us a requirement for an elected mayor for the combined authority which, as the noble Viscount well knows, would run from the Tweed virtually to the Tees and from the Cumbrian border to the North Sea coast—a very large area and somewhat different from some of those which have been mooted. Of course, the people will not be given a choice as matters at present stand. It will be a take-it-or-leave-it decision that councils or the combined authority will have to take on behalf of the people; otherwise, it is said, they will not receive the powers. That is part of the problem.
So far as the detailed arrangements are concerned, our amendments would deal with the situation where, by agreement or otherwise, a mayoral system is created within the combined authority area. We will need to return to some of these matters on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
“( ) Where the geographical boundary of a combined authority does not correspond with the area of the police and crime commissioner in question, the Secretary of State shall bring forward proposals to make alternative arrangements.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this is a probing amendment in relation to the controversial proposal under new Section 107E to permit mayors to assume the role of police and crime commissioner. In fairness, this is not a case in which the Government are imposing that as a requirement—at this stage, at any rate—but it is an option on the table that the authorities in Greater Manchester have chosen to adopt, which is no doubt satisfactory at least to the police and crime commissioner in that area, since he has become the interim mayor of Greater Manchester. He is a very able person, and if we have to have somebody in that role I have no doubt he will do an excellent job.
However, the problem that may arise, and does arise in the case of the north-east, is that the boundaries of the combined authority include more than one police and crime commissioner area. In the north-east we have two police forces and two police and crime commissioners, one for Northumbria and one for Durham. The same difficulty may well arise in other areas, such as the West Midlands or the south-west. Not only may there be two or more distinct police forces with their own police and crime commissioners within the boundaries of a proposed combined authority; there may be police authorities and areas represented by police and crime commissioners which are only partially within a combined authority. There may be an overlap between the boundaries of a combined authority and police authority areas.
It seems that in that event, it would be inappropriate simply to consign all or part of an existing area to the responsibility of a combined authority mayor. Therefore, the amendment calls on the Secretary of State to propose alternative arrangements to meet these geographical difficulties, if I may put it in that way. I invite the Minister to explain how the Government intend to approach the issue and what kind of parliamentary approval would be sought. For example, would further amendment to the legislation which established the position of these police and crime commissioners be required? I hope the Minister can deal with that point today, but if not, perhaps it can be discussed before we reach Report. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I agree with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I want to ask the Minister about the nature of a police and crime commissioner appointment. I recall that when we debated the terms of those appointments in your Lordships’ House not that long ago, these were clearly full-time appointments—substantial salaries were to be paid. Does the Minister agree with me that if a decision can be made that an elected mayor can undertake those functions along with all the other functions that may be devolved or delegated to them by the Secretary of State, it is very hard to see the basis on which a PCC appointment should be seen as full time? If it should not, what is the implication of that for other police and crime commissioners?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, Amendment 24 would insert a new provision within new Section 107E to require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals to make alternative arrangements where the geographic boundary of a police and crime commissioner area does not correspond, as noble Lords have said, with the area of a combined authority.
New Section 107E would enable the Secretary of State to provide, by order, that the mayor of a combined authority area would exercise the functions of a police and crime commissioner, subject to the necessary consent from the appropriate authorities. If such an order were made, new Section 107E would also require the Secretary of State to provide that there is no separate police and crime commissioner for the area of the combined authority. The Bill also enables secondary legislation to be made which creates the position of mayor for the area of the combined authority, while retaining a separate position of the police and crime commissioner for the policing area.
The Bill does not prevent a mayor also being given police and crime commissioner functions where the relevant combined authority area does not correspond to a single police area. Should it be considered appropriate to transfer functions to a mayor in such a case, powers in existing legislation would enable police areas to be altered to facilitate such a scenario. On this basis, mechanisms are already available to enable alternative arrangements to be made. However, as we know, Greater Manchester’s devolution deal is the only one to date which will include a directly elected metro mayor also taking the police and crime commissioner function. We also know that in this area the police force boundary corresponds to that of the combined authority.
We will consider any future proposals to transfer police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor for a combined authority area on a case-by-case basis, and will transfer these functions where appropriate. Clearly, geographic issues will be an important consideration in this regard. With these explanations and assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness has answered the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
Lord Shipley
I am quite happy to have the question answered later. We will be going on to another set of amendments that deal with the nature of the appointment of a police and crime commissioner, and I would be very happy if the Minister wanted to reply at that point.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, as I indicated, we will not be pressing this matter at this stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, my noble friend Lord McKenzie is resting temporarily but will occupy centre stage shortly, which will give me some relief and perhaps your Lordships as well.
This group of amendments deals not so much with the boundaries of the proposed arrangements for police and crime but with the functions of the police and crime commissioner that would be taken over by an elected mayor if a combined authority and its mayor chose to take that particular route. The amendments clearly address the controversial concept of transferring powers and functions. PCCs were created, as we have heard, with a great fanfare three years ago and were met by a public response of virtually total indifference.
The Government’s proposals in new Section 107E at least have the virtue of requiring the consent of the appropriate authorities. Amendment 27 makes it clear that this consent must be unanimous. However, the section does not deal with the issue raised in the debate on the previous amendment of where the boundaries do not coincide. That is why Amendment 24—to which we will return—requires the Secretary of State to,
“bring forward proposals to make alternative arrangements”.
It will be recalled that the turnout in the PCC elections plumbed the very depths of political engagement, barely exceeding the total share of the vote achieved by the Liberal Democrats in the recent general election. However, the notion that the mayoral role should encompass that of the police and crime commissioner gives a whole new meaning to the hallowed phrase “one man, one vote”, given the more extensive powers vested in the so-called metro mayors. One man’s vote would, as the Bill stands, effectively be the only vote that would count over a huge range of budgets, services and policies, and, if the Bill’s permissive proposal were activated, over a huge area of public policy and administration in relation to police and crime. That becomes part of the mayoral function, possibly carried out by the mayor himself or herself, or possibly delegated—and we have talked a little about delegation.
The question is: what is the Government’s long-term vision for the police service? Do they see a mix of mayoral and PCC models, and how sustainable would such a binary system be, especially in the light of hugely difficult financial pressures across all public services? Already the police service is suffering significant cuts, with more apparently to come as the Home Secretary airily dismisses concerns about what is happening to our police service.
Amendments 29 to 32 deal with a range of issues. Amendment 29 establishes the need for a proper appointment process where the PCC functions are to be exercised other than by the mayor himself. Apparently it will be for the mayor to choose whether that will be the case or not. Amendment 31 gives the Secretary of State power to allow the equivalent of the police and crime panel, which currently exists, to suspend any relevant person exercising PCC functions on behalf of the mayor. Amendment 32 applies the same disqualification procedure for a mayor’s appointee to a PCC function. There needs to be some mechanism to deal with that situation, which does not on the face of it appear to be dealt with in the Bill.
Finally—and, it might be thought, crucially—Amendment 30 requires the Secretary of State to provide for the protection of police budgets transferred to the mayor, should the mayor opt to take the police and crime commissioner functions into his functions and those of the combined authority. That would be an important safeguard, should that take place. It would effectively ring-fence the expenditure which hitherto had been the responsibility of police and crime commissioners and, before that, of the police authorities. I trust that the Minister will be able to give some assurances about that crucial financial issue. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, a number of issues arise from this group of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the point that I raised in the debate on Amendment 24. I am getting very confused about the Government’s proposals for the election or appointment of police and crime commissioners. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised a set of points that need to be very carefully examined and responded to. Therefore, in addition to the question that I have already posed about whether or not these are full-time appointments, I am really very concerned about the public interest. For example, will the general public know when a mayoral election is taking place that the person elected as mayor may, in due course, also become the police and crime commissioner? If there is a set of elections for these full-time posts now, what are the implications and how will it work for someone standing as elected mayor who may then become the police and crime commissioner?
Interestingly, in the Bill, the Government have proposals to suspend or disqualify a PCC, but, as I understand it, the Bill does not provide similar powers for the suspension or disqualification of the elected mayor. We have to tidy this up. At the moment, we have elections for a police and crime commissioner. Will the election of a mayor include clarity in advance of the ballot that they are also a candidate to become the police and crime commissioner? We seem to be giving the Secretary of State enormous power to change the terms under which an elected mayor has been elected, to enable them to do something else—become the PCC, which is, by its nature, a full-time post.
I am absolutely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the amendments that ask for an appointments process. If we do not have an electoral process for the PCC, surely there should be an appointments process if the person elected mayor is also to become the police and crime commissioner.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I apologise for omitting reference to two amendments in my name, which partially deal with the points that he has made—Amendments 31 and 32. The Bill permits the suspension of a mayor’s PCC role, and Amendment 31 would allow for any person who has had a PCC function delegated to them by the elected mayor to be suspended also. Similarly, where there is a disqualification of a mayor’s PCC role, the amendment would allow for the disqualification of any person who has had that function delegated to them. I apologise to your Lordships for not having referred to those points in my relatively brief opening remarks. I hope the Minister will be able to deal with them in due course.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Beecham, for whom I have enormous respect. However, my recollection of the police and crime commissioner thing is that, when it came to this House a few years ago, on this side of the House we all thought that it was a pretty bad idea. We were rather confirmed in that view by the fact that the percentage polled by these people in the elections was pathetic and they really have very little democratic legitimacy.
Certainly in my own area, the commissioner is seen to regard himself as a very big noise, to be driven around in chauffeur-driven cars at public expense, employing advisers on his behalf. Surely we want to get rid of all this. Surely, being able to transfer those functions into the functions of an elected mayor is something we should welcome. The whole point of an elected mayor is to bring a breath of fresh air into the democratic politics of local government. I have devoted not nearly as long a part of my life to local government as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but I have done about 15 years of service one way or another on local authorities and I think the elected mayor idea has the potential to bring democratic life to big cities and to introduce a new style of politics. If we are to have elected mayors, the police and crime function naturally fits in.
There are obviously boundary issues that someone has got to sort to out, but that must be the Secretary of State—no one else can do it. The idea that everything has to be done by the agreement of existing authorities is a recipe for the status quo, and I feel that we are somehow on the wrong track.
Lord Storey
My Lords, it has to be about more than swapping the police and crime commissioner’s police car for the mayoral car; the appointments process is hugely important. However, I want to speak to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Unfortunately, he cannot be here at the moment, so I volunteered to say a few words on it. It makes perfect sense—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I wonder whether the noble Lord might withhold his comments. A very important issue is raised by that amendment, but perhaps we could continue to explore the issue that we are on and then move on to the new amendment.
Lord Storey
I am awfully sorry, my Lords. As I sat down, I squeezed my mobile phone and suddenly a voice was saying something into my ear, so I did not hear a word that the noble Baroness said. I mean that as no disrespect.
I shall try to continue. Amendment 28 is quite clear. If an elected mayor takes on the position of police and crime commissioner, we should be clear as to what those functions and roles are. I have, and had, grave reservations about the whole notion of police and crime commissioners, but we have them. If we look throughout the land, we see that they have interpreted and developed their powers in all sorts of interesting ways. Not only did the Select Committee’s report show that there have been significant variations in the interests and approaches taken across the country; it criticised the weak accountability of the police and crime commissioners. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, suggests in his amendment that we might have an opportunity to develop the policing and crime functions should they be taken up by an elected mayor.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, having listened to the debate so far on the various amendments, I am mightily glad that I am not the Minister. I hope that this does not sound patronising, but she has handled this Committee with good humour and has attempted to answer all the questions. However, my word, if she can square this particular circle of fitting the police and crime commissioners into directly elected mayors, that would be an achievement worthy of note and a chapter in Erskine May.
We have to have a history lesson for a moment. I do not know where the idea for police and crime commissioners came from— whether from the Liberal Democrat part or the Conservative part of the coalition.
Lord Grocott
It is always interesting to unravel these bits and pieces. We might test a few more policies on that basis. So it was a Conservative policy to have police and crime commissioners, but I think I am right in saying that it was Liberal Democrat policy to have the first election in November. I do not think we can remember that particular contribution with great affection and admiration, or wish to repeat it. But the system was set up with grand language surrounding its inception, stating that in this crucial area of policing there should be a democratically elected leader accountable to the public, so that the public know whom to go to for this defined area of public life—all police and crime activity and policy in a particular part of the country. At least that was a clear objective. It fell at the first hurdle, as some of us predicted it would, because of the appalling turnout of 15% overall—in an area I know very well, Stoke, it was 9%. But at least there was clarity about the objective and the function that was being addressed.
This is where there is complete confusion. I am sure the Minister will try to square this circle, but I fear she will find it extremely difficult. We have police and crime commissioners, which for all their faults and criticisms were about a defined, agreed policy and pattern common across England. However, the virtue, almost, of the devolution pattern that we have discussed at such length is that it will be in different areas, with different functions and different managerial styles, and arranged differently between groups of leaders and the Secretary of State. If it is not completely random, its whole strength and legitimacy is that it is enabling and there will be no common pattern.
Now an attempt is being made to graft an agreed common pattern about a specific and very important service on to the myriad different structures that are planned for devolution, largely regarding directly elected mayors. It simply cannot work for all the reasons that have already been spelled out. How on earth will people know when they are electing a directly elected mayor what pattern will be established as to when the elections will take place? I will not repeat all the questions that have already been asked, but I can at least spell this fundamental problem out. We are trying to graft a common pattern on to a randomly different pattern across Great Britain.
It is almost beyond the power of parliamentary counsel to answer all the questions that are being raised in this debate. I wish the Minister well, if just for the sheer fun of watching someone try to square this circle. But surely the time has come to acknowledge that, worthy though some of the objectives may be in having police and crime commissioners directly elected, somehow or other this needs to be started from scratch. If we are to have devolution, police and crime must be part of that devolution package and there must be some consistency in the service across the country as to the type of devolution structure that will be applied in different areas.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Grocott, who is absolutely right. Let me give an example. In many of the shire counties there may well be a combined authority around the leading city of the county, together with its neighbours. There may or may not be, as part of the individual bespoke package, an elected mayor. Let us assume that the authority agrees and negotiates an elected mayor for the city and the adjacent authorities. That would mean that the rest of the county is not in such a system, although there will still be the county council, of course. In the mayoral authority the police powers would come to the mayor, but unfortunately for the rest of, say, Norfolk, the police headquarters and all the resources are in the city, along with all the senior superintendents. All of the police functions spill out from the city, but the heart and the head of the police service has just been moved out of the territory of the police and crime commissioner, who will be left to look after a scattering of marginal, rural districts with no resources, no buildings and no senior staff. I simply do not see how this is even faintly possible.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, having not spoken on the Bill before, I must declare a few interests as a former president of the National Association of Local Councils, a vice-president of the LGA and a practising chartered surveyor with urban interests of all sorts. Apart from apologising for my lack of involvement in the earlier stages through a clash of diaries, my reason for intervening is to remind noble Lords that the Committee on Standards in Public Life will shortly produce a report on the subject of police accountability. I suspect that part of it will look at the role and efficacy of police and crime commissioners. Before the Minister responds, she might like to bear in mind that that particular issue is in play.
Your Lordships would not expect a comment from these Benches that is unequivocally in favour of the normal democratic processes for deciding the best way of governing accountability. I always think of my late father’s nostrum that vox populi is not necessarily vox Dei—he was a man of great religious conviction—and I think that the saying may possibly apply here. I am not convinced that mixing these two functions together is necessarily a great idea. It may be, but I do not see that it is guaranteed to be so.
At the moment, I suspect that we have a growing problem that boils down to the question of who has oversight of the regulator. That is an issue where powers are extensive and largely not subject to any sort of external oversight. They gradually accrue to themselves things that perhaps should not be accrued. There is a natural tendency—it is a tendency in human nature and I do not apportion blame for that—to try to exclude those who might loosely be termed the prying eyes of external forces. The question is one of accountability: how it sits with elected mayors, who are elected on a rather different template, and how it actually keeps the two functions separate. I would hesitate to suggest that it would be appropriate for the hard-nosed commercial thrust used by the elected mayor of one of these great metropolitan combined authorities to be applied to dealing with the police. I do not think the two are quite at one.
I thought that I should flag up those points—particularly the Committee on Standards in Public Life which, as your Lordships will know, is under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I think that its deliberations and its report will throw some light on this whole question of accountability.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I had concluded, perhaps wrongly, that we would not see very many combined authority mayors in any great hurry. Since the deal that will be negotiated in order for there to be a mayor of a combined authority and a transfer of powers is a complicated matter, and since this is an enabling Bill to enable those deals to take place, the question of whether the commissioner’s authority is passed to the mayor will be one of the subjects of negotiation when the deal is being struck. If a combined authority—let me take the north-east—decided that it would like to see whether it could negotiate “yes” to become a mayoral combined authority but “no” to taking over the powers of the police commissioner, it would not be outside the bounds of negotiation. Some of what we are discussing comes to the point at which one would say, “Surely if a mayor is to take over the powers of the police and crime commissioner, it should happen from the start”. It should not be something which, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, suggested, could be done at any time in the future; it should be part of the deal.
One problem we have in debating the Bill in Committee is that from our point of view it is starting from the wrong end. It is starting from local authorities putting up their suggestions as to how their area of the country might be better governed as a matter of local government. This is not where we usually find ourselves. We are usually in the position of saying, “This is what will happen and you will obey the rules”. That is not the situation here, for better or for worse. Certainly for my part I am trying to think through as carefully as I can the implications of this change in direction. They are very complicated but I hope that we will find a way of supporting the endeavour for the devolution of much more power to local authorities.
It has been said several times in our proceedings that the problem may then become a fiscal one: where is the money coming from? I am certainly very conscious of the fact that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Perhaps I could suggest that if this whole system becomes successful in one or two places, maybe some fiscal changes will follow upon that success.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I, too, start with an apology, having not answered the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Riddle—Liddle, sorry—brought up the same point, which was about how police areas would be changed. Power to change police force boundaries exist in Section 32 of the Police Act 1996. I referred to that mechanism in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, a moment ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also asked a question, which I shall answer now because he asked it previously as well, about the full-time nature of the PCC role and how we will ensure capacity to cover PCC matters. It will be for the mayor to ensure that there are sufficient resources to fulfil all PCC functions and we have included the ability for a mayor to delegate these functions to a deputy PCC mayor. We anticipate that there will also be a wider police governance administration structure taking over the role of the PCC’s office.
Lord Beecham
If it is convenient, could the Minister indicate whether there is any intention to make arrangements equivalent to that of the police and crime panel, as well as the two points that she has already made?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
If the noble Lord will indulge me, I will get on to that a bit later.
Amendment 27 seeks to amend new Section 107E, which enables the Secretary of State to provide by order that the mayor for an area of a combined authority may exercise the functions of a police and crime commissioner. Subsection (4) of this new section sets out that such an order can be made only with the consent of the appropriate authorities, as defined in new Section 107B(6). Noble Lords have asked that new subsection (4) be amended to make clear that all the appropriate authorities defined by new Section 107B(6) must consent before such an order can be made.
I reassure noble Lords that, under the current draft, all the appropriate authorities in the area would, indeed, have to give consent before an order to transfer police and crime commissioner functions could be made. As my noble friend Lord Eccles neatly said, it is part of the deal. Therefore, I do not believe that such an amendment is necessary. I would be concerned that, if adopted, the amendment might suggest that consent would be required from all the different kinds of authorities set out in new Section 107B(6), not all of which would necessarily be relevant in a given area.
Amendment 28 seeks to amend new Section 107E to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to outline, in a report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, plans to develop policing and crime functions for mayors who take on the functions of a police and crime commissioner. The principle behind the Bill is to ensure broad consistency between existing police and crime commissioners and mayors who take on police and crime commissioner functions. On this basis, we have set out in the Bill specific functions that will be applied to every mayor for a combined authority area who takes on police and crime commissioner functions. We envisage that, generally, all remaining functions will transfer across. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—not “Lord Riddle”—made.
However, the Bill maintains a degree of flexibility at this stage, as there may be functions that would not be relevant in the context of a mayor exercising PCC functions, to enable transfer arrangements to be appropriately tailored to the local circumstances of the area concerned. I reassure noble Lords that there are no plans to develop the PCC functions transferred to mayors separately from the wider functions of PCCs. We will ensure that the level of accountability, transparency and service applied to a mayor taking on a PCC function will be the same as is the case for PCCs across the rest of England and Wales.
At this point, I will answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on scrutiny. The mayor will be required to establish a scrutiny panel, which will perform the same task as the existing police and crime panels. The scrutiny panel will support the effective delivery of the mayor’s PCC functions, assess the police and crime plan, monitor the budgets and retain the ability to suspend a mayor from the policing functions in certain circumstances.
For the mayor of a combined authority area to take on PCC functions, the Secretary of State will be required to lay an order setting out the detail of how PCC functions will be transferred to the mayor. Parliament will have the opportunity to fully consider that.
Amendments 29, 31 and 32 would place a requirement on the mayor to implement an appointment process for any person exercising PCC functions on their behalf, and to extend the disqualification and suspension criteria to such persons. It is our policy that the arrangements for mayors with PCC functions mirror as closely as possible the arrangements for police and crime commissioners and those to whom a PCC delegates their functions, and that is what the Bill does. It ensures that the process for delegation of responsibilities from the mayor and any appointed deputy is consistent with that for the delegation of functions from a PCC and a deputy PCC.
Schedule 1 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 sets out the process of scrutiny for senior appointments made by a PCC. This scrutiny process, which covers the appointment of deputy PCCs, provides the relevant police and crime panel with an opportunity to scrutinise senior appointments and to make reports to the PCC. We consider that the current arrangements work well, and it is our intention to apply them by order in areas where the mayor for a combined authority is taking on PCC functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about mayoral elections. It is not the case that a person will have two roles—both mayor and police and crime commissioner. The position is that a mayor can be given the policing powers so that among his other functions he exercises the functions of a police and crime commissioner. When people vote, they will know what the mayor’s functions are. They will vote for the mayor on this basis. Orders setting out the arrangements will be made so that this is clear before the mayoral election, and we will consider how, if necessary, to ensure that this is always the case.
On the issue of disqualification and suspension, I am aware that there are additional restrictions on deputy PCCs that are not set out in the Bill. However, I assure your Lordships that it is our intention to apply these provisions by order.
Finally, Amendment 30 would insert a new provision into new Schedule 5C to require the Secretary of State to make provision by order for the protection of police budgets where this responsibility is transferred to the mayor. To be clear, the transfer of functions from a PCC to a mayor will not directly change the way in which central government funding for the police is calculated. This will continue to be done in line with existing policies, with the funding transferred to the mayor rather than the PCC. It is also our intention that the mayor will set the level of the policing element of the precept, and we have ensured that, in line with PCCs, the Home Secretary retains the power to intervene if the police budget is set at a level that would put the safety of people in the area at risk. Additionally, the mayor will be required to set up and maintain a separate fund in relation to receipts arising and liabilities incurred in the exercise of their PCC functions, and to prepare a separate annual budget in relation to the exercise of such functions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked about the continuity of areas and what would happen if, say, there was a combined authority with a mayor for part of a police force area and that mayor was given police and crime commissioner powers to exercise. The essential point is that if this were to happen, there would need to be an adjustment of force areas as necessary so that the mayor’s area and the surrounding force area made sense in policing terms. There would not be a messy arrangement in the way that she suggested. If a mayor’s area did not make sense in policing terms, the mayor would not be given policing powers.
On the basis of those explanations, I hope the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, perhaps I might pursue the Minister’s answer on the right of the general public to know in advance of a ballot for a mayor exactly what it is that they are voting for. I think she said that the public will know in advance of polling day what the duties of a mayor would be. Will she confirm that no responsibilities of a police and crime commissioner will be transferred following an election—in other words, a decision will not be made after an election by the Secretary of State, working with the combined authority—and that it will always be clear to the general public which responsibilities of the PCC will be part of the obligations of the mayor, and that they will not be changed afterwards?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I can confirm that when people vote they will know what the mayor’s functions are.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, will the noble Baroness clear up one other point for me? She referred to the panel in new Schedule 5C. The panel has one extremely important role. Under paragraph 6—headed “Suspension”—of new Schedule 5C:
“The Secretary of State must by order provide for the panel mentioned in paragraph 4 to have power to suspend the mayor, so far as acting in the exercise of PCC functions, in circumstances corresponding to those mentioned in section 30(1) of the 2011 Act in relation to a police and crime commissioner”.
This relates back to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, because, of course, there is a very interesting discrepancy here. As far as the police functions are concerned, there is a body that has the right to suspend the mayor. However, will the Minister confirm that that is not, of course, the case in relation to all the other functions that the elected mayor may have? Perhaps she could clarify that at this stage as it will affect later amendments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I can confirm what the noble Lord says. I go back to a previous question that relates to this issue which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and which I did not answer, about the powers that the mayor has being prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State. We have said we will ensure that in all circumstances such an order will be made only with the consent of the local authorities. What can be done—I was not clear on this earlier—is for such an order to be revoked or amended, changing or withdrawing the functions that a mayor has. What cannot be done without abolishing the combined authority is to end the authority’s having a mayor. Abolishing a combined authority requires the consent of the councils concerned. I think that the noble Lord made that point earlier.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I begin by taking up the penultimate point that the noble Baroness made in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the mandate, as it were, for police functions being transferred. She said that the electorate in a mayoral election for a combined authority area would know whether or not the police powers were to be transferred. However, I do not see how that fits with new subsection (1) of new Section 107E in the Bill, which states:
“The Secretary of State may by order provide for the mayor for the area of a combined authority to exercise functions of a police and crime commissioner in relation to that area”.
That looks as though the Secretary of State will take that decision before a mayoral election. If that is the position, it does not become an optional matter at all on the face of it, does it? The mayoral candidates will be stuck with a decision that has already been made and will have no choice over whether they wish to take on that role. Therefore, I am puzzled by the position which the noble Baroness described.
I am also still not entirely clear about the police and crime panel position. Is it intended that within a mayoral authority which, one way or another, ends up with the police and crime commissioner role, there should be a separate police and crime panel, as is now the case, or will that role be exercised by members of the combined authority, which is a rather different scenario? Perhaps we need that to be elucidated but, again, if the noble Baroness cannot do that tonight there will no doubt be time before Report to determine the issue.
Baroness Wheatcroft
“( ) enabling the mayor to raise funds for the carrying out of specified development projects by the issue of bonds to be made available only to those resident within the combined authority area.”
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, this is a broad enabling Bill. Amendment 33 is a narrow amendment, intended to enable mayors to build their local communities and enhance local democracy. The Bill, according to the Prime Minister, is intended to widen civic engagement in the UK. This amendment is geared to help in that endeavour.
The Victorians left a wonderful legacy of public assets, built with the funds of local people. In Blackheath, where I lived for a long time, the 600-seat concert hall that was opened in 1895 is a tremendous and very well-used local facility, built by public subscription. The Holywell Music Room in Oxford, built even earlier, in 1748, is believed to be the first building geared entirely to the performance of live music, and concert performances are still played there regularly. It was funded by public subscription. Elsewhere, hospitals, village halls and sports fields have all been funded by local people and helped to build thriving local communities.
This amendment would give mayors of combined authorities the power to continue in that vein by issuing municipal bonds to fund specific schemes, thus involving local people directly in funding the developments that they want in their communities. Only local residents would be eligible to buy the bonds. This is all about local democracy. It is not a charter for extravagant mayors to rack up vast debts, imperilling the finances of city hall in order to fund their grandiose schemes. This is a way of allowing mayors to do what the local people want them to do.
It is right to be wary about a tendency to be extravagant that might exhibit itself among some mayors. Allowing mayors free rein to borrow would perhaps be dangerous, and in its extension of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, the Bill does not include the power to borrow. In extending the Local Government Act 2003 in order to provide financing for this restructuring of local government, the Bill does provide for new authorities to have borrowing powers, but in order for the mayor to issue the municipal bonds that this amendment envisages, he or she would have to have the agreement of the new combined authority. That of course would depend on public opinion. As I say, this is all about giving local people what they want and what they are prepared to fund.
I know the Government wish to avoid putting specifics in the Bill, but sometimes there is merit in spelling out just what might be possible rather than leaving too much entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Merely putting the ability to issue municipal bonds in the Bill does not in any way put a duty on mayors to issue them—but just think what might be achieved with such an option available. Your Lordships will hear from my rather sportier colleague about the sports facilities that could be provided with municipal bonds, but I like to think about the concert halls and the community centres—the buildings that might put life back into the heart of those estates and villages where there is no longer a real sense of community.
The bonds would provide the capital to enable such projects to be built. The coupon would not need to be high—certainly not with interest rates at their current level. In fact, in some cases, it may well be sufficient to say that those who subscribed would be entitled to a number of free entries or tickets every year. However, those subscribing to these bonds would be looking for far more than a meagre couple of percentage points on their investment: they would be investing in their community, which is surely what this Bill is all about. Of course, they would want to be assured that the project was workable, and those issuing the bonds would have to be able to demonstrate that the income generated from the new facility would cover the running costs and be sufficient, in the end, to pay back the capital.
Municipal bonds are not by any means a new idea, nor are they entirely in abeyance. For example, the Local Government Association is planning a new generation of municipal bonds. However, these are a very different category: the plan is that the LGA, in the guise of a new financial corporation, will pool the demands of local authorities and issue big bonds to the usual suspects—the major institutions that will be able to take a large chunk of them. That is very different to the sort of thing that this amendment proposes, and any link between the LGA’s version of municipal bonds and the actual municipality would be purely coincidental.
If we are serious about empowering local communities, devolving power away from the centre and building up mayors, surely the ability to issue bonds to build what people want to see and what they need in their local communities is something that we ought to at least be considering. Putting it in the Bill would be an encouragement to our new generation of mayors to think about what amounts to a new variation of crowdfunding. When I mentioned this at Second Reading, my noble friend said that she was “open” to all suggestions about the financing of the new structure. I hope that this is still the case—I trust that it is—and that we will therefore be able to pursue this idea. It is certainly in the spirit of the Bill.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft’s excellent amendment. If you go to America, you will find that cities have retained the right to finance infrastructure projects with municipal bonds. Indeed, income from bonds even enjoys the advantage of being tax-free. However, as she pointed out, much of the heritage of our great cities of the last century and much of their infrastructure investment were financed by municipal bond issues. That came to an end, sadly, during the Attlee Government after the Second World War. The argument was that the Government could borrow more cheaply via gilts and thus dosh out the money. What actually happened was that the money never got doshed out and the municipalities were unable to have their own bond issues.
For me, this subject is absolutely central to the reality of devolution to cities. It is about their ability to raise money and to invest in their own infrastructure. I, too, look forward to hearing of the opportunities in the sports world, but there is masses of scope for infrastructure investment. I raised this issue at Question Time in the House earlier this year I think, and got a response which seemed to be saying that, yes, the Government agreed with this and would include it in future legislation. Over a year ago, when I discussed the territory with the Mayor of London, he absolutely supported the idea that it should be a fundamental part of devolution to our cities.
I very much hope that the Government will accept my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft’s amendment, which, quite rightly, is designed to be cautious and not to allow the ability to go overboard. It would make a start and a crucially important contribution to real devolution.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I express support for the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. The combined authorities need more independent power to raise money for good local projects and I accept that we have to break away from the kind of Treasury stranglehold, as it were, that operates in this area. I would be interested to see how far the DCLG and its excellent Ministers, who are very committed to devolution, are getting on with the Treasury on this question. We look forward to the response on that. However, there are two problems, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, will have thought of. The question is what the answers are—they may be in the response to the proposal.
First, there is the question of risk if something goes badly wrong. Not only would that be a failure for the combined authority that had sponsored the proposal but it would result in severe losses for local savers. Is there any way of spreading the risk and/or any form of insurance that could maybe bring the big institutions in to bear some of the risk? I am not a finance person, but the noble Baroness is and I am sure she will have thought about this.
Secondly, with a proposal of this kind you need to ask how the market in these bonds would operate. After all, people might have enough money to invest £10,000 or something in the future of their city—I could imagine people being very happy to do that—but their personal circumstances can change. They might want to be able to dispose of that bond. How would a secondary market operate in something that had initially been limited to residents of the area? However, in principle, this is exactly the kind of radical thinking that we need to revive municipalism.
Baroness Wheatcroft
To answer the noble Lord, insurance is always available for anything—at a price, of course—and I have no doubt that insurance could be provided for these bonds. As for a market in the bonds, there is always someone prepared to make a market.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this amendment. As a former leader of Bristol City Council I tried to look into this possibility. As the noble Baroness said, there is always a great deal of local ambition to achieve projects within the area for which, in straitened times, it is often difficult to raise funding. At the moment, I can think of the completion of the Colston Hall building—a concert hall in Bristol—for which we are trying to raise money. That would also be a project that local people would be very proud to see achieved.
When I made investigations, I found that local finance institutions welcomed this idea. I also found that local charities felt that it would be a really good way to invest funds within the local area rather than have local funds benefit central institutions. I welcome the idea as well because, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, this is a little bit more radical than a lot of the debate, which has been about concentrations of power. I welcome the idea of world-class cities and would like to see our cities at the heart of vibrant local economies. I hope that later in the Bill we can talk a bit more about some of the powers that might be made available to the combined authorities so that they can be at the centre of their local economies and exploit the potential that we have seen, as shown through various institutions such as Core Cities and Centre for Cities. There is great potential for economic growth.
I welcome this amendment and hope that the Government accept it. I hope that the idea may be explored further in due course.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and to which I added my name for reasons anticipated by a number of my noble friends already in this debate.
As stated at Second Reading, I support the Bill but with an element of caution. Memories of the 1980s are still strong in the minds of some of your Lordships, as was the need at that time to address the profligacy of some local politicians by bringing powers and—with them—spending decisions back to Westminster and Whitehall. Now, some 30 years on, we consider providing potentially increased responsibilities to new combined authorities and designating their chairs as mayors. Today, we seek to provide them with a platform—a very public one—for potentially wide-ranging yet still unspecified powers. There is always a danger, not least evident recently in Scotland, that with devolved powers but without some element of financial accountability the finger will be pointed at Westminster for failing to recognise the financial consequences of a devolution of functions by the same electorates we seek to empower. The politics of such a potent mix can be far-reaching.
One way the Minister can benefit from the lessons of history is to consider ways of meeting the challenge whereby our determination to empower elected communities must be met by trusting those same electorates and their representatives with at least some additional responsibilities for raising the finances required to exercise the powers with which they are entrusted. I hope that today the Minister will be able to address this issue and in so doing agree that one of the potential functions that could benefit from municipal bonds, as in the United States, could be the populist and much-needed sport and recreation facilities.
Since the Government in their legislative programme rely heavily on key manifesto commitments, the Minister would simultaneously earn acclamation and plaudits from her colleagues by implementing the sports legacy from London 2012, which was in the Conservative Party manifesto. That legacy called for: new facilities outside London; a youth and community sports strategy designed to inspire a generation to develop a sporting habit for life, and not just in London, the city that hosted the Olympic Games, but throughout the United Kingdom; increased participation at all levels; and state-of-the-art sport and recreation facilities. This area has been very London-centric and investment in our great cities to achieve these objectives can be accomplished by providing a real voice for the proposed combined authorities over the current, centrally controlled spend on sport and recreation, including the decisions currently made for the whole country by Sport England in London.
This is where the amendment of my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft could add an important and very clearly defined financing vehicle to the current precept mechanism already enshrined in legislation. If the Minister felt that the powers in the proposed amendment go too far, municipal bonds could even be restricted specifically for this purpose as a sort of test case for the combined authorities. Whichever route is taken, we need to create the nexus between the management oversight for functions and financial responsibility and accountability to the local electorates who will be the principal beneficiaries. It is that objective that ultimately will be delivered. I predict that the Bill before us is a stepping stone on that journey. This proposal by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft for municipal bonds is a key and important step in that direction.
Lord Warner (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I listened carefully to some of the ideas about what such a bond might be used for and hope that there would not be a narrow set of functions and services for which this kind of fundraising could be used. To some extent I am following up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. In particular, some of the needs of children and young people in many of these areas require a lot more support than they currently get. Even some health facilities might be the kind of thing, particularly on the preventative health side, that these bonds could be used for. It is very important that the Government give serious attention to this and also to using these bonds to leverage other funding sources for some of the projects that might be available. I hope that, if we go down this path, the uses to which these bonds might be put would be not drawn narrowly but spread over all the functions devolved to a combined authority.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have not so far participated in this Committee and apologise to the House for that. I have just not been able to be here either for Second Reading or the first day of Committee. I declare an interest as leader of a London borough. Actually, I am rather pleased that London does not feature in the Bill in respect of the potential ideas for centralising power in London away from the boroughs. I hope we will not see any of that stuff come forward in another place at a later stage without any opportunity for debating it in your Lordships’ House. I am not going to go into the broader subjects, but I have read the debates very carefully and I find it dangerously easy to restrain my enthusiasm for imposing models on people. Very important points have been raised so far in this Committee.
I shall confine myself to this amendment, as is proper. I am not part of the little posse that came in to support my noble friend’s amendment, but I am glad to see that they are here. My own authority has been involved in discussions with the LGA proposals to look towards wider bond issues. But there are practical issues that need to be addressed, particularly in the difficult areas of things we all love and are potentially enthusiastic about, whether it is music or sport. It can be easy sometimes for that enthusiasm to run away a little. I can think of a number of local authorities not too far distant from my own where enthusiasm for the theatre has ended up with them having to underwrite substantial costs. So we need to proceed in this area with caution, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to respond positively, because caution is one thing and “no” is another. It should be possible to unleash the enthusiasm of local people. Do we not all believe in localism, as my noble friends have argued? Perhaps when she replies, my noble friend might offer to have discussions with my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and others and representatives of local authorities and see whether, in the course of the passage of the legislation, she will give a positive commitment to considering this creative and interesting idea, albeit with corners that need to be probed—although perhaps not as many as some other aspects of the Bill. It is a very good and welcome thing that my noble friend has brought this forward.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
In one sense, one very much welcomes the proposal of powers that we used to have rather more freely, in recourse to raising bonds through the municipal public works board. I myself used to buy bonds from Derby and all the rest of it, and people put them to appropriate use for their savings. I am certainly not opposed to the principle at all, but I am not clear on something—and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, can help me on this point. The mayor will have a levy over and beyond, presumably, the council tax precept run by the combined authority. What powers the mayor will have vis-à-vis the combined authority may differ with each bespoke arrangement. What does the noble Baroness expect to be funded by a bond as opposed to a levy? The levy clearly falls on all, and all have access to those services, whereas a bond would be a voluntary subscription for an additional service which, none the less, would be enjoyed by all but possibly at a fee to fund the additional interest rate over and beyond the levy. I am slightly confused about how those two things would run in parallel. Clearly, in the past what would happen is that Derby would decide to seek £10 million through a loan on capital expenditure and fund it through the interest payments through the levy on it. In other words, part of the revenue expenditure would go to fund that bond. How does the noble Baroness envisage that working in this new financial structure?
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
On a similar point, what has been lacking in recent years with regard to capital funding and borrowing is the difficulty for local authorities to have the freedom to borrow and, because of that, a disconnect between identifying what it is they want to invest in, enthusing people for that and saying that they will back it with the capability of borrowing. That is the kind of thing that local authorities are examining. The question is whether this proposal would be more likely to generate enthusiasm and how it would fit in to the financing and the cost of the borrowing.
The amendment relates to specific projects, and it is highly likely, to judge from the enthusiastic speeches, that most of those projects will not cover their costs. There will be deficits; the only way in which the bonds will be sellable is if they are underwritten by the local authorities, which means the taxpayers. If one sets aside the initial enthusiasm, this can be a reality only if the taxpayer underwrites the bond. I hope that that is fair to say; it may not be the case, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, may say so. If the bond was tied to a specific project whose finances meant that the bond stood or fell on those financial outcomes, it is highly likely that a number of those would fail. If they did not fail, that means it would have been perfectly easy to fund them, because they are profit making, and they did not need to go for this scheme. It would help me in understanding not the appeal but the practicality of this proposal, if I could understand the practicality of persuading the Treasury—among other things—that this would not ultimately rest on underwriting by the mayor. It would be the mayor, not the combined authority, who would be saying, “I’m going to guarantee that these bonds will be repaid however the projects perform”. It would be helpful to me to understand that, should the House in due course be moved to consider this issue.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, before discussing Amendment 35, perhaps first I could speak briefly to Amendments 34 and 36 in the name of my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, who cannot speak to them himself. They are self-explanatory, in that Amendment 34 makes reference to a,
“local authority member of a combined authority”,
having,
“responsibility for finance and resource management”.
Amendment 36 calls for the Bill to specify,
“the number of local authority members within a combined authority area who can veto the draft budget”.
We would happily support each of those amendments.
The Bill enables a power of veto over the mayor’s budget, and Amendment 35 would enable the combined authority also to change that budget in circumstances that would clearly need to be spelt out in the order. That opportunity seems to be provided for in the Manchester agreement. The Bill itself makes reference to changing the budget, but it implies that that is as a result of the initial scrutiny process, not following on from the combined authority’s approval or otherwise of the draft budget. Could the Minister confirm that?
Just to recap, the Bill talks about a mayor preparing a budget; a draft to be scrutinised by other members of the combined authority and the committee, dealt with in Schedule 5A; the making of changes to the draft as a result of the scrutiny—presumably with the approval of the mayor; and the approval of the draft by a combined authority, including a power to veto the draft circumstances specified in the order and the consequences of such a veto. Our amendment proposes simply that we have not only a right to veto but a right to change the budget. There would need to be a threshold of those supporting that proposition, which is again the case in Manchester. A veto is a power, and it can be quite a weak power in certain circumstances. You could simply end up with a ping-pong type arrangement between the mayor and the other members of the combined authority, which would be unfortunate and inconsistent with the effective operation of a combined authority.
We support the thrust of Amendment 33. As some noble Lords have touched on, it raises a number of issues that need clarification. In part, those of us who can remember municipal bonds support it with a sense of nostalgia. I am sorry to hear that my noble friend did not buy any Luton bonds in her previous investment, but perhaps next time. I am interested to understand quite how this will work when it will be available only to residents of an area. I think that that is easily dealt with at the point at which it is issued, but what happens thereafter? As my noble friend Lord Liddle said, whether that has an impact on marketability is an important issue.
As I understand the Bill as it stands, the Secretary of State can by order enable an authority to borrow for specified functions, provided that it has the consent of the constituent councils, but I do not think that that extends to mayoral functions. That could be changed, but we would like better to understand how this all fits together and how the total funding and borrowing opportunities of the combined authority sit with the existing position of those separate authorities. How does that impact on prudential borrowing and, therefore, the scope for the type of bond the Minister is talking about?
We can certainly see the benefit of raising funds for specific projects but, even if you can borrow for mayoral functions within a combined authority, it seems to me that you do not want that borrowing power to drive the functions the mayor gets; that is the wrong way round. You have to see what functions the mayor would have under these arrangements and see how they should be financed.
My understanding is that if there were associated costs—if my noble friend is right and this measure did not wash its face in all circumstances, particularly on infrastructure projects where there can be long lead times and not necessarily early returns—those would be picked up and met by a precept, not a levy, on the constituent authorities. Given the constraints that central government have hitherto imposed on increases in precepts, it could unwittingly impact on all that.
This measure needs to be unpicked so that we can better understand it. It seems to be a very helpful suggestion, and you can see the benefits that could flow from it, but it would need to sit together with the intended funding arrangements or the likely opportunities for the combined authority as a whole, quite apart from the wider issue of fiscal devolution, which we will come to in subsequent amendments, probably on Monday. We are on the side of those who would like to make this work, but it needs to fit with what we have before us.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is refreshing to hear innovative ideas coming from your Lordships’ House. I commend my noble friends Lady Wheatcroft and Lord Moynihan on some of the suggestions that they have put forward. Amendment 33 seeks to amend new Section 107F of the 2009 Act to allow the Secretary of State by order to enable the mayor to raise funds for the carrying out of specified development projects, by the issue of bonds to be made available only to those residents within the combined authority area. I was interested to hear about the experiences of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, in Bristol. As I have said, the intentions behind the amendment are to be commended. The Secretary of State can by order confer a power on a mayoral combined authority to borrow. The mayor individually cannot borrow because, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, he or she is not a corporate body. Borrowing by a combined authority where it is given the powers to borrow is secured on the revenue that that authority will receive, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, pointed out. Accordingly, any borrowing by a combined authority will be under the same prudential borrowing regime that applies to local authorities. This means that the level of borrowing must reflect the level of its likely reserves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked what could be funded by bonds. In any case it would be a matter for the discussions leading to the bespoke devolution deal as to what might, in the art of the possible, be borrowed. As I have said, any borrowing must conform to the principles of prudential borrowing, which apply to all borrowing by local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan asked about the functions to benefit by municipal bonds. The functions that might be supported by investment and funded by prudential borrowing, which could be in the form of bonds, are a matter for the conversations with that area which lead to its bespoke devolution deal. As my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said, this is an enabling Bill. Clause 8(3) allows the Secretary of State to specify which functions of a combined authority may come within the scope of borrowing powers given by the Local Government Act 2003. The sources of borrowing available to combined authorities include issuing bonds as well as taking out loans. The devolution deal will determine which functions the combined authority can borrow for. Decisions over whom an authority obtains their financing from are a matter for the authority.
Amendments 34 to 36 seek to alter the powers of the Secretary of State to provide for scrutiny of the mayor’s draft budget. Amendment 34 would insert a new Section 107F(3)(c), which would allow the Secretary of State by order to make provision to appoint a local authority member of a combined authority to have responsibility for finance and resource management. In effect, were such provision made, it would prescribe that there must be a member of the mayoral combined authority who had finance responsibilities, and that the member with these responsibilities would be a councillor from one of the constituent councils. It is rightly the mayor who should decide to whom he or she wishes to delegate his or her responsibilities, and this includes responsibilities for finance. To return to a point that I made earlier, it is consistent with local authorities operating their cabinet arrangements at present, with the mayor deciding which member of his cabinet should hold certain portfolios with certain responsibilities. We are clear that this should also be the case for metro mayors. For mayoral governance to be effective, the mayor must have discretion to assign portfolios and delegate responsibilities to enable the effective delivery of their promises to their electorate.
I understand that the intention of this amendment may be to place checks and balances on the mayor’s powers. There is of course a chief finance officer for the combined authority, also known as a Section 151 officer, whose role is to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements for accounting and internal audit and to manage the authority’s resources. The chief finance officer is under a duty to make a public report if they consider that there is, or is likely to be, any item of unlawful expenditure. An additional proscription on the creation and assigning of member portfolios is an unnecessary check or balance, and risks frustrating the exercise of the mayor’s functions.
Amendments 35 and 36 seek to provide additional checks and balances on the approval of the mayor’s draft budget. Amendment 36 would insert a power for the Secretary of State to provide for a specific number of local authority members within a combined authority area to be able to veto the mayor’s draft budget. The Bill as it stands allows for the Secretary of State by order to make provision about the preparation of the mayor’s annual budget which, in particular, may provide for the constituent council members of the combined authority to scrutinise the draft budget, to make changes to it and to have a power of veto. The circumstances in which a veto may be used, and the consequences of any such veto, would be proposed locally and provided for in the order creating the mayoral combined authority. The Bill also allows for the overview and scrutiny committee, a politically balanced committee made up of councillors from the constituent authorities, to scrutinise the draft budget and recommend changes to it.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response, which was not entirely encouraging. I thank all those who spoke in support of my amendment. In answer to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—“Why not precept?” and “How would specific schemes be chosen?”—the point of the amendment is that the precept falls on all, no matter how able they are to afford it, whereas the bonds that I am mooting would enable those who have the money to invest in a local community to do so for the benefit of all.
As for the qualms voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, about where the penny would drop if there were not enough pennies, every scheme would have to be looked at extremely carefully. They would all have to be budgeted. I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord about how many such schemes would fail. The point about community building is that very often you can get the community involved, so one would anticipate—looking through those rose-tinted spectacles that I do not usually wear—plenty of volunteers to organise sports facilities, youth clubs and so on, and that running costs could be covered by letting out a hall or a sports field. I agree that the sums would have to be done carefully, and as a backdrop one would be looking at insurance.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the noble Baroness clarify whether we are talking about simply a positive mechanism to raise funding, or a mechanism to expand the total borrowing capacity that the combined authority might have?
Baroness Wheatcroft
I gather from the Minister that the capacity to expand borrowing would not be there, so this would just be a different way of raising money, but it would be a way of involving the local community far more. As I understand it, the Bill is aimed at building local communities and pushing power to the people. I accept that this is not without qualms. There are questions to be asked—noble Lords have raised them—but I was delighted with the support for the general direction of travel, which is after all in line with our wish to devolve more power to the community and to build those communities. I hope that there may be scope for the Minister to spend some time working with me and others who support the general drift of this amendment to try to come up with something that we might bring back at a later stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
From the noble Baroness’s response to the Minister’s point about borrowing capacity, I am still not clear whether she expects this ability to raise what would otherwise be capital expenditure to add to the PSBR.
Baroness Wheatcroft
There are clearly issues to be worked out. I am very flexible about this. It is the principle of getting local people involved in funding local facilities that I really want to pursue, and I hope that I can have talks that will enable me to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a small and narrow amendment. In fact, I contemplated whether I should move it at all, but as I have written it I might as well. It is intended as a probing amendment to understand the circumstances in which the schemes for transfer of property et cetera provided for in the Bill are contemplated and whether any are on the cards in the discussions that are taking place.
I was particularly prompted to think about this because of debates we had on the Localism Bill when some of its provisions were put in place, particularly Section 17, which is referred to and imported, in part, into the provisions of this Bill. Can the Minister tell us anything about experience to date on the operation of those provisions, which very much mirror what is in this Bill? There is a particular issue around the operation of the intent to comply with TUPE arrangements. Some of the provisions in Clause 17 touch upon this and refer to the fact that the order in relation to schemes can include circumstances where the same or similar effect as the TUPE regulations so far as those regulations do not apply in relation to the transfer are taken up. As a general point, is it the Government’s intention, in so far as they are a participant in this, that where TUPE regulations for some reason do not apply, they would seek to ensure that provisions with the same or similar effect as those regulations would be imported into any scheme of which they would be a party?
As an aside, when the Child Support Agency was being restructured, a key issue was not so much to do with entitlement to pensions, because there was access, but to do with loss of Civil Service status when somebody was going to go into an NDPB. That is an issue. I do not propose an amendment in relation to the Bill, but it was probably the big issue when we were talking about restructuring the Child Support Agency and it could rear its head in these circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, Amendments 36ZA and 36ZB seek to amend the provisions in the Bill that relate to the making of a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities from public authorities to combined authorities. The Bill specifies that where a function of a public authority is to be a function of a combined authority, the property, rights and liabilities of the public authority can be transferred to the combined authority. These amendments seek to change this by removing from the Bill the provisions that allow for the transfer of public authority liabilities.
These amendments would prevent liabilities from being transferred from a public authority to a combined authority. Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State, by order, to confer on a combined authority powers exercised by a public authority. If functions are transferred, there may be some instances where assets, property, rights and liabilities should also be transferred to the combined authority in order for it to be able to exercise these functions.
As we have discussed, the whole Bill is enabling legislation. No combined authority will be forced to take on powers it does not wish to have, nor will a combined authority be forced to take on a public authority’s property, rights or liabilities. An existing combined authority must consent before such transfer can take place, and in the case of a new combined authority, the appropriate local authorities seeking to take on public body functions must have consented to the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the public authority. However, there may be times where such a transfer is necessary to give full effect to devolution deals.
Similar transfers of property, rights and liabilities from a local authority to a combined authority are already possible under Section 115 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Such transfers have already happened when establishing combined authorities; for example, when the West Yorkshire combined authority was established the integrated transport authority and the passenger transport executive were both closed, and their functions, assets, liabilities et cetera transferred to the combined authority. This provision purely mirrors the existing provisions by applying the same principles to transfers from public authorities.
The noble Lord asked about TUPE. The tradition and past practice is that when transferring functions within the public sector, TUPE applies, and it always has up to now. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. As I explained, the technical wording was simply to get a debate on this issue. I am grateful for that response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
“Homelessness and housing need: review
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall order a review of the advantages and disadvantages of placing a duty on combined authorities to reduce the numbers of homeless children and families in housing need in their area.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the review under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I will speak also to my Amendment 36B.
Amendment 36A introduces a review on homelessness and housing need, which would be established by the Secretary of State, to determine whether there should be targets for local authorities to reduce the numbers of homeless children and families in housing need in their area. Similarly, Amendment 36B asks the Secretary of State to order a review to look at the advantage of setting some sort of target for affordable housing in these areas and associated borrowing powers to facilitate that housing. I am thinking in particular of affordable housing for key workers, such as teachers and child and family social workers, who will have such an important role in turning around the lives of vulnerable families in housing need and of homeless children.
Before proceeding, I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for moving my earlier amendment this afternoon. I was hosting a reception for a charity which is 250 years old this year, and it was very good to be there, so I am most grateful to him.
The Minister and many of your Lordships will be aware that in this country we have a chronic problem of child homelessness and families in housing need, particularly in London and the south-east but also in other parts of the nation. The statistics from Shelter showed that over 90,000 children in England, Scotland and Wales were homeless—that is to say, living in temporary accommodation—and over 2,000 families were living in bed and breakfast accommodation last summer in England. That figure was rising in England but falling in Wales and Scotland. Therefore, it is getting worse at the moment but it has been a problem for many years, and it has not been properly addressed. These are not just statistics. The children who experience homelessness experience insecurity; they do not know where they will be living from one week to the next. That uncertainty is so disruptive to their lives, and they are often from vulnerable, problematic families.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I support Amendments 36A and 36B, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and I do so in particular because of new subsection (1)(b) proposed in Amendment 36B. This concerns the associated borrowing powers of local authorities, about which we had a broader debate a little while ago. It is part of the issue of the powers that combined authorities and local authorities in turn will have.
I hope that in replying to these two amendments the Minister will confirm that strategic housing policy will always be part of the remit of a combined authority. However, perhaps she would also be clear about what combined authorities will have responsibility for when there are existing statutory obligations upon a local authority—not least, for example, around homelessness. In urban regions, where a number of local authorities will combine under a single combined authority, there are areas where joint working can help and add value. In terms of housing policy, homelessness policy and affordable housing, there is absolutely no doubt that working across the boundaries of current local authorities will matter a great deal.
We need to be clear—either now or at a later date if the Minister writes to the noble Earl—whether there is any plan to amend the existing powers of local authorities in relation to housing and whether the powers of the combined authority will relate to co-ordination or to leadership and policy formulation for the whole of the combined authority area. We will touch upon this when we come to Amendment 36F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, but we are moving towards a need to be able to demonstrate clearly what the powers and responsibilities of combined authorities will be.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. As has been demonstrated by the noble Earl, it is really important that homeless children and their families have somewhere to live. If children are not able to have the safety and security of a home, they are not able to take advantage of education and therefore not able to make the best use of their lives. In terms of looked-after children and those in care, we have heard that a large proportion of these very disadvantaged children end up in the justice system in one way or another and are therefore doubly penalised for something which is not within their power to alter.
Therefore, I support the amendment on homelessness and housing need, and I obviously also support the supply of affordable housing, which is a real issue and not just in areas in the east and the north. While I am not expecting this Bill to solve all the ills of the housing market, I do not think that it should make them worse.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I can well see the point of having housing strategy determined at the level of the combined authorities that will potentially emerge as a result of this legislation. Personally, I rather regret that the previous Government abandoned the concept of regional housing policy. That led to what we might call the “Stevenage situation”, where a borough with very tight limits on its land was unable to secure the agreement, notwithstanding the alleged duty to co-operate under other legislation, from an adjoining authority in terms of housing. One can see that a regional—or, in this case, sub-regional—strategy is certainly a matter for a combined authority.
However, I have two problems. One is that we must not disconnect the operational workings of local authority housing and its third sector partners. Often, these partners are arm’s-length management organisations from the locality. My noble friend may say a little more about that when he responds from the Front Bench.
I am also somewhat concerned about the term “affordable housing”. Affordability is capable of very elastic definitions. Under the Government’s terms as it relates to housing provision, I understand that affordable rent, for example, is 80% of the current market rent. Current market rents in the private rented sector have, as we learn daily, been soaring over the last few years. Indeed, the number of private landlords has been soaring. I read—today, I think—that the proportion of housing now owned by private landlords is 20% of the total housing stock, having more than doubled in the last few years. Of course, there are places in London where there are certainly a lot of them, but in many of the areas that we are talking about rents in the private sector have increased hugely.
To talk about 80% of the private rent level as being affordable is, to put it mildly, stretching a point where many people are concerned. Certainly the residents of the ward that I represent in the west end of Newcastle would find it very difficult to pay 80% of the rent in the private rented sector for the better housing that they would wish to occupy. All the talk about affordability in the recent election seemed to be about home ownership. Of course, we are all anxious to ensure that people have the opportunity to buy, if that is what they want, and to try to facilitate it in terms of making finance available. However, there are increasingly large numbers of people for whom that aspiration is at the moment—and, frankly, for the foreseeable future—unachievable.
The notion that here we might be looking at the provision of affordable housing on a combined authority level needs to be qualified. There needs to be an explanation of what we mean by that affordability. Of course, it is crucial that we refer to the provision of good-quality housing. I referred in previous debates to the space standards of the housing provided in this country. The space provided is much less than in most of the rest of Europe. Therefore, it may be affordable in financial terms but the new housing that is being built is not particularly good.
More particularly, my concern is with the people who will be unable to afford even well-designed, relatively modest premises on the basis of the current market and will need to rent. Unless we have a clearer definition, I cannot quite see how combined authorities will be able to influence that. If the noble Earl’s intentions are acknowledged by the Government and a review of the kind that he is asking for takes place, we may have some more realistic answers, but ultimately the delivery of affordable housing will vary even within a given area. By definition, we are talking about large populations. We are also talking about—I keep repeating this, I am afraid, but it is something that we have to deal with—an area in the north-east which has a lot of rural areas within it. There, again, the pressure is very high but it is rather different from that of the urban areas.
We must be careful not to exclude or substantially diminish the role of the local housing authorities, as they are currently constituted, in the context of a combined authority’s strategic plan. I acknowledge that there is a role there, but it should not be an exclusive role at the combined authority level. Local needs and what is affordable, for example, will vary significantly, not only within different parts of the housing sector but within geographical areas. It is a bit more complicated than at first sight might be thought to be the case. I am not saying that the noble Lord is not cognisant of that fact, but, necessarily, an amendment does not set out all the subtleties that one perhaps needs to get into.
I am interested to hear the Government’s thinking about affordable housing, their definitions and how that might relate to the concept of the combined authority and, in any event, to housing policy generally.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, although I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for managing, with some finesse, to shoehorn housing into this debate on the cities Bill, I share some of the reservations of my noble friend Lord Beecham. In two-tier authorities and shire counties, one of the primary functions of district councils is the housing responsibility. Even if they have stock transferred their property to a housing association, as quite a high proportion has, the district council none the less remains responsible as the strategic authority, so to speak, in dealing with homelessness. That is complicated enough, and I think that the problem is going to get infinitely worse if the wretched housing association Bill progresses. That will fire an Exocet through our ability to meet housing need in localities, as we will lose not only the housing association stock but council housing stock to pay for the discounts—we will lose two rental properties to fund one discount and not one extra house will be built as a result. It will be completely disastrous, and I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will be fiercely engaged in that fight. I very much hope that he will be.
The problem is that, if this is the thinking of the noble Earl, I am not quite sure what distinction he is making between a combined authority and a unitary authority of three previous district councils. Housing is the main function. If this is where it is going, in alignment with the recommendations that will come with a combined authority for the development of the economy and so on, effectively, a unitary authority will be achieved in the name of adding more and more functions to the combined authorities, which are primarily about economic growth.
No one doubts that one responsibility of the combined authority will be to determine areas for housing growth, land development and land use. That is very different from taking on the responsibility for who gets what house due to local priorities. If that is taken away from the district council and given to the new combined authority, we will have effectively removed the responsibility for housing from a district council to a combined authority and would have to start inspecting houses of multiple occupation and all the rest of it to make it work. That would leave district councils virtually non-existent. That is my problem with Amendment 36A.
Although I am sure that Amendment 36B is well intentioned, my problem is with “affordable”. The research of my right honourable friend in the other place, John Healey, has shown that the two drivers of the housing benefit bill have been, frankly, the extension of the private rented sector, with its very high rents, and the displacement of social housing rents by affordable rents. Those two things alone are primarily responsible for the growth in housing benefit, neither of which adds a single property to the stock or houses a single additional person—they are displacement activities. All that is happening behind this amendment and may, I fear, be made worse by it. All the drivers will add to the welfare bill. The Government will then say that we must cut it by taking away the ability to make work pay and removing money from working tax credits because they are not willing to tackle the tax privileges of private landlords who are charging market rents or the issue of affordable rents, which is, in turn, driving up housing benefit bills in the social rented sector.
An infinitely more complicated set of problems has been opened up by the noble Earl’s amendments. None of us would dispute the outcomes that he is seeking, but I do not think that he can get there through this route.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have considerable sympathy with the thinking behind both amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. They touch upon one of the most serious issues that confront our society—our housing crisis— which must engage the action of central government and local authorities. It is also prescient, given concerns expressed in the press this morning about the figures for child poverty rising for the first time in a decade. We know that the lack of affordable housing is a key driver of homelessness and that homelessness inevitably sits at the centre of disadvantage and deprivation. The major influences on a child’s life—family income, effective parenting and a secure environment—are all directly or indirectly influenced by a family’s housing conditions.
The question posed by these two amendments is what the role of a combined authority should be in addressing our housing crisis and reducing homelessness. There certainly could and should be a role, and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has shown the way. In its case, the elected mayor has control of a £300 million housing investment fund and powers over strategic planning, including the power to create a statutory spatial strategy for the CA area. There are somewhat convoluted arrangements for administration of the housing investment fund, but it has the prospect of delivering 10,000 to 15,000 homes over the period—a real contribution. Powers to create a spatial strategy for the area are particularly useful, given the demise, as my noble friend Lord Beecham said, of the former regional spatial strategies and the weakness of the duty to co-operate.
There are two issues, however, with the noble Earl’s amendments. Indeed, all noble Lords who have spoken today have, in one way or another, touched upon those issues. We should be mindful of the current requirement for local authorities to ensure that local plans meet the assessed needs for both affordable and market housing and that neighbourhood plans can supplement this. Further, important legislation is already in force that places a general duty on housing authorities to tackle homelessness, however difficult that is in the current circumstances. We would not wish to undermine these important responsibilities and local priorities, but it might well be appropriate to build on these requirements at an overarching strategic level. One way or another, those points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friends Lord Beecham and Lady Hollis.
Certainly the prospect of a combined authority having spatial planning powers across an area could be a considerable advantage in creating a coherent housing framework. However—I am sure that the Minister will make this point—the approach suggested is prescriptive. Doubtless it will be said that there is nothing to prevent a combined authority seeking these powers by agreement, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government would not be shy of agreeing such arrangements.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, Amendments 36A and 36B would insert two new clauses into the Bill that place statutory duties on the Secretary of State to undertake reviews of the advantages and disadvantages of placing a duty on combined authorities to reduce the numbers of homeless children and families in housing need, and give combined authorities responsibility for affordable housing in their area and associated borrowing powers. These amendments would also require the Secretary of State to lay the report of these reviews under the clauses before both Houses of Parliament.
At the outset, I must say that housing is a priority for this Government. In our manifesto, we committed to building 200,000 starter homes and more affordable housing. We are putting in place £38 billion of public and private sector investment to help ensure that 275,000 new affordable homes are provided between 2015 and 2020. This means that we will build more new affordable homes than during any equivalent period in the last twenty years.
A couple of noble Lords asked about the definition of “affordable”. The detail is set out in the national policy planning framework, and it is, broadly:
“social rented … and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market”.
However, within that, there is broad scope around what affordability means in different places to different people.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am surprised that the Minister has adduced that definition of “affordable”, because for those of us involved in the sector—I declare an interest as chair of a housing association—affordable housing rents are very different from social housing rents. Social housing rents are running at about 40% to 50% of the market rent, while affordable rents are running at about 80%. We are required in any new building, whether funded by HCA grant or not, to charge affordable rents, which merely drives up the HB bill without any addition to the stock. It is therefore disingenuous, if I may say so, to suggest that social housing is a subset of affordable housing; it is a very different category.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, because I appreciate that I have not given an acceptable definition today, perhaps I may write to noble Lords before our next day in Committee. There are a number of definitions of “affordable”. I will do that in the next few days if that is okay.
We have a good track record on preventing homelessness. Since 2010, we have sustained our investment in homelessness prevention, resulting in local authorities preventing just over 730,000 households becoming homeless. Investment since 2010 has exceeded £500 million to help local authorities prevent and tackle homelessness. This has included an £8 million Help for Single Homeless Fund, which will improve council services for 22,000 single people facing the prospect of homelessness, and a £15 million Fair Chance Fund to provide accommodation, education, training and employment opportunities for around 1,600 of our most vulnerable young, homeless people.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked whether combined authorities would be under the same duties as local authorities in relation to functions such as homelessness. If the combined authorities wish to take on housing functions, the functions will be the same as they would have been had they remained within the constituent councils. He also asked whether strategic housing policy is always part of combined authority responsibilities. What responsibilities a combined authority will have depends on the individual deal agreed with an area. That deal may include the constituent councils agreeing that certain of their powers and duties will be undertaken by the combined authority either on their behalf or concurrently with them.
I turn to an example of a devolution deal in which housing is an important element: that in Greater Manchester. It includes Greater Manchester having a housing investment fund worth £300 million over 10 years, to be administered by the mayor. The fund will support the delivery of at least 10,000 houses, some of which will be affordable, and will be subject to stringent evaluation before, during and after the 10 years come to an end. I think that it was either the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, or the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—in fact, it might have been the noble Lord, Lord Shipley; I did not write down the name of the noble Lord—who asked whether there were any plans to alter the powers of local authorities in the Bill. The answer is no.
This Bill is an enabling Bill, creating the primary legislative framework for implementing bespoke devolution deals. It is not for the Bill to assume what might be included in a deal. Indeed, it is not for the Government to assume what might be in a deal. We are ready to have conversations with any area about what it wishes to see included in a deal for it to be able to meet its needs, develop its economy and increase the competitiveness, productivity and prosperity of the place —be it a city, a county or a town.
Including the amendments in the Bill would imply that a particular view was being taken centrally about homelessness and housing and about how those issues might be addressed in any particular area. It is not for the Secretary of State to prejudge, in advance of any conversations with areas, whether homelessness or providing affordable housing in a particular area is best dealt with by combined authorities or by local authorities, either generally or of a particular class or category.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her careful reply and particularly for her last comment about how secondary legislation subsequent to the Bill might be helpful. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and taken care to consider the detail of the amendment.
In writing to noble Lords following this debate, might the Minister include a little about the Government’s plans in respect of support that can be offered for social housing? That would be helpful in meeting concerns about family homelessness and housing need.
A question was asked about local authorities’ capacity for borrowing which perhaps the Minister did not answer, but I understand that there was an earlier debate in which she did. Perhaps she might like to comment again on that. Did I miss her comments on what borrowing capacity new groupings might have? While I do not want to put words in her mouth, she might say that it is a matter for discussion and negotiation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Earl for that question because I did not pick up on that point. I spoke earlier on about prudential borrowing, but I will write to him about the Government’s general policy on the points that he raised—I meant to say that at the outset.
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Public authority functions
Within one month of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a list of public authority functions which may be the subject of a transfer of functions under the provisions of this Act.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 36F. Let me say at the outset that the amendments are to an extent prescriptive. Amendment 36C would require the Secretary of State to publish a list of public authority functions which may be the subject of a transfer under the provisions of this Act. Amendment 36F goes further and would require the Secretary of State to consult combined authorities with a view to devolving certain functions and funding in certain areas. These are employment support, transport, housing, skills and business rates. We should be clear that the published list does not require any of the functions to be transferred in any particular situation; that will remain subject to whatever agreement, if any, is entered into in practice.
The amendment has been prompted in part by the first report of the Session of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which refers to the wide powers that new Section 105A would confer. It states at paragraph 10:
“But it says nothing about how in practice these powers might be used, or why it is not appropriate or practicable to include a description of the types of function covered by the power on the face of the Bill”.
We agree. If there are concerns about government at the centre trying to pull back the devolutionary process, putting down some markers must surely act as a counterweight. It might even help encourage and embolden some of those authorities that are not yet members of a combined authority and are not fully in the know.
Amendment 36F requires government to be proactive in the cause of devolution. In Committee on Monday, we got the line that the Government would wait to hear who comes knocking and then respond and engage in some fashion. The amendment requires the Government to themselves initiate consultation with combined authorities over areas of,
“employment support … transport … housing … skills … and … business rates”,
as matters that are important for driving growth and prosperity. It does not preclude consultation over other matters, and we have a separate amendment covering strategic planning.
It may well be that consultations are already going on in a number of areas with a number of combined authorities—indeed, we know that there are. That is fine, but adopting the requirements of the amendment would ensure that opportunities are being opened up for all combined authorities. From our debates in Committee on Monday, there was no indication from the Minister that there were any capacity constraints as far as the Government were concerned on moving forward on a wide front. This would force the pace of devolution—and on a broad front. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am pleased in principle to support Amendments 36C and 36F. However, in Amendment 36C, on publishing a list of public authority functions, why do we need to wait to within one month of the enacting of the Bill? Surely it is known now what the functions might be. Should the House not be informed what they are before the passing of the Bill? I would be grateful if the Minister could specifically explain why it is not possible to list the public authority functions before the Bill passes rather than afterwards.
Amendment 36F is fine as far as it goes—and of course we will have the opportunity in Amendment 36G to discuss strategic planning issues, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, explained. But I have two points to make in relation to this amendment. First, this is not necessarily an exclusive list; other powers and funding could be thought about. One is careers advice. It may be seen to lie within the skills head, but probably it could be treated separately. There may well be others. We should have a discussion about whether there are other areas to add to the list of matters that the combined authorities should be consulted on.
My second point relates to the use of the word “powers”. At some point we need to think more in terms of responsibilities. Powers and funding are one thing, but what you do with them is another. There is now the prospect of a very large number of functions, powers and responsibilities coming into the remit of combined authorities. I am starting to get very worried about the capacity of the combined authorities to manage all of the things that they may be asked to undertake. As part of the consultation that is asked for in Amendment 36F, I hope that the issue of capacity and resources is also addressed.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 36C. It is particularly important in relation to NHS responsibilities, which we will come to a little later. There is a considerable number of laggards in the NHS who are really nervous about getting into this territory. It is important that they start to engage their brains with this, because there is a growing number of failing health economies. Too many of them are sitting waiting to see what happens in Greater Manchester rather than engaging with this issue. I hope that the Minister will address this point—the sooner the better—and not be afraid to make it clear to the outside world, particularly the NHS, that these functions could be transferred down to the combined authorities.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
My Lords, these amendments go to the heart of one of the problems that we have talked about many times in this Bill—the principle of not quite open house but, “Tell us what you want and we’ll discuss it. We’re not going to reveal our hand, but we might be interested in discussing it and we will listen and talk”. I share the view of my colleagues on the opposition Front Bench that it makes a lot of sense to go further than that for many local authorities that are considering whether or not to become combined authorities—not the relatively small number of combined authorities that currently exist but those that are looking at what it might all mean.
I still think that it is a terrible waste of people’s time not to have a reasonable idea of the kinds of thing that the Government might be positively interested in. I have said this before but any local authority groups coming together will have to second-guess what the Government might be interested in devolving, which is a terrible waste of time. They have to have a dialogue and find things out while someone else has probably been through the same process already. The Government must have a view about the areas that they are prepared to see devolved. Devolution is a two-way process. It is what local government and people in local communities would like to have, but it must also be about what central government feels it makes sense in the current climate to give a lead to—so I welcome these amendments.
To pick out one area, skills, and all that is associated with it, fewer than 2 million people go to university—full-time or part-time—but almost 3 million people are in further education. A lot of people in your Lordships’ House have been to university but far fewer will have been through FE colleges. I see the noble Lord indicating that he did. It is easy to overlook the fact that far more people look to other routes into skills and education than universities. I am from a strong university background so my view of universities is not negative at all, but that is the reality. The skills of that group of people are very important to the economies of our combined authority areas. The people with low and medium-level skills are almost certainly the people who will work and live in those communities. A lot of people in universities go off elsewhere—we would like to keep more of them in West Yorkshire. These people are the key to skills and our economic development and growth. Having a strategic view on that is extremely important.
That leads me to two final points. First, my noble friend touched on health and social care, and I would like to see that on the list. Any list can be added to, and it is clearly the case in Manchester, so it ought to be on a list that is indicative of the kind of things that we would expect to be up for discussion.
Finally, it is important to bear in mind that the role of the authority’s mayor is largely and overwhelmingly strategic, and where there are interventions, they are to help secure the strategic objectives. There is some temptation for local authorities to think, as the discussions go on, that local authority powers will be taken away from them: that while there might be some devolution from central government, powers will be taken away from local councils. Putting that kind of message out and making clear the difference between strategic powers and detailed implementation powers is extremely important. I warmly welcome the thrust of these amendments.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I wish to echo a concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, if I understood him correctly This brings to mind the Queen’s Speech of 2010 in which the Government said that their ambition was to move power back to doctors, teachers and front-line professionals and let whoever is closest to the patient, the pupil and so on, make the decisions. One has seen following on from that the academy schools programme, powers for head teachers, and changes in social work with more responsibility being given to social workers. The delegation of power is moving downwards to those who are closest to the particular client. I see a similarity here.
The big question that one needs to be reassured about is that, for instance, a social worker—this is of concern to me—is sufficiently experienced and supported to make the right decisions about children and families. Perhaps what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is saying is that in giving these responsibilities, we must make sure that the new authorities have the capacity to make the right judgments. We do not want to tie their hands and we want them to be free, as long as they have the capacity to make the right decisions. I realise that this is bit of a chicken-and-egg situation: the more freedom one gives, the more people of the right calibre one may attract to take up those posts. But given that these are such important decisions for the lives of families in our society, it is quite fair to ask that reasonable checks be made on the quality of what is produced. I hope that that makes sense.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, these amendments seek in one way or another to provide that in advance of the devolutions being implemented, some form of statement should be published by the Secretary of State or put in the Bill about the range of powers which might be devolved to areas. These are examples of the quite centralist and prescriptive approach so beloved of Governments over the last 150 years, and that is what this Bill precisely seeks to reverse. There will be no prescribed list for local authorities or combined authorities to follow. We want to hear from them; we do not want to tell them what they want or what their plans for growth are. Our approach has been to start a conversation with the areas if they want to talk to us about their aspirations and the powers and budgets they want to have devolved to them to improve their area’s economy, deliver better local public services and build sustainable prosperity.
We want areas to be as ambitious as possible and we want to hear what they want, not what they think we are looking for. That is the whole point of the Bill. We do not have some preordained list of powers which we might devolve, and we do not wish to have in advance any conversations that would set limits or parameters about what may or may not be devolved or what might be an initial priority for devolution.
Noble Lords will be aware of the Manchester deal, and we have talked at length about some of the powers that Manchester wishes to see devolved. Perhaps that provides ideas for other authorities to move forward and the plans might offer them some inspiration, but we do not wish to impose the Manchester plan for growth on the Cornwall plan for growth or, indeed, the one for Norwich. We are very clear about that.
I am afraid that these amendments are simply out of step with the whole approach that this Bill is designed to deliver: agreeing bespoke devolution deals which enable individual areas to realise their potential and make the greatest possible contribution to the success of the UK as it responds to global economic opportunities and the challenges we all face.
I want to make two points. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, or the noble Lord, Lord Warner, made a point about local authorities being frightened that services they deliver as local authorities could be taken away—the difference between the strategic direction and the local direction of a council. That is a very important point to make because when combined authorities are thinking about their ambitions and plans, they must be focused on the big strategic issues that will benefit from the opportunity of scale across a number of local authorities.
The other point I want to deal with is that of capacity, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In a sense we are already dealing with combined authorities because we are having conversations, and obviously the Greater Manchester devolution deal took place last November, so we will continue with that. But when consulting the combined authorities on powers, their capacity to take on functions will also need to be addressed. A critical issue in the conversation with combined authorities will be to ensure that they have the capacity to deal with the matters that they wish to take on. If they are ambitious for powers to be devolved to them, they will need to be clear in the proposal they bring to us on the governance arrangements for managing and handling the power they want and how they will have the capacity to do so. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Every noble Lord has supported these amendments with the exception, unsurprisingly, of the Minister. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that there is no fix on the timing of Amendment 36C if there are benefits in being flexible, or indeed on expanding the list. I would be happy to talk about that when we return to this matter, as we certainly will.
My noble friend Lord Warner made an important point about engaging health economies where they are holding back at the moment—being proactive and prodding them into focusing and engaging. The amendments have had the strong support of my noble friend Lord Woolmer, who stressed the importance of skills and the need to be strategic in these things.
I should say to the Minister that I am not surprised at the response because it is what we have been given throughout our consideration of the Bill: “This is a broad framework and we are not going to tell anyone to do anything; we are happy to sit back and have conversations”. In a sense that is government by vacuum, with no lists, preconceptions or limits being set. That cannot be good enough. If the Government are not themselves now planning how to deal with the consequences of what might happen after devolution, it would seem that they are being derelict. None of this forces anyone to do any particular thing, apart from the Government saying, “Actually, get off your backsides and make this work. Do something proactive to engage with combined authorities so that they know what is on offer and encourage them into deals”. Otherwise, there will simply be cosy conversations on an unplanned basis, and a favoured few authorities may well get the nod of approval from the Government. But the general thrust of our position is that we want devolution to work across the board in England on a proactive basis. That is what our amendments are designed to help achieve.
I will withdraw the amendments today, but I have absolutely no doubt that we are going to return to this issue in one form or another because it is at the heart of whether we believe that devolution should work across the board and we should want it to happen, or whether we think that it is a question of waiting to see what washes over us in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Syria
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the political situation in Syria.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, the war in Syria is in its fifth year. The UN estimates 200,000 dead, 100,000 injured and 10 million displaced. The whole of the Middle East is riven by sectarianism and destabilised by global jihad. The borders of the Levant are in a state of flux. It is tempting to ask how we got here; what could we have done to avert this ongoing crisis? However, this is merely a Short Debate so I will not test the patience of the House.
Let me lay out how the situation has evolved since we last debated the Middle East earlier this year. We have not seen a rout of ISIL; we have not seen a consolidation of the opposition forces around the Syrian national coalition, and we have not seen a reduction in interventions by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey on the side of the Islamists, and Iran, Russia and Lebanon for Assad.
What of the instability it is causing around the world? We know that the emergence of ISIL in control of its own territory is a pull factor for global jihadis. It is not just the threat from returning jihadis which should concern us, but also that ISIL is attracting allegiance from across various jihadi groups in the Muslim world. What started as a civil war has now become a struggle for the heart of Islam. It has become a geopolitical struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran. With the number of external factors of different ideological positions, it is several wars. It is a Shia/Sunni war, but it is also a Sunni/Sunni war. Its reach is global, as its resolution will impact on Islam and modernity well into the future.
My question for Her Majesty’s Government is simply this: where do the Government see this taking us and our interests in the maintenance of international peace and security—the obligation that permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council imposes on us? What is their assessment of what the end will look like? In fact, do they actually have a strategic vision for the map of the Middle East when this is all said and done? Are they considering the UK’s interests with a view to the very real possibility that we may have to recalibrate our alliances quite substantially at the end of this?
Let me suggest a few possible options we might need to consider. I urge the Government not to let the war against ISIL divert their focus from trying to get peace even in a rump Syria. Defeating ISIL cannot be done without peace in what remains of Syria. A lot of hope is placed on Iran and the potential success of the P3+3 talks culminating on 30 June. I share that hope for a successful outcome. While we hope that once Iran is inside the tent, so to speak, it will exert a more positive influence on Syria, we should not underestimate the difficulty in getting the moderate opposition—I am referring to the non al-Qaeda, non Jabhat al-Nusra and non Islamic State groupings—into peace talks.
We also have to consider the influence that Russia can bring to bear on Syria. I have been as vocal a critic of President Putin’s Russia as anyone in this House but I acknowledge that, despite their role in Crimea and Ukraine, we need the Russians to use what leverage they have with the Assad regime. It will not be a surprise to the House tonight that Russia may have to be Assad’s safe haven, if that is the price of peace in Syria. So my question to the Minister is: to what extent are we working with the US and Russia in trying to find a format for Geneva III? A propos peace talks, the Minister will be aware that the 37 groupings under the aegis of the revolutionary command council recently wrote an open letter to the United Nations special envoy Staffan de Mistura to say that they would not attend Geneva III, as they saw him as too close to the Assad regime.
While this is clearly unhelpful, the facts on the ground have changed and so must our analysis. From 2011 till 30 August 2013, when the House of Commons decided not to vote for limited intervention against Assad, I was clear that we could not have peace with Assad in situ. However, with the advent of ISIL, and the ongoing support by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey for Islamists—I would go as far as to say support of jihadi groups by those countries—we now have to acknowledge that Assad’s people have to be part of the solution. In that regard, I make no criticism of Staffan de Mistura for seeking to bring the Syrian Government into the talks.
The interview that Bashar al-Assad gave to the US journal Foreign Affairs in March is instructive. Assad gets the fact that all wars end in a political settlement. As for preconditions for talks, he is no longer saying that he will speak only to representative political parties, but in fact makes it clear that he will speak to, in his words, “any political entity” or person. When asked about preconditions, he makes it clear that there will be no conditions. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that this interview was clearly designed to send a more nuanced and calibrated message than we had from the regime until now.
I urge the Government to work towards talks even if their influence lies only with the secular moderate opposition, such that that exists. Even if we have only incremental gains towards a partial peace, it will signal the beginning of a transition. However, what of a wider strategy? I posed a question about where the pieces would fall in this kaleidoscope. If all we can achieve in Syria is only a partial peace, we must go for that. ISIL will be a feature of both Syria and Iraq as well as the rest of the Muslim world for some time. The caliphate it promotes is evidently attractive to many Muslims, and will continue to be so. In the next decade or so we might have displaced it in the Levant, only to see it emerge in poorly governed spaces in Africa or south Asia.
What is clear is that the ideology that ISIL feeds on has not come out of the blue, despite the protestations of the Saudis, Qataris and those who themselves have supported the propagation of these medieval versions of Islam. If we have a partial peace in Syria and Iraq, do we expect to continue to do business as usual with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states or indeed Turkey? I suspect not. Those countries will have to account for their role in this ugly war to other Muslims.
The Islamic civilisation that existed before the events of 9/11 has disappeared permanently. The Muslim world can see that, hence we have seen the different reactions to the rise of Islamism in different countries. The recent elections in Turkey have provided a little hope that the fightback from modern Muslims has begun. In Egypt the reaction against the Muslim Brotherhood has been less gratifying, however popular those measures might be domestically. No liberal can say that a death sentence against Morsi is a good thing.
However, what is clear from these different developments is that the West—the United Kingdom, the European Union, the US—has no comprehensive strategic vision that can guide us. I urge the Government to start thinking about our interests from a longer-term perspective.
Since I have not used up my time, I take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who will speak in tonight’s debate and who have stayed late to do so.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I think that all of us speaking tonight would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for securing this important debate.
The plight of the Druze in Syria is a worrying development for those of us who place a special significance on the religious diversity and harmony that was once a hallmark of the Levant and the Middle East. In so many of the Middle East’s holiest and most significant centres of religious devotion, the ability of all faiths to worship together in harmony and peaceful co-existence is much diminished. Many members of minority faiths have had to flee their homelands to survive and now live in refugee camps.
The scale of displacement across all sectors of society is quite astonishing and one of the real tragedies of the current situation in Syria. The refugee crisis in Syria is now the biggest mass movement of people since the Second World War. According to the UNHCR, almost 4 million have fled to Syria’s immediate neighbours, more than half of them children. More than 6.5 million children and their families are internally displaced within Syria. This is, by any measure, the most profound humanitarian catastrophe of our time.
Save the Children reports that humanitarian access remains constrained, a result of which is that food, water and medicines are running out, putting millions at risk of sickness and malnutrition. I join Save the Children in urging the Government to use all their influence at the UN to ensure that UN agencies, as a matter of urgency, improve the delivery of aid across conflict lines and borders.
I pay tribute to Save the Children and all the other NGOs for their remarkable work inside and outside Syria. I also pay tribute to the Government. We should be proud of our £800 million contribution, the largest ever response by the UK to any humanitarian crisis. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to expand the UK resettlement scheme for Syrian refugees.
Only a political solution can resolve this crisis. As ever in the Middle East, it is the politics that gets in the way of peace. No simple solution presents itself. As I was once told by a friend, “If you think you understand the politics of the Middle East, it’s not been explained to you properly”.
What is clear, however, is that, before a political solution can even start to gain momentum, the military challenge of ISIS must be contained and defeated. Much of the burden of this challenge is being faced by our staunch allies in the region, such as Jordan—I declare my interest as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Jordan. Our role, which remains critical, is to support them in all that they do.
Happily, in a region wracked by instability, in Jordan we have a friend on whom we can rely, not only to provide safe shelter for refugees but as an ally that is doing its utmost to drive forward a political solution to this conflict— an effort that we should all applaud.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, just to remind the House that once the counter says three, you are on the fourth minute.
Lord Soley (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Baroness on getting the debate. It is tragic that it is so short, but she has done an awful lot of work on this and it is very important. I agree with much of what she has said and also with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, too.
I will keep my three minutes to one factor, because we cannot go into all of it, which is Russia, which the noble Baroness touched on. I have felt for a long time that the role of Russia in this is far more important than we have realised. I ask the Minister if we know whether Russia is still arming Assad and whether it is still providing him with intelligence. We underestimated the importance of the intelligence from Russia. We have to remember that it has satellites over the area providing information to Assad’s forces so that he can hold ground that, frankly, he would have lost otherwise. It has always been my view that Assad would not negotiate as long as Russia felt that it could keep him in place.
The third question that I would ask the Minister is this. I think that President Putin now knows that, although Assad might have to be part of the solution, as the noble Baroness said, he certainly cannot dictate it. There is no way that Assad can or should be back in control of the bulk of Syria again, even if Syria can hold together. A very important part of the policy that we have never fully debated in this Chamber is: what role is Russia playing? How close are we to Russia? Despite all the other problems with Crimea and the way that President Putin is behaving in modern Russia, there must be some shared interest in working together to solve this problem. It is not in Russia’s interest to have ISIL winning in that area.
Similarly, although it might not quite see it this way, it is not really in Russia’s interest to see the United Nations frozen out, as it is at the moment because of the attitude of Russia and China against intervention. Syria is a classic example of how, just as intervention can go wrong, as it did in Iraq, so non-intervention can go wrong, too, as it has in Syria—unless people think that it is some wonderful success. The role of Russia is an issue that we need to bring out to some degree. Much of what else has been said could be dealt with in a much bigger way.
My last point is that we are in acute danger of a growing major war in the region involving Saudi Arabia and Iran—and, of course, the split within Islam between Sunni and Shia—which would have a knock-on effect on many of our allies there, which are becoming destabilised. Yemen is the latest example; I always worry about Bahrain, which has been doing remarkably well and deserves a lot of credit when it is in an almost impossible position in relation to Iran and Saudi.
For tonight, I simply would like answers so that I know more about what the British Government are doing with Russia—or is it just that we cannot do very much with it?
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, over the past four years there have been consistent and confident forecasts that the Assad Government in Damascus were about to fall. If I may paraphrase Mark Twain, all these forecasts have, so far, been exaggerated. In the brief time available this evening, I will limit my intervention to a number of questions.
Would the Minister tell the House what support Her Majesty’s Government are still giving to the so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria? Does she think that they are a credible replacement for the Assad Government, if the Assad Government should fall? Are the Government playing any part in the reported plans of the so-called “Southern Front” to launch attacks on Damascus from the south? Is she aware of reports that all the rebel movements are now deeply infiltrated by Jabhat al-Nusra, a branch of al-Qaeda defined by the European Union and by the United States as a terrorist movement, but which both the United Nations and the United States seem increasingly to tolerate?
Is the Minister aware that the Islamic State, which now occupies a significant and growing area of Syrian territory, owes much of its support, in terms of money, men and weapons, to our Sunni friends in the Gulf? Does she accept that in supporting the so-called Syrian rebels, if that is what we are doing, we are effectively supporting the Sunni case that President Assad should go, without any apparent concern for the likelihood that the Islamic State would take over the Syrian Government in Damascus, with appalling consequences for the survival of secularism in that country? She may recall that the Christian nuns of Ma’loula, who were captured by Islamic extremists, publicly thanked the Assad Government for rescuing them. It is not only Christians who must dread the possibility of President Assad’s departure; there is a significant minority of Druze both in Syria and in the occupied Golan that already has much reason to fear the threat of Islamic extremists.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will tell us how far we are co-ordinating our policy towards Syria with our partners in the European Union, and in particular whether we support the efforts of Mr Staffan de Mistura to negotiate a political solution with the involvement of the Government in Damascus. Surely our aim must be to reach a situation where Syrian refugees, who now number nearly 4 million, can return safely to their homes? Is it, even now, not too late to work for a joint international effort to drive back the Islamic State in Syria, and to persuade our Saudi friends, and our Turkish allies, that what they have helped to create presents as much of a threat to them and their neighbours as it does to us?
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, the tragic humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions arising out of the situation in Syria is now impacting all European countries, to add to the enormous pressures on Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. This all arose out of a terrible misjudgment by President Assad, who, after some ambiguity, blamed social unrest on foreigners and terrorists. There were arguments as to how to respond; sophisticated voices rejected any action against the Assad regime, saying that there was no strategy. His strategy was clear: survival at any cost, no matter what the bloodshed was and despite the efforts of the United Nations and the Arab League. Today we have the incredible situation whereby ISIL is supplying President Assad with oil and he and ISIL attack moderate Syrian rebels. The notion that he is a buffer against ISIL simply is not being borne out.
Russia, which has its own preoccupations in Ukraine and elsewhere, now realises that Assad and his immediate cabal cannot win. There is a widely held view that Iran would consider sacrificing Assad if there was a nuclear deal that, in turn, would enable it to negotiate its political interests thereafter. It appears that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are willing to act as security guarantors for Syria post Assad. They appear more disposed to support the more moderate rebels—fearing ISIL more than anything else—and they might provide the best guarantee of stopping ISIL taking over Syria in totality, including Damascus.
I refer my noble friend the Minister’s attention to a recent report put together by the Atlantic Council, The Case for a Syrian National Stabilization Force. It may well be of interest and points to a clear strategy for supporting the moderate rebels and, ultimately, looking at political reforms. Of course, the political structures that could support this do not yet exist, and we must not make the mistake of dismissing everybody with political and administrative experience, as regrettably occurred in Iraq.
Assad cannot last. Iran and Russia, for different reasons, are more open to dialogue, however tortuous, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia may well be supportive. At minimum such an approach is worth encouraging and I simply do not know of any viable alternative. I greatly look forward, therefore, to hearing from my noble friend of any role that we and other European partners can have in trying to bring about fresh thinking in resolving this tragedy. There may just be some straws in the wind now to support this.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, Syria is the worst humanitarian catastrophe of our time, generating the largest movement of displaced people since World War II. We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for giving us this brief opportunity to turn a spotlight on these events. In my brief remarks, I will say something about the plight of minorities in Syria.
All faith communities and minorities, such as the Yazidis, have suffered, but the fate of the country’s Christians, already referred to, is catastrophic. The Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop of Aleppo, Jean-Clément Jeanbart, asks:
“What are the great nations waiting for before they put a halt to these monstrosities? Let me cry with my people, violated and murdered. Allow me to stand by numerous families in Aleppo who are in mourning. Because of this ugly and barbarous war, they have lost so many loved ones, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters and cherished children”.
ISIS has murdered, plundered, raped and abducted, including whole villages of Assyrian Christians. Now that joint Kurdish and Assyrian forces have recently recaptured a number of villages, can the Minister tell us whether we are going to provide teams, especially in the Khabur River Valley area, to find and dispose of mines and make homes and villages safe again? Where ground has been recaptured, will we be supporting the proposal of my noble friend Lord Dannatt to enhance their military capability? Do we accept that more training and support are needed for the Kurdish-led alliance, which can likely even seize Raqqa, with the result of crippling ISIS in both Syria and Iraq?
Does the Minister agree that the Kurdish-Assyrian democratic self-administration governmental structure and its commitment to civil society and the rule of law should be the model for a post-Assad, post-ISIS Syria and possibly for the entire region? Will the Minister consider practical support for Bassam Ishak, the president of the Syriac National Council of Syria, who has a vision of a Syria in which rights are based on citizenship; where all people, regardless of ethnicity, religion or gender, are treated equally; and where women have a prominent role in the structures? These pillars of the DSA system should surely be the pillars of a post-Assad, post-ISIS Syria.
The overall goal must be to enable all Syrians who have left, including Christians, to return to their homes, to be safe when they return, and to participate in rebuilding the Syrian infrastructure and Government on the basis of social and political equality, with religious freedom and human rights being safeguarded. It is not perfect but the Kurdish-Assyrian coalition is the best example in this fractured region of hard-headed bridge-building and what the West should want to see in the Syria of the future.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. Last week I was in Lebanon, visiting refugee camps there, and I want to take this opportunity to highlight the plight of the Palestinians among the millions of refugees fleeing Syria.
I met people whose families had fled Palestine during the Nakba in 1948 and found shelter in Iraq but 10 years ago had had to flee Iraq as well, following the war waged against Saddam Hussein. They had made their homes in Syria, where they were very well treated by the Government, until rebel groups infiltrated the Yarmouk camp and catastrophe occurred once more. They were refugees again, for the third time in a generation. They are now trying to live in Lebanon. Their entire support is coming from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—UNRWA—because they are not allowed to work by the Lebanese Government; they are not given work permits. They live among other Palestinians in converted sheds and animal shelters, which I visited, that UNRWA and the NGOs have managed to make just about habitable. They have no means of support and have been dependent on monthly cash handouts from UNRWA to cover food costs and rent. Unrest is developing very quickly in the camps because UNRWA has had to tell the refugees that these cash handouts will have to stop at the end of June because it has run out of funds.
UNRWA was set up as a temporary organisation in 1948 to help refugees from the Nakba. It is still struggling to cope 60 years later. The UK is the third-largest funder of UNRWA, and we should be proud of what we have done, but we need to address this shortfall in funding before unrest spills over into serious violence and fighting in Lebanon itself. Can the Minister tell us what the Government intend to do to avert this cash shortage? For instance, will pressure be put on the Gulf states to help? Finally—she will expect me to say this—will she not admit that the creation of a secure homeland for the Palestinians is now more needed than ever, and that our Government should encourage this by recognising the state of Palestine? This would be a huge contribution to peace in the wider Middle East.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for introducing this debate because much has changed in Syria. The mainly Kurdish cantons of Kobane and Jazira are now linked up, while Afrin is still free. This means that most of the Turkish frontier is now closed to ISIS. The Kurdish and Arab militia, with US air support, has shown that it can defeat ISIS.
Will Her Majesty’s Government support the three cantons in their demand for internal self-determination? Will they come out clearly in favour of common citizenship for all, as proclaimed by the elected assembly of Jazira? Will they urge Turkey to open its frontier to urgent medical and relief supplies going into Syria and grain exports coming out of it? I urge the Government to see for themselves what is happening in the cantons. It is quite easy to enter Jazira—I have done it myself.
We should help the cantons to uphold their written constitution and social charter. When fully put into practice, these can provide a model for Syria and an example to other parts of the Middle East, as my noble friend Lord Alton mentioned. If Kurds, Assyrians, Arabs and others can co-operate, why should other Syrians not do the same? Nearby Lebanon suffered a terrible civil war but the Lebanese are now trying to live together and the country has achieved the amazing feat of absorbing more than 1 million Syrians without putting anyone into camps.
I conclude by hoping and thinking that perhaps there is still some hope for Syria.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate enormously. This war has gone on for 54 months; that is four and a half years. The Second World War lasted only five and three-quarter years. That puts it in context. In my judgment there are two causes. First, this is the fourth Shia/Sunni war since Syria was set up. Secondly, I am afraid that the West’s idea of an Arab spring has proved to be a disaster. In fact, as my noble friend on the Front Bench will know, we were the first to recognise the freedom fighters. The trouble was we did not recognise who were the freedom fighters, and the jihadists were the largest group.
I raised this issue with the then Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in 2013, and was told that Assad was on the way out. However, as my noble friend on the Cross Benches said, he has spent an awful long time going. In my judgment the time has surely come to recognise reality and meet Assad, exactly as Churchill had to do with Stalin. You may not like the man but that is irrelevant in the context of what we face today. If we do not, it is my judgment that the state of ISIL will become a reality. I draw an analogy with Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers, a vicious, left-wing-led Hindu organisation that was only defeated by strong leadership—remember that it is democratically elected—good armed forces, and absolutely key was the help the West gave to stop supplies to the Tamil Tigers. We now need similar leadership from the West, and it has to include Assad and his forces. If we do not address this task, the West will surely suffer. ISIL state will become a reality and we, too, in the UK will suffer home-grown terrorism which may make the IRA look like beginners. We need only look at the pictures on page 30 and 31 of today’s Times to understand what the real threats are. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I have seen some of those cages at the end of the war in Sri Lanka. They are quite ghastly. If we have to sup with Assad, then we must do it soon.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for this debate but, oh, how we need a standing Select Committee to regularly scrutinise policy on subjects such as this to focus our debates. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will read Hansard tomorrow.
The Minister will well remember the debate that took place almost two years ago when a majority in this House took the view that it would be a mistake to bomb Damascus. The principal argument that many noble Lords adduced was that it was not clear what the Government envisaged doing the day after such a bombing. The strategy was not clear—we could not discern a strategy. I must admit that I still cannot discern it.
I see no way of saying in three minutes anything that is commensurate with the scale of the tragedy that has been running for four and a half years, given the scale of the casualties and the 10 million displaced people. Therefore, I will just ask the Minister four questions. I have no time for analysis or advocacy. First, who do the British Government recognise as the legitimate Government of Syria? Are we in diplomatic relations with them? Is it still our view that President Assad’s departure is essential, even if his successor was Jaish, which is al-Qaeda by another name, or ISIL?
Secondly, is the UK still conducting military operations against ISIL only in Iraq and not in Syria? If so, can the Minister cite a precedent for any previous similarly geographically constrained military operation against an enemy occupying parts of more than one country?
Thirdly, since the Syrian tragedy is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, do the Government agree that the key to a solution must lie in Tehran and Moscow on the one hand and Riyadh, Doha and Ankara on the other? What are we saying in these capitals? What incentives are we suggesting which might encourage both sides to back down?
Lastly, is it really the case that whereas the Turks and the Jordanians are dealing with millions of refugees, and other European countries such as Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands are taking in tens of thousands of refugees, we in this country have so far admitted fewer than 200? If so, how can we reconcile that with our history, traditions and values?
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for introducing this debate in a very comprehensive way. She was lucky to have 10 minutes; we are lucky to have three minutes. There is no way you can do justice to a very complicated situation in that time.
Syria, which was relatively developed, has been reduced to ruins and, as we have heard, millions have escaped the country with little more than the clothes they stood in. A key concern that we should have is that there is seemingly no strategy for dealing with this crisis. What we need is an honest and complete reassessment of British and EU foreign and security policy in this area. Piecemeal, short-term and ad hoc measures cannot replace a comprehensive, long-term foreign policy strategy—a strategy which I am afraid has been clearly lacking in recent years.
The conflict is much more complicated than a battle between those who are for or against President Assad. It now has a clear sectarian angle, with the Sunni majority fighting the Shia Alawite sect. The turmoil in the country has attracted jihadist groups, including Islamic State, as we have heard. There have been atrocious war crimes committed: murder, rape, torture, and the use of chemical weapons, sometimes in barrel bombs. There are serious threats to historic antiquity. I ask the Minister to elaborate on what we are doing to protect these irreplaceable relics. Will she indicate whether the Government support the efforts of Staffan de Mistura to establish freeze zones to allow aid deliveries in besieged areas, and give some idea of how and when these zones may become operational? Will she also confirm whether the Government are still pressing the EU to lift the arms embargo to the rebels fighting Assad? I would like to ask the Minister a variation on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. There are rumours implying that the US has suggested that Assad will not have to go. Can she confirm whether that is the case?
We are aware that the British Government have been very generous in helping to fund refugees in the region, but I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on whether a proportion of this fund is being earmarked to protect women, who are enduring extreme human rights abuses in some of the camps. Have the Government any intention of contributing to the EU trust fund for Syria, to which Germany and Italy have already contributed? It is worth underlining that by March this year the UK had resettled only 187 Syrians, while Germany has accepted 28,000. We must underline that as we have a responsibility in that regard.
Let me pick up on a point about Russia made by the noble Lord, Lord Soley. On 19 June, Putin once again underlined his support for the Assad regime, emphasising that he opposed any use of external force to try to end the civil war in a country which conveniently gives him access to a friendly Mediterranean port. What are we doing about the Russian situation? What is our plan in that regard?
We should be asking many more questions. I am afraid that my time has run out but we need to ask: where is the long-term strategic vision for this region? It is all very complicated; this is about not just Syria but the whole region, and we do not seem to have a plan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for tabling this debate. I thank all other noble Lords for their contributions. I take this opportunity to say how much I appreciate the way in which the noble Baroness contributes to our debates. Her work is invaluable and she gives us an effective and knowledgeable voice.
In responding to the debate, I will seek to address what I think are her underlying questions, as echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, a moment ago. Is there a strategy to assist the international community in its search for a political resolution in Syria and, if so, what is it?
First, with regard to the Syrian context, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others that the Syrian situation is clearly within the context of the wider region. Today, the Question is about Syria and I will focus on that but I am sure that we will, quite rightly, return in other debates to the wider context. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, referred to that, too.
As we have heard in detail today the conflict in Syria, now in its fifth year, continues to worsen. Indeed, it is arguably one of the most difficult and tragic of our generation. Just miles from his palace in Damascus, President Assad uses barrel bombs, chemical weapons and siege and starvation tactics against his own people. The latest harrowing estimates are of more than 230,000 people dead, 12.2 million people in dire need of humanitarian aid within Syria itself, and 3.9 million refugees in the wider region. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly underlined the urgency of a political solution in Syria, including recently at the G7. Doing nothing is not an option for any of us. Our national security interests are affected by Syria and regional stability is threatened. We simply cannot turn our attention from one of the most awful humanitarian situations in the world. We need to focus on it.
I am appalled by the systematic use of sexual violence by Assad’s forces and their militia. I appreciate that it is not limited to them and that some of the opposition forces engage in it, but the majority of it takes place within Assad’s own forces. Unspeakably brutal acts have been extensively reported by the commission of inquiry. To help mitigate and prevent further irreparable devastation, the UK already provides £800 million in humanitarian aid to support the region, as noble Lords have referred to tonight. We support the UN Population Fund, which provides services in Syria for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. This includes providing safe spaces and psychosocial care for more than 27,000 women. Through NGOs, we are supporting holistic case management services for more than 800 survivors of gender-based violence among Syrian refugees in Jordan, and cash assistance to vulnerable refugee women in Lebanon.
We also fund two projects in Syria to improve the capacity to document crimes of sexual violence to hold perpetrators to account in the future. In my capacity as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, I will be unrelenting in pursuing this and pushing for even more support for survivors of sexual violence and the need for accountability. There can be no impunity; we must hunt these people down, and Syria should be referred to the International Criminal Court.
In answer to one or two noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Naseby, Assad cannot be a credible partner for us. Why? Because he cannot unite Syrians, cannot win broad international backing and cannot defeat ISIL. He is responsible for ISIL’s rise and his presence is fuelling its growth now, as well as providing the operating space for other extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates such as the al-Nusra Front. He is the cause; he is not the cure. Combating ISIL, as noble Lords have said, requires a multi-faceted approach: one that combines a tough military response with an intelligent and nuanced political strategy, degrading ISIL’s access to funds, fighters and resources in both Syria and Iraq, to refer back to the regional perspective. That is why in Iraq, we are building international support for Prime Minister al-Abadi’s Government, which is committed to political reform and to representing all Iraq’s communities, and why we are contributing to US-led efforts to train and equip the moderate opposition fighting ISIL in Syria.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that there is still no military action by the United Kingdom in Syria because a sovereign Parliament took a sovereign decision in a vote two years ago. We said then that we would not commit troops to the ground to fight, unless there was a severe humanitarian catastrophe which could be solved only by military action or unless our own security interests were so threatened that we had to take immediate action. We would then return immediately to Parliament for consideration and assent.
Quite rightly, noble Lords concentrated on political settlements. Political transition in Syria is fundamental. It would, we hope, allow us a partner in Syria with whom we could work against extremists. Like noble Lords, we are under no illusion that a political transition will be easy or come in the near future, nor that Assad—despite the regime’s territorial losses and the destruction he has brought upon his people—is ready to negotiate. I listened and agreed entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said with regard to that. Assad is not going any time soon, if he has anything to do with it. There is widespread consensus that Syria’s conflict cannot be resolved militarily. Equally, a collapse of all its state institutions is not in Syria’s interests. That is why we seek an urgent, inclusive, Syrian-led political transition away from Assad’s rule to a transitional Government agreed by mutual consent of the Syrian parties, as called for in the Geneva communiqué—the only document so far agreed by the P5 UNSC members, as well as the key regional partners.
The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Alton, referred to the Kurds, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wright, and to the work of Staffan de Mistura. We recognise the difficult circumstances that the Syrian Kurds face in the midst of the continuing civil war. We do not, however, support the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party’s formation of a temporary Administration in the Kurdish areas of Syria. This move was not conducted in consultation with the wider Syrian population or the international community. We believe that it will be for all Syrians to decide the exact nature of the political settlement in Syria as part of a transition process, including whether an autonomous region will be created for the Kurds in Syria.
We fully support the work of Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy, in his efforts to kick-start a political dialogue. I was pleased last week to be able to meet his deputy to discuss matters while Mr de Mistura was in Syria having discussions. I know that he is a very realistic and determined person. Last week, we discussed with his deputy how the UK can support Staffan de Mistura’s efforts and we are engaging intensively with his team.
We are also working with international partners, which several noble Lords asked about, and the moderate opposition. We do not rule out working with anyone, including Iran and Russia. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, Russia continues to supply arms and intelligence. It continues to support the Assad regime but it could have a vital role to play in ensuring that Assad eventually makes the right decision: to allow a transition.
Key to all our efforts will be the Syrian national coalition, which represents moderate and inclusive values and remains at the heart of the Syrian opposition. It is closely engaging with Staffan de Mistura as he seeks to initiate that whole political process. The national coalition has said that it does not regard itself as a Government in waiting. Once a transition is achieved, it has made it clear that it will disband itself in favour of free and fair elections. That is the path and the strategy that we need. But if we are to undermine extremists, the UK must support the moderates on the ground in Syria who are trying to provide services to their communities and deny opportunities for the extremists, but not with active military assistance. What we have already done is to commit more than £50 million to support governance this year, along with education, health, and sanitation in areas under opposition control. We have helped the Free Syrian Police to establish more than 70 police stations to provide communities with basic security and we are supporting volunteers in 96 civil defence teams to carry out operations in search and rescue, fire-fighting and first aid. That is where our assistance is best placed, not in lethal assistance.
Finally, I turn to humanitarian aid, asylum and migration, matters which were raised by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Morris and the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Hylton and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked about relics, which I will mention if I have time.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that this is the most profound humanitarian catastrophe of our time, which is why we have focused so much financial aid on Syria. I regularly discuss the funding of the United Nations and its allied organisations such as UNRWA not only with fellow Ministers but with the United Nations and its agencies, as I was doing last week in Geneva. I consistently press not only that they should be efficient but that donors should make sure their contributions are made on time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about refugees. I pay tribute to the work of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and recognise their assistance in providing a safe haven for those who flee Syria. I would also say to the noble Lord that aid is entering Syria: the Turks do not routinely close their borders to aid convoys, although they sometimes have to close them for security reasons or simply because of the sheer volume of migrants going across, for their own safety. Only last week I discussed the matter of humanitarian aid going to Syria with the ICRC. I pay tribute to the bravery of its people.
Since 2011, when the crisis began, we have granted asylum or other forms of leave to remain here to more than 4,200 Syrians under our normal asylum rules. In addition, we operate the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last week announced some addition to that.
I see that my time is up. It is essential that there is a life in the future in Syria. That includes maintaining the existence of monuments, which are a testament to the past. We have, in Syria, people who deserve a future. We can act to ensure that they have that.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]
Lord Bradley
“Transfer of functions: health and social care
A local or combined authority which is the recipient of any transfer of functions under this Act in relation to health and social care must abide by the following principles—(a) they must remain part of the National Health Service and social care system;(b) they must uphold the standards set out in national guidance;(c) they must continue to meet statutory requirements and duties including those contained in the NHS Constitution and Mandate; and(d) they must uphold the standards that underpin the delivery of social care and public health services.”
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 36D, I shall also speak to Amendment 36E. Both amendments are in the names of my noble friends Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham. This is the first opportunity to debate health and social care, but it may not be the last. I declare an interest as a resident of Greater Manchester, former city councillor in Manchester and former MP for the city. My interest in devolution to Greater Manchester is particularly strong.
These are essentially probing amendments regarding the devolution of health and social care to the combined authority—initially to Greater Manchester. I say “combined authority” because it is my understanding that health and social care is not a responsibility to be exercised by the elected mayor. In fact, the memorandum by the DCLG and the Home Office specifically rules out the integration of health and social care as a mayoral function. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that there is no intention in future to make that a mayoral function.
The devolution of health and social care in Greater Manchester has arguably provoked the most interest among the public, stakeholders, politicians and, of course, healthcare professionals amongst others. From a position of, in principle, supporting devolution, I believe it is important to clarify some of the points about the way that this proposal will unfold over the coming weeks and months.
The legislation we are debating makes not a single reference to health and social care. That is reinforced by the fact that in the Explanatory Notes, under “Legal background”, no reference is made to any health legislation, particularly the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We know that the original Greater Manchester devolution agreement did not cover health and social care and that a very belated memorandum of understanding was agreed between the Government and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to set in train the process of devolution of health and social care. Therefore, probing amendments have been tabled under Clause 6, “Other public authority functions”, to elicit further information in this area.
First, we seek clarification: does the Bill apply in any way to public authorities other than district, unitary and county councils? Specifically, do any NHS organisations—clinical commissioning groups, NHS trusts, foundation trusts or arm’s-length bodies, to name but a few—fall within the powers that Clause 6 gives to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to transfer functions and property or rights to a combined authority? I anticipate that the answer to this is no, but that means that the Bill has no bearing on the health devolution proposals and its provisions cannot be used to enact health devolution. As I noted earlier, the Explanatory Notes do not include the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which also suggests that it has no competence in this area. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could confirm the Government’s interpretation is the same as mine.
Secondly, having read the health devolution memorandum of understanding, I suggest that implementing many of its provisions may require, sooner or later, primary or secondary legislation. This could be desirable, not only to set out clearly the statutory basis on which responsibilities may move between existing bodies—for example, CCGs, local authorities, foundation trusts and so on—but also to frame accountability relationships. Where such arrangements are currently set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it would seem that amendments to that Act, whether made using the powers of this Bill or made directly through further legislation, would be required. For example, if the Greater Manchester Strategic Health and Social Care Partnership Board required statutory powers—and many commentators are of the view that, for such bodies to really shape the services locally, they will require such powers, and this view has often been argued in relationship to health and well-being boards being the strategic body at a local level without any statutory powers—clearly, amendments to primary legislation will be required. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm the position. We do not want to leave NHS organisations and their boards, which implement policies, open to legal challenge that they are acting outside or in conflict with legislation.
Lord Warner (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, which provide us for the first time with an opportunity to discuss the relationship between the Bill and existing NHS legislation. I have degrouped my own amendment on NHS responsibilities for later discussion, because I wish first to hear the Minister’s response to this group of amendments. However, I promise the Minister that I will be returning to this matter on Monday.
I decided on this approach when I heard the Minister’s reply on Monday to my question about where the Health Secretary fitted in to the accountable Ministers in relation to the Bill, given the decision in February to delegate £6 billion a year of the NHS budget to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Her response was that Greater Manchester had agreed a memorandum of understanding with NHS England. That is true, and it may well be a good and sensible thing to do. However, it does not tell us very much about where this leaves the Health Secretary and his many duties and powers under the monster Health and Social Care Act—all 457 pages of it.
The Bill certainly does not make clear what happens when other areas come forward with their own proposals for delegating chunks of the NHS functions and budgets to combined authorities. I have read the current memorandum of understanding, which relates largely to 2015-16 as a build-up year for what will come later. The memorandum leaves a large number of loose ends relating to later years and the relationship of the combined authority with the Health Secretary under existing NHS legislation.
Having said all this, I make it clear that I am a strong supporter of the Bill and its approach to devolution. I very much share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, about it. Unlike many of my colleagues on these Benches, I do not particularly oppose the idea of elected mayors; as a lifelong Londoner, I have experienced the benefits of a mayoralty. This year I also co-authored a policy paper for the think tank Reform entitled Letting Go, which discusses how English devolution could help solve the NHS care and cash crisis. Here I should declare my interests as a member of the advisory council of Reform and an adviser on health and care to the law firm Capsticks.
In the conclusion of our policy paper, my co-author and I went on to say about Greater Manchester:
“For the first time, a large city region has offered a model of healthcare in the UK that focuses on preserving and improving the health of all citizens rather than merely treating them when they are sick. It could provide a step change in health outcomes, particularly for the worst off. If successful in fixing the care model, this innovative approach could help make the NHS more financially sustainable, by controlling the numbers needing expensive acute care”.
This is a very big prize, but why are the Government so shy about putting some of this stuff in the Bill? Those are outcomes that we would all desire. We want them all for most parts of the country from our NHS, so why can we not be upfront and clear in the Bill about where the health and social care stuff—particularly the NHS functions and budgets—sits in relation to this Bill and combined authorities and sort out more precisely than at the moment the relationship between a combined authority and the Health Secretary, not just NHS England?
The key issue is how the Bill interrelates with the Health and Social Care Act 2012. If we want successfully to devolve NHS responsibilities in the way envisaged for Greater Manchester, as I hope we do, does not Parliament have to insert some provisions in this Bill which explain the relationship between those functions and the role of the combined authority and the Health Secretary and his duties and powers in the 2012 Act? This House spent months on that Bill and had to have a pause because there was so much difficulty and controversy over that legislation.
Only three years ago, Parliament and the previous Government set the future path for the NHS in a monster of an Act. Now we seem to be going into dark corners, shuffling away, trying to undermine that Act by slipping some functions through something called a memorandum of understanding to a combined authority without being clear where that leaves the Health Secretary and his duties.
I am not normally particularly sympathetic to the Health Secretary or to the problems of the 2012 Act, which was not one of Parliament’s finest hours, but the facts of life are that that is the legislation which governs the way the NHS is run in England now and for the foreseeable future, so trying to slide a set of changes through with combined authorities without being clear in the Bill what is going to happen in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers is a surefire recipe for confusion in the minds of the public, of the NHS and its staff and of the combined authorities.
My key questions to the Minister are: first, what collective discussions have taken place in government on the interrelationship of this Bill to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 when NHS responsibilities, funding and assets are to be devolved to combined authorities? Secondly, will the Minister tell the Committee whether the terms of the agreement with Greater Manchester will be further amended following the passage of this Bill before the Greater Manchester changes go live in 2016-17? Thirdly, what legal advice have the Government had on whether actions could be taken by authorities or the public under the terms of the 2012 Act to overrule the terms of a memorandum of understanding with a combined authority? Fourthly, is the process used with Greater Manchester going to be the way that subsequent transfers of NHS responsibilities to combined authorities will be handled after the passage of the Bill? We need answers to questions of that kind to be certain what is going to happen when the Bill goes on the statute book with relation to any transfer of NHS responsibilities.
In conclusion, I am a supporter of this Bill and of using it to devolve more responsibility from the NHS to local and regional levels, linked to other devolution to combined authorities. I do not want the Government’s proposals in the Bill to fail because insufficient thought has been given to the issues I have raised. We saw what happened with Andrew Lansley’s rushed and ill-thought-through NHS legislation, when its implications were not seriously addressed before Parliament passed it. I remind the Minister that the Prime Minister had to impose a pause on the consideration of that legislation because so much of it was ill considered and undeliverable.
I would very much like to work with the Government on the Bill and try to get it right; this is not a partisan matter. I hope that the Minister will clarify, either today or later in a meeting, how we can progress this issue. In the mean time, I can promise a debate next Monday on a revised version of Amendment 44D that seeks to define how NHS responsibilities can be devolved to combined authorities in a way consistent with the 2012 Act. I hope that the Government will accept in principle that something in this area has to be put in the Bill.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, these are very important issues. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bradley and Lord Warner, for all the points they have made, which I hope the Minister will take as constructive criticism. I anticipate that we will have a significant debate—or at least I hope we will—when we reach Amendment 44D on Monday. I simply want to say that Amendments 36D and 36E both have our support. They raise some very important issues and are a practical example of some of the issues we were discussing earlier today such as the NHS and social care, and how that works in practice in an area. This is an example of clarifying what is within scope for devolution to a combined authority and which Ministers have what powers with regard to the devolution of both resources and responsibilities. I will not detain the House any longer on this matter, but I expect that we will return to it when we debate Amendment 44D on Monday.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, although my political interest in social services goes back more than 40 years to the days when I was chairman of the social services committee in Newcastle—the four most productive years in my fairly long political life, which is rather a sad comment on the rest of it—I will confine myself to only one question. I have been a member of the health scrutiny committee in Newcastle since its inception, and I am not clear about the role, which is a statutory role, of the health scrutiny committee in the context of devolution. We will be debating later the question of overview and scrutiny within the combined authority, but I wonder how that will fit alongside what I take will be the continuing statutory responsibility of social services authorities at any rate to have an overview and scrutiny committee to deal specifically with health, well-being and social care.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I listened with enormous interest to my noble friends Lord Bradley and Lord Warner, and I thank them for throwing a lot of light on the issues that as a non-specialist had left me puzzled. That is partly the result of the Government’s position that they will not think about anything in advance but will react to what local authorities ask to have, and will only then think about the consequences. This is an extreme example, but easily the best, of the outcome of that. Secondly, there is a lack of any Green Paper, White Paper, any consultation or discussion at length, which would have brought all these issues out. I would not at all be surprised, not at the scale of the health service issues but if the same kind of issues do not arise with regard to some other matters of devolution. Knowing whether the Government think of the issues in advance and are able to convey that to the public, let alone to Parliament, is enormously important. I hope that this debate will lead not merely to further discussions on Monday on the health and social care side but, in due course, to a reflection on other areas, perhaps at a later stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords have said, Amendments 36D and 36E make specific provision for the transfer of health and social care and NHS responsibilities. It is probably important to say straightaway that the Government share and are committed to the views underpinning the substance of these amendments—namely, that whatever devolution arrangements are entered into in a particular area, health and social care services in that area must remain firmly part of the NHS and social care system, and the position of NHS services in the area in relation to the NHS constitution and mandate cannot change. I hope that that clarifies the position. There can be no question but that, whatever devolution arrangements for health and social care are agreed with an area, all national standards for health services, social care and public health services must, as a minimum, be complied with.
As we have discussed throughout our debates, the context in which the Bill’s powers will be exercised is that of implementing bespoke devolution deals agreed with individual areas and reflecting each area’s proposals and ambitions for devolution. That said, the agreement that Greater Manchester has reached with NHS England illustrates the kind of devolution of health and social care services which areas may be seeking and which the Bill will facilitate.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, asked whether health will be a mayoral function under the new section introduced by Clause 6. The answer is that NHS bodies are seen as public authorities for the purposes of the Bill. The Greater Manchester deal does indeed put health as a function of the combined authority and not of the mayor. However, we would not want to prejudice any other deal. We would want to hear from areas and discuss with them what they want.
Greater Manchester and NHS England have set out their agreement in a memorandum of understanding and there are several underpinning principles to that agreement. First, in the field of health and social care, all decisions about Greater Manchester will be taken with Greater Manchester. The second principle is that Greater Manchester will remain part of the National Health Service and social care system; it will uphold the standards set out in national guidance and will continue to meet statutory requirements and duties, including those of the NHS constitution and mandate.
The third principle is that new models of inclusive governance and decision-making will be created with the intention of enabling the clinical commissioning groups in Greater Manchester, providers, patients, carers and partners to shape the future of Greater Manchester together. It is in creating these new governance arrangements that the powers in the Bill may need to be drawn on, giving to local authorities, together in their combined authority, the powers to participate in the strong, collaborative partnerships that they, NHS commissioners and providers will form to deliver on the principle that all health decisions about Greater Manchester will be taken with Greater Manchester.
Without going into the detail of the Greater Manchester arrangements, I would mention that these governance arrangements will be centred on two bodies— noble Lords have already referred to them. The first is the Greater Manchester Strategic Health and Social Care Partnership Board—for short, the GMHSPB. The membership includes the clinical commissioning groups, providers, NHS England and the local authorities. This will prepare and take forward a comprehensive Greater Manchester strategic sustainability plan for health and social care. The second is the Greater Manchester joint commissioning board, comprising the local authorities, the clinical commissioning groups and NHS England. Its role will be to commission Greater Manchester-wide services.
This is a broad, enabling Bill, and I do not believe it is necessary to include in it specific requirements about how particular powers might be devolved. Within the legislative framework that the Bill is creating, the safeguards are to be provided not by making specific provisions but by the requirement that the implementation of any particular devolution deal must be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. For such debates, it will be important that the full details of the deal concerned, how it was arrived at and the outcomes expected from it will be fully available to Parliament. As I said in the earlier short debate on housing, I am ready to consider whether the standard explanatory memorandums are—
Lord Bradley
I have a question on that point, so as to be absolutely clear. The Minister said that any of those functions will be debated in both Houses. Is she confirming that any proposals around the devolution of health and social care will be subject to scrutiny in both Houses of this Parliament?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Yes, my Lords, I am. They would be done by order, and any orders will be scrutinised through the affirmative process in both Houses of Parliament.
As to reporting on how a deal is proceeding, as I said in one of our debates earlier this week, a process for evaluating the progress on each deal will be discussed and agreed with each area as part of the deal. For example, the Greater Manchester deal has an extensive programme of evaluation, with evaluations being public documents available to all Members of the House, as well as to all with an interest in the area and the progress it is making. But again, I do not believe it is appropriate in our enabling Bill to make a requirement about the reporting or evaluation of some particular aspect of a deal, indeed an aspect that may not be in all the deals that are agreed.
I turn to specific questions that noble Lords have asked. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, asked whether I would support the view that joint board membership should include representatives of the police, et cetera. In any one place, this will be a matter for the area concerned. In Greater Manchester, for example, it is for those concerned to agree who should be on the joint boards, which will reflect the responsibilities that the combined authority has. He asked the very simple question of whether the Secretary of State for Health will be ultimately responsible to the public for the delivery of health and social care. The answer is yes. He also asked about the Manchester MOU. Greater Manchester and all the health bodies concerned, including national bodies such as NHS England, as well as the Greater Manchester clinical commissioning groups, continue to work on the full details of the arrangements that they have agreed.
Lord Warner
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but I am becoming extremely confused. Twice in her response the Minister has said that all decisions about Greater Manchester will be taken “with” Greater Manchester—in other words, not “by” Greater Manchester. In this last set of responses to my noble friend, she makes it clear that the Secretary of State is responsible for decisions about health in Greater Manchester. What I am struggling with is this: what is the purpose of devolving some of these health responsibilities to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority if the Secretary of State reserves a right to overrule or vet those decisions? I thought that when the Chancellor announced the Greater Manchester project with a great song and dance, a very strong emphasis was given to the ability of local people to take the decisions that affect their area.
Let me give the Minister one example to chew on. Greater Manchester is proposing to remove a significant number of beds from acute hospitals to put more money into preventive medicine and community- based services. The Minister will know that closing hospital acute beds is a very contentious issue up and down the country. Who will take that decision? Is not Greater Manchester at risk of saying, “Our population’s health would be improved by removing some of those acute beds and spending some of that money on preventive public health and community-based services”? Can the Secretary of State then simply overrule it, using his powers in the 2012 Act? That is a very practical, real example of where we could have conflict. I would like to know where the Government stand on that issue.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, Greater Manchester would work with clinical commissioning groups, et cetera, but would not itself deliver NHS services.
Lord Warner
That was not my question. Perhaps I could explain to the Minister what it is. The clinical commissioning groups in Manchester could all agree that they should take a large number of beds out of acute hospitals in Manchester—not anywhere else—because it was in the best interests of and would achieve better health outcomes for that population. Could they—all the interested parties, clinical commissioning groups and even NHS England, with the combined authority—agree that that is sensible to do? Could we then have a situation in which the Secretary of State, under pressure from some bits of the local community or from the acute hospital, declined to approve that well thought-out plan by the combined authority with the clinical commissioning groups? It is a straightforward question. Is the answer yes or no to whether the Health Secretary can overrule them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what exactly is being devolved. Greater Manchester will have the powers necessary to participate in a collaborative partnership which will develop health strategies for the place and commission health services. It would be a partnership arrangement. If within that partnership the Secretary of State thought that all of them collectively were making the wrong decision, I am sure that he would have something to say about it.
Lord Warner
So the result is the Secretary of State reserving unto himself all the authority to overrule a locally reached decision. We can talk about partnership till the cows come home, but is not the reality—and this is a critical issue—that the Secretary of State, as one of the partners but the partner with the power under the 2012 Act, can simply overrule them because he thinks that is the right thing to do?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I was not saying that the Secretary of State would overrule them for overruling’s sake, but if it was fundamentally a wrong decision, I am sure that he would have the power to intervene. I think that that is what the case would be. Does the noble Lord want to respond?
Lord Warner
I will read Hansard and come back on Monday, because this issue seems to me an Exocet under some of the principles in the Bill.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
My Lords, surely devolution means giving power to the local level; it does not mean doing that—as long as the Government at the centre agree. Surely devolved authorities must in principle have the right to take local decisions, otherwise it is not devolution.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Yes, my Lords, that is absolutely the case, but we have talked all along in this Committee about what happens if things go wrong and where the checks and balances are. We cannot have a situation where there is unfettered ability for people to do things without any checks and balances.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
It is not a question of whether they have made a mistake or done something wrong, but of local choice. The Minister talked about a bad decision. To say that a local decision is a bad decision because it differs from a view that the Secretary of State takes does not seem to me to be in the spirit of devolution.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, perhaps I am not being clear enough. What I meant by bad decision is a decision that is made where the consequences are negative for the end user and have a detrimental effect, for example, on the patient or elderly person. The Secretary of State would have to intervene or call into question the decision of the collective bodies that had made it in partnership. Is the noble Lord more satisfied with that answer?
Lord Warner
May I suggest to the Minister that we return to this on Monday afternoon because I do not think she will satisfy us this evening?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I know that we will return to it, and I look forward to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked what legal advice had been received about the relationship between the MOU and the 2012 Act. NHS England and Greater Manchester have developed the MOU, and any draft order that the Government bring before the House to implement any arrangements agreed will of course be compliant with the relevant primary legislation. The noble Lord also asked about further change to the terms of agreement with Greater Manchester. We can envisage that, with the agreement of all concerned, devolution in Greater Manchester will develop.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked what the statutory roles of health scrutiny committees are in the context of devolution. Health and well-being boards will continue to exercise their statutory functions.
Lord Beecham
The scrutiny committee of the local authority is not the same as a health and well-being board. If the Minister does not have an answer now, perhaps she can advise me later.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I remember the health scrutiny committees in the context of AGMA and the combined authority. I am loath to deal with this point tonight, so I will come back with a firmer reply in due course and request that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bradley
I am grateful to the Minister for the responses she has been able to make, and I am sure she will read the debate with as great an interest as we all will and write to us with further answers to the questions she has not been able fully to address this evening. I said at the beginning that this was the first, but I suspect not the last, debate we would have on health and social care. Our exchanges so far tonight have underlined that fact. We look forward to the next stage and further debate on Monday. In light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Further devolution of powers and funding (No. 2)
(1) No later than three months after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult combined authorities with a view to devolving powers and funding for strategic planning including in the areas of—
(a) mitigation of and adaptation to impacts of climate change;(b) natural resource use including water management;(c) delivery of low-carbon energy sources and infrastructure;(d) landscape-scale conservation, including green infrastructure. (2) The Secretary of State may only make an order to devolve powers and funding in the areas outlined in subsection (1) with the consent of the combined authority.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will be brief with this amendment because I anticipate that the Minister’s response will be that it is too prescriptive and that the Government want to leave everything off the face of the Bill and see what happens along the way.
The amendment was raised with us by the RSPB and it raises a particular point that I would like to address. Specifically, it causes the Secretary of State to consult combined authorities over a number of strategic planning areas, in particular areas of,
“mitigation of and adaptation to impacts of climate change … natural resource use including water management … delivery of low-carbon energy sources and infrastructure … landscape-scale conservation, including green infrastructure”.
The helpful briefing note reminds us that the NPPF contains very positive policies for planning for biodiversity, such as planning for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure.
The point that the society makes is that to be effective, it is essential that devolved strategic planning powers enable combined authorities to address and plan for social, economic and environmental issues in an integrated way across England. It points out the failure of the duty to co-operate because it is simply not strong enough. The key point I would raise on this is that whether it is on a more proactive basis or just a wait-and-see approach with piecemeal devolution of some of these strategic planning issues, the opportunity actually to join up across the country will inevitably be limited. Some of these issues ought to be looked at on a basis which is wider than any particular combined authority. It seems to be a component of this debate which perhaps we need to reflect on a bit more. I beg to move.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I certainly support the amendment. Given that the combined authorities will cover quite large areas, I would say that it is essential that an integrated approach is guaranteed and not left to a kind of wider discretion, perhaps as part of a deal if it is less convenient for one combined authority—or, worse still, if there is disagreement within the combined authority. We need to know where these obligations will lie. There is a need for clarity here. I appreciate that we are talking about bespoke deals and that they will be different for different authorities. I am sympathetic to that because we do not have uniformity across the country. Nevertheless, these are important issues which have suffered from a piecemeal approach. There is now a real opportunity for a much more strategic approach and I am sure that the combined authorities will see this as an important matter, not least because some of these areas are quite controversial. So I hope that there will be some clarity around this, despite the need for the Secretary of State to have some kind of wider discretion. These are responsibilities and obligations, and we need to be clear about where they lie.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will obviously not be surprised to hear me say that what we do not want to be in this Bill is prescriptive—but that is in no way to belittle the importance of the issues touched on in this amendment. For example, we expect local planning authorities to adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk, coastal change, and water supply and demand considerations. They must have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low-carbon sources. While what we look for locally is set out in national planning policy and guidance, we have been very clear that local plans prepared by democratically accountable local councils are key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and the aspirations of local communities.
Having said that, as we discussed in a number of our earlier debates, these prescriptive amendments go against the grain of the approach of the Bill, which is to start a conversation with each area about the powers and budgets that they would like to have devolved to them in order to improve their economy, deliver better local public services and build sustainable prosperity. We are definitely not in the position of trying to prescribe what they think they should be including and so we have no preordained list of powers which might devolve. In common with similar previous amendments, I am afraid that this amendment is out of step with the whole approach that the Bill is designed to deliver, and I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for her reply and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her support on this issue. I am not surprised and I do not think that the response takes us further forward. It seems to me that it does not address the fact that issues around climate change and water management do not stop at, for example, the boundaries of Greater Manchester. They transcend them, and as indeed they do international boundaries. The piecemeal approach being taken really does negate and make it more difficult to deal with these issues comprehensively and effectively.
As I said, we have the duty to co-operate in our planning framework but we know from practice that it is simply an insufficient mechanism and tool to address these issues. Given the hour, I shall withdraw the amendment, but there is a principle about how these broader national issues sit with devolution that we need to return to on some basis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the overview and scrutiny committees of the combined authorities and concentrate on what can only be described as the extraordinary powers the Bill confers on the Secretary of State to prescribe, and indeed circumscribe, the way in which they may operate. The provisions are contained in Schedule 3 to the Bill.
Amendments 36H and 37B would establish that the committee may consider not only decisions made or action taken, which is the limit of the powers conferred by the Bill as it stands, but such matters as may be under consideration—echoing the current practice in local authorities, which can look forward as well as back. Amendment 37B applies this principle to mayoral combined authorities.
Amendment 39AA would require the guidance by the Secretary of State, which again is provided for in the Bill, on the functions of overview and scrutiny committees to be approved by the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 39C is a probing amendment to seek an explanation of the Secretary of State’s extraordinary assumption of the role of determining who may or may not chair an overview and scrutiny committee or be a scrutiny officer. It is remarkable that, in an allegedly devolutionary Bill, the Secretary of State should arrogate such a power as to prescribe who might or might not perform those functions.
Amendment 40A probes the Secretary of State’s power to make orders as to the publication of reports, recommendations and disclosure of information to the overview and scrutiny committee. Given that the Local Government Act 1972 already allows councils to go into private session if this should be required, subject to advance notice and public challenge, why do the Government not simply extend those provisions of the 1972 Act to overview and scrutiny committees?
Amendment 40B would require the affirmative procedure to be applied to orders relating to the membership and structure of overview and scrutiny committees, thereby ensuring continuing parliamentary scrutiny over the process. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, we have tabled Amendments 41 and 42. I will not add to what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said, but I subscribe to the views he has expressed.
Our amendments in this group relate to the membership of the overview and scrutiny committee. We said in the first day of Committee that we did not want to create one-party states, so we have been seeking ways in which we can propose amendments that will deliver that outcome. This is to take the proportion of votes cast for each political party at the most recent local government election for the combined authority’s constituent councils.
The reason why this matters is that, if you take seats only won under the first-past-the-post system, one particular party in most of the areas currently subject to or considering combined authorities would absolutely dominate the overview and scrutiny committee—indeed, the Conservative Party has very few seats in northern cities—so this would not be good for the democratic process. I think that the overview and scrutiny committees ought to have a significant number of opposition members and that that should be calculated on the basis of votes cast in the last election, rather than on the number of seats that they win under first past the post.
In terms of the chair, there are a number of examples in local government where scrutiny committees are chaired by a councillor who is a member of the opposition. That principle should extend to the combined authority. Amendment 42 says that the chair of such a committee must be a member of a political party other than the party of the mayor of the combined authority.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the issue of effective scrutiny has come up a lot during the course of the Bill. As I said during the debate on the previous group of amendments, I am ready to have discussions with noble Lords across the House about their ideas for strengthening scrutiny.
Amendment 39C would remove the power for the Secretary of State to make provision about the chair of an overview and scrutiny committee and about the appointment of a scrutiny officer. I am not sure that removing the ability of the Secretary of State to ensure, if it were deemed appropriate, that all overview and scrutiny committees have a scrutiny officer, or to make provisions about the chair, would achieve our joint aim of strengthening scrutiny and safeguarding against a one-party state.
Nor am I clear that Amendment 40A would strengthen overview and scrutiny. The amendment would remove from the scope of the order-making provision on overview and scrutiny issues the publication of reports et cetera and the information which must or must not be disclosed to an overview and scrutiny committee. I am clear that strong scrutiny needs the overview and scrutiny committees to have access to all the information that they consider necessary to pursue their work. Equally, it is important that their reports and recommendations are public, transparent and properly taken into account by those making decisions. The following amendments essentially set out some of the ideas that may achieve these aims and the substance of which we will wish to consider carefully.
Amendments 36H and 37B seek to expand the scope of overview and scrutiny so that it includes the possibility of an overview and scrutiny committee examining not only decisions made or actions taken, but decisions made or actions “under consideration”.
Amendment 41 would require that any order made by the Secretary of State about the membership of an overview and scrutiny committee must ensure that such membership reflects the proportion of votes that each political party received at the most recent local government election for the constituent councils. Amendment 42 would require that any order made by the Secretary of State about the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee or committees must include provision that the chair is to be a representative of a different political party from the party of the mayor of the combined authority. Amendment 49 provides the definition of “party” for these two amendments. While I believe that there are some practical issues with Amendment 41, given that not all parties who receive votes at an election may have an elected member, I understand the concern that underpins the amendments.
Finally, Amendments 39AA and 40B seek to introduce the affirmative procedure for orders and guidance about overview and scrutiny. Given the importance that we attach to overview and scrutiny, I have some sympathy with the aims of these amendments, and, indeed, in our wider consideration of how best to strengthen overview and scrutiny. We may consider that some matters might be better dealt with on the face of the Bill, rather than through secondary legislation. In our previous short debate I highlighted some of the important issues that we will wish to consider when looking at how to make scrutiny strong and effective in all areas. This, most importantly, includes those areas where the members of the combined authority come from one party.
Given this commitment, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I take it from that that the Minister is offering discussions on all these amendments and not ruling any of them out.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I have given my view on certain amendments and certainly where I see there is scope in others.
Lord Beecham
That is welcome, and I am certainly prepared to withdraw my amendment. I have to say that I am not overimpressed with at least one of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, relating to the percentage vote of parties that may well achieve no membership at all of the local authorities they have contested but will somehow appear on the combined authority. Of course, that general view is consistent with the proposals that the Liberal Democrats made for the composition of your Lordships’ House, about which I suspect we will hear very little for the next few years.
Lord Shipley
You could actually have a minimum threshold of, say, 5% of the vote, which would remove some of the objections that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has.
Lord Beecham
It would not, because 5% of the vote across an area may produce absolutely no councillors elected to those authorities at all; their only role in local government would then be to be appointed to the combined authority. That seems a ludicrous outcome. However, the noble Lord and I have been on good terms for virtually the whole evening and I would not like him to go away feeling too disappointed.
We will see what happens on Report, but I look forward to the discussions with the Minister on those matters which she has indicated are subject to further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
“(d) to appoint an independent chair of a committee to review and scrutinise the authority’s financial affairs; (e) to review and assess the authority’s risk management, internal control and corporate governance arrangements; and(f) to review and assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which resources have been used in discharging the authority’s functions”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, Amendment 37A is ultimately of some importance. It seeks to establish an audit committee for authorities created under the provisions of the Bill. I cannot claim to be as well qualified in respect of matters of audit as my noble friend Lord McKenzie, a former partner in PwC and a former leader of Luton Council, in which latter capacity he was presumably an auditee rather than an auditor, but I have served for a number of years as a member of Newcastle’s audit committee, which is politically balanced, with an independent chairman who is not a member of the council and two other independent members.
Given the potential role of the combined authorities, part of whose raison d’être will of course be to achieve economies of scale and ensure the most effective use of resources devolved by government departments and public bodies, something akin to a local version of the Public Accounts Committee would be a highly desirable addition to the role of overview and scrutiny, especially if independently chaired. The amendment sets out a job description which should facilitate proper oversight of the combined authorities’ management and governance. It is not unduly prescriptive and I would personally welcome the inclusion of additional independent members who might be drawn from business, academia or the third sector.
Again without going so far as to lay down a requirement, I hope that the combined authorities would eventually adopt a process of peer review across their whole field of operations. This has proved its worth in the local government world and would usefully augment whatever procedures are adopted in relation to this amendment.
It would be interesting to learn what the Government have in mind for assessing their own relationships with combined authorities and the workings of the partnerships between government, public bodies and the combined authorities collectively. In any event, I urge the Minister to consider sympathetically the proposal for an audit committee, preferably one that is independently chaired, because the role is not quite the same as that of an overview and scrutiny committee. I serve on both types of body in my own authority. They have different roles and I think it is critical, given the importance of the subject matter and the amount of money that will be spent, that there should be that function embedded in the new system. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, in broad terms I very strongly support Amendment 37A. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked in terms of the Public Accounts Committee, which is slightly different from a committee that will simply review and scrutinise the authority’s financial affairs. It is actually about the efficient and effective use of public money, and one of the objectives of devolution is to ensure that local areas spend money more appropriately so that the spending is more effective in the outcomes it achieves. That has to be audited in some way. The only way that that can be done is in something like a public accounts committee for the area of the combined authority. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look at that suggestion as I think that it would help enormously, first, in ensuring that the Government’s objectives are being delivered but, secondly, in giving the public confidence in the expenditure of the money that they are paying for through taxation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords who spoke to these amendments and will say pretty much what I said in response to the last group of amendments—namely, that we have considerable sympathy with what noble Lords are saying. Therefore, I reiterate my willingness to have discussions and hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am delighted with the Minister’s usual co-operative stance. I am happy to accept her acceptance of my suggestion and look forward, together with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and others perhaps, to see whether we can get something agreed between now and Report. In the circumstances, of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments standing in my name, my intention is to ensure that the community or neighbourhood voice is heard. I pay tribute to the National Association of Local Councils for the assistance I have received from it in preparing the amendments.
The Bill is largely silent on this next level of devolution and my amendments are designed to ensure a discussion on how we see the neighbourhood level input developing alongside the new structures it proposes. Given the hour, it may be a one-way dialogue, but I flag it up anyway. I say in advance that I do not expect a detailed reply from the Minister tonight. Devolution must not stop at the strategic, combined authority level, any more than it stops at the principal council level. We will miss an important opportunity if we overlook the neighbourhoods and do not build community capacity and engagement with the more local matters that impact directly on people’s lives. A twin approach of devolution, to the strategic on the one hand and the neighbourhood on the other, is required here.
I seek to follow the direction of travel of localism and the empowerment of the 9,000 community, neighbourhood, parish and town councils up and down the country—the first tier of local government and the backbone of local democracy in England. That policy was to devolve the process of government and with it, responsibility for action to improve areas to the most local, practical level consistent with adequate standards of delivery. To the many principal councils that take their responsibilities towards the spirit of that seriously, I give due credit and many thanks. Sadly, in some principal council areas localism is taken to mean central government devolving powers to them, along with the pounds that go with that, but no further—or, if it is any further, then only devolving responsibilities shorn of the pounds that once financed them. That will not do.
My amendment serves to remind the Government, and thereby I hope the new mayoral combined authorities that will be created under the Bill, of their duties. There is good reason for this. One has only to look at the difficulties faced by the residents of Queen’s Park in Westminster in gaining their historic parish council status and the continued resistance of many London boroughs and principal councils outside London to the very notion of new parish councils, with their independent money-raising powers, giving people a voice and taking action to improve community well-being and local vitality. It is not just a London issue; Andover Town Council in Hampshire also gained its status in the face of stiff principal council opposition.
I know how some principal councils are reluctant to devolve powers to local level and work more closely with our important first tier of local government. It is as if the message was, “We know that we don’t really capture the very local community element of our electorate. We aren’t going to allow people to get together and do it for themselves, either”. That is bad for society, democracy, political stability and the image of local government. There is every reason to be cautious as to whether the new mayoral bodies will adopt evolution through devolution or simply become centralist in their own terms. If it is the latter, localism stops midstream, the neighbourhood plan becomes a work of fiction and “community” simply a matter of a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of some city hall that might just as well be somewhere in Whitehall.
I turn to the detail of my amendments. Amendments to Schedule 3 provide for parish and town council engagement and involvement in overview and scrutiny committees, the purpose of which is outlined in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. Parish councils are part of that family of local government, growing in number, role and importance. I maintain that they are about the most accountable and democratically responsive part of that family. The provision for the creation of new local councils to meet the aspirations of communities is already enshrined in legislation. I add that the more recent reforms to that process are most welcome. Amendments 39A and 39B serve as a prompt for the duty to include parish council representatives in any overview and scrutiny function. This can only strengthen the process, add value and ensure a more robust future, making sure that the strategic also relates to the local.
On Amendment 44E, I would explain that Clause 10(1) makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding three areas: governance; constitution and membership; and structure and boundaries. My amendment would add a fourth measure to require principal councils within a mayoral combined authority area to conduct,
“a community governance review … within two years of this Act coming into force”.
The combined authorities will be afforded greater powers precisely because they feel they can serve their community better by that means. I hope that it will be seen that this amendment tries to build on precisely that point.
Amendment 50 is very much on the same tack. Schedule 4 amends, inter alia, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. My amendment would insert a further criterion in relation to Section 23 of that Act. Noble Lords with instant recall will know that Section 23 relates to the, “Duty of public authorities to secure involvement”. I paraphrase, but it specifically refers to “information” about the “exercise” of functions, consultation over that exercise and involvement “in another way”.
Section 23(2) goes on to list the bodies to which this applies. My amendment would simply add a further reference to extend the application to the mayoral combined authorities that will be created by the Bill. I hope that the Minister will see the merit in the principle and that this is not insisting on some obsessive parish council creation approach. Instead, I hope that it will discourage some of the less satisfactory blocking procedures that seem to have been created and make sure that this goes forward as a genuine partnership within the family of local government. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of parish and town councils and to their national organisation, the National Association of Local Councils, I think it is called—NALC. Having said that, I do not think that the proposal that the noble Earl has made is really a very practical one. The area I live in, which I am afraid I keep citing, is enormous, and there are others like it. I do not know how many hundreds of parish councils and therefore parish councillors there are in the area between the Tees and the Tweed, but I suspect that there will be a very large number. Quite how you would appoint people from there to an overview and scrutiny committee, I am not entirely sure.
I also do not think that this is really what is needed. I have an alternative suggestion to make to the noble Earl, which perhaps will be considered by the Minister. Should there be parish councils in the area of a combined authority, there should be a requirement on the combined authority, and on the mayor if there is one, to meet at least annually with representatives of those parish councils. After all, we are talking here essentially about large strategic issues, not very specific local ones. Although there should be a local voice at some point in the process, I do not think that it is realistic to add them to an overview and scrutiny committee. It could not be very representative anyway unless you had large numbers of such people on such a committee; it would not cover the whole area.
A better way might be to require the combined authority and/or the mayor to meet on at least an annual basis—it could be more often than that—with a representative group from across the whole of the parish and town council interest in the area concerned, to discuss the overall position. It would be part of the consultations that those bodies would be having with a variety of bodies, but recognising the particular position of those who have been elected to their very important but very local office. That would meet the more important aspirations of those people better, if I may say so, than the attendance of perhaps one person, representing so many hundreds of others, on an overview and scrutiny committee. I am not moving anything at this stage, but we and the Minister may want to consider it as a possible alternative to the noble Earl’s amendment when we get to Report.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I say at the outset that we value very greatly the work that parish councils do up and down our country. As the tier of local government closest to their communities, they provide a democratically accountable voice for taking community action. Parish councils provide services to their communities and have also played an important role in neighbourhood planning, setting the priorities for their local area in line with the local plan.
It is entirely right that a wide range of people from the community are able to participate in scrutiny of the combined authority in one way or another. An overview and scrutiny committee can invite parish council representatives to its meetings. We do not see, however, that it is necessary to name them on the face of the Bill, as the Bill already provides that an overview and scrutiny committee may invite any persons to attend its meetings.
We must balance the wish to have a wide involvement in overview and scrutiny with the need for a committee to be of a suitable size to be effective. Having parish councillors as members of an overview and scrutiny committee may not be the best way to achieve that, but there may be other ways to encourage parish council involvement. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made a good suggestion which good practice might dictate that a mayor, combined authority or scrutiny committee might wish to take up.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that. I would certainly like to take her up on her suggestion of further discussions. I hope to be in touch with her shortly in relation to that. I am grateful for her reply generally, which was much more extensive than I had expected given the hour.
I have just a brief word on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I quite understand his point but think that he assumes that somehow underneath NALC as a national association there is nothing other than the 9,000 foot soldiers forming the parishes. That is not how it is structured; there is a series of district and county associations, and some of the county associations have come together in larger collectives. There is now a good deal of encouragement from within NALC towards such working practices.
For instance, when representatives are selected to go to national council, we cannot have 9,000 people in one room as there would be nowhere big enough to house them, so there has to be a selection process. There would be no difficulty with, for example, something the size of a county association or a multi-county association. In Sussex, I am involved with a triple association consisting of East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey. They have come together and do a lot of these things jointly. So there would be no difficulty in arriving at a sensible way of providing a representative to be part of the discussion process, as I suggested.
The hour is late and I have spoken for long enough. I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for their comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.