House of Commons

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Monday 10 January 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

1. What progress he has made on contracting arrangements for the Work programme.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

10. What progress he has made on contracting arrangements for the Work programme.

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

15. What progress he has made on contracting arrangements for the Work programme.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. We published the full invitation to tender for the Work programme shortly before Christmas. Would-be bidders have until early February to submit their bids and we remain on track to launch the Work programme in the summer.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Downham Market has a community payback scheme that was initiated by volunteers. How will the community payback scheme fit with the Work programme, in which those volunteers are keen to get involved, as well as with voluntary work in my constituency?

[Chris Grayling]

That is an important point because many of those who go on to the Work programme will be former offenders or, in some cases, people going through community payback who are on welfare. I am in close contact with my colleagues in the Department for Justice and we are working together to try to ensure that we integrate their work on rehabilitating offenders with our work to get former offenders back into work.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

In my constituency of Stafford, a number of local voluntary organisations and social enterprises are committed to getting people back into work. What assurances can the Minister give us that they will be taken into account when it comes to awarding the sub-contracts under the main contractors?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are very clear that we want to see small local community, voluntary sector, social enterprise and private sector groups having the opportunity to work alongside major contractors in the Work programme. We have been very clear to would-be prime contractors that if they do not bring together a consortium of smaller organisations that demonstrate the breadth of skills necessary to deliver support to all the different groups that will be helped under the Work programme, they will not be successful in their bids. That is of paramount importance.

[Sarah Newton]

I very much welcome the assurances we have received from the Minister about the small-scale organisations that are being brought in to the larger contracting. What assurances can he give my constituents and others in Cornwall who benefit from EU convergence funding that the locally identified priorities under that programme and the excellent work that has been done to get hard-to-reach groups of people back into work will continue and will benefit from the Work programme?

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. At the moment, we are considering the next phase of the European social fund contracting. I am absolutely clear—indeed, the objectives of the scheme make it clear—that it must sit alongside the Work programme as part of a drive to help some of those who are furthest from the workplace to make the move back into work and to lift them out of poverty. That will remain a priority for us.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is not the Work programme undermined from the outset by the cuts that the Minister is making to the child care component of the working tax credit, which will hit families in my constituency to the tune of some £500 a year? Why is he instituting such a disincentive to work?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman has to remember the financial mess his Government left behind. If we do not sort out the deficit and create a stable economic environment in this country, there will not be secure jobs in the future. That is and will remain our No. 1 priority.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

On Thursday, I visited my borough’s alcohol and drugs service and spoke to service users and providers. One of the biggest problems found by people who have a history of misuse is moving from treatment into work. I hope that the Work programme will address that, particularly given the issues that I have been told that they have with Jobcentre Plus. We are told that the pricing system in the new programme will reward providers who help those who are hardest to reach. Will that pricing structure account for those with a history of alcohol and drug misuse?

[Chris Grayling]

The simple answer to that question is yes, it will. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point and I want to refer to one other dimension of the issue. A key point is giving those people opportunities to volunteer while claiming benefit. Volunteering can be an extremely important part of the pathway from a long-term problem into work. We have changed the guidance for Jobcentre Plus and will proactively promote volunteering opportunities to those who face those challenges in the hope that we will help them take that extra step on the way.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Just before Christmas, the all-party Select Committee on Work and Pensions—may I be the first to congratulate its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), on her well deserved honour in the new year’s list?—warned of a looming gap between the future jobs fund closing to new referrals of young people at the end of March and the start of the Work programme in June. In an article this morning, the Secretary of State, commenting on rising youth unemployment, promised that

“the programmes we inherited will remain in place until we replace them later this year.”

Can we therefore take it that referrals to the future jobs fund will continue until June?

[Chris Grayling]

I start by offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). There are moments when awards are acclaimed in all parts of the House, and hers certainly has been.

We have already extended the contracts for all the legacy programmes, which people will take advantage of until June. There will be people on the future jobs fund in the new financial year, and we are working through the detail of the transition for the final few weeks before people join the Work programme. Obviously, some people will be referred for a short period before the start of the Work programme, and we will negotiate with the would-be contractors to ensure a smooth transition. Our goal is to ensure that there is proper continuity for all those who need specialist support.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

2. What assessment his Department has made of the effects of changes to prices in January 2011 on the incomes of pensioners.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

In April this year, benefits and pensions will be increased by more than £4 billion, more than three quarters of which will go to pensioners. In addition, price rises in January 2011 will feed through into the September 2011 price indices, which will be used in future benefit uprating.

[Gregg McClymont]

Pensioners on fixed incomes will be among the hardest hit by the Government’s VAT rise. Will the Minister confirm that the VAT hike will mean that pensioners are worse off in 2011 under this Government than they would have been under the previous Government’s plans?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the previous Government’s plans. In his constituency, vulnerable pensioners, vulnerable disabled people and vulnerable families with young children received four or five cold weather payments this winter to help them with their fuel bills in January 2011. His policy, and the plans that we inherited, would have reduced those payments to £8.50 a week. We have paid £25 a week four or five times to vulnerable pensioners in his constituency.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I will give the Minister another try: will he accept that with pensioners set to pay an extra £217 in 2011 because of the VAT rise, the basic state pension rising by only the same amount as planned by the previous Government and now news that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury cannot agree the £140 flat-rate pension that he has extolled, pensioners have very little to look forward to in 2011 but a lot to fear?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady used to be an economist, so I would not dream of suggesting that any of the figures that she has quoted are in the slightest bit dodgy. She will be aware that colleagues at Her Majesty’s Treasury have calculated that the impact of the VAT rise for each percentage point increase is just less than £1 a week for single pensioners. The 2.5% increase will cost pensioners £2.50 a week, which compares with our £4.50 pension increase this April, and there will be additional increases in 2012 because of the VAT rise, so I dispute her figures.

[Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)]

3. What sanctions will be applied to jobseeker’s allowance claimants who fail to find work within the period set by his Department.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

There is no time limit on entitlement to income-based jobseeker’s allowance. I remind the hon. Lady that the conditions that pertain to withdrawal of benefit are that individuals must be available for work and seeking work, and they have to sign up to an agreement. If they continually refuse to do any of that, that is when the sanctions come in.

[Mrs James]

I am aware that those sanctions will be applied after a decision by the independent decision maker. What reassurances can the Minister give me about the role of the independent decision maker and the criteria that will be used? I am particularly concerned about the appeal process, because, as one can imagine, mistakes can be made and there should be a right of appeal. I am keen that that right is open to anybody who is sanctioned in that way.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We will strengthen the role of the independent decision maker to ensure that decisions are made for the right reasons. The hon. Lady can rest assured that we will ensure that is the case. If she has any concerns, she should raise them with us, and if she has any thoughts, we are open to dispute.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one implication of this question is that jobs are not available in the marketplace? Just before Christmas, we conducted a survey in my constituency, where there were more than 700 job vacancies. People from Swansea are as welcome to take up those job vacancies as people from anywhere else in the country.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is right. Over the past nine months, we have seen a huge increase in part-time work with more than 400,000 new jobs. [Interruption.] The answer to Labour Members is that jobs are being created even though we are coming out of a recession, which was brought on by their policies.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), has said of the Government’s plans for the long-term unemployed:

“You have been unemployed for 12 months, you are passing the actively seeking work test…we are/the Government is saying that your housing benefit will be cut by 10% just because you have been unemployed for 12 months. I don’t understand why. You are on the breadline, you’ve been trying to look for work, you’re passing all the Government tests and you’re suddenly going to have your rent, which is your highest cost—your help with that—taken down by 10%. No logic behind that whatsoever.”

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House with which part of that statement he disagrees?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The reality is that the coalition—I emphasise coalition—position is that we will withdraw some of that money, 10%, before the 12 month point. The point about the 12-month stage is that more than 90% of all those seeking work will be in work by that point. That gives us an opportunity to make sure that those who are having the greatest difficulty can be properly reassessed, and if there are particular problems, they can be dealt with. It also acts as a spur and incentive to others who are not exactly playing the game in line with the question asked by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James). On balance, I think the coalition will find that the policy will work very well.

[Mr Alexander]

I listened with care to that answer, but given that the number of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months, on the broader measure, went up by 41,000 in the most recent figures, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Business Minister is the only member of the coalition who thinks that the present proposals are “unsupportable”?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is like my asking whether the right hon. Gentleman’s leader and his shadow Chancellor agree on everything, which I do not think they do. The coalition has a clear statement of policy and that policy exists. The reality of that policy is exactly as he has been debating and I would not trouble him to find out exactly what he agrees with his leader about after this morning’s statement that his side apparently now agree with most of the changes we are making.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

4. What recent representations he has received on his plans to help disabled jobseekers into work.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

11. What recent representations he has received on his plans to help disabled jobseekers into work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

The coalition Government have an ongoing commitment to co-production, which involves disabled people in how our policies develop. The Government also regularly meet charities and voluntary organisations to discuss new policy ideas. For example. Mind, Mencap and the National Autistic Society are working with Professor Harrington as part of the independent review of the work capability assessment. On 2 December 2010, I also announced an independent review into specialist employment support for disabled people led by Liz Sayce, the chief executive of RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability Rights.

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the Minister for that response. One of my disabled constituents uses the access to work travel assistance, which has helped him into a full-time job, but he finds the monthly form-filling quite onerous and believes that his case is handled by several different people. Does the Minister have any plans to streamline the system and reduce the burden of paperwork on disabled people, perhaps by putting some of it online?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and underline the Government’s commitment to access to work. The monthly claim form is kept as simple as possible but we really have to make sure that we are protecting public funds, so we require confirmation that a customer has been in work during the month and any receipts. We must also make sure that we have a confirming signature. Such documents would go straight to one of our payments team and would, I hope, be dealt with quickly, with the payment being made directly into the customer’s bank account. If my hon. Friend’s constituent is having particular problems, I advise her perhaps to seek further help at Jobcentre Plus. We understand the importance of refining the administration of access to work. That is why we have introduced the pre-employment eligibility letter—to give individuals assurance about their eligibility for access to work funding when they are looking for a job, not just after they have secured it.

[Mr Evennett]

I thank the Minister for her response and commend the work she is doing in this field. Voluntary organisations in my borough of Bexley are very keen to assist the disabled into work and many are already doing so. What more can the Government do to help utilise the talent and skills of disabled people in the work force?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I absolutely endorse his wish to have more local organisations involved in helping to get disabled people back into work. I know that through the Work Choice programme that we launched last year we already have Scope and the Shaw Trust actively working in his constituency in providing support for disabled people. I encourage him to ask more of his local organisations to get involved in that and other schemes.

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

The Minister will be aware that anyone who has come off incapacity benefit to move into work in the past two years was promised a two-year linking period, during which they could return to the benefit at the original rate. The new employment and support allowance conversion regulations, which are due to take effect next month, remove that protection, and those returning to work will be required to return to the ESA at the assessment rate for the first 13 weeks. Will the Minister urgently reconsider those new regulations, and their impact on a small number of benefit claimants who appear to have been affected by the backtracking on a commitment on which many of them had relied?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady brings up a very detailed point, and I should be very pleased to look at it with her separately, but I should underline the fact that in all the changes we are making, we want to make sure that we are judging disabled people on what they can do, not what they cannot, and we want to make sure that more disabled people are able to get back into work. At the moment, 50% of disabled people work, and many more want to, with the right support.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware that the employment and support allowance has largely superseded incapacity benefit. In week 11, the claimant is assessed by a medical board. What plans does the Minister have to involve a claimant’s GP in future assessments, so that we can ensure that they are more accurate, as opposed to being a snapshot at week 11?

[Maria Miller]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision maker will have access to all the medical records of any individual involved in that sort of process.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

5. What recent progress he has made on the introduction of the enterprise allowance.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I am pleased to say that last week we announced that the new enterprise allowance would expand to become a nationwide scheme from next autumn. It will first be launched in Merseyside in about three weeks’ time, and it will be rolled out across those parts of the country that have a particular unemployment challenge from spring onwards.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I welcome the fact that the enterprise allowance scheme, which had such a positive effect in the 1980s, is being reinstated. However, I have a concern about the eligibility criteria: one has to have been unemployed for six months or more to be eligible. The National Audit Office noted in the 1980s that the longer someone spent on unemployment benefit before going into self-employment, the less successful that tended to be. Given that, will the Minister consider reducing that time and allowing people who have been unemployed for less than six months to go on to the scheme?

[Chris Grayling]

I would very much like to improve the support that we provide, but obviously we have to do that in the context of the finances that we have inherited from the Opposition. The big difference that the new scheme will make is that it will also take advantage of the expertise of existing business people. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a strong track record in business, will look to become a mentor for one of the new business people. That is an important difference from the previous scheme; the new scheme offers both financial and practical support, and not just financial support.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Enterprise allowance will work all the better if young people are educated into the idea of creating their own businesses, yet thousands of people from Rotherham and other parts of south Yorkshire who go into work experience via the education business partnership scheme do not know whether the scheme will be continued. It is funded by the Department for Education, but we do not know whether it will be cut or continued. Could the Minister’s Department talk to the Department for Education and get a bit of joined-up government on this?

[Chris Grayling]

One of the things that we are doing is introducing changes to the guidelines to ensure that young people who find themselves unemployed have a much greater opportunity to get work experience in enterprises while they are on benefits. We have also announced tens of thousands of extra apprenticeships to give young people the chance to get involved in, and understand, business. Young people will be among those who are eligible to take advantage of the new enterprise allowance, if they are unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed.

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

8. What information his Department holds on the average cost to the public purse of an additional person being on jobseeker’s allowance in 2010-11.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today, the JSA rate for a person over 25 is, as the hon. Lady knows, £65.45, and that will rise in April to £67.50. In 2010-11, the average weekly JSA rate was about £63.00. In addition, there are housing benefit, council tax benefit and employment support costs. However, the vast majority of jobseekers spend only a very short time in that situation; over half are back in work within 3 months.

[Chi Onwurah]

According to the New Economics Foundation, there is a jobs gap in the north-east of 447,000 jobs, and PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that we will lose an additional 4.1% of our total jobs base as a result of this Government’s cuts. Ministers have spoken about help for the longer-term unemployed, which I welcome, but what assurances can the Secretary of State provide that those additional job losses will not simply represent additional benefit payments, as well as lives wasted?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The question that the hon. Lady asks is a pertinent one. The Work programme that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was just speaking about is to make sure that those who go beyond a certain point at differing levels are swept up because they have particular problems. We need to deal intensively with them and use the private and voluntary sector. But to help earlier, Jobcentre Plus has been pretty successful at getting people matched up with the work that they need to be in and getting them back into work. When it comes to skills, the Government are increasing the number of apprenticeships—50,000 rising to 75,000 extra—which will help hugely with skilling, and the mentoring and work for yourself programme, which are part of the Work programme, will have a huge impact, by advising young people and enabling them to take the right jobs and get the right skills. The hon. Lady is right. Skilling up is important, but we think we will be on the right track to do that. Overall, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that employment will rise over the period.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept the Office for Budget Responsibility figures, revealed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), that an extra two thirds of a billion pounds will be spent on housing benefit as a result of rising unemployment over the next four years?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The OBR is independent and the Government of course accept what it publishes as independent figures. We go by what the OBR’s figures say. As the hon. Lady knows, we inherited a financial mess left by the previous Government. What we are doing is to make sure that we reduce the ballooning cost of, for example, housing benefit that she left behind—a bill that doubled in the past five years.[Official Report, 12 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 6MC.]

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

9. When he plans to bring forward proposals to prevent unfair dismissal on grounds of age.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

17. When he plans to bring forward proposals to prevent unfair dismissal of staff on grounds of age.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

We are moving in that direction. Our changes will abolish the default retirement age, and we will make sure that people can no longer be kicked out of work because they have reached a certain age. By getting rid of that, we will improve the economy and help older people find work for a longer period, which is beneficial to the economy and beneficial for those people.

[Robert Halfon]

In the recession redundancies have been higher among the over-50s than any other age group, including in Harlow. Many people, like my constituent, Kevin Forbes, who applied for more than 4,500 jobs, are worried that employment law is biased against older people. What are the Government doing, apart from what my right hon. Friend has just described, to make work fairer for the over-50s?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The reality for companies and for those who are seeking work is that, because of the need for employment over the next few years, we will need more and more of the skills that are present in the age group to which my hon. Friend refers. Therefore, companies have to reach the sensible solution, which is that people who have those skills and ways of doing their jobs can stay in work much longer. The Work programme will be set up so that they can be helped back into work if they become unemployed. My concern is that companies should recognise that older workers have huge value, well beyond the cost of paying their wages.

[Michael Ellis]

Constituents in Northampton have raised with me the fact that they have been forced to retire because of their age before they were ready to do so. As I know my right hon. Friend accepts, older people offer a wealth of experience and skill. What progress have the Government made on the consultation on the default retirement age?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The consultation has gone very well. We are sifting through the responses. There have been more responses than we anticipated. The vast majority have been positive, although there are some, in some areas of business, that were not as positive as we had hoped. We will publish those results and press on. I can guarantee to my hon. Friend and the rest of the House that we will press on with the issue.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is keen to extend fairness to workers. It is important that people are not discriminated against, regardless of their age. Does he agree that unfair dismissal is unfair dismissal whenever it takes place, and that any steps that the Government take that make it easier for unscrupulous employers to sack people without the right of appeal will be a retrograde step?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am not aware of any plans to change that. I agree that it is important that older workers in particular are recognised for the skills and benefits that they bring to the company concerned. Whatever changes are made, we must recognise that it should not be easier to get rid of somebody for the wrong reasons. If an employer has the right reason for getting rid of somebody, that is one thing, but people who are working hard should not lose their jobs just because they are older.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State assure older people that he will not make it more difficult for them to pursue unfair dismissal claims by lengthening the qualification period for claims?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he asks a question that is a direct concern of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. However, from our point of view I have no such plans. It is a matter that he might wish to raise with the relevant Department.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

12. What assistance his Department provides to pensioners who rely on fixed-interest income bonds.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

For pensioners with savings, the Government ignore the first £10,000 of their capital when assessing them for pension credit, as a result of which almost nine out of 10 pension credit applicants have no capital taken account of at all. In addition, to support all pensioners the basic state pension will rise by £4.50 this April and the standard minimum guarantee for pension credit by £4.75.

[Bob Stewart]

About one third of my constituents are on pensions, which are often very small. What plans do the Government have to help older people who live on small incomes for which they have saved all their lives to build up?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend raises the very important point that falling interest rates and rates of return on savings tend to affect older people in particular. When we look at state pension reform, the return to saving and the reward for saving will be a particular priority for us. Many pensioners have their savings in very low-interest accounts, sometimes paying as little as 0.1%. There are much better rates out there, and I encourage all pensioners to shop around extensively to find the best rates possible.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

13. What estimate he has made of the number of people in receipt of pension credit who will receive reduced payments as a result of the change to the timetable for the equalisation of the state pension age.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Just to be clear, no one currently receiving pension credit will have reduced payments at all because of the revised state pension age timetable. In future, however, we anticipate that about 120,000 households could be affected by the increase in the pension credit qualifying age as a result of the change to the equalisation timetable between 2016 and 2020.

[Owen Smith]

Given that we know that the poorest pensioners are some of those who will be hardest hit by the Government’s changes in respect of equalisation, will the Minister consider de-linking entirely the increase in the qualifying age for pension credit, which is paid only to the poorest, and the increase in the threshold for women’s pensions? He says that he is worried that the relationship with his Tory masters is a bit cosy; here is an opportunity for him to strike a rare, Liberal, fair blow.

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman is right that, on average, people of lower social classes and on lower incomes tend to have a shorter life expectancy. The good news is that life expectancy is rising for people on all income levels, so as we raise the state pension age, it is only right and proper that we raise the starting point for pension credit. It would be very strange to go on paying at 60 something called pension credit when the state pension age rises, as under the previous Government’s plans, to 66, 67 and 68.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

In a reply to a written answer, the Minister admitted that half a million women will have to carry on working for longer than a year as a result of accelerating the equalisation of the state retirement age. In particular, women who were born in 1954 and expected to retire in 2018 aged 64 will not now get their state pension until they are 66 in 2020. That strikes me as incredibly unfair. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady is right: of the 5 million people who will be affected by the increase in the state pension, a relatively small age group will be affected as she describes. It would be an option to go more slowly, as the previous Government did, but, if we deferred all changes until 2020 in order to deal with the point that she makes, it would cost an extra £10 billion. Once again, we have a suggestion for £10 billion of extra spending but no suggestion of where the £10 billion might come from.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the likely effects of his welfare reform proposals on families with multiple births.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

The changes that we have proposed for welfare reform are intended to make work pay for everyone and to tailor specific back-to-work help to meet individual circumstances. Approximately 10,000 births in the UK are multiple births, from a total number of 800,000 births.

Reforms to the Sure Start maternity grant have protected cases where the first birth is a multiple birth; the Sure Start maternity grant will be payable for all children when the first birth is a multiple. I would welcome any further views or thoughts from anybody about what they feel we ought to be doing about this issue.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and declare an interest, as the father of one-year-old twins.

Although having twins is a very rewarding privilege, it is, as has been remarked before, often a case of two for the price of three. Research undertaken by the New Policy Institute on behalf of the Twins and Multiple Births Association, or TAMBA, shows that multiple-birth families will suffer more than most under the proposed reforms. May I ask the Secretary of State whether he or one of his Ministers will meet me and representatives of TAMBA to discuss some of the perhaps unintended consequences of their reform proposals for families with multiple births?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his twins; I have four children, and one at a time was quite enough. I hope that he benefits greatly from that double-up. We will definitely see him and any group that he wishes to lead to discuss the matter further.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to pay a maternity grant for each child when the first birth is a multiple birth, but does the Secretary of State not accept that parents can face exceptional costs when a multiple birth follows an earlier, single birth? Could he not apply the same rationale and pay the maternity grant in those circumstances?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The issue that my hon. Friend has raised is complicated. We are looking at it and discussing it, and I am happy to take it further with him if he wishes. However, it does add complications to an already complicated system.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

16. What his most recent forecast is of the claimant count in (a) Wellingborough and (b) the UK in 2011-12.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Department for Work and Pensions does not itself produce forecasts of unemployment. However, the latest UK claimant count forecast for 2011-12, published as part of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn forecast, was 1.52 million at the start of 2011-12, falling to 1.47 million at the end of the financial year. I am afraid that no figures are produced at constituency level looking ahead.

Having watched the skill of my hon. Friend over the years in combating the former Chancellor and Prime Minister over the increased level of unemployment in his constituency compared with 1997, I am relieved to be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and note that unemployment today is lower than it was under the previous Government. Let us hope that it stays that way.

[Mr Bone]

I thank the Minister for his kind words. Every Labour Government have left power with unemployment higher than when they came to power. When they came to power, unemployment in Wellingborough was 1,826; when they left, the figure was 2,916—an increase of 60%. Does the Minister agree that the Labour party is the party of unemployment and the Conservatives are the party of employment?

[Mr Speaker]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question with some delectation, but sadly it relates not to the policy of the Government but to that of the Opposition. I call Mr David Winnick.

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

In view of some of the propaganda put out by the Government and their supporters, saying that unemployed people are reluctant to find work, I should tell the Minister that over the past few weeks the local press in my area has reported that where there are vacancies, more than 100 people have applied for one single vacancy. Does that not demonstrate that up and down the country the unemployed are desperate to find work?

[Chris Grayling]

I have never doubted that there are very large numbers of people on benefits who want work. Our challenge is to make sure that there are sustainable jobs for the future. That is why we are investing in apprenticeships, trying to create a better climate for business and trying to make Britain a good place to create employment for the future. The great tragedy of the past decade is that the previous Government failed to do those things in good times.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

No one in the House wants to see the claimant count rise—most especially, no one wants young people to have to add themselves to the rolls of the unemployed. Given what has happened in the past few months, does the Minister now think that summarily cancelling the future jobs fund was the right choice?

[Chris Grayling]

The whole problem with the future jobs fund was that, first, it was extremely expensive—twice as expensive as the new deal for young people; and secondly, it did not create long-term jobs. This Government believe in creating apprenticeships, which create skills that lead to a career, not in six-month expensive work placements that lead nowhere.

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

18. What recent representations he has received on his plans to help disabled jobseekers into work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) earlier today.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I raise the example of a constituent who is almost entirely blind—among a number of other disabilities—and is trying to set up his own business. As hon. Members can imagine, that involves a lot of communication with the local DWP office. My constituent needs that communication to be in an e-mailable form because he has a machine that will read the message for him in confidence without personal information being seen by his carer. The local office has said that it can send communication only by letter, citing security as a reason. Will the Minister look into that unsatisfactory situation?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I share his concern about the rigidity of the rules regarding e-mail and the effects that they can have on certain aspects of the running of the Department. I assure him that we will be looking at that.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Figures show that people with a disability find it more difficult to enter the workplace. What discussions has the Minister had with her ministerial colleagues from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the number of employers who are showing a genuine interest in employing people with a disability?

[Maria Miller]

I not only have discussions with BIS, but have gone out to talk to employers about their commitments to employing disabled people. There are some great examples of major and smaller employers who have a real commitment to ensuring that disabled people have a level playing field when it comes to taking on jobs. Through that and the support provided by access to work and other programmes that the Government are running, I am sure that we can help more disabled people to get back into gainful employment.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Is the Minister satisfied that the people who operate the Motability scheme and those who sit in judgment on appeal tribunals are aware that the Government’s intention is to encourage disabled people into work? Those people should not drive disabled people who had work out of work by taking away their Motability cars.

[Maria Miller]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we greatly value Motability’s work in supporting not only disabled people who are in employment, but disabled people who are not in employment. We will be ensuring that that scheme is robust into the future. Many thousands of people enjoy the support of Motability and get great value from it.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

19. What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of administration on businesses arising from pension provision.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We are taking forward the recommendations of the independent “making automatic enrolment work” review, many of which were aimed specifically at making automatic enrolment in workplace pensions more straightforward for employers.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Although it is crucial that the Government do everything possible to get people to save for their retirement, does he agree that currently it is even more critical to reduce the burden of red tape and bureaucracy which is preventing small businesses from creating the new jobs we desperately need?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we need to minimise the burden of quality workplace pension provision on firms. When the pensions Bill is published, she will see that all the changes we are making to the provision for enrolment in workplace pensions are deregulatory and will reduce the cost and burden for firms.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

20. What recent representations he has received on his plans to help disabled jobseekers into work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier.

[Margot James]

I thank the Minister for her earlier response. I have been concerned that the number of people with mental health disabilities referred straight on to jobseeker’s allowance has been greater than the number of people with physical disabilities. Can the Minister give an assurance that those undertaking workplace capability assessments will have access to high quality mental health expertise, and will she or the Minister responsible meet representatives of mental health charities from my constituency?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. That issue was looked at in detail as part of the Harrington review. The Government accepted all the recommendations put forward by Harrington and I assure her that mental health champions—one of the proposals put forward—will be in place by March. I believe that the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), will be meeting my hon. Friend to discuss those matters further.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Although I support the recent changes to access to work, which have offered a reassurance to prospective employers that they will be able to use ATW, I am concerned that the money available is to be reduced. Will the Minister reassure me that the access to work fund will always be adequate as the Government’s policies rightly help more disabled people back into work?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I can reassure him about the Government’s commitment to access to work. I can go one stage further and say that more people will receive support from access to work this year than received it in the final year of the previous Government, and that that support will continue. We will be considering how we can make access to work provide really good value for disabled people and for the taxpayer.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

23. What assistance his Department has provided to vulnerable people during the recent period of severe weather.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

This winter we have paid a record £427 million in cold weather payments, with 17 million separate payments.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Can he confirm that, contrary to various scare stories that we have heard in recent weeks, cold weather payments will continue into the future?

[Steve Webb]

As my hon. Friend suggests, there are two systems of support during the winter months: the winter fuel payment, which the Chancellor has confirmed will continue on exactly the basis budgeted for by the previous Government; and the cold weather payments, which will not continue on the basis budgeted for by the previous Government because they were going to cut them by two thirds and we are going to keep them at £25 a week.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister went some way towards answering my question about what is going to happen to the winter fuel payment, but can he categorically confirm that we will not see any changes to it in the next economic year?

[Steve Webb]

To reiterate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear in his comprehensive spending review statement that we will be sticking to the budgeted plans for winter fuel payments for future winters.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I am concerned that the figures show that some 600,000 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK have never held regular work since leaving education. While this is a tragedy for them, it is part of a much longer-term problem that is not just to do with the recession. Unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds stood at about the same level in 2008 as it had in 1997, despite some £3 billion spent on young people via the new deal and other programmes. That is why we are planning to phase out the old schemes with the new enterprise allowance scheme and the new Work programme and provide for 75,000 more apprenticeships as part of our package to improve the situation.

[Jessica Lee]

I am particularly concerned about the 820 young people in my constituency who are starting the year without a job. I spent some time in my local jobcentre in Ilkeston before Christmas, and I am very impressed with the efforts being made by staff there to help young people. However, can my right hon. Friend assist the House by setting out what efforts the Government are making at this time to help young people to access apprenticeships and skills training?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are increasing the number of additional apprenticeships from 50,000 to 75,000 over the period of this Parliament. We are also bringing forward the Work programme. It is interesting to note that young people who have been out of work for a long time, as that is defined, will be entering the Work programme a month earlier than they would have done under the new deal for young people, which will be very good for them. Prior to that, jobcentres will work very closely with young people to make sure that they get the right choices and opportunities. It is worth noting that we are also doing an awful lot in trying to get those who are still at school set ready for the world of work when they leave school.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

On the subject of unemployment, the Government are meeting businesses in Downing street today and asking them to create jobs, but in its latest forecast published since the last DWP questions, the Office for Budget Responsibility revised upwards its unemployment forecasts for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Does this not confirm that it is as a direct result of the Government’s macro-economic judgments that the unemployment queue is now forecast to be longer and the unemployment bill to be higher?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget the financial situation that we inherited from his Government. I know that it is an uncomfortable fact, but the reality is that we had a major recession and we are taking the decisions that are necessary to get this economy back on track. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the OBR forecast, he will see that we are going to create many more new jobs and that unemployment will be falling all the way through the rest of this Parliament.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I have recently received a number of complaints that jobcentres are sending applicants for jobs to which they are not at all suited. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that with the introduction of the integrated Work programme, there will be new checks and balances to ensure that applicants are not sent for jobs for which they are totally unsuitable?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we try to match individuals with the vacancies that are best suited to them. Under the Work programme, providers will not be paid if they do not give people the right opportunities and they do not get the jobs, because there is a payment by results system. That system is the best route to ensure that those who are on benefits for the longer term get the best possible support and access to vacancies.

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

T2. There has been a move from up-front, face-to-face contact at the jobcentre to more telephone systems. What plans do the Government have to reintroduce more face-to-face contact in jobcentres throughout the UK?

[Chris Grayling]

We welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House after a breathless new year. We intend to find the right mix between the different channels of access to Jobcentre Plus. Many younger claimants prefer to access services online, many claimants prefer to deal with such matters face to face, and others are happy to apply for benefits and deal with such matters over the phone. The trick is to get the right mix, and that is what we will seek to do.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

T3. Atos Healthcare, which provides the Department’s medical examiners, has told me that it does not provide physiotherapy services in its assessments of incapacity benefit claimants. Will Ministers consider including core physiotherapy checks for Atos so that people who are in genuine need of help and those who claim to have bad backs but are not in such genuine need can be better identified?

[Chris Grayling]

I am a little confused by my hon. Friend’s experience, because tests and assessments of people’s physical capabilities are carried out under the work capability assessment. Our goal is to ensure that the WCA continues to improve and is the best possible mechanism. I am happy to talk to him about his constituents’ experiences.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

T4. Further to the Secretary of State’s previous answer, will he confirm that unemployment will return to pre-recession levels by the end of the Parliament?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We stand by the OBR forecast that unemployment will rise slightly in the coming year and, thereafter, will fall year on year.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T5. My constituent William Pender approached me to say that the removal of the mobility component of disability living allowance from his son, who resides in a state-funded care home, will leave his son more isolated, because the care home can provide only limited trips out. I invite the Minister to confirm that the full and true nature of my constituent’s mobility needs will be properly catered for under the new system after the reforms.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

Local authorities’ contracts with care homes cover daily living activities, which may include providing access to doctors, dentists and local services such as libraries and banks. In addition, care homes have an obligation to help residents to pursue their independence. Our proposals will therefore remove an overlap in public funding.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

T7. The Government’s ethnic minority impact assessment of the housing benefit changes states that it is not possible, because of a lack of data, to make a proper assessment. In my constituency, it is estimated that 8,500 people will be displaced. On the register, 64% of claimants are from ethnic minority backgrounds. That rises to 83% and 84% for the most vulnerable groups of those in temporary accommodation and those in houses of more than four people. Will the Government assure me that they will do what they said they might do and conduct further research into the disproportionate impact that the changes will have on ethnic minorities?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I do not recognise the estimate of 8,500 displaced families. We have made changes to the proposals so that the changes to housing benefit will be phased in and existing tenants will have nine months’ protection starting from the anniversary of their claim, with the result that local authorities will have time to manage the transition and that there will be more direct payments to landlords, so we will be able to negotiate rents down. We will of course monitor the impact of the changes as they go on, but 8,500 displaced families is not a number that we recognise.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

T8. Although I welcome the Government’s payment by results model as a way of delivering value for the taxpayer, the challenge for a lot of small organisations is that it will pose huge cash-flow problems. They will have to deliver the work and pay their staff, and then they will be paid by the Government. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that small organisations that can deliver effective work programmes are not disfranchised by the Government’s payment by results model?

[Chris Grayling]

I recognise the problem to which my hon. Friend refers, which is one reason why we have been absolutely clear to would-be bidders for the prime contracts for the Work programme that we expect them not simply to build but maintain a network of smaller providers. Where they have such cash-flow problems, it will be the big guys with the capital who are expected to carry the burden. In addition, we have put in place the Merlin standard, a code of conduct for contractors that basically states that if they do not do right by smaller organisations, and if they treat them badly commercially, they can lose their contracts.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the establishment of the York Disabled Workers Cooperative, in which former Remploy workers, with the support of the GMB union and others, have established a factory making garden furniture and other products and selling them directly to the public? Does that not show that there remains a place for supported employment factories in the UK, and will she bear that in mind in the context of the review of Remploy?

[Maria Miller]

I join the hon. Gentleman in applauding the work of the York Disabled Workers Cooperative. It is important that we consider new ways of ensuring that organisations can help disabled people to have sustained employment, whether through social enterprises, Remploy’s enterprise services or factories.

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

Special Metals Wiggin is a large and important employer in Hereford city, but it has several hundred pensioners who have not had an increase in their company pension since 1995 and who have therefore suffered a more than 50% loss in the value of their pensions. Will the Minister examine the matter, and is he prepared to meet pensioners’ representatives to discuss it in more detail?

[Steve Webb]

I am happy to look into the individual situation to which my hon. Friend refers. In general there are statutory requirements for the uprating of pensions in respect of service post-1997, but occasionally, when schemes are wound up underfunded and fall under different regimes, different indexation rules can apply. I would be very happy to receive more details and to meet my hon. Friend.

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Given the importance of tackling social security fraud, which depends in part on promoting a sense of responsibility and honesty across the whole of society, does the Secretary of State agree that that is undermined by the widespread tax evasion by rich individuals and companies? If honesty is good enough for the poor, surely it is good enough for the rich.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Of course if one defines tax evasion as doing something utterly illegal, it is quite wrong and we should bear down hard on it. That is the reality for everybody—if they do something that is beyond the law, that is wrong and we should bear down on them no matter how wealthy they are. That should be a rule for everybody, not just for the poor.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

The Secretary of State may be aware that in my constituency, we have enlisted the support of companies and the voluntary sector to host a jobs fair on 21 January, to create local jobs for local people. That could not have been done without the support of the jobcentre agencies. Will he encourage other jobcentre agencies, as a matter of policy, to support the idea?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I congratulate my neighbour on his role in that idea, which reflects the fact that as the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has made clear, Jobcentre Plus has worked really well in various constituencies to try to get work clubs going. In fact, the level of work club start-ups so far has been beyond what we expected at this point. Jobcentre Plus and my hon. Friend need to be congratulated, and I look forward to coming to see him in his constituency this Friday.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Demos report “Counting the Cost”, funded by Scope, shows that the number of disabled people who currently live in poverty is far higher than official estimates show, as their lower incomes and higher living costs are not taken into consideration. What action will the Secretary of State take to rectify that anomaly?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Government are doing two things. First, they are ensuring that more disabled people can get into employment. As I said earlier, around half of disabled people are in employment; many more want to work and cannot. The coalition Government have made clear their commitment to access to work as a way of helping disabled people into work, as well as to the work of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), through the Work programme and Work Choice. However, we also recognise the extra costs that disabled people face, and our reform of disability living allowance and the introduction of personal independence payments will help to ensure that we have a robust mechanism in place, which is not means-tested but can support disabled people. I am glad to hear that the Opposition will perhaps support some of our reforms of disability living allowance.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

More than 100 disabled members of Chippenham’s Gateway club have written to me about the mobility component of disability living allowance, which they use to fund their transport to voluntary-run activities, which make a huge difference to their quality of life. Given the Minister’s earlier answer, how can we ensure that care homes begin to meet those transport needs so that such activities can continue, even after her reforms?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I do not think I can be clearer than to say that it is a condition of the registration of care homes that, when practical, they promote the independence, participation and community involvement of their residents. That is an important part of their job, and it is important that we ensure that disabled people who live in care homes continue to enjoy an independent life. Of course, if they are looking to move into employment, they are also eligible to apply for funding from the access to work scheme.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Of the representations that the Government have received from pensioners’ organisations on the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, what proportion was in favour and what proportion was against?

[Steve Webb]

The consultation that we undertook on the RPI-CPI change was about occupational pensions, and the majority of responses were from occupational pension organisations. Unsurprisingly, as CPI is generally lower, members of the schemes were not so keen and those who have to pay for the schemes were rather keener.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that, at the weekend, the disability charity Scope described her plans to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance as “a callous decision”, which would

“result in people being prisoners in their own homes”,

and that disability lawyers have expressed concerns about the compatibility of the changes with the European convention on human rights? When will the Minister join the growing national consensus that the plans are unfair and unacceptable, and withdraw them?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important to make it clear that our proposals apply to people who live in residential care homes, not those who live in residential accommodation. That was slightly unclear from the question. Obviously, any measure that the Government propose is subject to a full impact assessment, in which human rights and other legislation will be examined in detail. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have already taken advice on the matter, and that the measures fully comply with human rights legislation.

Swine Flu

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

15:33

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question to ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government’s preparations for and response to the current flu outbreak.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Every winter, flu causes illness and distress to many people. It causes serious illness in some cases and, unfortunately, some deaths. I know that each death is a tragedy that will cause distress to family and friends.

The NHS is again well prepared to respond to the pressures that winter brings—it has responded excellently this year. I thank in particular general practitioners, who each year work tirelessly to look after the health of their patients—especially this winter when the weather, as well as flu and other viruses, has presented challenges.

The rate of GP consultations for influenza-like illness is currently 98 per 100,000 people, down from 124 per 100,000. Those figures are lower than the numbers recorded during the pandemic in 2009-10 and below epidemic levels, which are defined as 200 per 100,000 people. The most recent data showed that 783 people were in critical care in England with influenza-like illness.

Where necessary, local NHS organisations have increased their critical care capacity, in part by—regrettably—delaying routine operations that require critical care back-up. That is a normal local NHS operational process; critical care capacity is always able to be flexible according to local need. We have also increased the number of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation beds, for patients with the most severe disease, from five to 22. A seasonal flu vaccine is again available this year. Our surveillance data show that the vaccine is a good match to the strains of flu that are circulating.

GPs in England order seasonal flu vaccine direct from the manufacturers, according to their needs. Vaccine supply is determined in the early part of the year, for autumn delivery. We recently became aware of reports of flu vaccine supply shortages in some areas in England. We are working with the NHS locally to ensure available supplies of surplus vaccine are moved to where they are needed. In addition, the H1N1 monovalent vaccine is now available to GPs for patients who are eligible for the seasonal flu vaccine.

The Government continue to take expert advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Last year, the JCVI advised for the first time that, in addition to usual risk groups, healthy pregnant women should be vaccinated with seasonal flu vaccine. It did not recommend that children under the age of five outside the at-risk groups should be vaccinated. On 30 December, the JCVI assured me that this advice remains appropriate.

The number of deaths in the UK this winter from flu, verified by the Health Protection Agency, currently is 50. The number of deaths from seasonal flu varies each year, with over 10,000 deaths from seasonal flu estimated in the winter of 2008-09.

Antiviral medicines can also help clinical at-risk groups who have been exposed to flu-like illness. We notified clinicians that the use of antiviral medicines in these groups was justified and, at their discretion, with other patients. We have given access to the national antiviral stockpile to support that.

We are making publicly available for the first time a range of winter performance information, published on the Winterwatch section of the Department’s website. I wrote to all Members last week to inform them of the NHS response to flu, and updated them further in a written statement published this morning.

[John Healey]

I thank the Health Secretary for that statement, but the truth is that he has been slow to act at every stage of this outbreak, and that is putting great pressure on the NHS across the country. It is working flat-out in our local hospital in Rotherham. We have had to open extra beds, and since last Tuesday have cancelled all non-urgent surgery. Four of the 50 patients in the UK who have so far died linked to this flu have been in Rotherham, and two were constituents.

The Health Secretary talks about seasonal flu, but we knew this would not be like normal winter flu because we knew swine flu would be dominant, so the central question for the Health Secretary is why he made less preparation for a flu outbreak that was expected to be more serious. Why did he axe the annual autumn advertising campaign to help boost take-up of the flu jab and help the public understand who is at risk and what treatment is available? We know it works, and this was a serious misjudgment.

Why was the Government’s first circular to midwives, urging them to help get pregnant women to take up the flu jab, not sent out until 16 December? Why has there been no move to offer vaccines through antenatal clinics, and why are the Government not publishing details of the numbers of pregnant women who are seriously ill or who have died, as they are with other groups that are most at risk?

With proper planning and preparation, we should not have seen GPs and pharmacies running out of the vaccine in some areas last week, nor should we have seen parents confused about the treatment available for their young children. I hope last week’s figures mean we may be over the worst, but, with 783 people in critical care and a long winter still ahead, what steps will the Health Secretary take if the numbers of ill people continue to rise? Can he now, today, give the House the reassurance he has failed so far to give the public, which is that he really has got a grip on this situation? Finally, when all the bodies he is relying on to sort out this situation will be abolished under his internal organisation, what assurance can he give the public that this will be any better handled in the future?

[Mr Lansley]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s deep sadness at the deaths in Rotherham and join him in expressing clearly my condolences to the families of his and other Members’ constituents who have died. Regrettably, there will, I fear, be further deaths from flu—that is in the nature of the winter flu season—but I have to explain to him that we are in the midst of a seasonal flu outbreak that has not reached epidemic levels. Neither is it a pandemic, which is clearly a different situation in which a novel virus, to which there is not acquired immunity, is in circulation.

The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. First, on having to cancel operations, I have made it clear that that is, unfortunately, a consequence: if the NHS’s critical care capacity is under pressure, it cannot admit large numbers of patients for elective operations that might require critical care back-up. The seasonal winter flu outbreak has led to an increase in the number of patients with flu in critical care beds, although they still constitute only about one fifth of the total number of critical care beds, and I pay tribute to hospitals across the country that have increased their critical care capacity, particularly in intensive care, to deal with the situation.

We are also providing assistance to the NHS. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to my important announcement last Tuesday that, because we made savings in the Department of Health’s central budgets, on things such as management consultancy costs and the IT scheme, we have been able to issue this financial year—in other words, starting now—an additional £162 million to primary care trusts throughout England. They will be able to use that money directly with their local authorities to facilitate the discharge of patients. There are currently about 2,500 patients in hospital who could be discharged if the appropriate arrangements were in place. That will accelerate the relationship with social care that we are looking for.

It is pretty rich for the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party to say that there should not have been any shortages. The number of vaccines supplied to the United Kingdom was determined before the Government took office. It was determined under the previous Administration, in the early part of last year, not by this Administration. Furthermore, it was equally not just presumptuous but unhelpful for him, during the Christmas period, to talk inaccurately about whether children under the age of five should be vaccinated. He knows perfectly well that like his predecessors we take advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. With the chief medical officer, we asked the committee to look at the issue again, and it met on 30 December and reiterated its advice that young children should not be vaccinated. So for him to stimulate press reports suggesting that parents should have their children vaccinated, when the expert advice was not that that should be done, was deeply unhelpful.

The right hon. Gentleman’s final point was about the organisations. It is clear to me that, by abolishing the Health Protection Agency and bringing its responsibilities inside the Department of Health under the new Public Health England, we will have a more integrated and more effective system for responding to seasonal flu in future years.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If I am to have any realistic chance of accommodating the interest of most Members, short questions and answers alike will be essential.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right that general practitioners are on the front line, and it is to them that patients will turn. Does he have any thoughts on the case of a constituent of mine who contacted me yesterday to say that he has been trying to get a vaccination, but has been unable to do so because he wants to have one after 4 o’clock in the afternoon, when he can get away from work? He does not want to jeopardise his job and is finding it difficult to access the vaccination before then, but GPs would rather vaccinate in the morning.

[Mr Lansley]

The arrangements that individual GP surgeries make for ordering and administering doses of the vaccine have been, since October, for them to make. From our point of view, as soon as we were aware that local supply would not necessarily match local demand in the places it should, we took the decision last week to make available the NHS stockpile—there are 12.7 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine—and I can tell my hon. Friend that 20,000 doses began to be distributed this morning. There is no reason why we cannot meet the requirement for vaccinations, whether through GPs’ own doses and local arrangements, through issuing NHS prescriptions that can be fulfilled at local pharmacies or through surgeries ordering the H1N1 vaccine from us.

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

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—he should be because I have written to him about this—of serious concerns in my constituency about the shortage of flu vaccine, including for chronically sick people? Will he tell the House, in the most specific way, what action he is taking to ensure that sufficient flu vaccine is available in the city of Manchester and in Greater Manchester?

[Mr Lansley]

May I reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of vaccine supplied to the United Kingdom is determined by manufacturers on the basis of discussions with not only the Department, but others, and that the vaccines are ordered by individual GP surgeries? The total amount of vaccine was 14.8 million doses, which is comparable to the level in previous years. Although GP surgeries have shortages, because of the preparations made during the pandemic in 2009 and given that the principal strain of flu circulating is the H1N1 strain—it is not the only strain, but it is the most relevant to guard against for many in the at-risk groups under the age of 65—we made it clear that we would back up GPs who had any shortages with access to our stockpile of H1N1 vaccine. Orders have come in and they are being filled.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Governments do not control diseases yet, but in my constituency elective surgery has been cancelled and pharmacies have run out of vaccine. What is the serious long-term alternative to the over-provision of last year and the localised under-provision of this year?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think one can say that there was over-provision during the pandemic, because one could not have been at all clear about the nature of the progress of H1N1. However, what that meant is that we have the stockpile of vaccine available to back up the NHS this year. My hon. Friend makes a very good point, because there is clearly an issue to deal with regarding how this is properly managed. Before Labour Members start talking from a sedentary position, they might wish to re-examine the 2007 flu review. It was conducted by the Department of Health under the previous Administration and recommended that there should be central procurement of flu vaccine in England, but the previous Administration did nothing about it.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State tell us why the midwives association was not written to until 16 December?

[Mr Lansley]

We made it very clear that everyone in the at-risk groups was going to be contacted through their GP surgery, and it is the responsibility of GPs to have done that.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the information that he has provided so far, but I wonder whether he could reassure the parents of a 13-year-old boy. They came to see me on Saturday because their son is egg allergic and also suffers from asthma, and they are concerned about the availability of a flu vaccine this year.

[Mr Lansley]

I will certainly write to my hon. Friend about this, but I am confident that one of the number of vaccines that are available will be suitable for his constituent.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Last week, 30 beds at York hospital were occupied by people with suspected or confirmed cases of flu. That is costing the local NHS £7,500 a day—£50,000 a week—and that money could be spent on treating patients with unavoidable conditions. What lessons will the Secretary of State learn from the failure to promote the uptake of the flu vaccine this year to ensure that we do not encounter a similar problem next year?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is based on a false premise, because the level of vaccine uptake this year among over-65s is 70% and among under-65s is 45.5%, which is comparable to previous years. He did not refer to this, but because we made savings we provided the NHS with considerable additional resources in the last three months of the year precisely to manage winter pressures and ensure that beds in hospitals are available.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the increase in the critical case capacity and in the number of extra corporeal membrane oxygenation—ECMO—beds from five to 22, which has made a difference. Will he also pay tribute to others who help in these situations, such as the manufacturers of homeopathic medicines and homeopathic chemists? They provide preparations that may be suitable for people, such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who are unable to take flu vaccines and others who choose not to do so.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. His local hospital, the Glenfield in Leicester, leads on specialised ECMO bed services. In this country, we have increased the number of ECMO beds; we have more per head of population than any of the developed health economies, including the United States. As for treatments and vaccinations, I continue to rest upon the scientific and expert advice. Indeed, I hope that patients will consult their clinicians about their treatments.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State say whether he took the decision to delay the advertising campaign and, if so, when?

[Mr Lansley]

I announced just after Christmas the “catch it, bin it, kill it” campaign. I had not—[Interruption.] Let me explain to Opposition Members. In 2009, the campaign took place in November. Why? It was because the spread of flu took place in late October, early November. Therefore, it occurred at the point at which there was a substantial spread of the influenza in the community. That is precisely what we did this year.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

As an asthma sufferer, I am pleased to report that just this morning I had the benefit of the flu jab and it was professionally and painlessly administered. However, constituents have come to me concerned about, in one case, a child who has had the respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV and, in another case, an adult who has had pneumonia, who have been denied the flu vaccine. Will he examine how the guidance to GP practices can be amended to include such groups?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course write to my hon. Friend about the nature of the advice provided by the joint committee, but we follow and have followed at each stage the advice given to us by that independent expert committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. I will certainly write to him to explain how it has determined the at-risk groups for these purposes.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Earlier, the Secretary of State made the astonishing admission that he has done nothing since the Labour Government left office. He rightly drew attention to the work being done for at-risk groups. However, emergency planning requires the sustaining of the emergency services. Why is he not giving priority to those who work for the emergency services—the police, the fire and ambulance services?

[Mr Lansley]

I have two points for the right hon. Gentleman. First, all NHS staff, including ambulance staff, are eligible for the vaccine. Regrettably, when I last looked, under 20% had availed themselves of that opportunity. I wish that it were higher.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

“Wish”? Does the Secretary of State think wishing is enough?

[Mr Lansley]

They are all offered it, so they can all be provided with it. I am not in a position to require people to take a vaccine. We are not providing mandatory vaccination in this country yet, and I do not suppose that we shall.

Secondly, I was not admitting that I had done nothing—on the contrary. What the right hon. Gentleman perhaps does not understand is that one cannot simply order additional large-scale supplies of a vaccine. A long process of manufacture is required, as it is an egg-based culture system. The amount is ordered in the spring for autumn delivery, so the amount was determined in the spring. When I entered office in May, there was not any reason particularly to think that we would need more than in other flu seasons, and we knew that we had the back-up of the H1N1 vaccine if we needed it. In early August, I made it clear that I intended to review further the system of procurement, distribution of flu vaccine and its supply. That review is ongoing and will be published shortly.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason that acute beds are under such pressure at this time of swine flu is that we do not have sufficient step-down or community beds into which people can transfer from acute beds?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Primary care trusts and local authorities working together should now be able to have confidence that the resources are available in this financial year—and £648 million will be available in the next financial year, and more in years beyond—to improve the relationship between health and social care not only through things such as step-down beds, but through operating, for example, hospital at home services, community equipment services and home adaptations to ensure that only those people who need to be in hospital are in hospital.

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

There have been several reports about children having to travel extremely long distances to access critical care in children’s hospitals. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that there is sufficient capacity for paediatric intensive care and high dependency care?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am. The hon. Lady will know that there have always been occasions when paediatric intensive care capacity in a particular hospital is full and when it is necessary for children to be taken a distance. On Christmas eve, I was at the intensive care unit at Alder Hey and I want to pay tribute to the tremendous work done by staff there. They acknowledge that this was not just about H1N1. One reason the committee did not recommend vaccinating all children under the age of five was that children, particularly very young children, were in intensive care because of a combination of H1N1 and/or bronchiolitis and RSV. A range of conditions was impacting at that moment on very young children.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Several chemists and GPs’ surgeries in Merseyside have run out of the flu vaccine, leaving at-risk patients unable to obtain the jab. The Health Protection Agency has highlighted Liverpool as having significantly higher rates of swine flu than the English average. Will Liverpool therefore receive a higher proportion of the £162 million that the Secretary of State has made available to primary care trusts to help those affected?

[Mr Lansley]

The £162 million will be allocated to primary care trusts based on the social care allocation formula, which will be the same for next year. Any GP surgery, or for that matter the primary care trust in Merseyside, is free to come to us to order supplies from the national stockpile of the H1N1 vaccine to ensure that those who require vaccination can receive it.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the Secretary of State was clearly giving an after-the-fact justification for his failure to act on the winter awareness campaign earlier in the year. He is fond of telling anyone who ventures to criticise him that they are completely wrong. Will he admit that on this occasion, as far as the awareness campaign is concerned, he was the one who was completely wrong?

[Mr Lansley]

No, absolutely not. I was simply pointing out to Opposition Members that the principle that applied in 2009, which was that the point at which flu was circulating in the community was the point at which the “catch it, bin it, kill it” campaign was initiated, was precisely the same principle that I applied this year.

May I say in response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) that the supplies of vaccine provided to primary care trusts or GPs’ surgeries from the national stockpile of swine flu vaccine will be provided free?

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

To be absolutely clear on that answer, does the Secretary of State have any regrets whatsoever about not proceeding with the flu publicity campaign?

[Mr Lansley]

No. I have made it perfectly clear that the principle we applied is exactly the same and was based on the medical advice given to me, which was to pursue an awareness campaign on respiratory and hand hygiene at the point at which flu was circulating in the community. That is what I was asked and that is the decision I took.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State comment on the worrying media reports emanating from Scotland that at a time when there were shortages of vaccine the Department of Health was scrabbling around trying to get supplies from other countries when there was a surplus in Scotland, but it never asked the Scottish Government? Is that the case, or is it nationalist mischief making from Edinburgh?

[Mr Lansley]

All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is the simple truth. In the early part of last week, we asked manufacturers whether they had additional supplies. I believe that some additional seasonal flu vaccine that is licensed for use in this country probably will be made available. In any case, we have the H1N1 vaccine to support the immunisation, where required. Early last week, we did ask Scotland. The amounts that would have been available in the short run were not significant at all, so it was better for them to be retained in Scotland because there might be a continuing need for the vaccine there, rather than here.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State explain when in the course of the year the vaccine would normally be ordered?

[Mr Lansley]

It would normally be ordered between March and May.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

H1N1 deaths are especially tragic because they involve people with expectations of a long life. Last year, 65,000 deaths were anticipated but fewer than 500 died with swine flu and 150 died of swine flu. If the priorities of the health service are not to be distorted, should not we approach this problem with a sense of both caution and proportion?

[Mr Lansley]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s deep regret. H1N1, unlike many previous flu strains, does not particularly impact on the elderly; it impacts on younger people and on younger adults in particular. That is the principal reason why we are seeing a relatively larger number of people occupying critical care beds. The NHS response has been to accelerate the provision of critical care capacity and of ECMO beds in particular.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that tragically there have been 14 flu-related deaths in Northern Ireland during this winter. Given that that figure is proportionately higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom, what discussions has he had or does he intend to have with his counterpart in Northern Ireland to assess why the proportion is so much higher and whether there is a black spot with regard to that disease?

[Mr Lansley]

The figure of 50 deaths to which I have referred is the total number of deaths verified by the Health Protection Agency. There have been more deaths than that, but they have not been verified to have been caused by flu. I cannot comment on the relationship between the number that I quoted for the United Kingdom as a whole and that for Northern Ireland, because we are not dealing with comparable figures. My colleagues in the devolved Administrations and I will continue to keep in touch. It is important for us not to be simplistic about this. There are differences in vaccine take-up between Administrations—they are not major, but they exist. There are differences in the prevalence of swine flu, and the prevalence of flu in Northern Ireland is very high compared with England—it is even a great deal higher than that in Scotland. Happily, the number of deaths is only ever a very small proportion of the people who contract flu. To that extent, it is difficult to draw from the number of deaths conclusions about the nature of the response to flu overall, not least because the prevalence is overwhelmingly among people who are not in the at-risk groups, who, I hope, were vaccinated.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether you have noticed that since the Secretary of State started making his excuses for this problem, Government Front Benchers and Back Benchers have looked more and more unwell. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has had the flu jab and that he has made sure that his Front-Bench team have had it?

[Mr Lansley]

I take this issue seriously, even if the right hon. Gentleman does not. As it happens, I fall into one of the at-risk groups, because I had a stroke in 1992, so I have had the flu jab. I would not ask members of my ministerial team who are not in the at-risk groups to have the vaccination, because it is not recommended.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The biggest tragedy is that the Secretary of State has learned no lessons whatsoever from what has happened. As a result, it is likely that the same mistakes will be made in the future. His answers about the advertising campaign are completely unconvincing. Will he explain why he cancelled the advertising campaign, which GPs were demanding at the time, to increase the take-up of vaccinations?

[Mr Lansley]

I cancelled no campaign; I proceeded only with the awareness campaign on respiratory and hand hygiene. An advertising campaign aimed at the general population would not have been effective, and I was advised that there was no evidence that it would be effective. We knew who the at-risk groups were, and it was possible to reach them directly rather than engaging in wider advertising.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State tell us what role primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are playing in dealing with the crisis? Will he explain what dismantling the SHAs and PCTs will do in terms of central planning for future crises?

[Mr Lansley]

The role of SHAs and PCTs is, as in previous years, to manage the NHS response to winter pressures. In future, the commissioning consortiums together with the NHS Commissioning Board, will fulfil similar responsibilities. In future years, there will be a stronger ability to integrate the response of the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency, working together as one new organisation, Public Health England, which will have a stronger public health infrastructure.

Contaminated Blood

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

16:04

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on hepatitis C and HIV-infected blood.

What happened during the 1970s and 1980s, when thousands of patients contracted hepatitis C and HIV from NHS blood and blood products, is one of the great tragedies of modern health care. It is desperately sad to recall that during this period the best efforts of the NHS to restore people to health actually consigned very many to a life of illness and hardship. As the current Health Secretary, and on behalf of Governments extending back to the 1970s, may I begin by saying how sorry I am that this happened and by expressing my deep regret for the pain and misery that many have suffered as a result?

It is now almost two decades since the full extent of the infection was established and two years since the independent inquiry led by Lord Archer of Sandwell reported. The majority of Lord Archer’s recommendations are in place, as are programmes of ex gratia payments, which are administered by the Macfarlane Trust and the Eileen Trust for the HIV-infected and by the Skipton Fund for those with hepatitis C. However, significant anomalies remain and I pay tribute to Lord Archer, to other noble Lords and to hon. Members in this place from all parties for highlighting them.

In October, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), announced a review into the current support arrangements —to look at reducing the differences between the hepatitis C and HIV financial support schemes and to explore other issues raised by Members during the recent Back-Bench debate, including prescription charges and wider support for those affected. We also asked clinical experts to advise on the impact of hepatitis C infection on a person’s health and quality of life and to consider whether an increase in financial support was needed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has met representative groups to understand the impact that these infections were having on people’s lives and has also met many Members of both Houses who have been strong advocates on behalf of those affected.

We have now considered the findings of the clinical expert group and we accept that the needs of those with advanced liver disease from hepatitis C merit higher levels of support. At present, the amount of money paid to this group depends on the seriousness of the infection. There are two stages at which the Skipton Fund will make a payment, the first of which is when the person develops chronic hepatitis C infection. At this point, a person is eligible for a stage 1 relief payment—currently a lump sum of £20,000. Some may reach a second stage of developing an advanced liver disease such as cirrhosis or cancer, or of requiring a liver transplant; they then become eligible for a stage 2 payment, which is currently another lump sum of £25,000. Under new arrangements that we will introduce, this second stage payment will increase from £25,000 to £50,000. This will apply retrospectively, so that if a person has already received an initial stage 2 payment of £25,000, they will now get another £25,000 lump sum, bringing the total to £50,000.

In addition, we will also introduce a new, annual payment of £12,800 for those with hepatitis C who reach this second stage. This is the same amount as those who were infected with HIV receive. Those infected with both HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood will now receive two annual payments of £12,800 if they meet the stage 2 criteria—one payment for each infection—along with the respective lump sums. All annual payments that are made, both to those so infected with HIV and to those with hepatitis C, will now be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index to keep pace with living costs.

We know that some of those infected with HIV or hepatitis C from NHS blood and blood products face particular hardship and poverty. Those infected with HIV can already apply for additional discretionary payments from the Eileen Trust and the Macfarlane Trust, but no equivalent arrangements are in place for those infected with hepatitis C, so we will now establish a new charitable trust to make similar payments to those with hepatitis C who are in serious financial need. These payments will be available for those at all stages of their illness, based on individual circumstances. Discretionary payments will also be available to support the dependants of those infected with hepatitis C, including the dependants of those who have since died. Again, this will echo the arrangements in place for those infected with HIV and will enable us to give more to those in the greatest need.

We must also ensure that those infected through NHS blood and blood products get the right medical and psychological support. I can therefore announce two further measures. First, those infected with hepatitis C or HIV will no longer pay for their prescriptions. They will now receive the cost of an annual prescription prepayment certificate if they are currently charged for prescriptions. Secondly, the representative groups raised the issue of counselling support for those infected through blood and blood products. We fully recognise the emotional distress that they have experienced. As a result, we will provide £300,000 over the next three years to allow for around 6,000 hours of counselling to help those groups.

While we focus on those still living with infections, we must also recognise the bereaved families of those who have died. At present, no payment can be made to those infected with hepatitis C who passed away before the Skipton Fund was established. That is a source of understandable distress to those who survive them, and that is something that we now want to put right. I can therefore announce that, until the end of March 2011, there will be a window of opportunity in which a posthumous claim of up to £70,000 can be made on behalf of those infected with hepatitis C who died before 29 August 2003. A single payment of £20,000 will be payable if the individual had reached the first stage of chronic infection. Another single payment of £50,000 will be made if their condition had deteriorated to the second stage, in which they suffered serious liver disease or required a liver transplant. We will work with the Skipton Fund and various patient groups to publicise this new payment to those who may benefit. Those new payments, which will go to the individual’s estate, should help more families to get the support that they deserve.

Taken together, these announcements represent a significant rise in the support available to those affected by this tragedy. Putting an exact figure on the package is difficult, as there is some uncertainty about how many people will be eligible, and how their illnesses may progress. However, we believe that the new arrangements could provide £100 million to £130 million-worth of additional support over the course of this Parliament. All payments will be disregarded for calculating income tax and eligibility for other state benefits, including social care. Although the changes apply only to those infected in England, I will be speaking to the devolved Administrations to see whether we can extend the measures across the United Kingdom.

Today’s announcements cannot remove the pain and distress that individuals and families have suffered over the years, but I hope that the measures can at least bring some comfort, some consolation, and perhaps even some closure to those affected. I commend the statement to the House.

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

The Opposition welcome the review and today’s statement, and we note that Labour Health Ministers had agreed the review in principle before they left office. We are glad that the statement was made on the very first day back after the Christmas break, because we are aware that the statement was promised before Christmas. We appreciate it being made as soon as it could be made.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the House owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to the patient groups that have campaigned for more than 25 years on the issue? They include the Haemophilia Society, the Hepatitis C Trust, the Taintedblood group, the Manor House Group, and individuals such as Haydn Lewis, who unfortunately passed away before he could see this resolution. Without the campaigning of those groups and individuals over two decades, the issue would have been one of private misery and private suffering. It is because they campaigned and kept the issue before the public and before the eyes of politicians that we are able to move decisively towards a proper resolution today.

Many of the measures in the statement will be welcomed, particularly the help with prescription charges and the £300,000 for counselling—I have seen with my own eyes the awful mental effect of this tragedy on people—as well as the payments for dependants, the provision for posthumous claims, and above all, the move towards parity in the cases of HIV and hepatitis C. All that will be welcomed, but there will still be campaigners who will regret that we have not been able to achieve parity with the compensation that was offered and handed out in the Republic of Ireland. It would be silly to pretend that there will not be many people still saying today, “Why could we not achieve what was done in the Republic of Ireland?”.

Finally, when we remember that more than 4,500 completely innocent and trusting patients contracted HIV, hepatitis C or both as a consequence of tainted blood, and that more than 1,900 of those people have died, leaving thousands of dependants behind, should we not, as a House, resolve that it should never again take 25 years for perfectly innocent victims of errors and mistakes to have proper justice and recompense?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I entirely endorse her opening and closing remarks paying tribute to all the patient groups. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health has met many of those groups and individuals, and I know that she would heartily endorse what the hon. Lady said about how they have brought these issues time and again to the forefront of attention in the House and the other place. I do not want to underestimate the many in the House and the other place who responded to that and did so very well by bringing these cases forward. I hope that they will see in today’s statement a proper response.

We do not know whether there will ever be a similar case. I hope we can avoid it—it would be much better to avoid it—but if we were ever in a situation where such a consequence flowed from the NHS seeking to do its best to treat patients but such harm nevertheless occurred, I hope we would recognise that, be able to identify it and not allow decades to pass before proper recognition took place.

That brings me to the hon. Lady’s substantive point, which is the relationship between what we are doing and the compensation provided in the Republic of Ireland. As we explained in October, we do not regard these as comparable cases. In the Republic of Ireland, mistakes were made by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service which led to a recognition of liability, leading to a determination of compensation. In this country we are not providing compensation. We are recognising the harm that occurred, notwithstanding the fact that the NHS at the time sought to provide the treatment that it thought was in the best interests of patients.

That harm occurred. As an ex gratia payment and in recognition of the harm that occurred and the distress that followed, we have sought to ensure that there is proper support, financial and otherwise, for the victims and their families. I hope that by getting rid of the anomalies and recognising—in particular, through the work of the clinical expert group—the impact on those with hepatitis C, we are giving the support that those who were damaged should expect.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Although I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, I should point out that Lord Archer recommended that there should be compensation along the Irish lines. That is a little of the context of what has taken place.

I take the opportunity of congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) on all the work that she has done on the matter, which I know has been welcomed across the House.

May I ask my right hon. Friend about the position in Wales? I was a little taken aback by the fact that he said that he intends to speak to fellow Ministers in Wales. I have a statement from the Welsh Minister indicating that as far as she is concerned, these issues come next to be considered by her in 2014, which was the previous agreement with the Department of Health. Many of my constituents will want to know what discussions have so far taken place and whether the arrangements will be replicated in the Principality.

[Mr Lansley]

The Under-Secretary will have heard what my hon. Friend said. I am grateful for it, too.

I am speaking on behalf of England in this respect. As the Department of Health, we administer the payments system. We had to reach the decisions and we have done so. We always intended to do so as rapidly as we could for England, but as I explained in my statement, these decisions have yet to be made by the devolved Administrations. It is reasonable for them to see the review report that I am publishing today, not least the clinical expert review that goes with it, in order for them to make their own decisions. Those are decisions that they must make, but if they wished us to continue to administer the system on the same basis across the United Kingdom, we would be happy to do so.

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

In the debate on the subject in the autumn, the Under-Secretary of State agreed to speak to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the changes to benefits and how those would affect people who had received contaminated blood products. Can the Secretary of State give any guarantee about passporting people affected by the changes in benefits so that they do not lose out and have to go through a further set of medicals?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful for that. This is not a response to precisely the question that the hon. Lady asks, but Lord Archer made a point about whether payments should be made through the Department for Work and Pensions. We do not see that any tangible benefit would flow from that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That was not my hon. Friend’s question.

[Mr Lansley]

No, I acknowledged that. I will of course respond to the hon. Lady, but I think it better for us to administer all the payments through the system that I have set out. As I say, they will be disregarded for the purposes of calculation of benefits, so to that extent they will not impact adversely on current benefits.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Having spoken in the debate in October and having asked a question in Prime Minister’s questions in November, I very much welcome a number of elements in the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly those on free prescriptions and counselling help. Will he, however, promise to meet the Taintedblood campaigners and perhaps even to look at the overall level of compensation?

[Mr Lansley]

May I say two things to my hon. Friend? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has met those groups and will continue to meet them, because we want to ensure not least that those who are now eligible for enhanced payments and so on make proper applications. We have looked very carefully with the clinical expert group at the support that we ought to give. It is not compensation as such; it is an ex gratia form of support. We have made judgments, and if we were to go further, there would be significant additional costs. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have made it clear to the House in the past that to provide payments on the scale of the Republic of Ireland might involve up to, or perhaps even in excess of, £3.5 billion a year, so I am not in a position to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) that I expect to go beyond the support that I have set out today.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is to be regretted that the review’s terms of reference were so narrow, as it did not consider overall levels of compensation or HIV. If the Secretary of State believes that the Republic of Ireland case is simply too expensive, will he please say so and not rely, as the Department has, on either the idea that the Taintedblood campaigners and others are asking him to look at that and tying us to the Irish system, or the idea that they are asking us effectively to look at those levels of compensation because negligence was involved? That was not the case in Ireland. Is not the result likely to be more litigation? The levels of remuneration are still far too low.

[Mr Lansley]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, in response to previous questions I made it very clear that the question was not simply about the amount of money. The situation in the Republic of Ireland is unique in respect of its determination of liability because of mistakes made by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service. To that extent, we are making ex gratia payments. The nature of our payments stands comparison to other countries, particularly now, in respect of hepatitis C and my announcements this afternoon.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

I really welcome today’s statement and, in particular, the apology, which will go a long way to ease some of the pain that some of the victims have suffered. Proper support for those infected with hepatitis C is also long overdue. Gareth Lewis, who was a leading Taintedblood campaigner—I believe he met the Under Secretary—tragically died just before Christmas, only a few months after his brother, Haydn, whom the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned. That highlights the urgency of my question. Governments are not known for moving quickly, particularly when it involves handing out money, so will the Secretary of State reassure us that everything that can be done will be done to ensure that the payments announced today are made as soon as is humanly possible?

[Mr Lansley]

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has on many occasions spoken up on behalf of her constituents and others who were affected by the tainted blood and blood products? The answer to her question is yes—absolutely we will. When we came into office, we were determined to implement the review. As she said, we sought to complete the review before Christmas—technically speaking, we did, but we were not in a position to announce it before Christmas. We are doing this at the first available moment, and we will do everything that we possibly can to ensure that potential beneficiaries are notified and reached as quickly as possible so that the payments are in place as soon as possible.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It would be one of the greatest catastrophes if what happened were able to happen again. That is why it is so vital that the Government constantly keep under review the policy on donating blood. As the Secretary of State will know, men who have had sex with men are one of the categories of people who are not able to give blood at the moment, and that seems intrinsically unfair and prejudiced. I urge the Secretary of State to look only at the scientific evidence in the ongoing review; that, and not any other political consideration, is the basis on which the decision should be made.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I entirely agree.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I have to say that I am a bit disappointed; I am not sure whether today’s announcement will give closure to many people. A constituent of mine told me about a very good friend of his who died in Spain over Christmas. Sadly, his family could not afford to bring the body home, so he had to be cremated in Spain. Under the circumstances, it is very important that the ex gratia payments, available through the new charity to be set up, take into account the tragic and particular problems of individual sufferers.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, indeed. I know that they will; that is one of the reasons why, in addition to the lump sum payments and annual payments that I have announced, we wanted to ensure that there was scope for discretionary payments based on individuals’ needs.

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

May I take the Secretary of State back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans)? It is rather surprising that there has not hitherto been any discussion with the devolved Administrations. If such payments are to be made in Scotland and Wales, is it anticipated that they will be made out of existing budgets? How will the matter be handled?

[Mr Lansley]

What I have announced today will, of course, be funded from the Department of Health’s budget in England and the matter would be a responsibility for the devolved Administrations in relation to their budgets —from within the budgets set through the spending review.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Health on all the work that she has done. The statement deals with what Lord Archer called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the national health service. It has to be said that the last Labour Government could have dealt with this, but they did not.

Following the comprehensive package that he has announced, will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will take active steps to contact the families of the bereaved and that no stone will be left unturned in making sure that all those who should have payments receive them?

[Mr Lansley]

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will take all the steps that we possibly can, not least on behalf of the bereaved families of those who died before 29 August 2003. That anomaly, among others, ought to have been rectified long ago.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the statement—in particular the serious and commendable way in which the Under-Secretary of State has dealt with this important issue. However, the people who really need to be congratulated today are the campaigners such as the family of my constituent Leigh Sugar.

I take the Secretary of State back to his comment that the measure will apply to England only. Will he explain the rationale for that? The previous schemes applied to England and Wales, although they predated devolution. Is he saying that no additional funds will be available for Welsh patients, under the Barnett consequentials, to provide similar funding in Wales?

[Mr Lansley]

I share the view of the hon. Gentleman. Today the people who should feel that we are expressing our support are those who have been harmed and their families. Those are the people whom we are really supporting today. I hope that they will feel that although not everything that they have hoped for is being provided, we are at least making very substantial progress and doing a great deal to show recognition of the harm that occurred to them.

At this Dispatch Box, I speak on health matters for England; I do not speak for Wales and I am not in a position to say what the decisions of the devolved Administrations are. I have set out what we are going to do in England. We are funding the measure from within allocated budgets, so no Barnett consequentials flow from it. These matters will be determined within each of the other Administrations in respect of whether they wish to share in the arrangements that I have described.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

There cannot be a Member of this House who does not have at least one constituent who is affected or who knows someone who is affected by this. I am sure that every hon. Member would like to congratulate the Government on the statement. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the bureaucracy needed to process matters forward has been looked at, so that it is kept to a minimum?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, we have done that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: hon. Members will have met constituents or the families of constituents who have been harmed, or the families of those who died. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to bring the terms of today’s statement to their attention, so that people can access the additional support at the earliest possible opportunity. We will seek to do what my hon. Friend mentions. What I am describing builds as far as possible on existing mechanisms and, with the exception of the new discretionary trust, will not create any additional bureaucracy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am well aware of the strong interest of the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) in this subject and his track record on the issue in the House. The reason I have not called him and was not intending to call him is that, as far as I am aware, he was not here for the start of the statement. If I am wrong, I am happy to concede I am wrong. However, if I am right, that is the way it has to be for today. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian and I am sure he will find other ways to make his point when he wants to make it.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. In October’s debate, I drew attention to the figure quoted of £3.5 billion that the Irish compensation scheme would cost and was concerned about its accuracy. The information was placed in the Library and, to justify it, it was indicated that there had been informal discussions. I have since found out that that was an unminuted telephone call. When I pointed that out, I was assured there would be further conversations with Republic of Ireland officials. Will he confirm that those took place and, if details are available, can they be placed in the Library?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know from the response that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave to October’s Back-Bench debate that we intended to place a note in the Library. We have done so. She has had further occasions to discuss these arrangements with colleagues in the House. The discussions between my officials and officials in the Republic of Ireland have confirmed that a figure of about £750,000 is not inappropriate as an estimate of the level of compensation per individual paid in the Republic of Ireland. That would support the view that we took in the House that the cost of providing compensation, if one were to do so, on the scale required in the Republic of Ireland would be in excess of £3 billion. As I said to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), it is not on the basis of cost alone that we have reached that view; it is on the basis that the circumstances in the Republic of Ireland are unique and do not apply in this country. Therefore, we have assessed the case for support on the basis of the circumstances here and on an ex gratia basis, not on the basis of liability and consequent compensation.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I also thank the Minister for the welcome measures announced in the statement and for the progress that has been made after so long. May I return to the average figure of £750,000, because there is a concern that that figure could be confusing the average and the mean? If we take a figure between 500 and a million and say that it is the average, it does not provide an average figure. Such an approach is akin to saying that the price of a car ranges from £10,000 to £1 million and therefore the average price of a car is £500,000. In relation to the discussions that the Minister has had with officials in Ireland, will he confirm that the total paid in Ireland—the total payment in terms of Irish settlements on this matter—is less than £1 billion?

[Mr Lansley]

As I have said in response to previous questions, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friends have done in support of their constituents and others. It is not simply a question of trying to calculate what the level of compensation is in Ireland; that is not the issue. We are not making a comparison with Ireland; we are making a judgment. In this case, we have especially done so in relation to hepatitis C, on the basis of the report of the clinical expert group, to try to assess the level of harm and the consequences that have flowed from the transfusions that took place, albeit that in this country the NHS acted on the basis of its best efforts to provide the best possible care for patients. The Republic of Ireland is a unique, and quite distinct, case in that because of mistakes made, a finding of liability was arrived at which leads to compensation. In our case, we are not in that position. We are in the position of recognising the harm and distress that has occurred and, through an ex gratia scheme, providing support to those who have been harmed and their families.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for bringing the Government’s deliberations on the issue to this conclusion. Will he reassure the House that those experiencing the symptoms of advanced liver disease who received contaminated blood will not in all cases be required to have a liver biopsy in order to demonstrate and establish their eligibility for these payments?

[Mr Lansley]

No, they will not. From our point of view, eligibility will simply be based on a diagnosis of their condition.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the statement, particularly the attempt to get better parity between HIV and hepatitis C. However, I remain slightly concerned about the definition of stage 2. What proportion of hepatitis C complainants does the Minister expect to progress to stage 2? He must have estimated that number in order to put a financial amount on the settlement.

[Mr Lansley]

I regret that I cannot give such an estimate to my hon. Friend. The estimate that I have given is a range that extends from £100 million to £130 million during the life of this Parliament. If one were to go beyond that period, the parameters of the range would widen, not least because we do not, and cannot, know to what extent this infection is likely to progress to the second stage of these diseases.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

I very much welcome much of what has been said in the statement, particularly the fact that the decision has been made to force closure on an issue that has been going on for so long. One of the things that has upset so many of the sufferers is not only that such a scandal happened but the subsequent failings, as they would see it, not of Government but of the Department of Health in being clear and transparent during those years in providing information on exactly what happened. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will have to provide information to help those people who are still affected when they ask questions, perhaps through freedom of information requests, about what occurred in the past?

[Mr Lansley]

May I once more express my thanks to my hon. Friend for having been a forceful advocate in these matters? The answer to her question is yes, not least because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been very open and willing to talk to everybody concerned, and she will continue to be so, because we are determined to give people confidence that we have not only exercised what we believe to be a responsible and reasonable judgment in these matters but are doing so in an open and transparent fashion.

Points of Order

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

16:39

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a statement given to this House in December, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), circulated a list of courts to be closed which stated that the county court services in Worksop would transfer to Worksop magistrates court. To clarify that that was the case, I asked him a question from these Benches, and he confirmed to the House that it was so. It has subsequently come to light not only that that information provided orally to the House and in writing was inaccurate, but that exactly the opposite is happening, and that the county court services are to transfer away from Worksop court. I am sure that this was not an attempt to mislead the House but a bureaucratic cock-up of some kind by civil servants. Will you advise me,Mr Speaker, on how the Minister can best rectify this situation whereby his civil servants have clearly not carried out his instructions as outlined to the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his giving me notice of it. From that notice—the letter that he sent to me before Christmas—I am well aware of his concern on this matter, which he has reiterated forcefully this afternoon. There is a mechanism for the correction of ministerial replies where necessary. That observation will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and, I trust, in the relevant Department. The hon. Gentleman can seek advice from the Table Office on how to pursue this matter, and I rather imagine that he will. I note that Ministry of Justice Ministers are answering oral questions tomorrow. I hope that that response is helpful.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of the serious riots in Ford open prison during the parliamentary recess. The Government have set up an inquiry to consider the causes and what lessons can be learned. I would be grateful if you could ensure through your good offices that when the inquiry comes to a conclusion, Ministers come to the House to make an oral statement on the findings, and do not simply rely on a press notice or leaks to the newspapers.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The means of communication of Government conclusions is a matter for the Government—that is to say, it is not for me to specify that there be an oral rather than a written statement. Her plea will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. More widely on this important issue, I reiterate a point that I made in response to the previous point of order, namely that Justice questions will be answered tomorrow. I doubt that it will be beyond the wit and dexterity of hon. Members to raise this matter if they so wish.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I in no way seek to challenge your ruling, but wish to explain to you and the House that I was delayed by seeking to speak to a constituent who is a double infectee of hepatitis C and AIDS, who has suffered greatly and who has been very active in the campaign, to discuss the very issues that were the subject of the statement by the Secretary of State for Health. I will be in touch with the Secretary of State in writing to raise the points that I would like to have raised.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That was not a point of order, but it might be described as a point of courtesy, and the House is grateful for it.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a good deal of disquiet over the proceedings against six demonstrators. The case has been dropped because the police were very reluctant to give information about an undercover agent. It is not unknown, of course, for police officers to act as undercover agents, and in many cases it is perfectly justified, such as in terrorism cases that safeguard our country. It appears that the police constable in this case was not just an undercover agent; he has more or less admitted that he was acting as an agent provocateur—there is no other way to describe it. Is there any way in which the Home Secretary can be asked to make a statement on this case, which as I said is creating a good deal of disquiet?

[Mr Speaker]

It is up to a Minister in the Home Office or another relevant Department to decide whether to make a statement. On the face of it, this seems to be good material for a business question. The hon. Gentleman might want to raise the matter at the appropriate slot on Thursday. That is the best that I can offer him at the moment.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Business Secretary asked to make a statement on Royal Mail’s deployment of what it calls the “Way Forward” system of working? Its roll-out in my constituency has been shambolic for nearly two months, with many constituents receiving mail late or not at all. What powers do you have to compel the Secretary of State to take questions on that matter before the system is deployed elsewhere in the country?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think he well knows that I have no such powers, but it is decent of him to think that I might be granted them. I say to him that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his colleagues will, if memory serves me, answer oral questions on Thursday. I look forward with interest and enthusiasm to seeing him in his place on that occasion.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 20 December, the day before the House rose, the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement on the route of the high-speed rail network and said that the main interchange would be at the Old Oak Common depot in my constituency. He visited that depot before coming to the House. Although that is the largest ever civil engineering project in the area, he did not inform me of that visit. He did, however, inform the press, to which he made statements; the local Conservative party, which then publicised the visit; and the local authority. Given that that appears to have breached not only the custom of informing Members but those of not making statements before coming to the House and of not using announcements to party advantage, can you help me understand how it can be prevented from happening in future?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, and I appreciate the importance of the issue to his constituency and a great many others. Major announcements should be made first in the House. The exact mechanics by which Ministers inform all the interested parties are not necessarily a matter for the rules of the House, but I suggest that he draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee, which is considering ministerial statements.

More widely, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, I simply reiterate what I think most colleagues understand and try to apply, namely that there is a convention that a Member, including a Minister, visiting the constituency of another Member notifies the Member whose constituency is being visited in advance, and preferably in a timely way so that that Member has proper notice of it. I hope that that is helpful.

Armed Forces Bill

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

16:47

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

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

I take this opportunity to wish Members on both sides of the House a very happy new year.

Before we start today’s debate, the House will want to pay tribute to Corporal Steven Dunn from 216 (Parachute) Signal Squadron, attached to 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment Battlegroup; Warrant Officer Charles Wood from 23 Pioneer Regiment Royal Logistic Corps; and, from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, Private Joseva Vatubua, who all died following actions in Afghanistan. My thoughts and prayers, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with their families and friends at this very distressing time for them.

The Ministry of Defence usually brings forward an armed forces Bill once every five years, so this is a relatively rare parliamentary occasion for the Department. Many of us who have been involved with defence for some time remember the last Armed Forces Bill, now the Armed Forces Act 2006, which established a single system of service law for the first time. Hon. Members will remember that it was a very large Bill. I remember it well, as Second Reading was three days after my appointment as shadow Defence Secretary and I spent three frantic days coming to terms with its complexity. Feedback from the services following its implementation has confirmed that it was a good Bill and is proving a good Act in practice. I pay tribute to those on both sides of the House who worked on the Bill through its long and difficult process and helped to introduce the changes that have made it so successful.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this Bill is considerably smaller. In its own way, however, it too is an important piece of legislation. It continues a series of armed forces Bills that stretch back to the Bill of Rights of 1689, which enacted that the keeping of an Army in time of peace shall be against the law

“unless it be with consent of Parliament”.

So one of the Bill’s most important functions is providing the legal basis for the armed forces to continue to exist.

As the Ministry of Defence normally has a Bill only every five years, there is a tendency to aggregate proposals that require primary legislation until the next one comes along. Consequently, armed forces Bills sometimes cover a much wider range of topics than service discipline, which is traditionally the main subject. The Bill is an instance of that practice. It contains eight main groups of clauses.

The first group of clauses deals with renewal, and the second with the armed forces covenant. I will speak about those groups in a few moments. The third group covers the service police forces and the Ministry of Defence police. The fourth relates to powers of entry, search and seizure. The fifth provides for testing service personnel, in specified circumstances, for alcohol and drugs. The sixth relates to punishments and other court orders. The seventh makes a small number of changes to the Armed Forces Act 2006. The eighth makes amendments and repeals other primary legislation.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State knows that there are no provisions to deal with the closure or realignment of military facilities, which are currently considered by the Ministry of Defence, in secret, or to support communities after bases are closed. In contrast, the United States, through legislation, has a transparent process, which is managed by a commission. There is a vote on Capitol hill, and an agency that helps communities that are affected by closures and realignment. Why does the UK not emulate that? Will the Government consider including provisions to achieve that in the Bill?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Gentleman well knows that the Government are examining basing, and will report to Parliament in due course. I believe that it is not a matter for the Bill.

Clause 1 provides for renewal of the legislation, which would otherwise expire in November. It allows the legislation to be renewed each year through an Order in Council, which must be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. However, the clause also provides that renewal by Order in Council may be done for a maximum of only five years, after which the Act must once again be renewed by primary legislation. The effect is that the legislation governing the armed forces will expire no later than 2016, unless it is renewed before then by primary legislation. That rightly provides for parliamentary scrutiny. In effect, it is the mechanism whereby parliamentary control over our armed forces is exercised.

I wish to focus on four topics: the armed forces covenant; the independence of the service police forces; testing for drugs and alcohol, and the appointment of civilian prosecutors. I believe that they are likely to be the subjects of greatest interest to hon. Members during the Bill’s passage.

I should like to begin with the clause that refers to the armed forces covenant. Since coming to office, the coalition Government have confirmed their commitment to rebuilding the covenant, to do the right thing by the men and women who have joined our armed forces, today and in the past, together with their families.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his recent visit to 16th Air Assault Brigade in Helmand province and for his generous words there and on his return.

The Secretary of State will know that I put a question to the Prime Minister only a few weeks ago about whether it was fair for war widows to pay tax on their war widows’ pensions. Will that requirement be removed as part of the covenant?

[Dr Fox]

No, not as part of the Bill. However, while the Bill sets out the framework for the covenant, there are ample opportunities in Parliament to change any of the rules and regulations that relate to the armed forces in several ways, through the usual procedures available to the House.

As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken of the Government’s desire to enshrine the covenant in law. We have been considering the best way to do that. Our starting point is that the armed forces covenant is fundamentally a moral obligation on the Government, the nation and the armed forces. It is an agreement between the armed forces and the whole nation, not just the Government. It can never be defined by a host of rules and regulations, designed to tell everyone exactly what to do in every circumstance. Certainly, as I have just said to my hon. Friend, when rules need to be changed, we will do so. However, generally the people of this country know how service personnel should be treated, and our task is to create the right framework for that to happen.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that I entirely agree with him about the moral imperative behind the covenant. Some 9% of the armed forces personnel come from Wales, yet only 2% of the armed forces personnel are based in Wales, and that is one of the things that makes it more difficult to have continuity of care for those people once they have left the armed forces. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at basing more of the armed forces personnel in Wales so that that continuity can be maintained, and how will he ensure that the relationship with the Welsh Assembly Government, who have responsibility for health care, education and housing, is maintained?

[Dr Fox]

I will come on to the issue of the devolved bodies in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to get me on to the basing debate again. The primary duty of the Government is to ensure that the armed forces are laid out across the United Kingdom in the way that is most beneficial to the defence of the country. However, if the hon. Gentleman is looking for a champion of the cause of the armed forces being tied to the whole concept of the Union, he does not have to look much further. I believe that as we have units that represent the whole of the United Kingdom, we should look, where possible, to ensure that we have basing across the whole of the United Kingdom; but, as I say, the primary responsibility of the Government is to ensure that bases are allocated in a way that makes the greatest sense in terms of the wider defence of the country.

The armed forces covenant is of such importance that it needs to be brought properly to the attention of Parliament. We propose to do this not through long and complex legislation, but through the mechanism of an annual forces covenant report. The relevant clause in the Bill will require me to lay a report before the House every year on the effects that membership of the armed forces has on service people. I have no doubt that the House will wish to take notice of that annual report and undertake whatever scrutiny it considers appropriate.

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

During evidence-taking with the Howard League for Penal Reform, one ex-chief of the armed forces suggested it might be a good idea if there were a Minister within the Cabinet Office with cross-cutting responsibilities dealing with veterans, because the issues involved here are far broader than health, education and so forth. Will the Government consider that at some point?

[Dr Fox]

The Government are certainly considering better cross-departmental working on these issues. To be fair to the previous Government, they did begin some of this work to see how there could be better co-ordination across Whitehall. We have a number of pieces of work under way, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), looking at how we can better co-ordinate what is happening in health and social services, for example, with what the Ministry of Defence intends to do. The hon. Gentleman is proposing the same end as that which we seek, but the means by which we achieve it may be open to some debate between us.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Royal British Legion has written to some, if not all, Members about its concerns about the process he is putting in place. When we undertook the service personnel Command Paper, we were anxious not only to improve the relationship between the armed forces and different Government Departments, but to put in place a mechanism that made sure that that did not fall into disrepair and that the situation was independently updated. The RBL is worried that the mechanism the Secretary of State is proposing effectively takes over from that, and does away with the independent reporting mechanism brought in by the Command Paper for the reference group to report on an annual and a five-yearly basis on the need for improvements to what we might call the covenant. Will the Secretary of State respond to that, because it is of concern to the British Legion as well as to me?

[Dr Fox]

I believe the concerns set out in the letter from the British Legion that all Members will have received are unfounded. We intend to build on that independence in respect of the external reference group, and I will be happy to discuss exactly how that will feed into the new process with the British Legion throughout the passage of the legislation. We all want the same thing: we all want there to be proper scrutiny of what Government, across the whole of government, do in terms of our service personnel. I hope we can maintain that independent element, and we can discuss with the British Legion how that feeds into the report that will ultimately come to this House. I am very open-minded about how we do that, but I do want to maintain this element of independent reporting so that when the House receives the report from the Secretary of State it is able to access as much information as possible not just from the Government, but externally sourced as well. I think that any belief that seems to have come from the legion on that is misplaced. The Government intend to be as open as possible during the entire process, and will certainly be happy to discuss the matter during subsequent stages of the Bill, and to discuss with the bodies involved how we can best make this happen.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

While we are on the subject of cross-departmental responsibilities, will my right hon. Friend say a word, in particular, about mental health issues, about which I know he is concerned? I believe that I am right in saying that the average time for serious post-traumatic mental health issues to emerge is about 14 years after leaving the service, which inevitably means that Departments other than his own will have to be involved in care and welfare. Does he have any observations to make on that?

[Dr Fox]

I would like gently to correct my hon. Friend’s statistics: complex post-traumatic stress disorder can emerge up to 14 years afterwards; 14 is not the average figure, and in fact it is often much earlier than that. However, he is correct that there is a time spectrum involved here, which is why it is essential that we have in place mechanisms to deal not only with those who present acutely, but with those who present at a much later date. We shall be undertaking further work and research to ensure that the mechanisms we put in place to deal with that are fully informed by the objective evidence of the science of the day.

I reiterate what I have said in the House before: we are seeing a modest increase in the number of cases of PTSD. We have seen them related to conflicts as long ago as the Falklands; we have seen them from the Gulf war; and we are bound to see them from Iraq and Afghanistan, and if we are not able to deal with those issues and put in place the mechanisms for dealing with them adequately, we will let down not only those who have put themselves at risk for our country’s security, but the country itself. As I said before, I believe that still in this country mental health is too much of a Cinderella service in health care in general. We must not allow that to happen in the armed forces, especially for those who have been willing to sacrifice themselves for us.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being characteristically generous in doing so. He will be aware that the Bill places upon him a duty to lay a report before the House of Commons on health care, education and housing, and that he has a discretion to go beyond those topics—that is expressly provided for. In view of what he has just said about health care being a Cinderella subject, would it not be appropriate to put it in the Bill as a topic upon which he has a duty, like other duties, to report in express terms to the House?

[Dr Fox]

It is clear that the Government intend such a report to include health care, housing and education. However, my right hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised to hear that I would happily be tempted into other areas within the discretion that the Bill allows. That is an absolute minimum. The country would expect us to look at wider and interrelated issues, if we are to offer the degree of scrutiny that the House and the country would want on this subject.

Clause 2 provides for what the Secretary of State must cover in his report, and as my right hon. and learned Friend said, effects on health care, education and housing will normally be addressed in it. There are perennial issues that I believe will always be important to the service and ex-service community, and those are among the foremost. Other issues will emerge at the time, so the Bill provides for flexibility, and I will want to consider other issues as they emerge.

There is also the question about who is covered in the Bill. The Bill refers to a broad span of people. The total number of serving and former personnel and their families is about 10 million—one in six of the population of this country. For ex-service personnel, the Bill specifies an interest in those who are resident in the UK. Again, that does not prevent a Secretary of State from covering relevant issues for those who live abroad, although many aspects of their lives would be matters for their own Governments.

The Bill—rightly in the Government’s view—says little about how the annual report will be prepared, but as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), we intend to consult widely and to ensure that there is rigour and independence in the information that is ultimately put before the House through the Secretary of State’s report. My intention, as Defence Secretary, will therefore be to consult widely with interested parties, inside and outside Government, in preparing a report. Charities and devolved Administrations will have much to contribute, as too, no doubt, will Members of the House of Commons.

I also believe, however, that the report will evolve over time. We are breaking new ground, and we will learn from experience, listen to comments and move forward together in a positive way. I am clear that that is the right way to proceed, rather than making the legislation excessively prescriptive.

The Bill also contains a group of clauses that will further buttress the independence and effectiveness of service police investigations. I am delighted that shortly before Christmas the High Court gave a strong endorsement of the ability of the service police to investigate, under the Armed Forces Act 2006, the most serious allegations. Nevertheless, we want to be sure that the independence and effectiveness of service police investigations have all the safeguards we can reasonably provide.

The first clause in the group places on each of the three provost marshals—the heads of the service police forces—a duty to ensure that service police investigations are carried out free from improper interference. The second clause provides for the service police to be inspected by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. The inspectorate has previously inspected the service police on a voluntary basis, but the clause places an obligation on it to carry out inspections of the service police and lay its reports before Parliament. The third clause provides that the three provost marshals will in future be appointed to their positions by Her Majesty the Queen. Once again, that recognises and reinforces their independence from the service chains of command when carrying out investigations. In making these changes, we seek to ensure that the service police will continue to carry out to the highest standards their role as a part of the armed forces but one that is independent of the main chains of command, and I believe that the provisions in the Bill will do just that.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Given the harmonisation of military law across the three services, does the Secretary of State feel that perhaps the time has come to be bolder? Why do we still need three separate police forces within the armed forces? Why can we not have one military police force, given that all these forces now undertake training together?

[Dr Fox]

I know that this issue was examined by the previous Government, as it has been by this Government. The view that has been taken is that because there are differences between the three services this approach is culturally the best way to go about things. If my hon. Friend has very strong views on this, I am sure that he will be willing to bring them to the House, perhaps in the form of an amendment, during the passage of the Bill. That would give us a chance to debate the merits and demerits of this approach further. There are undoubtedly arguments on both sides and the Government have just decided that, out of due respect for the differences between the services, this was the best way for us to continue to proceed.

Other provisions in the Bill introduce a new regime under which service personnel commit an offence if they exceed an alcohol limit while carrying out certain duties. The limits and duties will be prescribed in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. The Bill also contains provisions allowing commanding officers the flexibility to test on a case-by-case basis in two circumstances. One is where they have reasonable cause to believe that a service person’s ability to carry out a prescribed duty is impaired due to drugs or alcohol. The other is where they have reasonable cause to believe that such a person is in breach of a limit on alcohol specified in regulations in relation to particular duties.

The main reason behind those changes is to increase safety and to act as a deterrent, and I wish to explain to the House why that is. When Parliament approved the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and regulations were made under it, the provisions were not extended to the services because they were considered to be too restrictive, given that so many service personnel are engaged in potentially dangerous activities in the course of their employment. That exemption had wide cross-party support at the time. Against that background, the then Government gave an undertaking that a bespoke scheme would be created for the armed forces. Policy development was too immature for proposals to be included in the last Armed Forces Bill and progress had since stalled due to a lack of a legislative vehicle, so I am pleased that such a scheme is included in this Bill. The provisions in this group are important, because they are aimed at creating a safer environment when service personnel are carrying out safety-critical tasks in the course of their employment, both generally and when on operations. Rather than limiting commanding officers to acting after an incident has taken place, as happens at present, the changes in the Bill will allow commanding officers also to act earlier in the future. One of the concerns that I expressed during the passage of the previous Bill was that it might reduce the freedom and discretion of commanding officers. A number of changes in this Bill go to redress that in some way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As a past commanding officer, I think that it is an extremely good thing that more power be given back to commanding officers, including discretionary power. I think particularly of warrant officers who offend. It has been mandatory to reduce such officers to the ranks, but if they have done 20 years in the armed forces, that will have a deep effect on their pensions, for example. Therefore, this is a good change to the Armed Forces Act 2006 and I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing it.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The change that he refers to will not only give discretion but provide a sense of proportion and justice in dealing with such issues. The idea of a draconian, one-size-fits-all punishment is not in line with the traditions of this country or the armed forces. This is a sensible change that will command support on both sides of the House.

At present, the Director of Service Prosecutions is allowed under the Armed Forces Act to delegate his functions only to legally qualified service officers. As a result, the prosecuting staff at the Service Prosecuting Authority are all service lawyers. Given the small number of service lawyers and the competing pressure on them, the Director of Service Prosecutions has asked for a provision to be added to the Bill to allow civilian lawyers to be appointed to posts in the Service Prosecuting Authority.

The burden of the cases referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions and the complexity of those cases may continue to increase. The service police continue to investigate allegations of serious criminal offences, including sexual offences, fraud and computer-based crime; and allegations arising out of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decisions taken to prosecute or not to prosecute, especially those cases where there is an operational context, are often finely balanced and involve difficult prosecution decisions.

The change is being made as a reasonable precaution to allow the Director of Service Prosecutions the flexibility to appoint civilian prosecutors. That will be done only if it becomes necessary in order to ensure that the Service Prosecuting Authority continues to have access to an adequate number of prosecutors with the necessary professional skills. All those involved greatly value the benefits of Service Prosecuting Authority lawyers being current serving officers. There is no intention to move to a completely civilian authority.

The Director of Service Prosecutions acts independently of my Department and comes under the general superintendence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It would be for him to decide if such a change were needed. There has been an exchange between my Department and the Attorney-General setting out the circumstances in which the provision would be brought into force. As part of that, it is clear that there would be consultation between our two Departments before any action were taken.

I believe that our Armed Forces are among the best, if not the best, in the world. One of the reasons that they are so good is that they conduct themselves with great discipline. It is something for which our armed forces have a deserved reputation throughout the world. The Bill helps to underpin that discipline. It will ensure that our armed forces continue to have a fair and modern system of service justice that underpins the operational effectiveness of which we are all in the House rightly proud. I commend the Bill to the House.

17:14

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the whole House a happy and healthy 2011.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the Bill. The Armed Forces Act 2006 was a watershed for the military disciplinary system and I am glad to have the opportunity to renew and improve it through this Bill. Before I do so, I want to do what the Secretary of State rightly did and make a comment or two about Afghanistan.

As we gather after the new year recess, during which we enjoyed the company of and time with our families and loved ones, it is a time for us to remember how fortunate we are for the peaceful lives that we and, for the most part, our constituents lead and to reflect on the sacrifices that others make on our behalf to enable us to enjoy the opportunities that we do. Upwards of 10,000 men and women serving in Afghanistan did not spend Christmas with their families but, rather, stood up against an enemy that wishes to destroy all that we hold dear. The whole House will rightly thank them and send them our deepest and best wishes.

Tragically, for some families that absence is now permanent. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have died in the service of our country over the Christmas and new year period: Private Joseva Vatubua of 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland; Warrant Officer Charles Wood of 23 Pioneer Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps; Corporal Steven Dunn from 216 (Parachute) Signal Squadron, attached to 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment Battlegroup; and Private John Howard from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. Their patriotism, courage and dedication are unsurpassed. They will always be remembered by their friends and family and should never be forgotten by this House.

On Afghanistan, I want to say to this House, our forces and, importantly, our enemies that the Government will always have the support of the Opposition when they do the right thing to support our service personnel. We will continue to conduct debates on Afghanistan, in particular, in a spirit of comradeship, for that is in the national interest above all party interest.

The Armed Forces Bill is important and I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the issues that arise from it. The 2006 Act consolidated and modernised all the previous service discipline Acts and replaced them with a single system of service law that amounted to a complete overhaul of legislation on military law and service discipline. The Bill is, as the Secretary of State said, an important continuation of that Act that makes some modest but sensible changes.

The Bill’s contents concern the welfare, well-being and management of our service personnel. The previous Government had a strong record in that area, not just because of the introduction of the 2006 Act but because we ensured that forces’ pay increases were among the highest in the public sector, invested in accommodation and rehabilitation facilities and increased access to the NHS for dependants. The previous Government also published the service personnel Command Paper in 2008—the first cross-Government strategy on the welfare of armed forces personnel. That doubled compensation payments for the most serious injuries, doubled the welfare grant for the families of those on operations, gave better access to housing schemes and health care, offered free access to further education for service leavers with six years’ service and ensured more telephone and internet access for those deployed in Afghanistan.

[Bob Russell]

I acknowledge that the previous Government did a tremendous amount for the armed forces, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even after 13 years of Labour Government there is still a long way to go to bring much of the married housing accommodation for our brave soldiers—and presumably for airmen and naval personnel, but I am talking about the Army—up to an acceptable living standard?

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and the tone in which he makes it is above partisanship or politics. There is a constant pressure on all Governments to ensure that the families of the remarkable men and women whom we often vote to put in harm’s way are properly looked after here at home. I would encourage him—perhaps gently—to reflect on whether the Government that he so strongly supports, on most occasions, are putting the nation’s money where his mouth is. He has raised an important point and I know that Ministers will consider it. Ministers will be judged on their record on that matter.

The Bill is part of a wider body of work that seeks to ensure that the men and women who give awe-inspiring service and provide security not just in the UK but for all those they protect abroad can do their job to the highest order with the recognition they rightly deserve. It is right that the service police should have the powers they need and I welcome the increased powers passed to them in the Bill. I welcome, in particular, the provision on access to excluded material, which is essential in allowing successful investigations. It is also correct that we have proper checks and balances on the work of the service police, so I welcome the additional powers for Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to inspect their work. The Bill includes provisions to strengthen the structural independence of the police and to introduce a provost marshal to ensure that investigations are free from improper interference, which is an important development. The Bill also makes important changes to the service justice system, in particular by ensuring that service police disciplinary systems are compatible with and complementary to the European convention on human rights.

The Bill will make the lives of service personnel and civilians safer through the introduction of service sexual offences prevention orders to protect members of the service community outside the United Kingdom. I also welcome moves to strengthen the independence and impartiality of service complaints procedures as well as moves to update regulations to protect prisoners of war detained by UK forces.

I have a number of questions relating to the Bill and to the Government’s record on the military covenant to date, and I look forward to hearing the Minister answer some of them in his winding-up speech. Before the election, the Opposition said that repairing the broken military covenant was long overdue. Surely I am not the only one who now believes that there is a dramatic mismatch between this Government’s pre-election words and their post-election actions; the difference between the rhetoric and the reality is striking.

In October last year, the Secretary of State said that he would rebuild the military covenant, so, with a spring in his step, he launched a taskforce, which reported in December to much fanfare. He committed to taking forward two recommendations: first, that there should be an armed forces community covenant, encouraging volunteers to support their local forces; and, secondly, that there should be a commendation scheme to thank individuals or bodies that support the forces. As measures that the Secretary of State has claimed will strengthen the bonds between this country and the armed forces, they are worthy in name but not sufficient in action. No one who is serious about the military covenant considers those proposals to be substantive.

Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, who is chairman of the Forces Pension Society, has described the taskforce’s proposals as:

“Incredibly wet and feeble. All flute music and arm waving”.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change from RPI to CPI for pensions uprating will cost many service personnel dearly over their lives?

[Mr Murphy]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these issues. He is right to mention that matter, which I will address in a moment or two. It is a heartless, savage cut against the families who rely on that support.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State is introducing a partisan note into this debate. As he has done so, however, does he agree that the introduction of plans for university scholarships for the children of armed services personnel who are killed in action is welcome, particularly in the light of certain changes to university charges on which he and I probably agree?

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman is usually very fair in these debates, and I think he will acknowledge that I have already welcomed six or seven of the measures in the Bill in my speech. There is nothing wrong with echoing the comments of Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, chairman of the Forces Pension Society, who has criticised the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to criticise Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his consensuality, which I, as a service pensioner, welcome. Will he not recognise in his remarks, which are becoming a little partisan, that this Government doubled the operational allowance within days of the general election? I assume that he welcomed that.

[Mr Murphy]

I think that the hon. Gentleman called me the Secretary of State; of course, I am the shadow Secretary of State, but I am sure that will be corrected by Hansard. There are measures that we welcome, some of which I have alluded to already; I shall discuss some of the others later and will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene at that point if he wishes.

The Conservative manifesto pledged to ensure that our armed forces, their families and our veterans are properly taken care of, but the taskforce was tasked with finding

“innovative, low-cost policy ideas.”

It is difficult for any Government to find the right support for our armed forces on the cheap, without necessary and adequate funding. They have not yet responded to the work of the taskforce.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the efforts and changes to maximise rest and recuperation for deployed personnel should be greatly welcomed? That issue has arisen in the past and the new Ministry has made great efforts to make improvements.

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and like him I look forward to looking in detail at the outcome of the Government’s review into tour lengths and tours of duty. We will both take a keen interest in that.

[Dr Fox]

The shadow Secretary of State asks why, seven months into government, we have not made more progress, but the previous Government left behind debt equivalent to £16,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. The interest on the deficit is greater than the defence budget for this year and the economic position is a strategic liability, so there is no point in the Opposition adopting a high moral tone—he was a member of the Cabinet who left us in this drastic economic position. He might consider his own culpability for our being in a position that makes it more difficult for us to achieve many of the things we want.

[Mr Murphy]

There we have it, Madam Deputy Speaker —the right hon. Gentleman advocates such a timid Bill because the cuts that he is determined to make in the Ministry of Defence will not allow him to achieve his ambition. I can do nothing more than quote again Sir Michael Moore, the chair of the Forces Pension Society, who said:

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the armed forces so quickly.”

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman’s thesis seems to be that we are not going far enough in repairing the damage to the military covenant. Does he remember the moment in 2007, shortly after Lord Guthrie resigned as Chief of the Defence Staff under his Ministry, when Lord Guthrie said in the House of Lords that he could not remember a Government ever having been so bad at keeping their side of the bargain and honouring the military covenant? The covenant was wrecked under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government and we are taking steps to put it right; surely he should acknowledge that.

[Mr Murphy]

We introduced the first cross-Government strategy on the welfare of the armed forces, we doubled compensation payments for the most seriously injured, we doubled the welfare grant for those in operation and we gave better access to housing schemes and health care. If the hon. Gentleman’s point is that Governments can and should always try to do more, of course that is the case, but it is difficult for him both to demand that Labour should have done more when in power and defend the level of his Government’s cuts. Those contradictory positions cannot be achieved in one intervention.

[Mr Ainsworth]

As we have descended into being a little partisan, let me ask whether my right hon. Friend remembers that as well as doubling the up-front payment for compensation, we introduced, through the auspices of Admiral Boyce, further improvements in the compensation scheme. One of the improvements that I was most concerned to secure was an increase above the rate of inflation for soldiers who were injured early in life, and therefore before their career had developed, to compensate them for the development that they would inevitably have made. However, the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index will take that money back from the very people who have benefited from the improvements that Admiral Boyce brought in on our behalf.

[Mr Murphy]

My right hon. Friend, a former Secretary of State for Defence, is rightly proud of the work that he did on the review, and of the way in which an effort was made to ensure that the families of those in the armed forces on the lowest pay had the in-built protection that if the worst happened to their loved one they would not be expected to live on very meagre support for decades. He should be eternally proud of the fact that such measures were introduced. I can only hope that as the Government take forward their proposals, those measures are protected, but there is strong doubt about that.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

If the armed forces were valued as much under the previous Administration, why, according to the continuous attitude survey, did only 32% of those serving in the armed forces feel sufficiently valued?

[Mr Murphy]

The fact is that, in previous years, in very difficult circumstances, the support available to our armed forces increased year on year—through pay, pensions and improvements in housing, health care and much else besides. If the hon. Gentleman’s challenge is that we did not do enough, of course there is always a challenge to do more, but it is difficult to demand that we should have done more to support the proposals that he is supporting today. He has to be a fiscal hawk or a fiscal dove on these issues; he cannot be both in the same intervention.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I hope that the shadow Secretary of State will not complain too much if I chide him a little for giving the impression that the morale of the armed forces has been dealt with in the way that Sir Michael Moore indicated. My regular contact with the armed forces is with RAF Leuchars, about which, as the shadow Secretary of State knows, there has been some unwelcome speculation. The professionalism and the intensity of the training that is performed there is unmatched. In the past week or so, the first Typhoon aircraft was scrambled from RAF Leuchars so that it could fulfil its responsibilities under the quick reaction alert. One has to be very careful about translating the remarks of someone who has an obvious, though quite legitimate, interest into general comment and criticism of the armed forces.

[Mr Murphy]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a typically fair point in his own careful way. He is right to say that the constant challenge for politicians of all parties is how we support our armed forces and maintain their morale. My contention is that the Government have missed opportunities, and in Committee we will table amendments seeking further improvements to a Bill that makes sensible but modest improvements to our armed forces.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the shadow Secretary of State make the following connection, as I do? Perhaps only 32% of those in the armed forces felt valued because only 35%, as I understand it, felt that they had the right equipment in the field. Is it not important to ensure that our armed forces have appropriate equipment in the field?

[Mr Murphy]

There were record levels of investment and support provided, with regard to the kit and equipment of our armed forces in the field and in theatre. I say again that it is a constant challenge to get that equipment to them as quickly as we can, on cost and on budget. However, there is a wider issue that, if he was being fair, the hon. Gentleman would also have sought to address: the wider disconnect between the public and the military. Our nation is remarkably generous, particularly around Remembrance Sunday—in the weeks before it, and for some time after. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not take this as a partisan point, because it is not intended as such. We all have to reflect, as individuals, law makers and citizens, on how we ensure that that act of remembrance is not a Remembrance Sunday event, but an all-year-round event.

There is a wider issue about the level of connection and affiliation between our armed forces and our citizens at large. We are all in awe of our armed forces; if one asks any man or woman, or any young teenager in the street, one realises that they are in awe of the action that our armed forces take, but we can learn lessons from other nations, particularly now that our armed forces, after the horrors of the greater violence in Northern Ireland, are able more regularly to wear their uniform in public. That is one important change that will increase awareness of our armed forces. There is an issue about the armed forces’ morale, but there is also a wider issue about public sentiment that we have to address.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the importance of remembrance. He is also right to identify the promises made by the then Conservative Opposition about veterans and their welfare. They said in their manifesto that they would sort out, in particular, the Christmas island veterans, who have been waiting for years and are still waiting for compensation.

[Mr Murphy]

As my hon. Friend knows, the previous Government offered a compensation deal. That was not resolved. The Government will rightly come forward with their own proposals. He and I will eagerly scrutinise the specifics of the proposals that the Government eventually produce.

I return to an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the former Secretary of State, which is the subject of clause 2 —the annual publication of the armed forces covenant report. Although I strongly welcome the continuation of the previous Government’s plans to provide an annual report scrutinising the Government’s progress on implementing commitments to strengthen the covenant, it is troubling that responsibility for doing so has been moved from independent experts and into the political control of Ministers.

It is welcome that we will have a debate in the House on the military covenant, but that should not be at the expense of proper independent scrutiny. One of the innovations of 2008 was the impartial oversight of Government progress in strengthening the military covenant. The external reference group, comprising charities and civil servant experts, was established as an independent monitor of the Government’s implementation of the service Command Paper. This was vital in ensuring public confidence in our commitment to issues that transcend party politics.

It is peculiar and puzzling that the Government, who are committed to cuts in defence spending, now seem to have embarked on cuts in accountability in defence. [Interruption.] It is essential that the reports are independent, expert-led and above party politics. The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position. As he knows, the Royal British Legion has already raised concerns about the issue—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, with a cavalier swish of the hand, that he has already dealt with it. He has already spoken about it, but that is different from having dealt with it. The Royal British Legion should not be dismissed in such a cavalier way.

Ministers will have to work very hard to persuade anyone other than themselves that they are better placed than charities and experts, often comprising ex-service personnel and their families, to produce that report.

[Mr Gray]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a very beneficial improvement that rather than merely independent organisations scrutinising such reports, the Secretary of State will annually place a report before the House for its scrutiny? That is an increase in ministerial accountability and in the power of Parliament. Surely he should welcome that.

[Mr Murphy]

I have already welcomed the report and the fact that there will be an annual debate, but I do not welcome the fact that the production of the report will be in the hands of Ministers, rather than independent experts. It is an issue about which the Royal British Legion feels strongly.

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. Can he define “independent”? I have attended a meeting of the external reference group and found it to be anything but. It is certainly made up, in part, of independent individuals, but also largely of officials, who can in no way be said to be independent of the Government.

[Mr Murphy]

I do not think Madam Deputy Speaker would welcome an attempt by me to provide the House with a definition of independence, but the fact that the three armed forces families federations are on the expert group gives it authority, independence, clarity and sincerity that, with the best will in the world, the most capable and sincere Minister cannot of himself provide. It is important that that work is continued.

My most serious concerns are about the proposals on armed forces pensions. The Government plan to link forces pension rises permanently to the consumer prices index, rather than to the retail prices index. That is a serious misjudgment and an indictment of the Government’s claim to want to strengthen the military covenant. We are in no doubt that in the current climate there is a need for restraint in public sector pay and pensions, but that year-on-year change will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces and their dependants, who rely on their pensions at earlier ages than almost anyone else.

The impact of the proposed changes will be devastating. A 27-year-old corporal who has lost both his legs in a bomb blast in Afghanistan will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payments. War widows will also lose out enormously. The 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would, over her lifetime, be almost £750,000 worse off.

There can be only two possible justifications for that policy. First, Ministers think it right to reduce year on year the support to forces personnel and their dependants, and support the policy presumably because they consider the current support to be unfairly generous. The Secretary of State did not support the policy on that basis today, nor I suspect will any Government Back Bencher.

The second possible reason for this heartless policy is deficit reduction, but that argument does not add up either. The impact of the measures will be felt long after the deficit has been paid down and the economy has returned to growth. I ask Ministers today to commit to rethink the policy or, in the absence of a full rethink, and if they believe that it is part of their deficit reduction plan, to consider a time-limited measure during the period of deficit reduction and spending restraint. That would be a fairer approach. There is no logical reason why the bravest British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan should see their pensions reduced for the rest of their lives, or why war widows, who have had the person most special to them taken away, deserve to have taken away from them the support on which they so depend.

When challenged on the issue in November, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said:

“It is not possible to treat the armed forces differently from other public servants.”

[Bob Russell]

The shadow Secretary of State heard me put my question to the Secretary of State. Was the shadow Secretary of State aware that war widows paid income tax on their war widows’ pension?

[Mr Murphy]

I was aware of that, and the hon. Gentleman will continue to make his case on it to the Government, but, with respect, although my point today is about the same issue, it is a slightly different one. Those who say, as the MOD spokesman said in November, that it is not possible to treat armed forces personnel differently from other public servants show a woeful and deeply worrying lack of understanding and respect for the unique nature of military service.

Service personnel, as many of us know, can be required to work unlimited hours in excessively dangerous conditions with no prospect of overtime or a bonus; they can be imprisoned for failing to show up; living conditions can, understandably, be very tough; they are often separated from family and loved ones for many months at a time; they can be compelled to return even after they have retired; they forgo several political freedoms and contractual rights that others rightly enjoy; and, as we know, they are at risk of being killed or horribly maimed as a direct result and an unavoidable consequence of their service. Often their pension is the only serious, tangible financial compensation available to them, and no Government should ever claim that it is not possible to distinguish in favour of our armed forces.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I am a little confused. Was the shadow Secretary of State not a member of the Government who went to court to fight to reduce compensation payments to wounded British soldiers returning from Afghanistan? His litany of righteous indignation does not sit well with that, so will he take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the previous Government for that disgraceful action?

[Mr Murphy]

I cannot help the fact that the hon. Gentleman is confused; that is for him to resolve. The point is that, as part of the Boyce review, we are committed to increasing some of those payments. He calls it righteous indignation, and I do not know whether that is his attempt to justify the policy that his Government are implementing, but I do not think that it is righteous indignation to say that, if someone at this very moment serving in Afghanistan finds themselves in harm’s way, their wife, at home with their children, should reasonably expect decent support.

[Alun Cairns]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Murphy]

Of course, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your understanding, I recognise that time is against us. I have taken numerous interventions and others wish to speak, but I wonder whether I can entice the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes, to support the Government’s proposal for that change to pensions.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I certainly support the actions of the Government in doubling the operational allowance. If the right hon. Gentleman thought so highly of the forces when he was a member of the previous Administration, why was the operational allowance pitched at such a low level?

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman has got to his feet again and failed again. All I am asking today is that the Government listen to the arguments being made by the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and the families’ federations, and think again about the policy. I acknowledge that I was partisan about the other issue of scrutiny—[Interruption.] I am really making an appeal to justice and the better spirit of Government Members. They should reflect again on this issue.

[Mr Ainsworth]

Have I correctly understood the figures that my right hon. Friend has just cited? Given what he has just said, I now believe that the changes that are about to be introduced to the way in which the pension is calculated will not only remove all the improvements made by the Boyce review but go further and lead to levels of compensation for young injured soldiers that are lower than they were before the Boyce review. That is the very thing that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) complained about in terms of the actions taken by the previous Government to keep the compensation scheme balanced. Is that right?

[Mr Murphy]

My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence has paid close attention to these matters. He has looked at these issues with great care. Given the analysis available, there is a strong case for the conclusion that the changes take us back to pre-Boyce levels.

[Dr Fox]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Murphy]

The Secretary of State shakes his head. I invite him to correct the record if he wishes. [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he has plenty of time to do so. I give him the time today. [Interruption.] He says, “Get on with it.” Even the Secretary of State will not rise to his feet to support his own policy.

The military covenant goes to the heart of the relationship between the military, society and the Government, as the Secretary of State rightly said. It should and will never be the exclusive property of one political party. However, no Government can cut the support to Afghan war widows and claim to be honouring the military covenant. The truth is that this is a Government of convenience, who, in taking money from Afghan war widows, have lost the courage of their conscience.

The Government’s actions are particularly hard to comprehend when one considers that in July 2009 the previous Government published a Green Paper entitled “The Nation’s Commitment to the Armed Forces Community”, in which some truly innovative proposals were made. I invite the Secretary of State to look again at that Green Paper to see which aspects of it can be included in this Bill. I am surprised that the Government have not sought to take forward those ideas, which would not just give real help to the forces community but continue to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to serving the interests of those who put their lives on the line. I urge the Government to look again at the proposals.

This debate is also an opportunity for the Government to confirm that they will look again at another of their recent proposals, which in my view is one of their most regrettable decisions—the decision to scrap the chief coroner’s office. That office would give families who have lost those closest to them, often in tragic, painful and extremely complex circumstances, the right to the best possible investigations and military inquests into the deaths. Last month’s decision by the Lords, by a significant majority, to save the chief coroner’s office gives the Government the opportunity to think again. They should listen not only to the House of Lords but to the Royal British Legion, and retain the chief coroner’s office.

Today’s debate is an opportunity to further the passage of a Bill that in general we support. It will make sensible and important changes to procedures that will ensure that our armed forces can perform to the highest standards and are effectively regulated. But it is also more than that. It is an opportunity for the Government to think again—not about Afghanistan, where they should and rightly will remain resolute, but about cuts to the independent scrutiny of the Government’s progress on the covenant, about matching their pre-election pledges to their post-election actions and about the introduction of permanent reductions in the support of those who serve our nation and their families. If they do think again, there will be a very warm welcome not only in this House but, much more importantly, in the houses of service families across our nation.

17:50

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It is an honour and a privilege to contribute to the debate. I begin by declaring my interest as a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces and as a serving commissioned officer in the Territorial Army.

It is fascinating to consider the history of why we are discussing this matter today as it dates back to the 1688 Bill of Rights, under which it is effectively against the law to have a standing army without the consent of Parliament. Given that history, it is a particular honour to speak on the matter today. However, it is also an honour to do so as a member of the armed forces affected by this Bill. However, because it sits uncomfortably with some that members of the regular armed forces are not allowed to sit as Members of Parliament while members of the reserved forces are, it is not an honour I intend to abuse today.

My experience has shown that members of the armed forces are very interested in politics, but they are not interested in party politics. When I wear a uniform, I always pride myself on being strictly apolitical and I intend to continue that today. Perhaps the test of my speech will be that, when read, it will seem as though it could have been spoken by a Government or Opposition Member.

I welcome the Bill because, as the Secretary of State said, it is in many ways a tribute to the previous Government for the manner in which they put the Armed Forces Act 2006 through Parliament. The fact that the Bill is mainly a tidying-up measure is testament to that, although clause 2 on the military covenant—I will come to that later—is very important. I therefore give credit to the previous Government.

There are, however, a few anomalies even though the 2006 Act attempted to tidy them up. In particular, there is the matter of military law being applied across the three services. I said that I am a Member of Parliament who is also a serving member of the armed forces and, to my knowledge, three other hon. Members also serve in the reserve forces. It may be of interest to the House that, as I stand here today, I am subject to military law as a commissioned officer in the Territorial Army. However, one of our colleagues, who merely through rank is not a commissioned officer, is not subject to military law as a serving Member of Parliament. That is an anomaly. All four of us have been mobilised and have been on operational service, and we all become subject to military law when that happens. It might seem a minor point but whether someone is subject to military law when they go to and from training in the Territorial Army is relevant.

I shall give another simple example of an anomaly before I get into the detail of the Bill. Over recent weeks, there have been calls in the House that, as part of the military covenant, we should have some form of medal to allow members of the armed forces to show that they are in the armed forces. The Veterans Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) has said that that should be subject to review. I do not think it should be subject to review; I simply do not think it should happen. If hon. Members want to argue that point, I am happy to debate the matter. My case is fairly typical in that have completed three operational tours and have been awarded three medals over 23 years. In addition, I have a Queen’s golden jubilee medal, which was effectively given to me for being a member of the armed forces, and a long-service and good conduct medal—or the Territorial decoration as it was called then.

My point is that such medals are awarded simply for serving in the armed forces and I am not convinced that giving people more medals simply for being a part of the armed forces is necessarily a good thing. However, it is an anomaly that, in the Territorial Army, both officers and soldiers can get what is now the volunteer reserves service medal while, in the regular Army, only soldiers are allowed to get a long-service and good conduct medal. It seems that officers do not receive that medal simply because their good conduct is taken for granted. That is another anomaly in which the House might be interested.

[Chris Bryant]

I pay tribute to the non-partisan way in which the hon. Gentleman is advancing his arguments. I have no medals—the closest I ever got was a Blue Peter badge. He is referring to the anomalies. An anomalous situation for many armed forces families is because those who are killed in action all come into the UK through one of two different airfields, there have often been very long waits for a proper post-mortem. That was one of the problems we tried to rectify through the creation of the post of chief coroner. Previously, families had to wait a very long time before they could have closure in relation to the death of their loved one. Does he agree that the Government are wrong to be abolishing that post and that it would be better for armed forces families if we were to keep it?

[Mark Lancaster]

I would have to consider that matter in detail. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps he should volunteer to sit on the Committee—I certainly will do so—and we can then explore the issue in greater detail. That is probably a sensible way forward, and it will be interesting to see whether he volunteers to do that.

Clause 2 deals with the military covenant and that matter has already been mentioned in the debate. The Royal British Legion—I am proud to be vice-president of the Olney branch—has raised concerns, and the Secretary of State has promised to consider them and, indeed, deal with them. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the role of the external reference group to continue in some form or another. That is something else I expect we can explore in Committee.

We have talked mainly about the three principal areas of health care, education and housing. In the previous Parliament, I was proud to serve on the Select Committee on Defence under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), when we looked at the issue of the education of service families. I am delighted that the Government have introduced some of our recommendations and we should continue to consider that matter. I am pleased that an annual report will be presented to Parliament. [Interruption.] When I referred to the Government, the former Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), said from a sedentary position that it was the previous Government. I am actually being apolitical and mean the government of the land.

There has been some concern that perhaps the Government’s commitment to the military covenant does not go far enough and that the relationship between the armed forces and the Government should be enshrined in black and white. My personal feeling is that it is not important what is in black and white for the lawyers to argue over; what is important is how the covenant has been interpreted by successive Governments. I shall give one example. After the introduction of joint personnel administration—the new payment computer system in the Army—there has been a problem with some junior ranks in the British Army being effectively overpaid for a number of months. That has amounted to a sizeable sum for some individuals. I do not think any fair-minded person would suggest that that money should not be paid back; it is an overpayment and we would all expect to pay it back. However, the true test of the covenant is how the money is paid back. It should not have to be paid back in a single lump sum in one pay cheque; those concerned should be allowed to pay the money back over time. That is just one example of how the application of the covenant, and not what appears in black and white, is important.

To be honest, soldiers are quite cynical about government. They feel that any covenant would always be interpreted in the Government’s favour. I hope that the Opposition will take that point in the spirit it is intended because it is simply an objective statement of fact.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that what is being put forward today is rather disappointing, especially in the light of the Green Paper that I produced in 2009, which set out not only what we had done in terms of the Command Paper, but how we could make what it referred to legally enforceable? Does he share my disappointment that the work and the response to that have not been brought forward in the Bill, so that the things put in place in the armed forces Command Paper would be legally enforceable?

[Mark Lancaster]

I do not, because the real test will be in the implementation. I have confidence that the Government will implement and uphold their end of the bargain, so I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and only time will tell. Perhaps we can consider the matter again in one of our annual debates on the military covenant.

I was going to give one example of where soldiers are perhaps right to be slightly cynical. I fully supported the previous Government’s introduction of the operational allowance in October 2006. That was a good move, and it introduced a tax-free allowance of £2,240. However, it is worth remembering—I wish to make it clear that I think that this was more by cock-up than conspiracy—that at the same time the Government also cut the long-service separation allowance, meaning that a soldier on a six-month tour in Afghanistan lost £2,341. The Government gave with one hand and took away with the other, within the space of a month. When such moves happen, one can see why any soldier is entitled to be cynical of any Government. It is therefore very important that we see, over time, how the military covenant is improved.

As I said from the Opposition Benches shortly after I got back from my operational tour in Afghanistan, there has been a major improvement in personal kit over the past few years. I felt that when I was mobilised in 2006, the standard of personal kit that I was given then was far better than the kit I was given when I was mobilised in 1999 or 2001—so, once again, credit to the previous Government for that improvement, which I should like to continue under this Government in future years.

My other general point about the military covenant concerns rest and recuperation. I had personal experience of the problems of R and R on coming back from Afghanistan in 2006. Although I do not want to go into the details of the matter again—it was the subject of debate in this House for some time—I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the problems with the air bridge have been addressed. Clearly, we will always have trouble when we have to rely on airframes that are very old, but I have heard reports that unfortunately the problems experienced in 2006 are beginning to happen again. There have been calls for us to guarantee the two-week R and R period for soldiers in the middle of an operational tour. I do not support that for simple operational reasons. If a soldier were to lose a day at the beginning of his leave, a guarantee that he could come back from it a day later would make the whole manning plot for the commanding officer in theatre almost impossible. However, I would support a guarantee that if any R and R days are lost during an operational tour, they should be added to the post-tour leave. That is perfectly reasonable.

I was slightly disappointed that neither Front Bencher chose to mention the reserve forces. That is an oversight that I should like to correct, especially given that some 15% of soldiers mobilised on operations are from the reserve forces. Members of the reserve forces face some very specific problems when they are mobilised. Any mobilisation process starts at the reserves training and mobilisation centre in Chilwell. If I am lucky enough to be selected to serve on the Bill Committee, I would like to suggest that we visit that facility, which plays a very valuable role. Having been through it on three occasions, I must say that the standard of service that it provides in preparing reservists for mobilisation has improved significantly over recent years.

However, there can be major problems when a reservist returns home. Because, in general, they are mobilised as individual replacements, they lack the support that a regular soldier, sailor or airman has in coming back with a formed unit. I can give an example of a very unfortunate case from my own unit when a colour sergeant came back from mobilised service in Afghanistan. Because we are a specialist unit that does not meet for drill nights, there is no regular contact every Tuesday night where we can monitor colleagues who have recently returned, and we did not see much of him until one weekend when he was clearly not well. The effects of service in Afghanistan had clearly had a significant impact on him. I regret to say that that ended up with an incident in which he attempted to shoot a colleague with a weapon that he had brought back from Afghanistan, and he is now in prison. It was an awful incident. One wonders whether the same thing would have happened had that individual been serving with a regular unit and received the same levels of support that a regular soldier would have had.

[Dan Byles]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s concern about soldiers who come back not as part of formed units. Does he agree that that points to a wider issue with the military covenant, whereby it is not simply a covenant between the Government and our armed forces but between the nation and our armed forces? Although there is talk of putting the Government’s side of this bargain into law, the issue is also about an attitude in our nation as a whole. For example, many of our public sector bodies have policies whereby members of staff can have up to 14 days off work to be a school governor or to undertake trade union activity, yet many of those organisations, particularly NHS trusts, do not give similar time off to members of the reserve forces.

[Mark Lancaster]

That is a very valuable point. I was fortunate in that before I entered this House I worked for a family fireworks company, so I had no problem getting time off—certainly for six months of the year, anyway. My experience is that many employers are very good about allowing members of the reserve forces extra time off. However, the issue is certainly something that we should consider, perhaps when we debate this matter annually.

Hon. Members have already referred to welfare for the families of regular forces—that is very important, and we should and must do more—but the families of reservists have particular problems because they tend not to live on a specific base. For any one specialist TA unit, those families can be spread across the land. We must do more to try to ensure that they have access to the same kinds of facilities as families of regular servicemen so that they get the support that they, too, vitally need.

I want to deal with one more matter—the military police, as covered in clauses 3 to 6. People say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I have to confess that for a period of 18 months I was the second-in-command of 253 Provost Company Royal Military Police (Volunteers), based in Balham, south London. Given what I am about to say, I am not sure that the RMP’s Provost Marshal will be very pleased that I had that experience. As I suggested to the Secretary of State earlier, the time has perhaps come when we should be thinking the unthinkable, and I encourage him to have a single police service for the armed forces. The three military police services already train together as a single organisation, going through one training school. The whole point of the 2006 Act was to harmonise much of military law. I see distinct advantages to this at a time when we are attempting to try to find savings within the Ministry of Defence, as having a single police service would save the costs involved in two Provost Marshal posts and all their connected staffs. The remaining Provost Marshal would then answer to the Chief of the Defence Staff instead of to the individual service chiefs, and he could be appointed by competition rather than by simple rotation.

In reality, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy have had little exposure to complex investigations into operational deaths because of the nature of operational service, which tends to be Army-based. Combining the special investigation branches would not only make savings on manpower, which is vital in terms of meeting the harmony guidelines of the Royal Military Police, who are particularly affected and overstretched, but encourage the maintenance of high standards through mutual understanding and experience. Currently, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary inspects the Royal Military Police but does not inspect the other two branches of the armed forces, and that situation might be improved by bringing the three branches together. I was invited by the Secretary of State to table amendments in Committee if I am selected to sit on it and. I think that we should explore this angle. It will be interesting to see what the cultural differences to which the Secretary of State referred are in reality.

I am delighted to support the Bill this evening and will vote for it if there is a Division. I look forward to the Committee stage.

18:10

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

It is a pleasure to follow such an informed speech from a person who is well qualified to deliver the points that he made. I am not from a military background, but am a great respecter of the military services, as we all are. I am a long-standing member of the Royal British Legion, but I do not know what that makes me.

[Chris Bryant]

Old.

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, quite right. We all welcome the good work of the Royal British Legion.

The Bill is important for many reasons. I am pleased that the need to bolster the military covenant is recognised. For some years, I have campaigned for widespread recognition of the welfare needs of veterans of the armed forces. The Bill makes integral amendments to the way in which our armed forces function, especially in disciplinary matters. I will focus on veterans’ welfare, which is principally the concern of clause 2, and outline some suggestions on how that clause can be improved. If I have time, I shall speak briefly about clauses 9 to 11, which concentrate on preliminary testing for alcohol and drugs in the forces.

The Bill marks a significant breakthrough in the championing of veterans’ rights. For several years, I have worked to raise awareness in this place and beyond of the ordeal suffered by many vulnerable members of the armed forces after they are discharged. I published a paper in January 2010 that recommended increasing the support available to veterans of the armed forces. I currently have the privilege of sitting on an inquiry panel commissioned by the Howard League for Penal Reform, which aims to uncover why a high percentage of veterans enter the penal system. The inquiry is chaired by Sir John Nutting QC, and will make recommendations to Government later this year on how to prevent further offending and to make improvements. I chair a parliamentary group that comprises representatives of the justice trade unions, relevant third sector organisations, parliamentarians and concerned individuals, which looks into the problem of veterans in prison. That group will publish a list of recommendations on tackling this mounting problem in the first quarter of this year. I will give voice to a number of its recommendations this evening.

The reasons why veterans are over-represented in the criminal justice system are complex, but the root cause is often the social estrangement that is experienced by susceptible veterans when they lose the ready-made support network of their Army colleagues. Clause 2 unlocks the opportunity to discuss how we can improve the way in which public services are administered to veterans. As I shall argue, improving and streamlining the way in which such services are offered to veterans could drastically reduce the number who fall into difficulties later in life.

As is clear, work is being done to promote this issue. The fact that we are discussing a Bill on the Floor of the House that touches on this concern confirms the traction that it has gained over the past 12 or 18 months. I was gladdened to see that the matter had gripped the political mindset enough to become a major manifesto issue for all parties at the last general election. Although forces charities such as Help for Heroes have generated massive public support, the ordeal faced by some veterans was not widely acknowledged until relatively recently. That ordeal deserves our attention.

It is perhaps easy for us to disregard how difficult the transition must be from life in a combat zone to civvy street. Although the training received by personnel during military service allows the majority to readjust to life after discharge, a growing but unspecified number drop out of the welfare system altogether, and become homeless, disfranchised from mainstream services and socially isolated. Education, further training and employment are difficult to access, and such opportunities are not automatically advertised to personnel on leaving the forces.

Veterans are over-represented in NHS emergency waiting rooms and in road traffic accidents. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that veterans who have returned recently from a theatre of conflict are 50% more likely to be killed in a road traffic accident than ordinary members of the public. That point bolsters the need for a careful examination of this matter.

As a result of what can be an acute social rupture, an alarming number of such young men and women fall foul of the criminal justice system. That is often prompted by substance misuse and mental health problems. I was first alerted to this problem when I appeared as a barrister in the Crown courts of north Wales, Cheshire and beyond. In the space of about a fortnight, I saw a huge number of young people newly returned from Afghanistan who had committed very serious offences, for which there was no reasonable explanation. That made me think that something was wrong in the system, because those people were as rational as any of us, but my God, the things that they had been through recently would have rocked any of us.

On 5 March 2008, I tabled a written question to the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, asking what percentage of the inmates in prison in England and Wales had served in either of the Gulf conflicts. I was informed that such information was “not collected centrally”. I have since found out that at no point is it compulsory to ask someone who is accused of a crime whether they have a service history. That practice must surely be rectified, and some police forces are collecting that information.

[Bob Russell]

With the hon. Gentleman’s legal experience, is he really asking that one question be added when somebody is charged and the charge form is filled out?

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, I am. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about this matter. Kent police, Cheshire police, North Wales police and several other police forces have started to do that over the past 12 months, simply to scope the size of the problem and, hopefully, to come up with reasonable answers.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that no prejudice should be drawn to the person who is accused because of that information and that it should be used purely for analytical reasons? It should not be used later in a judgment and nobody should be punished more because of their service background.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely with those comments, because we are all equal before the law. However, if taking that information helps to address what is a massive problem, it should be done. The probation service in Cheshire and north Wales is also doing that, and that is being led by ex-service people. No prejudice is intended at any stage.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important topic, and one that should not be taken lightly. I wonder whether he has read the analysis in the Defence Analytical Services and Advice report of the number of former service personnel who are in prison. It suggests not that they are over-represented, but the contrary.

[Mr Llwyd]

The Minister knows that there has been an argument about that because we do not know what the figures are.

[Mr Robathan]

Yes, we do.

[Mr Llwyd]

What is the current figure?

[Mr Robathan]

DASA’s initial finding was that the figure was about 3%, but after it analysed everybody in prison who had said that they were formerly in the armed forces, it came up with a figure of approximately 3.5% of the prison population who were ex-services. In contrast, more than 7% of the general population have been in the services.

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, but if I remember rightly, the methodology of that particular report was somewhat questionable. [Interruption.] May I finish my point? The reservists were not included, nor were people under 18 or women who had served in the Army. I believe that one other category of people was excluded—there were four such categories.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

In support of the Minister, I wish to say that as the Minister who commissioned that research, I know that it was the most comprehensive ever done on the matter. It cross-referenced all the service records in all three services, in some cases going back to the late 1960s, with the records of the Ministry of Justice. Trying to rubbish it by making points about reservists, for example, is not helpful. It was a thorough piece of work, and I stand by what the Minister said about it.

[Mr Llwyd]

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and he knows that I have been discussing the matter with him for a long while. I am not rubbishing the report. All I am saying is that four distinct categories of service people were exempted from its scope. The first thing that the people conducting the report did was to ring Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers and ask him about his methodology. They were very much working in the dark.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Llwyd]

I will give way to both hon. Members, but I am trying to construct an argument and do not want to make political points about the figures involved. I hope we can all agree that we have a huge problem. I give way first to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

[Mr Jones]

I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is not helpful to rubbish the most thorough report on the facts of the matter. I have met Mr Fletcher on a number of occasions and know that he is a great self-publicist. He came up with the figure of 10% of the prison population being ex-armed forces, or at one time even 15%, on no evidence at all. That was not very helpful as part of the debate into which the hon. Gentleman has rightly put a lot of hard work.

[Mr Llwyd]

The way in which Mr Fletcher went about the matter was to e-mail every member of the probation service who was connected with prisons and ask them how many people on their books had been in the services. That was how he came up with his figures, but even within the latest Government figures of 3.5% or 4%, we see that in Dartmoor, for example, the figure was 17.5% in 2007.

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister and the shadow Minister are right, but then so is the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). He is probably about to cite the figures for violent and sexual offenders, which show that there appears to be a greater likelihood that people with a service background will fall into that category. However, we would expect people with a service background to be less represented than others in the prison population, would we not? They are selected because they do not have a criminal record when they join up, and they are members of a disciplined service. That needs to be borne in mind when considering the figures.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree, and perhaps I should move away from the figures, because I cannot profess to know them precisely any more than anybody else can. All I am trying to say is that the problem is serious. The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that we would expect people who have been in the armed services to be more disciplined, and in most cases they are. However, there are worrying examples of people who, for almost inexplicable reasons, commit violent offences.

I know of two cases intimately. The first is that of a person in a fish and chip queue in north Wales who felt that somebody behind him was invading his space. He reacted violently, because he had been trained to look after himself. Unfortunately, by the time he had finished the skirmish two or three minutes later, there was a person on the floor very badly injured and he went away for four years for grievous bodily harm.

The second case is that of a young lad from my constituency who returned home from Helmand on a Wednesday and borrowed his father’s car to go out on the Friday night. He drank far too much and had an accident, killing two passengers. It could be argued that he had been to hell and back in Helmand and felt that he could do such things with impunity. I am not running that young man down, and I am sad to see him where he is, but that is another example of which I am aware.

[Chris Bryant]

I am getting slightly nervous about the hon. Gentleman’s argument, because—

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, you would, wouldn’t you?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is chuntering away, but if he waits until I have made my point, he can respond afterwards.

My concern is that just because there is a correlation between two sets of statistics, that does not necessarily mean that there is a causation. In other words, just because there may be a higher or lower proportion of former members of the armed forces in prison, that does not necessarily mean that it was because they were in the armed forces that they went to prison.

[Mr Llwyd]

That may very well be, and we must also remember that the vast majority of those who are in prison come not from the Navy or the Air Force but from the Army, the infantry. There are socio-economic factors to be borne in mind and the equation is not simple, so the hon. Gentleman is right in that regard.

I should like to leave aside the scale of the problem and consider what we can do to assist those who return. First, we must do everything we can to prevent veterans from falling into various problems after discharge. Secondly, I want measures to be taken to ensure that help and advice are available to everybody in the services who encounters problems, whether they be about substance misuse, mental health, housing, employment, money management, violent behaviour or anything else. We spend a lot of time training our young men and women up to the highest level before they go into harm’s way. As I see it, we need to spend much more time and money on debriefing them and bringing them back into the less compressed atmosphere of civvy street. As we know, civvy street can be a hazardous environment for vulnerable returnees without assistance.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining that point about training. Does he accept that just as our armed forces are trained to the highest degree to do what they need to do in a military capacity, wherever possible training needs to be provided so that their skills are transferable? That will make them fully valued members of society in a professional capacity and as individuals.

[Mr Llwyd]

Absolutely right, and that is part and parcel of bringing people back into the civilian mainstream. There is no doubt that such training is useful, and we know that it often works.

Clause 2 provides a commitment for a report to be placed before Parliament each year, which will deal with health care, education and housing. That is a welcome step, because the regulation of those services is a prerequisite for improving them. Surely, however, we need to do better than that. The Bill specifies that the responsibility for laying the report should lie with the Secretary of State. I wish no offence to him, and I trust that he will take none if I say that he has many other responsibilities already bestowed on him, which mean that laying the report will not be his highest priority. However, I hope that I am wrong.

I believe, as I mentioned earlier, that we should consider appointing a Minister for veterans’ welfare with a cross-cutting responsibility, who could perhaps be situated in the Cabinet Office, because there are many facets to the problem. The report specified in clause 2 should go into far greater depth about how a background of military service might affect people in obtaining personal services. To education, housing and health care should be added welfare benefits, employment benefits and advice, reskilling, budgetary advice, debt management—SSAFA Forces Help and the Royal British Legion say that 60% of their cases concern debt management—alcohol and drug treatment and relationship skills. All personnel should have access to advice from voluntary organisations on all those issues, regardless of length of service, some months before leaving the forces. At present, when leaving the forces, the feeling among many veterans seems to be, “When you’re discharged, you’re on your own.” Regardless of whether that is the case, we need to intensify personnel’s awareness of the support that is available for those who need it. Back-up advice in person and by telephone should also be made available for the first six months following discharge.

I have briefly mentioned the prevalence of mental health problems among veterans. Due to time constraints, I cannot dedicate as much time to it as I should like. No compulsory mental health assessment is currently undergone before leaving the forces. I hope that that practice will soon change. There is a tremendous discrepancy between the way in which US and UK forces deal with the matter. Nobody can realistically plead for a veterans agency in the UK on the same scale as that in the States. The US has had to come to terms with the fall-out from the Vietnam war and other conflicts, and it set up such facilities in more benign financial times. However, when I took evidence with the Howard League in the US, senior veterans affairs Ministers told us that there was a presumption that 33% of returnees from conflict would suffer from either post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury.

That figure is not accepted by anyone in the UK forces. The proportion is not even a tenth of that figure, according to the evidence that we have received from people in similar positions in the UK. There must be a problem somewhere because there is a huge discrepancy. Somebody said that PTSD could take up to 14 years to develop. Yes, it could: it could take 14 minutes or 14 years. We must tackle the problem, because we may be considering the tip of a painful iceberg, and the consequences could be long drawn out.

Experts therefore demand making psychological assessment mandatory for all those leaving the forces, alongside a more general resettlement assessment and advice scheme. I hope that, if I am appointed to serve on the Select Committee, I can advocate making available more tailored support to veterans in the criminal justice system. I am a firm believer in all being equal before the law, but veterans’ specific needs, and the way in which some initiatives might prevent reoffending in that community, must be recognised. Veterans’ support officers should be appointed in every prison and probation service to ensure the streamlining of those initiatives. That has already started to happen. Statutory funding should be allocated to them as well as to veterans’ support groups, which can provide unparalleled support in communities. Such groups normally have the benefit of comprising mainly veterans, who have an unmatched ability to relate to the experiences of other veterans.

I am fast running out of time, but it remains for me to say that we must wake up to the alarming way in which personnel come to rely on alcohol and sometimes other substances as a defence mechanism. Perhaps it is perfectly understandable, but the so-called self-medication route is a huge misnomer. I have evidence to show that, regrettably, at some stages of Army life, alcohol is treated as a catalyst for unwinding. I am sure that many hon. Members have heard about the decompression in Cyprus, which comprises a weekend or week of drunkenness and brawling. It can be no coincidence that so many veterans leave active service displaying a dependence on alcohol. I need hardly say how quickly such a dependence, if left untreated, can feed into other habits, violent behaviour and crime. Henceforth, therefore, counselling on substance abuse must play a vital part in decompression and reintroducing personnel to civvy street.

If we are to retain any hope of fewer veterans running into problems after leaving the forces, we must address some aspects of Army life, such as alcohol consumption as a means of coping with stress and adversity. Clauses 9 to 11 will intensify the regulation of personnel in that field and perhaps awaken them to the dangers of over-reliance on that drug. That is a welcome step in the right direction.

[Dan Byles]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a common thread running through his speech is the problem of tracking and identifying veterans, whether by the police, the probation service or GPs? For example, many mental health issues arise because GPs do not necessarily know that someone is a veteran 10 years after that person has left the forces. [Interruption.] I am married to a GP, and I can assure the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the system might work at the top, but it does not by the time things get to the bottom. [Interruption.] The point that I intended to make before the sedentary interruptions from the Opposition Front Bench is that we in this place can help because there is a lot of support out there for veterans. How many hon. Members say to someone who is homeless or has other problems and comes to their surgery, “Are you a veteran? If so, I can direct you to more places”?

[Mr Llwyd]

Such work is being done by, for example, Kent police, to which I referred earlier, and probation services here and there. Very good work is undertaken in some prisons. That work is done by people who have an interest in assisting veterans, and we need to roll out good practice throughout the UK.

It is wrong for anyone to hint that I am disparaging the services when I refer to alcohol or drugs. I am trying to consider matters realistically, not to insult members of the armed forces, for heaven’s sake.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with comments that have been made. However, when I was veterans Minister, we introduced tracking. We are obviously now waiting for the current Government to implement that.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree. I give the shadow Minister credit because I have debated matters with him and he was assiduous in trying to address the problem, which is multifaceted.

Military people are often proud—proud of their regiment and their work. They are not proud of their position if they suddenly become homeless and/or involved in crime, so sometimes they will not say that they were in the services because they are ashamed. That is another problem.

We have had an opportunity to debate such matters today, and it is important to move forward to Committee, where we can explore different avenues. The Secretary of State said that he was open to, for example, extending the categories in clause 2. That is all well and good. Let us see whether we can explore that and come up with further matters that we need to examine.

If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, I hope I can amplify what I have said and strengthen the Bill as best I can so that we can honestly say, as Government members and ordinary Back-Bench politicians, that we are adhering to our part of the military covenant.

18:38

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I particularly appreciate his remarks about clause 2 and health care. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government have accepted my report “Fighting Fit” on the mental health care of veterans. Part of it stated that we should indeed scrutinise people far more closely at the point when they depart from the services to ensure that we consider mental health. In my 18-year career as a medical officer in the Navy, we rarely did that. The matter was neglected, and I am therefore pleased that the Government have accepted the report and that the armed forces will now assess people when they leave and before they become veterans so that we can take timely action when necessary.

I declare my interests, which are in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In addition, in connection with clause 27—an obscure provision, which I suspect is largely uncontroversial—I am a member of the naval medical compassionate fund. I call it a potential benefit because one has to be deceased for any benefit to be obtained from it. Although that is ultimately inevitable, I hope that it will not happen during my time in this place.

I pay tribute to those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have done so much for the military covenant and in raising its profile. Over the past 10 years or so, public support for our armed forces has increased. That is in large part because of the profile of the armed forces and, although it may not be fashionable to say so, I think we in this place ought to take a certain amount of credit for promoting the interests of the men and women of our armed forces. Members on both sides of the House do that, so this is not a partisan matter at all.

However, I welcome this Bill as the next step in the process of ensuring that the military covenant is a key part of the way in which we deal with our armed forces, and not just now. It is very easy to do that now, as every night we see images on our television screens highlighting the plight of the men and women of our armed forces, and the excellent job they are doing and the professional manner in which they are doing it. The problem arises 10 or 15 years down the line when, God willing, we are living in a time when the armed forces are less high profile. In those circumstances, it will be very welcome to have an opportunity to assess, on an annual basis, how we are dealing with our servicemen and women, and, of course, with our veterans and service families.

[Bob Stewart]

One of the problems in respect of Help for Heroes is that we must deal not only with the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have problems that go all the way back to the second world war, and we must put in place resources to look after the people who were involved then. Speaking personally, I had about 35 soldiers wounded on 6 December 1982. Those people require to be looked after, and two of them were paraplegics. I simply want to endorse my hon. Friend’s point that we must look after all our veterans who have been hurt, not just the people who are now in the public eye from Afghanistan and Iraq and, perhaps, Kosovo and Bosnia. The issue goes back well beyond that, and let us also remember all those people who were hurt in Northern Ireland over many years.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right, and I think the Government have recognised that need. One of my report’s recommendations was that we should be more proactive in addressing our veteran population, and I am pleased that it has been accepted. Ministers recognise that we need to do more for veterans.

Having just been nice to my Front-Bench colleagues, perhaps I might say that I disagree with them in one respect. Clause 2 is entitled “Armed forces covenant report” and I take exception to the term “armed forces” in that context. May I gently suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it would be more appropriate simply to use the term “military covenant”? I say that because I think that term has had a certain amount of purchase. It is now understood by the general public. It is in the public domain, and the media understand it, and I think they would be somewhat confused if we were now to make this rather semantic change of using the term “armed forces” instead. To argue against myself, the word “military” excludes naval of course, but I think that in the public’s mind “military” refers to the entirety of our armed forces. I do not want the value of the concept of the military covenant to be degraded in any way by a confusion over this title. That point might, perhaps, be considered in Committee, of which I hope very much my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) is successful in becoming a member—I wish him the best of luck in his endeavours in that respect. As he says, it will be fascinating to serve on the Committee, and I hope to talk a little more about that shortly.

[Bob Russell]

May I help my hon. Friend by pointing out that the Royal British Legion, which, of course, encompasses all the armed forces, refers to this concept as the military covenant, so it is on his side?

[Dr Murrison]

I am very pleased. I am a member of the Warminster branch of the Royal British Legion and I rarely disagree with it. It has done a great job in its honour the covenant campaign. I am very pleased that it agrees with me, and I have no doubt that it will make representations to that effect.

The Government have been spot-on in the way they have approached the covenant in this Bill. I have given a great deal of thought to what we should be doing in respect of the military covenant. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, we considered the matter at great length when in opposition, and the debate was always about the form in which it would find its way into legislation.

At one end of the spectrum, we could be fairly didactic in what we mean by the military covenant. We could make it a bean-feast for lawyers, but that is completely against the spirit of the military covenant. It derives from Harry Levinson’s work in the 1950s and ’60s, in which he identified something called a psychological contract: a contract that was moral and that was understood, but that was not actually laid down in any form of written covenant, promise or undertaking. It is absolutely right that we should do nothing that would destroy the military covenant as part of that type of covenant. A couple of Members have mentioned the fact that this is not simply a deal between Government and officials and the rank-and-file. It also involves the general public. If we were to start putting it in a didactic contractual form, that would degrade that particular element of the deal that we understand by the term “the military covenant”.

That seems to be the view of most commentators. At the Royal United Services Institute in June 2008, Christianne Tipping said:

“This debate must continue but it must not attempt to specify that which is incapable of specification—the psychological contract is more powerful than the legal one.”

I agree. It could be said that the military covenant is at the extreme end of the psychological contract spectrum, but it is, nevertheless, part of that deal, and it is important that we treat is as such.

I welcome the annual report. The shadow Secretary of State was a little parsimonious in his praise for it. It will certainly maintain the profile of this issue. The devil is in the detail of course, in that the nature of the annual report is crucial—what it contains, how it is presented, and how it is debated. It is important that we know what the items in the report will be. We know what some of them will be, but this issue goes much further than that, of course. We must also address issues such as kit, the way we deal with the bereaved, and coroners courts. As has been mentioned, they have caused a great deal of grief over the past few years, and it would be extraordinary if they were not dealt with as part of this annual report.

It is also important that we listen to the views of third parties. They will undoubtedly comment on this, and they are also very important in the implementation of the military covenant. Government must not do that alone. If they were to do so, they would completely ignore the general public and the voluntary sector, which are another element that must be party to the military covenant. It would therefore be interesting to know what involvement from third-sector partners is envisaged in this annual report.

It is also important that the report is dovetailed with any other relevant reports there might be, such as from the service complaints commissioner, the continuous attitude survey or the external reference group. We need to know, as well, the extent to which personal functional standards subsequent to the armed forces overarching personnel strategy have been satisfied, and we need to incorporate the views of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

While I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about external scrutiny of the armed forces annual report, does he not agree that it is vital that the House itself scrutinises the work of the MOD? Does he also agree that every year after the report is published the Defence Committee should invite the Secretary of State to appear before it to face further scrutiny?

[Dr Murrison]

I believe the Secretary of State does so in any case, but that is, of course, a matter for the Chairman of the Defence Committee, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chairman will be only too delighted to oblige.

It is important that we thrash out what we mean by the covenant and the deal we are prepared to strike in recognition of it. On the one hand, it might be a “no-disadvantage” covenant, by which I mean that people will not be disadvantaged by their military service. On the other hand, might it mean a “citizen-plus” covenant, in that people will get a bit extra in recognition of the fact that they are serving or have served, or are related to someone who is serving or has served, in the armed forces? It is important that we do that.

We could envisage the “no-disadvantage” covenant as being what we might aspire to at the moment, and the “citizen-plus” covenant as being the sort of model that applies in the United States. Certainly, the “no-disadvantage” covenant appears to be what people have in mind in things such as the service Command Paper. The term is used in that publication and also by Professor Hew Strachan in his recent report on the military covenant. Furthermore, of course, that covenant is a great deal more attainable, and we can take a closer view of what it actually means, if we use the benchmark of not disadvantaging people by virtue of their service. A “citizen-plus” covenant, however, is more difficult and invites calls of “Me too!”, in particular from other public servants who say that these days they are just as much on the front line. We could argue that point.

It is important that the annual report contains an outcome measure. We need to know what we are looking at in order to make an assessment of whether the Government have done what they should be doing in honouring the military covenant. What do success and failure look like? It is important that the document is subject to rigorous independent scrutiny, not least by the Defence Committee. The report will be subject to the media spotlight and the analysis of third parties, so it needs to be a comprehensive and detailed document, unless it is simply to become, in the fullness of time and potentially under another Administration, simply a tick-box exercise.

Over Christmas last year, my right hon. and hon. Friends were exercised by the air bridge between the UK and theatre. Perhaps that is a demonstration of a facet of the military covenant that could be covered in the annual report. I find to my great horror that similar problems arose this Christmas. It was a high-profile incident because it involved Katherine Jenkins and James Blunt and their failure to go to theatre to entertain the troops. Will the annual report cover theatre-specific elements of the disgruntlement of our armed forces? The Minister knows full well—we talked about this a great deal in opposition—that paramount in that list of disgruntlement tends to be things such as the air bridge and rest and recuperation.

Organisations such as the British Limbless Ex Service Men’s Association point out that people owe their allegiance to the nation, not to localities by and large, and that the covenant is a country covenant, not a county covenant. It is important, when considering elements of Professor Strachan’s report, which is excellent in almost all respects—particularly his important point about the community covenant—that we recognise that people owe their allegiance nationally and expect the covenant to be honoured nationally as well. It would be a pity if we entered into some sort of postcode lottery in how we regard our duties to the men and women of our armed forces. I represent a constituency in a military part of the country, and as a community we are fully apprised of our duties towards the men and women of our armed forces. Some parts of the country, however—perhaps because men and women of our armed forces are less prominent there—are less inclined that way, so it is important, given that this is a national covenant, that we view this nationally, not parochially.

It is also important to recognise that the covenant cuts both ways. It is a duty that the country and the Government owe to the military, but in turn the military owes a duty to the public and the Government, and it is important to assess—in my view, as part of this annual report—whether that duty is being satisfied in all respects. Everyone in this place admires our armed forces greatly—many of us have served in them—and I am second to nobody in my admiration for the men and women who serve this country so gallantly. However, there will be detractors and those who say, “It is all very well talking up the military covenant, but we also need to understand that the public have expectations of the men and women of our armed forces.” It is important to include in the report, therefore, if only to gainsay it, that we have to look at areas where the public have been let down, as well as at areas in which we have let down our armed forces. I put that down as a point for consideration in Committee.

I turn to later clauses of the Bill that broadly speaking provide for the discipline elements. Clause 6 deals with the performance of the Ministry of Defence police. I have always had cordial relations with the MOD police, who work closely with their county colleagues, but, in a similar manner to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North, one would have to ask all the time why we have a separate MOD police force. If we are going to consider in Committee the service police—our Front-Bench team made a generous offer to do so—perhaps we might also look at policing in the round within the MOD, which of course would include the MOD police. It is important that police forces benchmark their performance. The MOD police force is a particular force with a different profile; what it does is subtly different, and its arrest and conviction profiles are very different from those of county forces, and we have to ask all the time, particularly in an age when we are looking for efficiency savings, whether the current model is the correct one. I make no judgment on that, but it might be something that the Committee should look at and take a view on.

Clause 5 deals with the appointment of provost marshals and asserts that only provost officers should be provost marshals, which struck me as slightly odd. At a time when we are looking for ways of making heads of police forces lay people, it seems a little odd—it sits uncomfortably with it—to insist in the Bill that in all circumstances provost marshals should be provost officers.

I am always a little wary when it comes to extending anybody’s powers—in this context, the powers of service police—unless I am faced with a good reason. That must be our starting premise. However, I do not have a good reason for why we need to extend the powers of service police. Although I am perfectly willing to take Ministers’ words for it that it is necessary, we will have to tease out in Committee why we need to extend the powers in the way described.

Clauses 9 to 11 and compulsory testing have been discussed at length by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and in an authoritative fashion that I cannot match. However, I start to get concerned about compulsory testing, particularly when it involves health care professionals. This is an ethical minefield and something that no doubt will need to be explored in Committee.

[Bob Russell]

When the Armed Forces Bill Committee considered this point three or four years ago, we were advised—if my memory is correct—that the equivalent of two infantry battalions are discharged each year for testing positive. Under those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the checking is an important requirement?

[Dr Murrison]

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. If I develop my point, perhaps I can answer his concerns.

We have compulsory drug testing at the moment, and it has been found to be broadly successful. My concern is about further testing at the say-so of the command and because it suspects that there might be a safety-critical issue. If instances can be cited in which safety criticality might have been affected by compulsory drug testing, we have a good case for doing this, but that case has to be made before we extend those powers. I would make a small suggestion: if we are to take those powers, perhaps we might like to consider them after 12 months, using a sunset clause, to ensure that they are still necessary. If they are not, we could consider removing them.

It is not clear to me what the position of registered medical and nursing practitioners will be in all this. They operate within a disciplined service, and the rules can be quite challenging. However, looking at the Bill, I would say that were I in that position, I would be phoning up my defence society to ensure that I was not transgressing before co-operating with such a provision. I see that there is a get-out clause for medical practitioners. It all looks a bit woolly to me, but I suspect that it will be firmed up as the Bill proceeds.

The Bill will further separate service police from the command, yet service police remain servicemen and remain within that command structure; indeed, they can exercise command appropriate to their rank. I am a little concerned about these people, because they are potentially remarkably powerful individuals. We need to bear that in mind when considering this matter. Part of the military covenant is about ensuring that we do the best by the men and women who serve this country; they should not be disadvantaged. On the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, it is important that we have a system that does not impose a greater legal restriction on that population than on the general public. If our system did impose that, we would not be honouring our commitment under the military covenant, because service personnel would most certainly be disadvantaged.

I am concerned that there has been insufficient reflection on the possibility of combining our three sets of service police. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North said, there is potential mileage in combining the three. I sat through our consideration of a lot of the supplementary legislation to the Armed Forces Act 2006 and enjoyed it very much. However, it was clear to me that the systems of law were coming much closer together; indeed, one cannot get a cigarette paper between the three of them any more. Given those circumstances, the environment has changed and the case for combining those services into a tri-service provost service makes some sense.

I conclude by welcoming the Bill, which is a culmination of a huge amount of work. It sets the right balance between a covenant that is unspoken, moral and psychological, and addressing the more obvious needs of the men and women who serve our armed forces very well. I shall certainly be supporting the Bill.

19:01

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is particularly appropriate that we are debating this Bill on the anniversary of the treaty of Versailles coming into operation in 1920 and the first meeting of the United Nations in London in 1946. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). When I was a Minister, I tried to do business with him in as friendly a way as possible in relation to the armed forces and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. His comments about the reserve forces were absolutely right, because it is true to say that the operations that this nation have been involved in over the past 15 years could not have been conducted without the support of the reserve forces, many of whom have, I suspect, had to go into theatre far more often than they or their employers expected when they signed up. We therefore owe them “a debt of gratitude”; those words are often bandied around this Chamber, but he made a very fair point about the importance of the reserve forces. I know from my constituency that they are an important part of the contribution that is made.

The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was absolutely right to say that it would make more sense to stick with the term “military covenant”. I am often more pedantic than is good for my friendships—[Hon. Members: “Surely not”.] I thought that it was you heckling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but as you have not had a drink yet, it probably was not. He is right to say that this phrase is now common currency and is used generally. I suppose that people who were being pedantic might say, “That merely applies to the Army”, but language changes and he is right to say that trying to reinvent a concept of an “armed forces covenant” is inappropriate. I hope that the Minister will respond accordingly when considering the way forward for this Bill.

I particularly wanted to speak in this debate because this country’s mining constituencies have produced many members of the armed forces. A large number of men and, increasingly in recent years, women have joined the Army, rather than the Navy or the Royal Air Force. When a survey was carried out in recent years of the preferred career of choice in mining constituencies or former mining constituencies, as mine must now be considered, the armed forces came out on top by far, followed by the police. I am sure that that is partly because of a tradition that there has been in many of these constituencies—there is a deep respect for the traditions of the armed forces, and people have wanted to follow in the footsteps of their fathers, grandfathers and so on—but it is also because of the economic circumstances.

At its height, a single industry in my constituency employed 130,000 men working underground, and when it disappeared and a large number of people were, in effect, left on the scrap heap politically, many of those young men felt that the only career open to them was one in the armed forces. They have managed to take a great deal of pride from such a career. They have been able to give to the armed forces and the armed forces have been able to give back. I was delighted that the Ministry of Defence decided to open a combined cadet force in Treorchy comprehensive school. In the main, cadet forces had previously been attached only to public schools—fee-paying schools—so it was a great delight to see a new one start in Treorchy a few years ago.

[Dr Murrison]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely on that. What does he make of comments by the National Union of Teachers to the effect that it was wrong for the previous Government—and, presumably, now for this Government—to encourage the involvement of uniformed men and women in our armed forces in areas of deprivation, where there is high unemployment, because they may be preying on people there? I utterly refute that assertion and I hope that he does too.

[Chris Bryant]

When I have heard those accusations, as I have when political opponents in my constituency have attacked me ferociously on these issues, I have wholly deprecated them. If we examine the work that the armed forces do in schools, we find that it is not about preying on young people who, in some sense, might not have other opportunities in life. Often such work is about giving people the confidence in themselves to go on to do something that has nothing to do with the armed forces. It is about giving them a structure in life, and a sense of discipline and opportunity, which is of value to the wider community. I know that some teachers at Treorchy comprehensive were sceptical about the combined cadet force coming to the school, but since it has been in place they have been entirely supportive and have found it to be an entirely beneficial operation.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I agree about the importance of cadets. I visited my local Stonehouse platoon of the Army Cadet Force last week. It is fantastic and I would like to be sure that this Bill will provide the appropriate support to the cadets and the officers who train them—I am sure that it will.

[Chris Bryant]

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not think that the Bill will do much directly for the cadets, except in so far as putting the military covenant in statute will make us focus on these issues more keenly. If there was one niggly point that I tried to make to the Labour Government when we were in power and would still make to this Government, it is that the sea cadets do not receive the amount of support that other cadet forces get directly from the relevant armed forces. That is a problem, especially because at the moment the sea cadets in the Rhondda spend almost all the money that they receive in support on just paying their insurance bill every year. I wonder whether we could ensure that the Ministry of Defence provides insurance support for all cadet operations. We could thereby release the sea cadets and other such forces to get on with their important work without having to spend all their time fundraising.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I could not agree more strongly with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The sea cadets are often the Cinderella of the cadets. Dover sea cadets are trying to buy the shed in which they train from the MOD but are having some difficulty. There is not the help that one would hope to see, so I echo and support his comments on the sea cadets.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for those comments and I will pass them on to Minerva in the Rhondda.

My other reason for wanting to take part in this debate is that Wales has a particular tradition of its own in relation to the armed forces, not only in successive wars but in producing a much higher quantity of young men and, increasingly, of young women to go into our armed forces than would be proportionate to its population. It is difficult, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, to get accurate statistics, but roughly 9% of the armed forces come from Welsh constituencies. That compares with just 5% of the UK population coming from Wales. There is, therefore, over-representation. That may in part be to do with the fact that we have higher levels of deprivation—multiple levels of deprivation —in certain parts of the country.

One of the ironies is that little of the time that Welsh personnel spend in the armed forces will be spent in Wales. They might have to go to Sennybridge. They might spend a very cold, wet, hideous, horrible time on the mountain tops in training, but the likelihood is that the vast majority of their time will be spent, even when they are in the UK, not in Wales but elsewhere.

I make a plea to the MOD and the Minister. I hope that he will be able to answer this later. When we are considering future bases in the UK, of course, as the Secretary of State said, the most important thing is ensuring the security of the realm. Every member of the armed forces would agree with that, but I argue that part of the military covenant is saying that deployment when at home, rather than when in theatre, should allow for a wider spread than is currently the case.

We have not mentioned the armed forces parliamentary scheme, but it is an important element of the way parliamentarians obtain information from those who have served or are reservists and from others from other backgrounds, and ensure that that informs our debate. In my time in the scheme, nearly everyone I met in the armed forces—this is not a partisan point—came from a Labour constituency, but all the sites we visited were in Conservative constituencies. That is not because anyone has decided to put them in Conservative constituencies; it is just because of a series of historical flukes. I urge the Government, as they consider what to do about the redeployment from Germany, to think about whether there is a base, for example, at St Athan, that might be used to base Welsh troops in Wales. I say that not as someone who supports a separation of Welsh armed forces from British armed forces but as someone who wants to reinforce the Welsh armed forces.

I believe that there are several elements to the covenant that are not mentioned in clause 2 but are equally important. We have debated one—equipment—at some length in the past few years, in particular because our troops are in theatre in Iraq and Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North said that he felt that the equipment he was given when he was last deployed was far more suitable and up to date than previously. He is right, but there is going to be a constant process of change.

Likewise, ensuring that our troops have the most up to date, effective training possible is important. Several hon. Members have referred to whether it is possible to unify posts between the three services in relation to the military police. I argue that we need to go much further and extend that combination of training. Those who have had an opportunity to visit Shrivenham will know that bringing the training of officers in the Army, Air Force and Navy together in one place, which was at one point thought unthinkable—the idea that the Royal Navy would leave Greenwich was believed to be unthinkable—has brought enormous dividends to all three services. Notwithstanding the decision that seems to have been made in relation to St Athan and defence training, we need to be able to do more of our training on a shared forces basis because there is more that each of the services can learn from each other.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has a long record of campaigning on veterans issues, for which I pay tribute to him. All too often, people think of veterans as people who served in the first or second world wars, but many of the veterans in my constituency are 25, 26 or 27 years of age and their service will not just be for the few years that they spent being paid by the armed forces; in terms of the psychological and physical issues that they have to deal with, their service will be for the whole of their lives. Not only will they be serving in that way, but their families will, too. He is right to point to the need for continuity of care beyond—in many cases far beyond—the day when someone goes into civvy street.

I caution the hon. Gentleman, however, as I tried to do earlier—this crops up quite regularly in our debates—about the difference between correlation and causation. For example, it is often argued that couples who co-habit and have children are far more likely to split up than those who marry and have children. It is factually true. The question is: is that because they got married, or because they are the kind of people who felt differently about the institution of marriage in the first place? In other words, is there correlation between these statistics, or is there causation?

That is where we need to be precise in relation to the ongoing care of those in the armed forces. Many of the young people who join the armed forces from the Rhondda go in with many of the problems that they will leave with. They go in, as we know, with lower levels of literacy, which is why the armed forces in recent years have had to do much more to ensure that our troops have a high level of literacy. Some of them will have difficulties with other educational issues that need to be addressed.

The point is that it is not necessarily because those people were in the armed forces that some of the problems follow. Where the problem is because they were in the armed forces—perhaps because their training was so effective that they do not realise the lethal nature of the punch that they could deliver compared with someone else—it is all the more important that the MOD and the whole of society take action to ensure that young people, as they go into the armed forces and see through their years in service, and when they leave, have the full support and training that they need.

I know that many others want to take part in the debate and I do not want to delay others from speaking any further, but I hope that the Minister will respond on the issue of Welsh troops being based in Wales because it is one of the ways that we can ensure that there is continuity for young people who are removed from the Rhondda to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, or who spend all their service career living in Wiltshire. When they are finished, they come back to the Rhondda—

[Mr Gray]

As Conservatives.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to respond to that, although the hon. Gentleman is enticing.

By that uprooting, those service personnel are not given a proper chance when they go back. The key element is ensuring that that matter is addressed not just by the MOD, but by the Welsh Assembly Government.

19:18

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a great honour to take part in the debate. I do so not with the great knowledge of some hon. Members who have contributed today. I have not given the service that they have given. However, I am the Member of Parliament for the Weeton Army barracks, and that makes me incredibly proud of the men and women who serve there. It is currently home to 1st Battalion the Royal Green Jackets and the Kings Division Normandy. On visits to the barracks, one sees and hears first-hand the people who serve our nation with great distinction.

Before I expand on that, I want to pick up on comments from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Two key points were made. First, we should not seek to ignore the work that is put in to support the psychiatric services that support those who come back from the armed forces. Secondly, we should not fail to understand the importance of getting the Army into schools and of engaging with young people at a young age. Communities such as that in Rhondda and in the area that I originally come from are great respecters of authority and tradition and the British armed forces are a great example of that. It would be a great shame if, as a result of union activity or the activity of other people who have an axe to grind, we stopped allowing our armed forces into our schools to engage with young people.

I want to focus on clause 2 and the issues to do with welfare. When I visited Weeton Army barracks, one thing that gave me great encouragement was the existence of the Sure Start centre. Let us not forget that when one is dealing with young children—particularly very young children—one of the most important things in their lives is stability and continuity, as well as support for their parents when the father is serving in the armed forces overseas. I went away that day encouraged by the work of the Sure Start centre and I hope that when we consider some of the Bill’s provisions, the work done by Sure Start centres on Army bases—I am bothered not about what we call them, but about what they do —continues.

The other thing I took away from that visit was the importance of Commonwealth soldiers. We tend to think of members of the armed forces as being from our communities, but in many cases the armed forces—and in some cases a significant number of them—are made up of men and women from other corners of the globe. A number of armed forces on Weeton Army barracks are from Fiji. Forgive me, as I do not have the full details on this point, which is one about which I want to write to the Minister, but one thing that concerned to me was the issue of visas and the payment for visas for the wives of Fijian soldiers. The figure I left with in my mind was £700 and if we are asking the wives of Fijian soldiers to pay £700 to be in this country and to be with their husbands, who are serving our country, that makes me feel deeply uneasy. Immigration is another matter, but if we can be hospitable to other people then, my goodness, we need to be hospitable to the wives of Commonwealth soldiers. I hope we can consider that at some point—[Interruption.] Sorry, the hon. Member for Rhondda corrects me: British overseas territory soldiers.

Weeton Army barracks have an excellent school, albeit an old one. Weeton can be no different from many other bases up and down the country. At a time of financial constraint, we must ensure that local authorities do not take the easy option and cut funding or do not invest in new buildings for schools located on Army barracks or other military facilities in favour of others that might be more high profile. The school at a barracks is attended not just by children from the base but by children from the local community. That is an excellent way in which people from the non-military community can integrate and get a good understanding of military service.

Finally, as regards ensuring that the military covenant is maintained, a political aspect that we always used to talk about was the quality of housing. It is not just about the availability of good-quality housing but about ensuring that those homes are sufficiently maintained and are maintained in a speedy and timely manner. I have had representations from members of the armed forces that involve stories that we would not tolerate for any of our constituents in social housing or in properties owned by a private sector landlord. However, we seem to think that it is in some way acceptable for members of the armed forces. We must ensure that those homes are maintained and, when they are not maintained, that people are quickly held to account.

I will be proud and happy to support the Bill, just as I am proud to support the members of the armed forces who serve and who have served in the past in my constituency.

19:25

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

May I begin, Mr Deputy Speaker, by wishing you and the whole House a very happy new year? [Interruption.] I am just disappointed that it is Opposition Members who have all the festive cheer at this time of year—[Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] I am pleased to see so many Conservative Members in the Chamber today; they obviously were not encouraged to go to Oldham to support the Lib Dem candidate in that by-election.

I pay tribute to our armed forces, who continue to serve overseas, often in difficult circumstances. Like many other Members on both sides of the House, I have had constituents who have tragically lost their lives in the service of the country. I know that their sacrifice will never be forgotten.

I have both a dockyard and a naval base, HMS Caledonia, in my constituency. I have a particular interest in this subject as so many people have such a long and proud tradition of serving our nation in the armed forces. Although the Opposition obviously support the principles of the Bill—as the Secretary of State said, it is in some ways a technical requirement to maintain our armed forces—I and, I am sure, other colleagues have some specific concerns that are as much to do with what is missing from the Bill as what is in it.

First, let me turn to the issue of the armed forces charter or covenant, or the military covenant, depending on one’s viewpoint. As some hon. Members might recall, late last year I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on an armed forces charter. Although I do not intend to rehearse all those arguments, I said at the time that Opposition Members share the concerns of the Royal British Legion that the Ministry of Defence needs to do more to introduce more effective prevention and treatment strategies to tackle mental health problems, binge drinking and drug abuse. Both the Opposition and the legion, as well as other service and veteran charities, are deeply concerned that of the 50,000 service personnel homes in the United Kingdom, two thirds do not meet the MOD’s standards for family accommodation. Under the spending outlined by Ministers, it will take 20 years to bring all the family accommodation up to an acceptable high standard.

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Is that shameful legacy not in fact the legacy of the hon. Gentleman’s Government, and are this Government not taking steps to put that right?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, which allow me to point out that under the previous Labour Government, 75,000 single bed spaces were brought up to—or had funding put in place to bring them up to—standard.

[Ms Bagshawe]

In 13 years?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for the opportunity provided by her sedentary comment to point out to her that we achieved a great deal more than that in terms of armed forces standards. It is disappointing that that level of funding has not been continued by the current Government.

[Bob Russell]

I wonder whether I might help the hon. Gentleman by being devil’s advocate and pointing out that it was the previous Conservative Government who privatised the Ministry of Defence housing through Annington Homes. That is the root cause and this Government need to do more to put right what the last Labour Government failed to do.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, as ever, shows his fancy footwork, blaming both his Government and the previous Conservative Government. I must agree that his Government are not doing enough to support housing.

Opposition Members are deeply concerned that although the Ministry of Defence is happy to place new onuses on local authorities and the NHS, the one group of people that should not have statutory responsibilities according to the MOD is, funnily enough, the MOD. By that rather large omission, clause 2, which covers the charter, is in effect toothless. The organisation that, more than any other, has responsibility for the welfare of our service personnel, their families and our veterans is, of course, the MOD. When he replies to the debate later this evening, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) will assure Labour Members that the MOD will re-examine that glaring omission.

The hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) and others often accuse Labour Members of not coming up with funding solutions to meet such commitments. I will indulge her by providing a simple example of where we can find more than £100 million, which could be put into accommodation for service personnel. According to the MOD, we spend—before she jumps to her feet, I accept that the previous Government did not do enough to tackle this issue—£110 million on private school fees for the children of service personnel. Almost half that money—some 40%—goes to officers in the top ranks of lieutenant-colonel and above, who are effectively the top brass, while only 10% goes to the ranks of staff sergeant and below. It is, in effect, a subsidy for public schools.

[Mr Robathan]

I want to shoot this canard, fox or whatever you like. People in junior ranks, both officers and non-commissioned officers, tend to be younger. Guess what? They do not have children who want to go to such schools. In fact, there are private soldiers whose children go to private schools, and there are junior officers whose children go to private schools. They are not at home, and they need the continuity of education provided by that allowance.

[Thomas Docherty]

I thank the Minister for spelling out his position. This evening, I have tabled a written question to clarify how many of the service personnel who receive the £110 million subsidy—the schools get the money—are serving overseas. One of our concerns is that those officers are on not two or three-year furloughs overseas but six-month deployments. The MOD is, in effect, providing a ring-fenced sum of money for public schools, which is disappointing at a time when we are seeing job losses in both the armed forces themselves and in companies such as British Aerospace. When the MOD made cuts, it did not take a penny out of the continuity of education allowance, and that decision should be re-examined.

[Dan Byles]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that when soldiers return to the UK after perhaps two years, their children should move schools, and that when, two years later, they are posted overseas again or to a different part of the country, their children should return to boarding school? That does not make sense.

[Thomas Docherty]

I shall clear that up before giving way to the Minister: if the argument for spending £110 million a year on public schools is based on soldiers being posted for six months to Afghanistan before returning to Britain, it is not an acceptable use of public money.

[Mr Robathan]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are tightening up the rules on the continuity of education allowance. If he would like to come along to the MOD and meet them, I can introduce him to people who will tell him, as they tell me, that their children have changed schools as many as four times in five years, which is not good for continuity of education or for keeping good personnel in the armed forces.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to meet me to discuss the matter outside the House, which I shall certainly take up. I will not labour the point for much longer, because other hon. Members want to speak. As we move to withdrawing troops from Germany in 2015—perhaps it will be slightly later, if the MOD does not get its timetable right—it is the right time to consider scrapping or phasing out the continuity of education allowance.

[Mr Gray]

Has the hon. Gentleman considered what effect that would have on the excellent Queen Victoria school in Dunblane, which is close to his constituency and located in my home town? It is a private boarding school for the sons and daughters of other ranks in all three services.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that school. I have specifically referred to the continuity of education allowance. As the Minister will confirm, that school and its sister school in Dover—if the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is listening, I am sure that he will confirm this—are directly funded by the MOD. That funding does not come through the continuity of education allowance.

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

I represent a naval port. Families are moved from Plymouth to Portsmouth, Faslane or Rosyth. It is difficult for those families to get their children into schools, because they may be moved in July, by which time the local authority has already made its decision. The issue is about providing continuity, safeguards and security for those children’s education. If those children are moved on a regular basis and do not get into the right school, it can make life very difficult. I am the son of a sailor, and my education was moved around during the course of my life. We must ensure that children have the opportunity to go to school with continuity in order to safeguard their futures.

[Thomas Docherty]

I seek further clarification, because the hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. The purpose of the continuity of education allowance is to help those personnel who are serving overseas, but he has said that it applies to personnel who serve in different parts of the United Kingdom. He has mentioned Rosyth, and we have some excellent schools in West Fife. There would be no problem with the children of personnel getting into some of our excellent schools, and I am happy to recommend some of them to him.

[Dan Byles]

I will put the matter in context for the hon. Gentleman. In my nine years of service, I was posted to Colchester, Kosovo, Catterick, London, Bosnia and Tidworth—six locations in nine years. People do not know whether they will be posted overseas. The posting order sometimes gives them as little as a month’s notice of where their next posting might be—if they are lucky, they might get two or three months’ notice. The issue is about not only being posted overseas, but about having a completely disjointed lifestyle.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is strange that Conservative Members are unwilling to draw a comparison with the private sector. In my eight years in the private sector, I lived in a number of locations. I know many people who work in the private sector—and, indeed, in the public sector—who have to move home every two or three years. It is regrettable that as a result of some of the decisions that have been made, that trend will increase. It is unusual to hear Conservative Members say that moving home and uprooting one’s family is not part and parcel of a modern career path. I accept the point about interrupting the education of those pupils who currently receive the continuity of education allowance. That is why we need to consider phasing out the scheme, so that no child who is currently in receipt of it is adversely affected.

I want to move on to an issue that I am disappointed has not made it into the Bill, and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will reflect on this point in the days before the Select Committee begins its deliberations. The issue concerns ensuring proper scrutiny and a proper process for base closures. Labour Members and many Government Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), have long held the view that the correct order of decision making on military matters begins with determining our national security threats and foreign policy objectives. We should then determine the defence postures needed to meet those objectives and threats, and then make decisions on the basing, equipment and personnel levels required to meet them. After that, we should decide how best to structure the funding.

[Mr Gray]

I, too, feel strongly about this matter because RAF Lyneham in my constituency is threatened, but will the hon. Gentleman explain which aspect of the Bill has any bearing whatever on the basing considerations?

[Thomas Docherty]

Like other Opposition Members, I would like a clause on this issue to be inserted into the Bill. As the Secretary of State has said, the Bill presents an opportunity to legislate on the armed forces and that opportunity comes around about once every five years. As he said, this is the Ministry of Defence’s opportunity for a Christmas tree Bill, to use American parlance, on which to hang additional amendments and clauses that do not necessarily fall within the strict area of military discipline. That is what Opposition Members seek.

I have just outlined the usual process and it is disappointing that the coalition has turned that process on its head with the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury telling the Secretary of State for Defence, “This is your budget: this is all you are going to get—go and make it work,” rather than taking any real cognisance of the vital national security role. That is why we are in the absurd situation of having aircraft carriers with no aircraft. Even if the French get their aircraft carrier to work, we will go a decade without any fast jets because of the folly of Treasury decisions. That has led to communities facing a great deal of uncertainty regarding base closures. Having attended some of last year’s debates in the House—as did the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)—I have heard the concerns felt by communities around the country about the Government’s process of determining base closures.

Last year, I was fortunate enough to go to the United States with the British-American Parliamentary Group and I strongly commend that scheme to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have not had the chance to get involved in it yet, because it gave us the chance to meet, among others, representatives of the Pentagon, the Department of State and the National Security Council. On that trip I learned that the US has a legislative process for base closures. With such a system, we would not get the current absurd situation in which the Secretary of State for Defence has said that base closures would be a purely strategic defence matter, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that they would be motivated by socio-economic matters and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both told us that they will be driven by financial needs. Such confusion does not arise in the US because there is a clear process and military personnel have at least two years’ notice before any base may be closed.

The base realignment and closure process, as it is officially known, was set up in the late 1980s by the Reagan Administration to act as an arbiter between the Department of Defence, congressional leaders, individual Congressmen and communities who were understandably fighting—I hope hon. Members will pardon the pun—tooth and nail for each base. Going back to the question of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire about why this issue should be part of the Armed Forces Bill, it is because such a change would require an Act of Parliament in the same way that it required an act of Congress in the US. The BRAC process begins with a threat assessment.

[Mr Gray]

I am sorry to come back to this issue, but as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me, perhaps it is reasonable for me to do so. The long title of the Bill shows that it deals with very specific issues to do with discipline, civilian courts, the Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act 1915 and a number of other matters, but under none of the headings in the long title could the basing debate be considered. If it is in order to discuss this issue, I feel a lengthy speech on RAF Lyneham coming up.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman is an excellent orator so we will all look forward to his speech, which I am sure will not feel lengthy to anyone. We are guided by the Clerks and the advice that we have received is that it will be entirely appropriate for us to table additional clauses in Committee. I am sure that the Clerks will advise hon. Members on the process for amending the long title of the Bill if that is necessary and practical.

I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall press on. The independent commission in the US is appointed by the President in consultation with members on both sides of the congressional aisle—I understand that there are two nominations from the Democrats and two from the Republicans and that they are traditionally former service chiefs. The commission carries out a very transparent process in which it is given a list of bases and works according to the criteria set out in law. The highest criterion is defence—I am sure that Members on both sides would agree that that is appropriate—but the commission is allowed to take into account, as a secondary consideration, factors such as the economic impact of closure on local communities. Regional public meetings are held to give the public an opportunity to give their input into the process. When the commission has completed its work, it forwards its recommendations to the President who can accept the proposal as a whole or simply reject it. If the President accepts the proposal, it is forwarded to Congress, which then has a debate and what is called a straight up-and-down vote on the list in its entirety. That is important because it prevents cherry-picking and means that the strategic objective of securing the best base system for the nation is not lost.

I conclude by asking the Minister to answer two questions in his response. First, he will be aware that many of the functions of supporting veterans fall on the devolved Administrations. What discussions between the devolved Governments and the Ministry of Defence have taken place and will take place as the Bill goes forward on how to ensure that there is no difference of interpretation or implementation between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Secondly, will he clarify whether, given the comments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and others, it is technically in order for Members to seek to add new clauses in Committee, without prejudicing what the MOD’s thinking on that matter might be?

19:48

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

At the outset, let me place on record my admiration for and appreciation of soldiers from the 16 Air Assault Brigade, approximately 3,000 of whom from the Colchester garrison are currently deployed in southern Afghanistan. I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for their opening words and I also thank the Secretary of State for his recent visit to Camp Bastion and his generous words of support there. I pay tribute to the families back in Colchester and around the country and to the rear party who do important work but are seldom mentioned. So, I thank the rear party and the men and women of our armed forces, including of 16 Air Assault Brigade, and I mention especially the regimental band of the Parachute Regiment who spent Christmas and the new year in southern Afghanistan.

The previous Government can be congratulated on many good things that they did, most notably for veterans, partly by giving them a profile that did not exist before. The introduction of Veterans day and the veterans badge have been well received right across the United Kingdom. We have already accepted the principle of the veterans badge, but there is one additional thing that I ask the coalition Government to take forward: the award of an armed forces medal. Not everybody who joins Her Majesty’s armed forces is deployed to a theatre where a medal will be awarded, and we should recognise that there are important members of Her Majesty’s armed forces who do not necessarily get a combat medal.

[Bob Stewart]

But that is the whole point of the medals: they are awarded for service in an operational theatre. We do not want to make this about having a Mickey Mouse parade on one’s chest. The reason why a medal is awarded is that someone has served a set time in an operational theatre. Let us not make us glorified toy soldiers.

[Bob Russell]

Putting aside the hon. Gentleman’s closing sentence, I am aware of the counter-argument, but there is a strong argument the other way, too. We respect all who serve in Her Majesty’s armed forces; that is what the veterans badge is about, but it is not quite the same. I do not qualify either way; I merely make the point on behalf of those who have raised the matter.

Looking around the Chamber, I think that I am the only Member present who served on the last Armed Forces Bill Committee, and I was present when that Bill was debated on the Floor of the House, too. It has served the country well, and it is right that we should now revise it. As to whether I will be on the new Bill Committee, we will have to wait and see.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the quality of housing for families, but the issue of single persons’ accommodation has not been raised. Colchester is blessed with the most modern barracks in the country, Merville barracks. I disagree fundamentally with the way in which the last Government used a private finance initiative to fund those barracks, because over time it will be far more expensive than using traditional methods of funding public assets. However, the barracks are the benchmark for all our military accommodation for single people.

There are many ways in which family accommodation around the country leaves a lot to be desired. I hope that the coalition Government, notwithstanding the financial legacy that the Labour Government bequeathed us, will realise that if we want the best from the best armed forces in the world, we have to provide them with accommodation, and particularly family accommodation, that is fit for purpose.

I ask the Minister to define what is meant by “education” in the Bill. Is it education of the serving man or woman, education of the children of military personnel, or education in the round? I genuinely do not know the answer. In the previous Parliament, the Defence Committee reported on service children’s education. The Armed Forces Bill Committee, when constituted, may want to look back and see what that report said, because the issue is not just the education of our serving military, though that is obviously important—increasingly important, sad to say—but the education of their children.

I mentioned war widows and the fact that they have to pay tax on their pension. I understand from one of the young war widows in my constituency that it is not described as a war widow’s pension. When she has need to mention the pension, the documents do not say that she is a war widow. That, to her, is very important, because her husband lost his life in Afghanistan nearly three years ago. I cannot remember what the description is, but it is not “a war widow’s pension.” It may be just a small tweaking of words that is needed, but it is important.

I pay tribute to the reservists, whom Members have mentioned. We need to see whether we can somehow inject that issue into the Armed Forces Bill. As has been said, reservists are increasingly an important, integral part of service. When I went to Iraq as a member of the previous Armed Forces Bill Committee, we certainly saw a lot of reservists, and I have also seen them in my visits to Afghanistan. They have a very important part to play.

Mention has been made of the cadets. Last year was the 150th anniversary of the Army cadets. Reference has been made to the fact that sea cadets are not funded on the same basis as the Army and air cadets. Perhaps we can look at that in Committee.

Just as a throwaway line, on the overseas territories and the Commonwealth—I asked a parliamentary question on this—please understand that nearly 10% of the British Army is not from the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth obviously accounts for most of that figure, but other nations around the world have citizens serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I endorse the hon. Gentleman’s commendation of reservists, as an ex-reservist myself. Does he have a view about the people who enable reservists to take part in all the activity that we now require them to take part in? When I was a member of the Territorial Army, the most dangerous place we ever went was Warminster, but things are now very different, and I suggest that when we commend soldiers, we should also commend those people, often from quite small businesses, who enable them to undertake their duty on our behalf.

[Bob Russell]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Frequently, without the understanding and support of the employer as regards training and deployment, that could not happen. He is right to draw my attention and that of the House to that point, and I am more than happy to put on record our appreciation of the employers who enable that to happen.

The Bill refers to the Ministry of Defence police. At the commencement of the last Labour Government, there were approximately 30 members of Ministry of Defence police serving on the Colchester garrison lands and properties; there are now three. I have been to see Ministers about that, and have raised the issue in debates time and again, but unfortunately, the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall decided that Colchester garrison now needs only three Ministry of Defence police officers where, 13 years ago, there were 30. That has had a serious impact, and I have flagged this up in the past in Committee, as the officials who were present, and Hansard, will confirm.

Ministry of Defence housing stock was reduced, and houses were sold off and became part of housing for the civilian population. It is a fact that Army family housing has a military, self-imposed discipline, which is sadly not reflected in civilian housing. In Colchester, the former Army housing estates increasingly house private citizens, if I may use that term, who, like any other civilians, have late-night parties and a social life that is not the same as the self-imposed discipline of military families. Over the past two or three years, I have picked up complaints from Army families who say that their lifestyle is being impacted on by the civilian population. If the Ministry of Defence police were there, that would help. They should have been replaced by the Essex constabulary, but with the best will in the world, the Essex constabulary do not have 27 spare police officers to replace the 27 MOD police officers. There has therefore been a huge reduction in policing, and I hope that we can discuss that issue in great detail in Committee.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the cost of an MOD officer compared to the cost of an Essex police officer?

[Bob Russell]

That is a good question. I do not know the answer, but it is the sort of detail that we should discuss in Committee.

I am talking about a huge reduction in security for the Army families, which is not good. Fortunately, we are living in more peaceful times in the United Kingdom. At the time of the IRA troubles, like any other military town we needed all the security that was going.

[Thomas Docherty]

My understanding is that like the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the terms of operation and the rights of the MOD police are much more limited than those of the civilian police forces. Is that correct?

[Bob Russell]

No, that is incorrect. A Ministry of Defence police officer has marginally more powers than an ordinary police officer because he is a police officer plus. He has the military addition. We must not get confused with the red caps. In Colchester we now have a combined police station, with the Royal Military Police—the red caps—the Ministry of Defence police and the Essex constabulary all working out of one police station. MOD police officers—as Private Eye calls them, MOD Plod—are police officers plus, because they are also part of the garrison Army family.

Until the last general election, I was one of three parliamentary advisers to the Royal British Legion. As the Labour and Conservative Members who advised it stood down at the election, it decided to end that arrangement. It now has other ways of bringing matters before Parliament. I mention that because reference has been made to the military covenant. Early-day motion 1 in November 2007 was tabled by myself and was eventually signed by 203 Members throughout the House, 17 of whom are now Ministers—four are in the Cabinet, and three are Defence Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is on the Treasury Bench. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, also signed it, along with Mr Speaker, who was not the Speaker then.

Alongside the Royal British Legion, which does valiant work, we have the Army Benevolent Fund, or ABF The Soldiers Charity, as it likes to be called; Veterans Aid, one of the smaller specialist charities, if I may use that term, which does fantastic work for former military personnel who are at the bottom of the pile and is based down the road in Victoria; Combat Stress; and numerous military, regimental and other charities. We need to get their recommendations, advice and views when we consider welfare and so on. Help For Heroes has taken off. I am pleased to say that one of its first rehabilitation centres, if not the first, will be in Colchester.

I suggest to the Committee that it visit the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester, which takes people from all the services who have been given a custodial sentence and whom the Army, Navy and Air Force wish to have return to the service. The centre is almost like a finishing school. The vast majority of those who go there are Army, it must be said, and the vast majority of those who graduate from it return to their units as better soldiers, sailors or airmen as a consequence. The centre also deals with those who have been given a military sentence before they are discharged. I mention that not because I am advocating that our civilian prisons should become military—far from it; I was very much against a previous Government’s boot camp policy—but because I am sure the civilian Prison Service could benefit from the education and training provided by MCTC.

I conclude by commending the Bill. The debate has been constructive on both sides of the House. There will be differences, but I am sure of the unity of purpose in the Chamber for our armed forces. I hope the Bill will go forward and eventually become an Act.

20:05

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), as is his wont, added considerably to what has been a long and interesting debate so far this evening, predominantly on clause 2 and the military covenant. By reference to Colchester, the hon. Gentleman made a useful contribution to the debate.

Although the rest of the Bill is extremely important and our armed services would not exist without it, there are others much better qualified than I who will no doubt address the other parts of the Bill later in the debate and in Committee. Therefore I, too, will focus most of my attention on the military covenant.

It is a rather frightening and humbling experience in this place to follow speakers who know so much more about the subject than oneself. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), both of whom know more about the military covenant than most other Members in the Chamber today will ever find out. I pay tribute to their contributions.

I will not seek to equal that or compete with it. I shall focus on the concept of the covenant, why it is there, what it does, and in particular, what the Bill does to strengthen it. The covenant has, of course, existed for many years. I speak from two personal areas of experience. The first is as chairman of the all-party group on the armed forces. Several of my co-chairmen and vice-chairmen are present in the Chamber this evening. It is a humbling experience to see each of the brigades returning from Afghanistan marching through Carriage Gates, arriving at the east door of Westminster Hall and going down to the Terrace for a reception.

At the most recent event, when 4 Mechanised Brigade arrived, I was particularly struck by one soldier wearing his combat kit cut off where his boxer shorts would be. It was only afterwards that I discovered the reason. He was marching in the column. He was not a casualty. The reason for that rather unusual form of military dress was that the third degree burns to his legs were so severe that he was unable to take even the light cotton of desert combats against the skin. None the less, he was determined to march in with the rest of them. I pay tribute to such people. Very few of those in the Chamber tonight could compete with that level of true heroism.

I say the same thing about many of the people whom I meet week by week and day by day in the high street of Wootton Bassett. Large numbers of the regiments and the fallen soldiers’ families come to our events in Wootton Bassett, which are held twice a week. The heroism that they show and the bravery and pride that the families show about their close relative who has been killed in Afghanistan is a humbling experience.

With that as background, we have to think about what we as a nation and as a Parliament are doing with regard to our armed services. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire asked whether the military covenant was about improving the lot of soldiers by comparison with other citizens, or whether it was about removing the disadvantage suffered by soldiers. If somebody has to serve under the most appalling privations, as they do in Afghanistan and elsewhere; if somebody has to close the Queen’s enemy, risk being killed by them or, even worse, have to kill them, not something that any of us would want to do; if somebody has to risk the most appalling injuries, to which some of those whom we have seen visit Parliament over the years stand tribute; and if somebody has to suffer as our soldiers suffer, we as a nation owe them more than we owe other public servants.

Of course, public servants such as firemen and all sorts of people do useful things, but, when we require a person by his job to do the things that we require our soldiers to do, we owe them more than we owe any other public servant. So, with the military covenant, we ought to seek not just to resolve the disadvantages that our soldiers face, but to add to the covenant the idea of improved citizenship, as I think my hon. Friend called it.

A number of us in the Chamber have been out to Afghanistan, and I was there not so long ago with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). When one says to soldiers and, come to that, sailors and airmen, “What sort of things are you worried about? What are your problems here on the very front line? Are you worried about the kit?”, the answer by and large is, “No, we are not. The kit that we are issued with now is second to none in the world.” When one asks, “Are you worried about the Taliban, being shot at, being deployed, being hungry, being cold or the desert conditions?”, one finds that they are not concerned about that at all. Those of us who come to this place and say that somehow or other our soldiers are worried about that sort of thing are wrong. When one meets someone on the very front line and asks, “What is it you are most worried about in your service career?”, they say, “I am worried about the family back at home, the housing, my pay and conditions and what I am going to do after I have left the Army.” They are not worried about the ordinary, run-of-the-mill occupation of being a soldier, because they signed up. They recognise the dangers of being shot at, killed, serving in awful conditions and all those things. What they do not recognise are the appalling consequences for their marriages, families and lives after they have left the services.

Earlier in the debate, there was a rather sterile, academic and statistical discussion of whether a disproportionate number of soldiers find themselves imprisoned or suffer from drug or drink abuse after they have left the services. Those people do suffer after they come back, however, and it is thanks to us sending them there—our decision in this place. We decide to send them to Afghanistan. They face all those privations, they come back and many experience prison or mental, drug or alcohol problems thereafter, and we have to bear responsibility for that and put it right.

The military covenant aspect of the Bill is in some ways the most important part, although all the legislation has much to recommend it. With that as a background, it is important that we first thank and congratulate the Government on their commitment to recognise the military covenant and to put it into law. Secondly, we should very much recognise that they have taken some steps to do so, and that in the Bill we have clause 2, because in the military covenant’s long history it has never once been recognised in law.

Without being difficult, however, I have a couple of questions for the Government on which Ministers might choose to brood before they come to reply. First, I have some difficulties with the constitutional aspect of taking something that should be a ministerial or political duty and trying to put it into law. Law is something for which there is a sanction if it is not adhered to, so I wonder what would happen if some subsequent Government—I am sure not this one—20 years from now failed to fulfil the covenant. What would be the sanction against the Secretary of State? Would he come before the House and get ticked off? Would he go to prison, pay a fine or lose his job? What would be the sanction inherent in the Secretary of State failing to perform under clause 2? The same applies to a number of Bills that we passed before the general election on climate change and child poverty. They are not capable of sanction, and I slightly wonder whether there is a constitutional difficulty with putting the covenant in the Bill as it has been. In other words, should it not be a matter about which Ministers are overwhelmingly concerned, whether or not it is written into law? If they were not, they would lose power at a subsequent general election, so there is quite an interesting constitutional conundrum in the Bill.

[Dan Byles]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that there is a danger regarding who decides whether the law has been broken? Will the matter go before the courts? Will we see judicial intervention on the matter of whether the Secretary of State for Defence has broken the military covenant?

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point—exactly what I was driving at. Who decides whether the provisions of the clause have been achieved in years to come?

That leads to me to the second part of my question. My party’s manifesto went to great lengths to say how important the covenant was and how we as a party in government would put it into law. We talked about a broad spectrum of things in the run-up to the general election, but before us we have a relatively modest clause, simply saying that the Secretary of State will bring forward a report once a year. He will draft it and say what is in it, although it will be about education, housing and health care and in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine. So, he will sit down, write a little essay about all the things that he has done to achieve the military covenant and bring it before the House.

We do not know from the Bill whether there will be an oral statement, thereby allowing hon. Members to question him, a written statement or a statement to the Defence Committee, thereby enabling us to scrutinise it carefully. What form will the statement take, and what powers will the House have to hold the Secretary of State’s feet to the fire? Is it possible to imagine a situation in which he comes to the House and in his report says, “I am extremely sorry. This year we have broken the military covenant in a great many ways and done terribly the wrong thing by our armed forces”? Of course not. The Secretary of State will come along every year with his statement and say, “Look what marvellous things we have done with regard to the covenant,” and hope not to be too carefully cross-examined over it.

Given how strongly I feel about the importance of the military covenant, and given that I feel we owe it to our soldiers, sailors and airmen, whom we ask to do such awful things that we ourselves would never consider doing, I slightly question—I do not mean to be disloyal—whether the clause achieves what the coalition Government set out to achieve. Is it actually a rather sad little clause? Could it be strengthened? When the Minister responds to the debate, I would like to know in particular how the Government see it operating. Will it be a mechanism by which this House holds the Government to account? Will it enable us to hold the Minister’s feet to the fire and say, “Secretary of State, you’re not living up to the military covenant. You’ve broken it”? Or is it just going to be a little PR exercise, enabling successive Secretaries of State to say, “Haven’t we done well by way of the military covenant?” If it is, it will be not worth the paper it is written on.

20:17

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a serving member of the reserve forces. Unlike my smart friends who were in the Chamber earlier, my hon. Friends the Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), I am a private soldier, not an officer. I had the honour and privilege of taking part in Operation Herrick 9 in Afghanistan with 3 Commando Brigade as a gunner in the ranks and enjoyed it very much, so I suppose that gives me a different perspective. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North, who said he was not going to be partisan, I am, so I hope that anybody reading Hansard tomorrow will see that my speech was not delivered by an officer and understand where I sit on the political spectrum.

Today’s debate on the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill is most welcome. Since the first few weeks of the coalition, the Government have put the welfare of our nation’s servicemen and women at the top of the political agenda and moved swiftly to ensure that any lapses in the commitment between the Government and our armed forces are rectified.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am concerned that the result of the strategic defence review and the basing decisions now being taken might have caused some uncertainty—I am thinking of RAF Marham in my constituency. What is my hon. Friend’s view on how to maintain the military covenant in these difficult times?

[Jack Lopresti]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. We Members have a responsibility to ensure that, when there are issues in our own constituencies, we bring them to the House, question Ministers and raise them in debates, so that it is on the public record that we are doing our utmost the protect the interests of service people in our constituencies.

I shall focus my contribution, as others Members have, on clause 2, which I very much welcome. It ensures that provision is made to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the effects of service in our armed forces and on the welfare of serving and former members of the armed forces and that of their families. That provision will ensure that the military covenant, which the Government are rebuilding, will be advanced year on year.

We ask our armed forces personnel on operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere to face paying the ultimate price for the protection of our country, its citizens and our freedoms and way of life. We should do that only if they are properly equipped for the task, if they are trained to the highest possible level and if they and their families are provided for when they retire, or are wounded or killed, in recognition and admiration of the sacrifices that they have made.

The unwritten contract between the state and the men and women whom we ask to defend it is rightly a long-standing tradition. In the dangerous, unstable world that we face today, and in the ongoing war on terror, its continuation and development is more important than ever before. Disappointingly, the previous Administration reneged on the covenant. They did not adequately equip our troops for the most hostile of conflicts, they neglected the welfare of our service families, our injured personnel and our veterans, and they left a £38 billion hole in the Ministry of Defence budget at a time of war.

[Thomas Docherty]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his valiant service overseas; I know that he still hopes to go back.

Government Members are so keen to talk about the £38 billion hole. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that comes from a single line of a National Audit Office report that actually said that if future Governments did not adequately fund commitments through this decade there would then be a £38 billion hole? It was not referring to the previous decades of funding, but to the forthcoming decade. It is therefore possibly not quite accurate.

[Jack Lopresti]

The hon. Gentleman cannot run away from the fact. There is a £38 billion hole in the budget. He can try to dazzle me with statistics and perhaps more detailed knowledge, but the fact is that there is a £38 billion deficit in the defence budget.

[Charlie Elphicke]

There is not only a £38 billion hole in the defence budget, but a £40 billion hole in respect of cuts that were not allocated and a structural deficit of £109 billion. Every single household in this country is effectively borrowing £4,000 this year as a result. Is that not an outrageous state of affairs?

[Jack Lopresti]

Yes, it is. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that point to the debate.

If Labour Members have any uncertainty about the extent of the neglect that they caused, the evidence in the results of the May 2010 armed forces continuous attitudes survey may offer some clarification. It showed that just 32% of serving personnel said that they felt valued. Let today’s debate be one of the first crucial steps that we take to restore the moral commitment that was broken—the crucial step that will ensure that our armed forces have the support that they need and that their families and former service personnel are treated with the dignity that they deserve.

It was a great encouragement that on 11 June last year, not even a month into the new Parliament, the Prime Minister announced that the operational allowance for the armed forces would be doubled and backdated from 6 May. From the very start, the Government have ensured that the welfare of our service personnel is at the very top of their agenda.

In the programme for government, the coalition set out its policies for rebuilding the military covenant, all of which are aimed at improving the welfare of service personnel, veterans and their families. That is more than just words on a page; the Government have acted swiftly to ensure that the military covenant will be enshrined in law so that never again will our promise to the servicemen and women of our country be broken. The informal understanding of the state’s duty of care to its armed forces will cease to be regarded as an obligation; it will be a firm rule that all future Governments will have to adhere to. As the Prime Minister said, the time has come for our commitment to be

“refreshed and renewed and written down in a new military covenant that’s written into the law of the land.”

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous. He is absolutely right to say what should happen, but does he not accept that the one group of people who are not legally responsible will be the Government? They are putting legal responsibilities on local government and the health service, but not on the MOD. That is a shabby situation.

[Jack Lopresti]

As I just said, the fact that for the first time the military covenant will be enshrined in law is a massive step forward in accountability.

In early December, Professor Hew Strachan published the report, commissioned by the Government, that his independent task force developed. As a demonstration of their commitment, the Government immediately began work on implementing two of the report’s recommendations: the armed forces community covenant, which encourages communities across the UK to volunteer support for their local armed forces; and a Chief of the Defence Staff commendation scheme, which will allow the head of the UK’s armed forces to thank individuals or bodies who give exceptional support to the armed forces. Those are great initiatives along the way to restoring the covenant, and I look forward to the full response of the defence personnel, welfare and veterans Minister to the report in the spring.

20:24

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate. I am conscious that night draws inexorably onwards, so I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible.

This debate on the Armed Forces Bill is an historic one. That is not so much because of the provisions, some of which may appear a little pedestrian, but because it is one of the great parliamentary symbols, such as the Outlawries Bill or the Septennial Act—one of the great reminders of the struggles that we have had through the centuries to build liberty over tyranny in our country. Some Members have already mentioned that we now ask our servicemen and women more often to go abroad and fight for liberty, to protect our liberty here at home.

Each Armed Forces Bill seems to contain some innovation; as a new boy, I am learning that. The last such Bill—now an Act—enshrined a single set of military law. The great innovation of this Bill is to provide the Secretary of State with an obligation to prepare and present to Parliament an armed services report—a military covenant report, if you will—that will detail a range of issues in the Bill. I am thinking of how the Government and the nation will build their responsibilities in respect of our armed forces.

[Bob Russell]

As the Royal British Legion has driven the updating of the military covenant, perhaps its representatives should be involved in the Secretary of State’s annual report to make sure that they are satisfied.

Incidentally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I said that you had signed the early-day motion that I mentioned. That was not quite correct. You seconded it.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the Minister will take account of his suggestion that the Royal British Legion should be able to give advice about the content of the report.

Many Members have focused on clause 2, and that demonstrates its importance and the interest that we all have in it. Last year, the Prime Minister said that we all—the Government, the private sector and voluntary organisations—have a responsibility to go that extra mile for our armed forces. There is no doubt that over the past several years, our armed forces family and those beyond it have taken the view that we have not gone the extra mile for them.

Colleagues have already mentioned that on the very day of the general election last year, the armed forces continuous attitudes survey showed that just 32%—less than a third—of our armed forces feel that they are valued. Such a report on such a day sent a clear message to the outgoing Government that soldiers, sailors and airmen and women felt that that Government had failed them. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I should say that it sent a clear message to the incoming Government that our military expects a lot more of them.

The writing has been on the wall for a few years. General Guthrie said as far back as 2007 that the Government were failing to keep their side of the bargain in the military covenant. A friend serving in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers who has been to Afghanistan said the same thing in rather more colourful language that it is not parliamentary to repeat here this side of the watershed. If personnel from the Chief of the Defence staff all the way down to a solider driving a recovery vehicle around Helmand are saying the same, we have a real challenge to rebuild faith between our national leaders and our armed forces. That is a challenge the Government must meet. In introducing the Bill and clause 2—the provision for the military covenant report—we are beginning to meet that challenge. We are sending a signal to our armed forces that the things that they and their friends and families are concerned about are the things that the Government are also concerned about and will act upon. I commend clause 2.

I hope that when the Secretary of State and his colleagues consider what should be included in the report—my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) made this point—they will take great heed of and look closely at the work of Professor Strachan and his taskforce and their recommendations to bring to life the military covenant. Two things need to be included in the report to give it teeth: first, forces’ accommodation, which has already been mentioned and is in the Bill and the Strachan report; secondly, personnel kit and training, which is neither in the Bill nor the Strachan report, unless I have missed it.

It is a very old joke to say that soldiers like to grumble, but it is no joke when 36% of servicemen and their families who live in services accommodation say that the accommodation is below standard. That is one of the biggest complaints I hear from my friends and constituents who are in the military. If we are prepared to send young men and women overseas to risk their lives, we can at least ensure that we give them and their families a decent roof over their heads here at home. I therefore hope that the Government will look closely at the Strachan recommendations to enhance accommodation allowances. I know that we are in difficult economic straits, but I hope that the Government will consider that recommendation.

I also hope that the Government will consider expanding the shared equity scheme pilot introduced by the previous Government, and that the Secretary of State will ask the Chancellor to sit down with the banks and persuade them to offer forces-friendly mortgages, so that we can get more service people into their own accommodation. It seems to be a sensible long-term aspiration to offer servicemen and women and their families the opportunity of a stable home with a fixed address and a foot on the property ladder. Incidentally, that would also offer an opportunity to the Ministry of Defence to reduce some of the forces’ accommodation costs, which are currently running at about £285 million a year. The state of some services accommodation, which needs to be improved, means that those costs will only increase. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the recommendations of the Strachan report, and I hope particularly that the Treasury will be invited to look at them.

I would also like to discuss servicemen and women’s kit and training. Those issues have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—neither of whom is in his seat—which demonstrates there is some bipartisanship on the issue. One of my oldest friends is an officer serving with the Royal Welsh who has two tours of Afghanistan under his belt. An issue that he raises continually with me is that although, as Members from all parties have said, it is right that the kit provided to servicemen and women deployed to operations has improved considerably, the time available to train in the kit has not. All too many of them say that all too often kit such as the ACOG rifle sight and Osprey body armour are provided only just before they deploy on operational service, so they are not as prepared as they might be because they have not had enough time to train with it before they deploy. We are also told that Vallon metal detectors, which are essential in identifying mines, are not widely available for training purposes, as that sort of kit should be. I hope that when my right hon. and hon. Friends think about the content of the covenant report, they will consider including such issues so that our servicemen and women feel that we are as serious about their safety abroad as we are about their welfare here at home.

In a short space of time, and despite the difficult economic circumstances that we face, the Government have made some great strides forward in rebuilding the military covenant by doubling the operational hours, maximising R and R, introducing the covenant report, investing £189 million in new kit, and spending another £67 million on countering IEDs. That shows that they have an unbending resolve to support the welfare of our armed forces, and I hope that we get that message across.

I have been looking at the MOD website, where there is a quote that defines a serviceman’s covenant:

“In putting the needs of the Nation, The Army and others before their own, they forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. So, at the very least, British soldiers should always the expect the Nation and their commanders to treat them fairly, to value and respect them as individuals, and to sustain and reward them and their families.”

That is as succinct and straightforward a compact as could be written, and I trust that the Secretary of State will include it as the foreword to his every report.

20:37

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

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate.

I am a Member of Parliament for one of Britain’s principal naval ports and the issues raised in this Bill will resonate in one of the homes of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. In the course of the past 10 years, I have promised that I would say to Ministers that Plymouth is not Portsmouth—we are not 20 minutes away from Bristol, and we need to ensure that we are not ignored. One of the things that the Government could do, if they were so minded, is to consider making Plymouth the centre for the veterans weekend in 2012. I know very well that my right hon. Friends have heard that before, but it is worth repeating on a regular basis.

Going to war is not just about bombs and bullets; rather, it is about those people who put their lives at risk to defend British interests, and about protecting our freedoms and our way of life. If we expect our servicemen and women to fight for this cause, we have to make sure that they feel valued—that is incredibly important. This Bill, together with the military covenant, goes some way towards delivering that, and I hope that it will play very well down in Plymouth.

In just a few weeks’ time, 3 Commando Brigade, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) served a little while ago, and which is based in my constituency, will be deployed back in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick 14. War, of course, is not a means in itself—it is the final episode following our failure, as politicians, to get a diplomatic solution to the problems that face regions of the world. I have always been, and am, very supportive of the interventions that we have made in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but I am well aware that we failed to think through the exit strategy that would leave those countries with a stronger political leadership and able to deliver peace and a strengthened economy. The public were initially behind both conflicts, but as time moved on, the number of casualties rose and they looked increasingly like becoming stalemates, so public support waned.

The quid pro quo for those who fight for their country is that they should be valued. I hope that the Bill goes some way towards delivering on that contract. As an aside, I believe that we must spend more time and effort in looking at ways to avoid conflict. The old adage that prevention is better than cure rings true. For too long, we have seen defence just in terms of scenes from films such as “Saving Private Ryan”. Our priority should be to do more to prevent conflicts and to ensure that servicemen and women are valued when they make their sacrifices. Placing a warship in a port can make a real statement. When President Obama put a US aircraft carrier off Korea recently, it helped to calm down the potential for conflict in the far east.

Inevitably, war has produced dreadful legacies not only in the countries where conflicts have taken place, but for the lives of servicemen and women and their families. That is why I will certainly support the Bill in the Lobbies tonight, should there be a Division. It will make it a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State for Defence to make an annual report to Parliament on the military covenant. I take on board the points of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). One thing that we can do is to ensure that we have a regular debate of this sort for a full day, just as we are doing today, so that such issues can be aired.

The Bill will enshrine the military covenant in law. If we are asking our service personnel to put their lives on the line, Parliament must not only give them the kit, pay and the health and social conditions to do the job; the military covenant says that the state should also maintain a long-term duty of care for them and their families.

[Bob Stewart]

When the names of the casualties are read out in this House, we always say, “We will remember them.” That places on us a requirement to remember them by looking after their wives, children and husbands for the rest of their lives. That is included in the military covenant, although it may not be written down. We have a responsibility to care deeply for people who have given their lives in the service of our country. We must not just say, “We will remember them,” because we do not remember them individually, but we should remember them by caring for the people whom they have left behind.

[Oliver Colvile]

My hon. Friend makes a fair and timely point. Shortly before Christmas, I attended a Christmas party for the families of serving personnel with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). Those families were apprehensive about the departure of their partners and family members to Afghanistan and prayed that they would come back without physical or mental injury.

That brings me to the crux of what I wanted to say: mental health among veterans is a growing problem. This weekend, I was told by Combat Stress that the King’s Centre for Military Health Research published a report recently that warned that almost a quarter of Iraq veterans admitted to suffering from mental ill health. Many have depression and turn to alcohol and drugs. In my city of Plymouth, we have to come to terms with that issue.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman, from my neighbouring seat in Plymouth, join me in commending Hasler Company at HMS Drake, which I was fortunate enough to visit again last Friday, for the excellent work that it does for people with complex problems, particularly mental health problems? Will he join me in encouraging it to keep doing what it is doing? Sadly it needs some additional funding. It is getting some from the Royal British Legion, I believe, and certainly from Help for Heroes, and I hope that the Government will consider supporting it as well.

[Oliver Colvile]

I most certainly join the hon. Lady in that, and I thank her for her intervention—I must say that I have some trepidation when Members decide to intervene on me, for obvious reasons.

The King’s Centre found that nearly 5% of Iraq veterans display symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. It believes, having projected its statistics on to the 180,000 servicemen and women who have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, that as many as 48,000 veterans could suffer from some form of mental health problem, and that 9,000 could potentially develop PTSD.

Last October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government would implement the recommendations of the excellent “Fighting Fit” report written by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who sadly is not in his place at the moment. I pay tribute to him for the hard work that he undertook. The report contains 13 action points, including funding for an additional 30 mental health nurses and a dedicated 24-hour helpline for veterans.

The 2011 to 2015 Ministry of Defence business plan outlines a number of deadlines, including for drawing up a detailed plan to implement the recommendations of my hon. Friend’s report. I understand that that plan was completed in December. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could confirm when and if it will be published and put into the public domain. I would be grateful also if he could explain why the MOD’s structural reform plan monthly implementation update is still not complete, despite the deadline having been in November. I am happy for him to write to me about that, so I am not asking for a result this evening. Perhaps he could tell me when the production of the update might be achieved.

I know that there is a March deadline in the MOD’s business plan for the introduction of 30 mental health nurses, and it would be helpful if we could be told whether that is still on track and what measures the Government are undertaking to deliver greater co-ordination between the charitable sector, Plymouth city council and other organisations.

[Mr Gray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must know not only when the Government are going to implement the recommendations in the excellent report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) but whether that implementation will be fully funded? There is precious little purpose in having the report in the first place if its 13 recommendations are not fully funded. I hope that the Minister will let us know whether those recommendations will be funded to the letter.

[Oliver Colvile]

That is a very fair point.

Plymouth is proud of its Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Army heritage. It has a large number of veterans—I suspect, although I have no proof, that it has one of the largest numbers in the south-west. It is a wonderful place to which to retire, where people can play golf and sail, and there seem to be an awful lot of people there who have been in the services. I understand that Combat Stress now has a regional welfare officer working in Sir Francis Drake’s home city, and I look forward to meeting the welfare officer in the near future.

All of us in Plymouth want to play a significant part in delivering the reforms that the Bill heralds. I would welcome a chance to meet Ministers to discuss how we might work with our friends in the Department of Health, the city council, the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and other charitable organisations to help the Government implement the “Fighting Fit” agenda in our historic part of the south-west. Failure to get the matter right in that city, which I am proud to represent, could have a severe impact on our local services, so I firmly believe that it needs to be action stations today.

20:49

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I represent Dover and Deal, which today still feels like they are at the front line of the nation in its dealings with the continent, not all of which have been happy in the past. Not so long ago, in the second world war, we were the front line and responsible for helping ensure the success of Dunkirk. Before that, in the 18th century, the channel fleet was stationed off the coast of Deal and we retain a strong link with the Royal Marines. I was privileged to be at the installation of the captain general of the Royal Marines as the captain of Deal castle. We also have the lord warden of the cinque ports in Walmer castle, Admiral Boyce, and a brigadier in Dover castle.

The constituency feels strongly about the military covenant. It has a strong cadet movement. It is a privilege for me to be the honorary president of the Deal Air Training Corps, 2235 squadron. It is a considerable privilege for us to have so many Gurkhas living in Dover and Deal, who go on active service and do great things for our nation. I am therefore proud of what our constituency has achieved in the service of this nation and of our military links. The constituency takes a strong and passionate view of the military covenant.

As someone who deeply respects all those who put their bodies and minds in danger on our behalf, I want to stress how pleased I am that we are finally putting the military covenant on to a statutory footing in clause 2. It is absolutely right that the Bill will give the military covenant the increased recognition that it should have had long ago. By enacting the measure, we will give legislative force to the “Army Doctrine Publication”, particularly chapter 1.

However, it is not a no-cost option to back the military covenant in statute. With it comes responsibility, which, in recent years, has been lacking. We must ensure that service personnel and their families are properly cared for, not only in health but when they are hurt, particularly when that hurt happens on active service. What has been going on is not good enough. However, each small measure brings us closer to what we mean by the term “military covenant”.

I can do little better than quote from chapter 1 of the “Army Doctrine Publication”, which states:

“Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices—including the ultimate sacrifice—in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the nation and the Army before their own, they forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service… This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant”.

Chapter 3 states:

“The system’s loyalty to the individual—its obligation in the Military Covenant—is manifested in justice, fair rewards, and life-long support to all who have soldiered”.

The reason for the national debate on the military covenant is the sense that that lifelong support had wavered, that the nation was not completely on the side of the military, as it should have been, and that the military did not have the backing and support that it should have had.

Recently, senior officers such as Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, said:

“There is now a feeling—probably stronger than I can ever recall—that the Government are not keeping their side of the bargain and honouring the Military Covenant”.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, said in his Chief of General Staff’s briefing team report in June 2007:

“My firm aim is to restore the balance of the Military Covenant—it is clearly out of kilter at the moment”.

The Royal British Legion raised its concerns in its general election manifesto, “It’s time to do your bit”. It called for Government action to ensure three key matters: that families of service personnel were properly looked after; that bereaved families were given the support that they need, and that veterans were properly looked after, with health care and poverty fighting prioritised. These points were hammered home to me by my own excellent and active British Legion in Deal, which time and again has raised this issue and pressed for action. Wider concerns have also been raised about mental health, forces accommodation—we often hear about that—armed forces equipment and personal kit, compensation, and even voter registration. As a result of these concerns, morale in our armed forces is not as high as it should be.

The latest armed forces survey found that only 35% of personnel were satisfied with equipment and only 32% felt valued at a basic level, while 37% said morale was too low and 36% said accommodation was not good enough. Such statistics should concern all Members, and they highlight why it is right that in bringing forward clause 2 we hammer home that we are on the side of our armed forces, so that they know that when we put them in harm’s way and they are under fire, our hearts and minds are with them and they have our full support and backing.

The clause’s requirement that the Secretary of State must make a report every year is welcome because it will focus minds that bit more. It is right that health, education and housing should be specifically listed, and I hope that the Secretary of State will also consider including priority health care. I look forward to seeing the new tri-service covenant. Priority health care matters a lot because survey after survey has shown that most GPs have not got a clue about that principle and most hospitals do not know much about it either. We must hammer home the message that our armed forces and veterans should have that priority.

[Bob Russell]

The House of Commons Library has produced an excellent research paper briefing, and I suggest that Ministers should take into account what it says. It observes that the Bill does not explicitly state what welfare provisions must be provided for under the military covenant, such as priority health care, or any minimum standards of care. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the sort of detail that we will want in the Bill when we get it into Committee?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am not certain that just chucking that in the Bill is the most important thing, but I hope very much that the Secretary of State will pick up on my hon. Friend’s comments, and also on the other issues mentioned, and that he will make sure that they are given a proper hearing and are properly understood. I hope he will make sure he puts them in his report.

We should enable the Secretary of State to have that kind of flexibility because other issues that our armed forces are very concerned about, and that will need to be addressed, will arise. The three issues I have mentioned are included in the Bill, but I hope that priority health care will be as well. It is important that when people who serve in our nation’s cause return home, they are properly looked after, because they are much more likely to have serious health issues, mental as well as physical. It is right that we as a country honour that covenant and ensure that they get priority treatment because of their service.

It is right that we should have had Professor Strachan’s report. I do not agree with the Opposition that it is just a damp squib that is a bit wishy-washy and not very interesting. It is important that there is the armed forces community covenant. It is important that the accommodation scheme, which is there to thank people who give their support through the armed forces, is in place, because it will engender a sense of direction and the message that it is right to be on the side of our boys and girls out in the field and that we should support our armed forces.

It is also right that the Government give further, and more detailed, consideration to the other measures that were in the report. That is why the Opposition are wrong to write off this report. It encourages greater help in respect of military housing and greater home ownership. It also proposes that there should be a champion for veterans and better training.

We have also discussed the issue of medals this evening. Some want to hand them out like confetti at a wedding, while others want to be more parsimonious. Whatever happens in that respect, it is important that the MOD makes the following change: the citations for medals should be public from the beginning. I have a constituency case involving a Mr Pile who has written to me saying that he wants to tell his children about his father’s heroic activities. What could be better than for someone to balance their kids on their knee and say, “Do you know what your grandfather did? He served heroically, he got a medal and here is the citation”? But he cannot get his own father’s citation, because he fell out with his stepmother and his father is dead, so the MOD has said, “Sorry, data protection! You can’t know the citation.” So he cannot tell his own children.

[Bob Stewart]

Actually, he can get his citation, if it is a gallantry award, because it will be in the London Gazette, unless there are special circumstances. If my hon. Friend is saying that there should be citations for campaign medals, that is extremely difficult, because everyone who serves for 28 days—or whatever the qualifying period is—gets the medal. The only way someone could get a citation for that is to understand what the campaign was about. Citations for gallantry medals are obtainable via the London Gazette.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend. This issue was raised with me, and the MOD wrote to me saying, “Data protection means that we cannot tell you.” The position is ludicrous. All medal citations should be automatically public and transparent.

Finally, the doubling of the operational allowance and the Government’s efforts to increase the rest and recuperation for military personal have been positive steps. However, there needs to be an improvement on kit and operational duties. That is vital. We have started to see that, which I welcome, and I also welcome the Bill and the military covenant finally being enshrined in law.

21:01

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke).

We have made it clear that Labour will support the Bill, not least because it is a continuation of key reforms introduced by the previous Government. The Armed Forces Act 2006 resulted in the biggest overhaul of the system of military law for 50 years. It consolidated and modernised all the previous service discipline Acts and replaced them with a single system of service law applicable to all service personnel wherever they are based in the world. The Act introduced a fair, modern system of criminal justice to the armed forces while recognising the special circumstances, risks, dangers and demands that we place on service personnel.

The Bill will build on the 2006 Act and introduce other important reforms, including measures to increase the powers of the service police and provisions to strengthen their structural independence. The Bill will ensure that the service police disciplinary systems are consistent with the European convention on human rights; introduce the service sexual offences prevention orders to protect members of the service community outside the UK; strengthen the independence and impartiality of service complaints and procedures; and update regulations protecting prisoners of war detained by UK forces. We on the Labour Benches welcome those changes.

The reforms that we introduced in the 2006 Act, which will be continued and updated through this Bill, were part of a wider body of work by the previous Government not just to improve the system of law governing the armed forces, but to show our wider commitment to the brave servicemen and women in recognition of the unique contribution they make on our behalf. We have heard many excellent speeches in which numerous Members have praised our armed forces. They are right to do so, and I will add my own tribute, particularly to those serving in Afghanistan right now. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women who do extremely dangerous and difficult work in conflict zones all over the globe. They are a generation who have seen active service in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, working hard to protect us and make our world a safer place.

We must not forget those who have gone before, those who have been injured and those who have lost their lives—veterans of conflicts going right back to world war two—who fought to secure the freedom that we enjoy today; and we must not forget the families of our armed forces and veterans. It places great strain on loved ones when husbands and wives, mothers and fathers and sons and daughters spend many months at a time away from home. Service families make huge sacrifices to support those on the front line, and we owe them just as big a debt of gratitude as we do those in combat. We owe it to them to help them address the unique challenges they face as the families of servicemen and women. We also heard today about the important role of reservists and cadets from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and other hon. Members, some of whom are reservists themselves.

The previous Labour Government were the first to deliver a cross-government approach to forces welfare. The service personnel Command Paper, published in summer 2008, set out improved access to housing schemes and health care, free access to further and higher education for service leavers with six years’ service, and extended travel concessions for veterans and those seriously injured. We guaranteed fair pay for all our forces—that included the first ever tax-free bonus for those on operations abroad—while strengthening our support for their welfare. We invested hundreds of millions of pounds to reverse a legacy of decades of neglect in forces accommodation. The level of homelessness among service leavers was sharply reduced and the law was changed to give them better access to social housing. We also introduced Armed Forces day and veterans badges to make sure that the achievements and contributions of all our armed forces heroes are properly recognised.

Labour’s 2010 manifesto proposed enshrining in law the rights of forces, their families and veterans in an armed forces charter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) mentioned. I am delighted that this Government have agreed on the need to improve the military covenant by guaranteeing rights in law, although we still await specific plans to make that a reality.

We heard much about rebuilding the military covenant, including in considered contributions from the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). As the Opposition, we have made it clear that we will support the Government on measures to show further our commitment and duty of care to our armed forces. However, as the shadow Secretary of State set out, we have some important questions for the Government on their position on the military covenant.

The Bill contains a specific proposal that the Secretary of State will publish an annual report on the Government’s progress on the military covenant. We have heard discussion of the external reference group, which the previous Government established to chart the progress made by Departments in delivering the commitments made to our armed forces in the service personnel Command Paper. The ERG includes representatives from service charities and service families federations, and provides an unbiased and independent progress report. I am aware that informal assurances have been given that the group will be consulted, but that is quite different from the ERG producing its own report. Unfortunately, MOD Ministers were accused in newspaper reports yesterday of politicising the military covenant. That may not be the intention of the Government, but we are very concerned that the important independent scrutiny in the form of a progress report by the ERG is being removed. That concern was raised by the shadow Secretary of State, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and by some on the Government Back Benches, including the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). The Royal British Legion has called for an assurance to be given that the ERG will be retained and will continue to produce its own annual report. As such, I urge the Government to re-examine the matter to ensure that both Parliament and the public have an objective view on the Government’s progress or otherwise. If that does not happen, the independent expert scrutiny provided by the group may well, unfortunately, be lost.

[Mr Gray]

Excellent as the external reference group is, does the hon. Lady agree that it has one major defect, which is that it is not answerable to this House? The Bill’s proposal strengthens that area considerably by saying that Ministers must come here to explain to us what they have done on the military covenant. That does not happen with the existing report.

[Gemma Doyle]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As we have said, we welcome the fact that such a debate will take place in this House. However, as I have also said, we are in danger of losing the independent scrutiny that the ERG provides and we do not want that to happen.

[Alison Seabeck]

I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend’s comments about the ERG, because I am sure that we will want to tease out and press these issues a little further in Committee. If she intended to cover this next issue later, I hope she will forgive me for asking about it now. I visited my local naval base on Friday, when I was made aware that the MOD police are very concerned about cuts in their numbers as a result of cutbacks. How will that affect their ability to carry out the additional investigative work that is set out in the Bill, which of course we welcome?

[Gemma Doyle]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the gap between Government rhetoric and action. The cuts mean that we will not necessarily see action living up to what is being promised. The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said that we need some indication of what the outcome of the covenant report will be. It would be appreciated if the Minister said whether there will be any tangible measure of whether the Government have made progress on armed forces welfare.

As I have said, we are awaiting specific proposals from the Government on what the new covenant will include and when it will be written into law as promised. We do not yet know what welfare provisions will be included, or what minimum standards of care there should be under the military covenant. Some existing problems were raised by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). The Government commissioned a taskforce to make recommendations, and it has now reported. They have accepted two of the taskforce’s recommendations, but we are still waiting for the full response.

When the Government do make their full response, they should pay due attention to the taskforce’s view that

“Meeting obligations to the military community should not impose significant costs on local government”.

I would be grateful for a guarantee that any measures that are implemented as part of the military covenant will be fully costed and funded, and that the costs will not merely be passed on to local authorities or the NHS.

I raise with the Minister, as I did at Defence questions last month, the issue of the veterans card, which the taskforce specifically recommended. The previous Government proposed introducing a veterans card, which would help service providers to identify former members of the armed forces to enable them to get better treatment and better access to treatment. At that time, the plans were welcomed by the Royal British Legion, but since coming into power the Government have scrapped those plans, and the veterans Minister, in letters to hon. Members, ruled out an ID card for veterans. Given that the taskforce has recommended that, will the Minister now give a specific commitment, which he did not do last month, to reconsider that matter and the Government’s position on the veterans card?

The taskforce report appears to encourage home ownership to reduce the cost of upgrading existing service accommodation. Measures that assist service personnel to gain better access to the housing market are welcome, but can the Minister give a guarantee that the policy of merely encouraging greater home ownership among the armed forces will not be adopted instead of upgrading service accommodation? The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife rightly acknowledged that we have some way to go on that.

The taskforce report suggests that service personnel should be shown special treatment where individuals have been seriously injured, and we obviously support that view, but the taskforce report also states that it

“has assumed that it is not the role of the government to provide special privileges for Service personnel across the board.”

The idea behind the military covenant is surely that the unique nature of military service should be recognised in the provision that the Government make for their servicemen and women. Can the Minister say whether the taskforce was correct to make that assumption, and does he agree that the Government should not provide special privileges for service personnel across the board? That would somewhat change the expected nature of the covenant and the legislative entitlements that have been promised.

Much of the report focuses on suggested measures to be taken at local level. Indeed, one of the two accepted recommendations, which has already been implemented, is on the armed forces community covenant. That is a welcome step. The Government must, however, be careful about being over-reliant on local measures to reinforce the military covenant. Indeed, the report highlights problems with the application of a 50% council tax discount for those serving overseas. That highlights the postcode lottery that can result when decisions are taken locally. A heavy reliance on local and voluntary measures would contradict the Government’s stated intention to enshrine the military covenant in law.

Parties on both sides of the House have pledged to support the memorial to the 55,573 airmen of Bomber Command who died in world war two. The Bomber Command Association raised the £5 million necessary to pay for the memorial in Green park, but the Government scheme that exempts memorials from VAT expired on 4 January. The association is now faced with raising another £250,000. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor and has he requested that the Treasury waives the VAT to allow the memorial to go ahead?

I have covered some of the specific questions about the content of the taskforce’s report, but let me return to some of the more general issues. I want to know what more we can expect from the Government. In opposition, they said that the covenant was shattered, but in government they have failed to match their bold promises to rebuild the covenant with sufficiently tough action. The Conservative manifesto states:

“Our brave men and women, their families, and our veterans deserve the best for putting their lives on the line to protect our liberties. We will ensure they get the best.”

No one would disagree with that, but it does not fit with the Government’s actions now that they are in office. The Prime Minister established a taskforce and asked it to come up with low-cost, innovative policy options. Can the Minister look our brave armed forces in the eye and say that they will get the best when his Prime Minister has asked for policy options, but only on the cheap?

Since taking office, the Government have appointed a taskforce to suggest some low-cost measures. There is no doubt that many of the measures included in the report, such as the veterans card scheme, could make a difference, but the overall content of the report was labelled “incredibly wet and feeble” by the chairman of the Forces Pension Society, as was mentioned earlier. Essentially, the Government will need to do a lot better and improve drastically on their record so far. They have failed to bring forward a comprehensive package of proposals to back up the rhetoric that they will rebuild the covenant. The action they have taken has completely undermined those discussions.

[Charlie Elphicke]

In fairness to those on the Front Bench, Rome was not built in a day, particularly when it had been destroyed over 13 years.

[Gemma Doyle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am afraid that neither was it built on the cheap. We are awaiting a bit more action from the Government.

Let us take as an example the Government’s plans to link public sector pension rises to CPI rather than RPI inflation, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East. They explained that that will impact disproportionately on members of the armed forces, who draw down their pension much earlier than other public sector workers. Servicemen and women, some of whom have suffered horrendous injuries in battle, could see the value of their pensions reduced by hundreds of thousands of pounds. War widows will be affected likewise. The change is fundamentally unfair to the very people who give their service to defend our way of life, and that is why we have suggested an alternative and potentially fairer approach.

The Government have also been accused of a betrayal by forces families following their decision to scrap major reforms to the system of inquests into military deaths. The changes that the previous Government legislated to introduce and that were due to be implemented imminently were supported by service charities and families. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 would have delivered a better inquest service and ensured that the coroner undertaking military inquests had the training necessary to conduct an effective investigation. It would also have created a system of appeals against coroner’s decisions.

Anyone who has lost a loved one has the right to know and understand the full circumstances surrounding their relative’s death. Families need to have confidence in the inquest system and these changes would have made a huge difference. By scrapping the chief coroner and abandoning the reforms that families want, the coalition has made a real error. In Committee on the Public Bodies Bill in the other place, their lordships voted to save the office of the chief coroner by a substantial majority. I hope that the Government will reconsider their view on this matter.

[Mr Gray]

The coroner has been mentioned several times this evening. Will the hon. Lady take this opportunity to say that the coroner in Oxfordshire in days gone by and, more particularly, David Masters, the excellent coroner in Wiltshire, have done a superb job of running inquests over the past few years? Leaving aside the debate on the chief coroner that she has described, the system at the moment works rather well.

[Gemma Doyle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I would certainly agree that we want that excellence to be available throughout the United Kingdom, which is why we support these reforms.

These issues seriously undermine the covenant as well as the Government’s claims that they are seeking to rebuild it. It is no wonder that the chairman of the Forces Pension Society said:

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the armed forces so quickly.”

For the sake of morale in the armed forces and for the sake of our individual servicemen and women and their families, I sincerely hope that the Government will rethink their actions.

The debate has given us an opportunity to discuss the finer points of this important Bill, which builds on the work done by the previous Government in overhauling many procedures in the armed forces, particularly in relation to military justice and discipline. The Bill will ensure that the armed forces can perform more effectively, and it will make the lives of our service personnel safer. The debate has also given us the opportunity to contrast the Government’s rhetoric on the military covenant with their record of action. They have been found wanting, and they must reconsider their approach to the covenant.

21:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have participated in the debate. After hearing the rather fierce winding-up speech by the shadow Minister, I point out that two Labour Back Benchers participated in the debate and that substantially more Conservative Back Benchers took part, which shows how much interest there has been in the House.

[Mr Jim Murphy]

And a Liberal.

[Mr Robathan]

If the right hon. Gentleman were any good at maths, he would work out that one Liberal means that at least five Labour Back Benchers should have participated.

Leaving that to one side and returning to the Bill, the Government are required to introduce an Armed Forces Bill every five years, because those Bills provide the legal basis for the armed forces and for their discipline. Five years ago, the Armed Forces Act 2006 established a single system of service law, which applies to all members of the armed forces wherever they are serving in the world. It was a significant piece of legislation. The Bill that we are considering today is much smaller, and much of it was implemented under the previous Government. We are, in fact, pursuing the policies that the previous Government introduced, so I was particularly saddened by the shadow Secretary of State’s extraordinary speech. [Interruption.] The term that applies to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is “chuntering”.

The covenant has engendered a great deal of discussion in the debate, and we are fulfilling the Prime Minister’s pledge to put the matter on a statutory basis in this Bill. Every year, there will be a report on the covenant, which the House may wish to discuss. Returning to the hon. Members who have spoken, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who is an extremely sensible friend, made some interesting points. He asked about the air bridge, which we are working on. Because, like me, he has travelled on it and been delayed on it, he knows that part of the problem is the age of the aircraft. He asked whether we will add days lost on rest and recuperation to post-tour leave, which is now our policy and is happening already.

My hon. Friend gave his view, which comes from serving in the Territorial Army, on medals. He also mentioned reservists. I agree with him entirely that support for such servicemen who return from operational tours is difficult. I pay tribute to those whose day job is not serving in the armed forces but who go out on operational tours and do excellent work helping our regular armed forces, and I pay tribute to their families, too.

Turning to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—[Interruption.] I think that I am more Welsh than the hon. Member for Rhondda.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister withdraw that remark?

[Mr Robathan]

If it is the case that the hon. Gentleman is, in fact, Welsh, contrary to all expectations and signs, of course I withdraw the remark.

The armed forces are under-represented in the prison population. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd did not mean to do this, but it is important that we do not patronise our soldiers, sailors and airmen, who are more law-abiding than most. Of course some of them go to prison, but we are talking about responsible adults, some of whom commit crimes. Interestingly, the chances of being in prison if one has been in the armed forces are considerably less than if one has not. Our armed forces members want to be treated as responsible adults and not as victims.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)—he is a doctor and he is very gallant—for his extremely important report “Fighting Fit”. He asked whether we should call the armed forces covenant the military covenant in the Bill and I shall look into that. There is a legal issue involved, but I can certainly say that the covenant report will not be a tick-box exercise.

The very Welsh hon. Member for Rhondda was particularly keen on armed forces members from Wales being able to serve in Wales, but my experience of young people—both those going into the armed forces and those going to university—is that they often want to get away from their home environment. I have not heard many complaints about this before and I think they might not wish to be close to home. In my period in the armed forces, a very long time ago, I spent a disproportionate amount of my time training in Wales—in the Brecon Beacons at Sennybridge, in Snowdonia and in other places. The hon. Gentleman was very disparaging about Sennybridge, but I rather liked it.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) referred to the system of having a Bill every five years as technical, but I disagree entirely. I notice that he read history, but I do not know whether he got his history degree.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is a work in progress.

[Mr Robathan]

There is a lot of that going on.

This is not a technical Bill: it is incredibly important. Those of us who know the history of the Bill of Rights 1689 know that it is incredibly important to have parliamentary authority for the armed forces. That remains as true today as it was more than 300 years ago; that is why we have a democracy. The hon. Gentleman then blamed the Government for the poor housing, which I thought slightly strange. He said that “the money was put in place for sorting out the housing,” but I think that might have been part of the £38 billion that we could not find when we came into office.

The hon. Gentleman then spent a long time showing his prejudice against private education, harking back to the good old days of class warfare. There was no logic involved—just prejudice.

[Thomas Docherty]

May I clarify that I have no prejudice against people choosing to spend their own money on private health care or private education? I just object, when there are severe budget cuts for the MOD, to £110 million of taxpayers’ money being spent subsidising other people’s private education.

[Mr Robathan]

As I explained, the reason for the continuity of education allowance is so that children do not have to change schools often. I have heard of changes more than four times in five years and I do not think that is very fair on those children or their families. With that sort of system, people would tend not to stay in the armed forces. Be they private soldiers or generals, they would say, “I am not staying in the armed forces; I am going to do something else.” That is the reason for the allowance. [Hon. Members: “Private soldiers?”] Yes, private soldiers do send their children to independent schools. [Interruption.] I cannot speak on this in detail, but I assure Opposition Members—who presided over the system, which we are tightening up dramatically—that nearly 50% of those who use the continuity of education allowance are not commissioned officers.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

No, not again.

I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made his speech. [Interruption.] That is what it says here. He particularly seeks the maximum involvement of armed forces charities in the work of the covenant and that is absolutely what we want.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) talked about the heroism in the armed forces, recognised in Wootton Bassett in his constituency, and I think that we all agree on that. He welcomed our commitment to the armed forces covenant and the fact that our manifesto commitment will be kept, but he should watch how the issue develops, because I think that he will be more satisfied than I understand he appeared to be in his speech. The provision is not a “sad little clause”; it is an important step forward in fulfilling our obligations to the armed forces.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for his service in Afghanistan. I was glad to hear that he welcomed clause 2 and was critical of the previous Government’s record on the covenant. It seems rather strange that we get criticised for all these things after seven or eight months, whereas I seem to remember that the previous Government were there for 13 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) asked us to go the extra mile for the armed forces. He is absolutely right. They are in a unique position, and we should and will go that extra mile; we are committed to doing so. He talked about service family accommodation. We are working on improving quality. I recently cut the turf on a new estate, the Canadian estate in Bulford. It was put on hold under the last Government, but we have started again. There is, of course, a big issue about cost. We are also working towards greater home ownership. My hon. Friend may know of the new employment model, which will mean that the Army will tend to be based more in the same place, rather than moving around the country.

I heard the plea that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) made for Armed Forces day in Plymouth, and we will certainly consider that. I absolutely agree with his central point, which is that we must make the armed forces feel valued. I know that I am a bit older than some people on the Opposition Front Bench—

[Mr Jim Murphy]

All of them.

[Mr Robathan]

—all of the people on the Opposition Front Bench; I can remember the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979. The pay of the armed forces was reduced so much, and was so poor, that people left in their droves, and we ended up with something called the black hole of officers. So many officers of captain and major rank left that there was a huge black hole, which was quite good for promotion, but not much good for the armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is extremely proud of Dover and military life there—I got that message—mentioned electoral registration. We are working on ensuring that it is easier for service personnel to register only once, because the system has become extremely complicated under quite well-meaning measures of the previous Government.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), gave her first speech from the Front Bench. I congratulate her and welcome her to the Front Bench. I also welcome the service personnel Command Paper; I think that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is not here, was partly responsible for it. It is basically a good piece of work that we support, and we are going forward with many of the improvements that were suggested and started by the previous Government; I think that we can say that.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire then, I am sorry to say, went on about the external reference group, which we value. We have no plans to get rid of it, or to not publish its reports. It will produce a report, which will be seen and will be transparent. I assume that it will become evidence to the report on the covenant that the Secretary of State will have to make to Parliament. As I explained to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, that is about the accountability of the Government to Parliament, on which I hope we all agree. This is a non-story, a non-issue; the process will be transparent and accountable. We will listen to the external reference group, and if it does not like what we have done, I would expect it to say so. Hew Strachan and I have regular meetings. I always counsel people not to believe everything that they read in the newspapers.

We will look at the idea of a veterans identity card, which the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire was lauding, but one of the issues that should be addressed is: who actually wants it? It is quite important that a little bit of market research is done on that, to start with. She asked whether I was having meetings with people on the Bomber Command memorial. I had a meeting just before the recess with the new chairman of the Bomber Command memorial. We had a very constructive meeting, and I am helping him on one particular issue that I do not want to get into now; difficulties had arisen over planning permission in the royal parks.

The hon. Lady attacked us regarding the covenant. We are introducing the covenant. The Labour Government did not do so. It is rather strange to hear us attacked in such a way for what we are doing on the covenant. It is work in progress, like the degree of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.

[Chris Bryant]

And like this speech.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman does an awful lot of chuntering. I am surprised that anyone lets him in.

Finally, I turn to the speech from the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), the shadow Secretary of State. Disappointing is the best word to describe it. He said that our attitude was heartless. He was a member of the previous Government under the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). I point out to him that one cannot spend money that one has not got. The previous Government spent it like water. They destroyed our economy.

The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire grins back at me. He highlighted the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to change the indexation of service pensions from RPI to CPI, so perhaps now he will stand up and pledge that should, God forbid, the Labour party be returned to government at the next election, it will return the indexation of armed forces pensions and perhaps all public service pensions from CPI to RPI.

[Mr Murphy]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to rise, and I encourage the Secretary of State to rise to defend his policy. The question is whether it is right to take away from war widows and those who were severely injured on the battlefield in Afghanistan pension entitlement that they had reasonably expected. Perhaps the Minister should focus less on what will be in our manifesto in two, three or four years, and more on his policy this very evening. He should try at least to do what the Secretary of State failed to do and defend his own policy.

[Mr Robathan]

After that extremely long intervention, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. He says that we are taking money away from people. We are doing nothing of the kind. That is scaremongering. We are changing the indexation going forward, as he is well aware. We must address the huge debt left behind by the previous Government. [Interruption.]. Opposition Members are obviously in denial. That is what we have to do.

The Bill is important, as I have explained, because it is part of parliamentary control of the armed forces. It provides the legal basis for the armed forces to exist. Without it, there would be some rather interesting and difficult situations.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

No, I think not.

There is an annual continuation order, which must be approved by both Houses every year. The Bill is the primary legislation, which we must have every five years, as most Members of the House know. I have a real interest in the safe passage of the Bill. Perhaps I should have declared that I am a recipient of an armed forces pension changing from RPI to CPI indexation. It will be a privilege to take the Bill through the House.

Finally, I pay tribute to all members of the armed forces who are even now serving on duty in Afghanistan in real danger on our behalf. I also pay tribute to the families and the communities who support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

armed forces bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:

Select Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.

2. The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before 10 March 2011.

Committee of the whole House, consideration and Third Reading

3. On report from the Select Committee the Bill shall be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.

4. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on re-committal, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day’s sitting.

5. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings or at the moment of interruption on that day, whichever is the earlier.

7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

armed forces bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ARMED FORCES BILL

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:

1. The Committee shall have 14 members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

2. The Committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it;

(b) to admit the public during the examination of witnesses and during consideration of the Bill (but not otherwise); and

(c) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Bill. —(Angela Watkinson.)

Business without Debate

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated legislation

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

Postal services

That the draft Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 10 November, be approved.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

Unscrupulous Lenders

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

21:40

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

First, may I express my gratitude to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to hold this debate, the first of the year, on illegal moneylending? It is held at a most poignant time, with individual and family debt increasing following the financial pressures of Christmas, the new year VAT increase, higher transport and energy costs and the spectre of public service, job and benefit cuts looming large in the UK economy. Indeed, we are in an economic climate most conducive to increasing the number of vulnerable people who fall prey to the illegal and intimidating practices of unscrupulous loan sharks, which have severe and, in some cases, devastating effects on victims, their families and the wider communities.

It will come as no surprise to many of us that the areas with the greatest concentration of loan shark activity are deeply deprived social housing estates, as identified by Policis, the independent economic and social research consultancy, in its November 2006 report, “Illegal Lending in the UK”, for the then Department of Trade and Industry, arguably the best academic study of illegal lending to date.

Those areas, largely urban conurbations and predominantly in the north, the west midlands, Scotland, Wales and the deprived parts of London, have relatively high rates of home credit exclusion, which in itself correlates strongly with deprivation. Loan sharks are illegal moneylenders: they lend without a credit licence, causing immense misery by preying on some of the most vulnerable in our society. They subject many of them to intimidation and threats of or actual violence, while charging super-inflated interest rates—sometimes about 2,500%—and arbitrary late-payment penalties.

A particularly distressing case from my constituency of Halton is my principal reason for applying to hold this debate this evening. Brian Shields, from Runcorn, committed suicide on 3 December 2005 aged just 22. A keen sportsman and a promising footballer, he had run up debts to a loan shark, owing to the extortionate interest rate of 90% that he was charged. A debt of £300 rose to more than £3,400 in a matter of weeks.

The illegal moneylender, Paul Nicholson, was jailed indefinitely in 2009 for offences including moneylending without a licence, blackmail and assault against a number of his victims. He was convicted of raping one woman who could not repay her debts and of threatening to petrol-bomb another woman’s house. The judge in the case said it was

“deliberate, blatant, systematic and sustained intimidation”,

and Nicholson was locked up indefinitely for the public’s protection.

Brian Shields’ mother, Carol Highton, also from Runcorn, hopes that the case of her son’s death might at some stage be re-investigated, owing to evidence of a struggle in the house and the presence of another person shortly before he died. I pay tribute to Mrs Highton, who has been leading a campaign on behalf of families and their victims to introduce far tougher legislation to halt the practice of illegal moneylending, which takes place in a secretive and shadowy world, in clubs, pubs and bars, on mobile phones and through text messaging.

Carol Highton believes that the death of her son Brian raises two very important issues that need to be addressed. First, not enough is being done nationally and particularly in communities of low-income and single-parent families to halt the practice of illegal moneylending and the cynical use of high interest rates to maximise profits from loans. Secondly, there might be many more suicides or attempted suicides by victims who cannot cope with the threats and intimidation that are often the trademark of loan sharks who prey on vulnerable young people and people in general. Mrs Highton believes that the wording of the Suicide Act 1961, which says that it is a crime to

“aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another”,

should apply when people are known to have taken their own lives as a result of threats and intimidation from a moneylender. If such a prosecution policy became more widespread, that would help to deter the practice.

Mrs Highton feels that the law on assisted suicide, which carries a maximum jail sentence of 14 years, should be used to prosecute individuals whose threatening, menacing and intimidating behaviour can drive a person to take their own life, as she says happened with her son. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice about that? Will the issue be considered when there is a review of criminal offences?

On the night prior to his death, Brian received two phone messages from Nicholson demanding payment—one as late as 11.3 pm. Nicholson also imposed a £10-a-day late payment fine. At the inquest, the coroner noted that Brian had a history of drug taking and financial problems and had received threats concerning the debts.

Since launching the Brian Shields Trust to campaign against loan sharks and provide confidential advice to victims and their families, Carol Highton has discovered that hundreds and possibly thousands of people across the country have suffered at the hands of loan sharks and have been driven to the point of suicide—in some cases, by tactics even worse than those employed by Nicholson.

Carol has appeared many times in the broadcast and print media and is a willing and courageous campaigner, lending active support to teams across the country to help raise the profile of their work on illegal moneylending and of the misery that the practice can cause. That can include forcing victims to engage in drug running, fencing stolen goods and forced sex acts. Her work has been recognised nationally and locally, with television and community awards for her campaigning and courage and the work in close partnership with housing associations, credit unions and the police.

National figures produced recently by Birmingham-based illegal moneylending teams show that since 2004 more than 1,700 illegal moneylenders have been identified, more than 500 arrests have been made and £37 million of illegal debts have been written off. The illegal moneylending teams throughout the regions have helped more than 16,000 victims and more than £20 million of assets are expected to be seized under proceeds of crime procedures, with £1.3 million being seized in cash.

For the launch of the national “stop loan sharks” campaign video last May, the Office of Fair Trading commented that

“Nationally, the Stop Loan Sharks project has so far helped more than 11,500 people, written off more than £31 million of illegal debt, secured more than 60 years in prison sentences including an indefinite sentence for public protection, and seized £1 million in cash.”

At this point, it is worth drawing the House’s attention to the illegal moneylending team structure that the previous Labour Government put in place to tackle the issue head on. It will be useful to quote from the 2009 press release of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the extension of the regional pilot schemes.

“Under the Illegal Money Lending Project the Department has been funding regional teams in Glasgow and Birmingham since 2004 to investigate the impact of strong enforcement against illegal moneylenders (loan sharks).

In 2004, BERR invested £2.6 million in the project and secured a further £1.2m from the Financial Inclusion Fund to expand the pilot into Liverpool, West Yorkshire and Sheffield.

In 2007/8, the project was rolled out throughout England, Scotland and Wales with an additional £2.762m from the Financial Inclusion Fund. BERR committed a total of £16.5 million to the Illegal Money lending Project since the launch of the pilot in 2004.

It was announced In December 2007 that BERR would continue to fund an illegal money lending team in every region in Great Britain until March 2011.

Current plans are that activity will continue at a similar level of intensity throughout the period, subject to periodic review of the impact of the initiative.

The project is a key part of the Government’s”—

that is, the then Government’s—

“financial inclusion agenda, one of the aims of which is to help people gain access to affordable credit. To this end, the teams will focus on providing support to victims as well as on securing convictions against illegal lenders.

The teams will initially target their activity in the areas identified in research published by the Department in December 2006 as areas where the incidence of illegal money is likely to be particularly high.”

I shall not list all the areas, but they include: Cardiff and Swansea in Wales; Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham in London; Southampton in the south-east; Newcastle in the north-east; Leeds and Sheffield in Yorkshire and the Humber; and Liverpool and Greater Manchester in the north-west. The press release went on:

“The Birmingham team expanded its existing operations to cover the North West, the South East and the East of England.

It was also given additional funding to support increased financial inclusion and victim support activity in its existing areas: West Midlands, West and South Yorkshire, and Liverpool. The Glasgow team was given additional funding to enhance its financial inclusion and victim support work in Scotland.

New regional teams have been established in the North East, East Midlands, South West, London and Wales, Merseyside and the North East. Since the pilots were established in September 2004, the teams have achieved a number of notable successes.”

The illegal moneylending team and the Brian Shields Trust, which work closely together, have welcomed the Minister’s recent announcement that the illegal moneylending team regime is to receive Government funding of £5.2 million a year over three years. While the Government’s commitment to such work is welcomed, the Brian Shields Trust points out that just over £5 million a year is only a fraction of the money that is expected to be seized in assets from illegal moneylenders under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 procedures. In the case of Paul Nicholson alone, the authorities managed to recover £800,000, although Nicholson’s ill-gotten gains were originally put at £4.3 million.

The scale of the problem—one that is likely to be made worse by the current economic climate—raises the question of whether sufficient is being invested. Will the Minister say what impact assessments have been made of the scale of the threat posed by loan sharks socially and economically, and what criteria have been established for the new funding arrangements to match the funding needs to tackle illegal lending? How can he be confident that the resources at the Government’s disposal are sufficient to deal with the growing scale of the problem? Is he keeping the situation under review?

The Brian Shields Trust wonders whether the money claimed under the Proceeds of Crime Act is new money or money reclaimed by the courts originally belonging to the victims. Would it not be fair if some mechanism were put in place to enable victims to reclaim money paid to illegal moneylenders, who are obviously operating outside the law? I also share Carol Highton’s concerns about whether the replacement of the regional teams with one team for England based in Birmingham will achieve the desired result of a more robust and better restructured strategy or, as I suspect, will spread more thinly the good work that has been done in tackling loan shark practices. This is the important point I want to make to the Minister. The regional illegal moneylending teams themselves express such concerns about the proposals of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to replace them with one national body for England in Birmingham, as announced by the Minister at the end of December.

Howard Turton, enforcement manager of the north-east illegal moneylending team, says that such a proposal would be a backward move in the fight against illegal lenders. He is on record as saying:

“We believe that the decision to deprive the North-east of a local team will be damaging to the communities we serve and is a retrograde step”

that will have

“an adverse effect on the levels of enforcement activity across the region.”

That is despite the success of the north-east illegal moneylending team, which was set up by the Labour Government exactly three years ago precisely to tackle the prevalence of illegal lending in the area. That team has written off some £2 million of illegal debt and secured the arrests of 80 illegal lenders.

Particular successes have included the seizure of £6,000 in cash and cheques following a home and office raid during December 2009 in Redcar and three arrests in connection with the confiscation of counterfeit luxury goods. Mr Turton worries that smaller community lenders—more prevalent in the north-east—will be overlooked by a nationally based operation that is keener on targeting the really big players. As Councillor Brian Hubbard of Middlesbrough argues,

“to centralise something that essentially works better when it is localised does not make any sense.”

Indeed, surely a legitimate concern is whether local existing expertise in tackling loan shark activity and supporting its victims at the coal face will be lost in the concentration of resources to a single centre of operations.

I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) made representations to the Leader of the House in business questions on 25 November to secure not only a Commons debate on the issue, but a top level meeting with BIS Ministers. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has admitted that some redundancies will take place among regional lending team staff, and one has to question what the uptake will be of staff accepting job transfers from the north-west and north-east to, for instance, the national Birmingham centre.

Indeed, at a time when vulnerable people will be even more exposed to loan shark victimisation due to the austerity cuts, how can the Minister justify the sacking of existing local lending team staff, who are there to help people? That will doubtless put more pressure on already stretched Jobcentre Plus staff, who I understand will be trained in identifying those who have fallen prey to moneylenders. My local citizens advice bureau has expressed similar concerns to me. Indeed, what kind of perverse logic deems it necessary to axe the jobs of those who are there to help vulnerable people escape the traps of unemployment, indebtedness through illegal lending and, in many cases, the mental and physical ill health that is associated with it for themselves, their families and their communities? I remind the Minister that the coalition agreement said:

“Difficult decisions will have to be taken in the months and years ahead, but we will ensure that fairness is at the heart of those decisions so that all those most in need are protected.”

I should like to make it clear that no criticism of the hard work of the illegal moneylending team in Birmingham is intended, as it has proved how successful it has been in the past four years and is doing fantastic work in setting up savings accounts and directing people towards legitimate credit unions.

It is worth noting that more than 150 credit unions and community financial institutions have benefited from the Department for Work and Pensions growth fund and that more than 306,000 loans have been made to financially excluded people, with an estimated total value of £133 million. Given the Department’s budgetary constraints, will its growth fund continue to be fully resourced to sustain these worthwhile contributions?

The ability to access good-quality money advice and debt counselling services is an essential weapon in combating illegal moneylending and debt. With the onset of the financial crisis, the previous Labour Government recognised this and provided additional funds for money advice and debt counselling services. I pay particular tribute to the work done in this regard by Halton citizens advice bureau and Halton borough council in my constituency. What are the Government doing to strengthen debt and money advice services?

One final thought is whether the practice of illegal moneylending is treated too much like a consumer trading offence instead of a crime under the Theft Act 1968. According to the illegal moneylending teams, prosecutions take place under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, not the Theft Act, even though the dealers are no longer licensed.

I would very much welcome the Minister’s views on these matters.

21:56

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I thank the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) for securing this debate because it gives me, as a Minister, the chance to deal with some of the detailed questions that he has put to the House and to talk about the general issue, which is a very serious one. He is right to say that it affects some of the most vulnerable in our society, on whom these illegal loan sharks prey. We as a Government are committed to building on the good work of the previous Government to ensure that we have people ready to tackle those criminals.

The hon. Gentleman began his remarks with the tragic story of his constituent, Brian Shields, who committed suicide under the pressure of loans and loan sharks. May I send my condolences to his constituent’s family and pay tribute to the work that they have done by campaigning on this issue? They have clearly made a very significant contribution.

The story that the hon. Gentleman told about Paul Nicholson, who was a loan shark acting in his constituency, shows the significance of this crime and how devastating it can be for individuals and communities. This individual preyed on vulnerable consumers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. When he was found guilty of these crimes, he was ordered to pay back almost £1 million and sentenced to an indefinite term. The judge, rightly, was very strong in his remarks about the appalling way in which this individual had behaved. That example shows the need for vigilance and the need to invest in this area.

The hon. Gentleman asked us to do more. I am pleased, however, that we were able to announce that we are maintaining funding for illegal moneylending teams so that next year there will be same rate of funding as this year. Given the levels of cutbacks that we are seeing in many programmes in my Department and across the Government, that is testament to the significance that we give to this project and the value that we place on the excellent work done by the illegal moneylending teams who have been operating so well.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions about our policy in respect of illegal moneylending teams, and I want to address those directly before moving on to more general remarks. I am glad that he welcomed the investment we are making, although he asked what assessment we had made of the need and whether more money should be provided to ensure that that need was addressed. I have to tell him that—

22:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

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

[Mr Davey]

The evidence from the illegal moneylending teams shows that the work needs to continue. It would, of course, be nice to increase the work, because it is clearly effective. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the evaluation of the illegal moneylending project by Policis, which was published in October 2010. It concluded that the project had made an excellent start to tackling illegal moneylending, but that we needed to reform the way in which illegal moneylending teams were set up. It was very clear that larger teams that covered a wider operational area were more successful than smaller ones. That independent report, which was set up by the previous Government, recommended that the whole project should adopt that model. Although I understand the concerns of, for example, the teams in the north- east, which the hon. Gentleman repeated, I refer him and the people who have those concerns to the report. It stated that we would get better value for money and be operationally more successful if we restructured in the way that we propose. No way is this some sort of cutback. The aim is to make the teams more effective in tackling the problem.

We will also ensure that the project retains local understanding and presence. I hope that gives some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Financial inclusion officers, who can direct people to advice and support, will continue to be based locally. We are trying to get the balance between the local and national issues that he rightly talked about. I think that we can get the best value for money and make the teams more operationally effective, while still getting the important local information, under the structure that we propose.

The number of job losses owing to the closure of regional teams will be relatively small. Our aim is to protect front-line enforcement staff numbers as far as possible and for many staff to be transferred to the Birmingham team.

I do not agree with the idea that having a team that covers the whole of England, as well as ones that cover Wales and Scotland, will prevent the team from paying attention to small-scale illegal lenders and will mean that it focuses resources only on large-scale investigations. The project aims to have an impact across the country, and to learn the lessons of recent years. We will continue to tackle community-based loan sharks and those that operate across wider areas. There will still be the hotline number, 0300 555 2222, that people can ring and text for support and help.

The project will play a central role in our attempt to tackle this problem. I would welcome the chance to have a wider debate on this subject, should one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues secure it from you, Mr Speaker, because I believe that we can achieve consensus in this area. We can pay tribute to the previous Government, which initiated the project. In return, I hope that this Government will get some credit for continuing the level of funding and for building on the independent report that the previous Government commissioned.

The hon. Gentleman asked about debt and money advice, which has been raised by Citizens Advice and others. The consideration of future funding is still being worked through as the implications of the spending review are analysed, and we are waiting for Her Majesty’s Treasury to come to its final conclusions, which I am sure will be announced in due course.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there should be a review of criminal offences in relation to suicide. He will understand that that is a matter for Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, but I am sure that his comments will be brought to their attention.

I am particularly delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given me this opportunity to discuss this subject, because we initiated the consumer credit and personal insolvency review last year and hope soon to begin the process of analysing all the responses that we have received. We thought it necessary to step back and examine the matter because consumer debt is such a problem. He has highlighted one extreme—unscrupulous and illegal moneylenders—and noted how damaging it can be, but I am sure that he is aware that when one looks across the landscape of debt, one sees many different problems for individuals and families.

The numbers involved are huge, and they should worry us all. Outstanding borrowing by individuals stands at about £1.46 trillion, having more than doubled in the past 10 years. About 12 million households, just under half of all the households in the UK, have some type of unsecured debt, of an average amount of just over £10,000. We can examine the changes in more detail. In the third quarter of 2009, £44 billion was lent to UK consumers in unsecured credit, compared with about £9 billion in the same period in 1987. If we allow for inflation, that is an increase of nearly 250%. The significance of credit and debt in our society and our economy is massive, and it has created problems that previous Governments and previous generations did not have to deal with.

Let me be absolutely clear that borrowing, in itself, is not bad. We should welcome the freedom to access credit, and credit liberalisation has been a force for good in many ways. It is excessive borrowing and irresponsible lending that causes problems, and we need to analyse it carefully. When we published the review document, I was keen, first, to examine what we might call the life-cycle of debt, starting at the point at which the decision to take on debt is made, and consider how consumers and lenders could make better borrowing and lending decisions. If we can improve the financial capability of borrowers and achieve a new culture of responsible lending, that will improve initial decision making.

Secondly, I was keen to ensure that consumers and lenders managed their existing borrowing in a way that was much more sustainable in the long term. We want consumers to be more proactive in managing their borrowing, and thus better prepared to deal with the uncertainties that life can bring upon them, whether it be illness, unemployment or the other problems that can make borrowing arrangements and debt so damaging.

Thirdly, I wanted to examine situations in which credit arrangements go wrong and people fall into difficulties, to ensure that people are signposted more effectively to the best possible debt advice. There is clear evidence that people with debt problems turn to the first person they come across. If that person, organisation or company is not scrupulous, they can get advice from exactly the wrong type of people. I know that the previous Government were concerned about that. There is a mirror image of the unscrupulous lenders about whom the hon. Gentleman talked—debt advice organisations that are almost as bad as loan sharks. We need to ensure that we tackle that problem, especially as so many organisations, not least citizens advice bureaux, offer exemplary debt advice services.

I end by reiterating the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the illegal moneylending teams. It was a major theme of his speech, and I want basically to agree with him. Their success to date has meant that they have arrested more than 500 illegal moneylenders, written off more than £37 million of illegal debt, which would otherwise have had to be paid back, helped more than 16,000 victims of loan sharks and seized more than £1.3 million in cash.

That reminds me of another question, which I have not yet answered. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the new funding that we announced would come from the cash that was seized from illegal moneylenders. I am afraid that the amount of money seized from illegal moneylenders is much smaller than the sum that we have announced. As he knows from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, that money has to go back to the Treasury anyway, so there is no hypothecation or earmarking. We have not tried to make some behind-the-scenes saving—the money that we have announced is genuinely new, and I am glad that he welcomes it.

I commend the work of all the teams. I appreciate that we are asking them to restructure, but I hope that they will examine the independent evaluation and realise that we are doing that with the benefit of analysing and valuing their excellent work in helping the victims of loan sharks, and in helping to tackle the scourge of loan sharks in our communities.

I assure the House that the Government appreciate concerns about the availability and the consequences of consumer credit. Used sensibly and responsibly, credit is a tool for coping with life’s uncertainties, but we need to gather the evidence before we introduce new rules, or else risk unintended consequences. The review that we have initiated constitutes a strategic approach to the issue, although we have already been able to act against unscrupulous lenders.

Question put and agreed to.

22:12

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 10th January 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 10 January 2011

Flood Control: Finance

Monday 10th January 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Miss McIntosh]

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the effects of the comprehensive spending review on his Department's budget for flood resilience measures; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 3 December 2010, Vol. 519, c. 1057W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on 3 December 2010.

The Notice of Question received by my Department referred to “food resilience measures” but this was later changed by the Table Office to “flood resilience measures”. Due to an administrative error, the notification of change to the text of the question was not correctly dealt with by my officials resulting in an answer being given on the basis of the original text, i.e. “food resilience measures”. I apologise for any inconvenience caused by this mistake.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Robert Neill]

The Department for Communities and Local Government does not hold a budget for food resilience measures because this is a policy responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. DCLG has made no assessment of the effects of the comprehensive spending review on food resilience measures.

The correct answer should have been:

[Robert Neill]

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) does not hold a budget for flood resilience measures because this is a policy responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). DCLG has made no assessment of the effects of the comprehensive spending review on flood resilience. However my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has informed me that DEFRA expects to spend at least £2.1 billion on flooding and coastal erosion over the next four years. The Department expects the final figure to be an average of £540 million per year, approximately 8% less than spend by DEFRA over the previous four years. As a result of this investment, DEFRA expects to deliver better protection to 145,000 households by March 2015.

Petition

Monday 10th January 2011 Petitions

Monday 10 January 2011

Further and Adult Education

Monday 10th January 2011 Petitions

The Petition of staff at Loughborough College,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Further and Adult Education Sector has a vital role to play in taking the country out of recession, as well as being an invaluable way to give young people and adults an opportunity to contribute to the job market and society and achieve their own potential; that, in the last two years, 1.5 million adult learning places have been lost and that funding will be cut by 3% in the academic year 2010-2011; that the Petitioners believe that the Government should support a high quality, publicly-funded education system in which people are not prohibited from participating by financial barriers; that the Petitioners believe that the Government should commit to widening participation at all levels, based on equality, diversity and social inclusion; that the Petitioners believe that the Government should enable those who teach in education to receive the support, training and pay they deserve, to correspond with the contribution they make to society and individual students; and that the Petitioners believe that the Government should take steps to ensure that lifelong learning is a reality and not just a slogan.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put a halt to cuts to funding and educational provision in the Further and Adult Education sector.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Nicky Morgan .]

[P000875]

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

Monday 10 January 2011

Financial Assistance for Ireland

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the agreement providing a credit facility to Ireland of £3,226,960,000. This agreement was negotiated between HM Treasury and Ireland and signed on the 22 December following enactment of the Loans to Ireland Act, which received Royal Assent on 21 December 2010.

Work of the Department During Recess

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I would like to update hon. Members on the main items of business undertaken by my Department since the House rose on Tuesday 21 December 2010.

Community Rights

The Department has recognised the important role pubs and clubs can play at the centre of the local community. On 30 December we announced a review of restrictive covenants preventing precious community pubs reopening again as public houses or entertainment venues. This review is in line with the Department’s commitment to cutting red tape and devolving real power to local communities. By changing the use of restrictive covenants communities will have greater opportunity to use the community right to buy powers to take over local pubs if they come up for sale and ensure important hubs of community life remain open.

Transparency

Six months ago I wrote to all councils calling on them to throw open their files to make local government spending more transparent and show waste is being eradicated. Councils need to show they have done everything possible to reduce waste and duplication to save taxpayers’ money and protect front-line services.

The Department continues in its drive for open and transparent government, and on 1 January issued a new year’s reminder to local authorities that they are expected to publish their spending data over £500 online by the end of January 2011 in accessible formats. Over 180 councils have already shown their commitment to democratic accountability and rooting out waste by opening their books for public scrutiny ahead of the deadline. This includes publishing details of senior pay, councillor expenses, minutes of meetings, and any useful front-line service data of interest to residents or entrepreneurs.

Removing parking restrictions from national planning policy

We trust councils and communities to know what is best for their local area and we are continuing to devolve greater powers to enable them to act on their own.

On 3 January in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Department of Transport, we removed national planning guidance that required councils to limit the number of parking spaces allowed in new residential developments and to set higher parking charges to encourage use of other forms of transport. Councils and communities are now free to set parking policies that are the best fit for their local area and for residents. These changes to planning policy will allow councils to set competitive local parking charges to promote town centres and attract shoppers to the high street. Councils will also be able to decide the right number of parking spaces for new residential development, helping to alleviate the problems of on-street parking congestion.

The Government recognise that for many people cars are a lifeline and we want to make it easier for motorists to make greener choices. Alongside steps already taken by the Department for Transport, we also outlined more support for drivers of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. On 3 January, we announced our intention to allow charging points to be built on streets and in outdoor car parks without the need for planning permission, removing bureaucracy and ensuring that making a green choice does not mean making a less convenient choice. We have also urged councils to follow this lead and promote electric vehicle charging points in new developments.

Delivering Services

The combination of severe snow and the festive break created a major headache for many councils and I pay tribute to the refuse collectors and other staff that have braved severe conditions to make their rounds. None the less it is clear that there has been widespread public concern at the extent of the disruption to collections in some local authority areas. On 4 January my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) wrote to all council leaders to stress the importance of delivering high quality waste and recycling services that meet local needs. The Government stand ready to work with the Local Government Association councils and DEFRA to ensure this happens.

Predetermination

Councillors play a vital role in the local community and they should be free to be able to act in the best interest of the people they are elected to serve. On 4 January the Department highlighted the restrictions placed upon them under so-called “predetermination” rules, preventing them taking part in decision on which they have campaigned or expressed a predisposed view. Under a measure contained in the Localism Bill these restrictions will be amended to give councillors the powers to champion the needs of local residents.

Delivering more homes

On 5 January my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, set out our intention to develop an action plan to boost the number of self-builders across the country—and address the common barriers aspiring self-builders face, including availability of land, finance and expert advice. The self-build sector is already important to growth and housing supply—with self-builders completing as many as 10,000 building projects each year—so making it easier for more people to build their own home will provide a welcome boost to the housing market.

On 7 January I introduced new safeguards to restrict the use of Empty Dwelling Management Orders. These heavy-handed rules, which were introduced in 2006, mean people who leave their house empty for more than six months risk having it confiscated. Homes at risk do not have to be blighted or boarded up and can be taken over even if they are already on the property market, if councils believe the asking price is “unrealistic”.

I am concerned that there is a risk that councils could use the orders inappropriately to instigate action against homeowners in vulnerable situations. It is wrong that a bereaved family could face having their loved one’s home taken over for a period if there is a delay in them deciding what to do with it.

So I am limiting use of the orders to empty properties that have become magnets for vandalism, squatters and other forms of antisocial behaviour. A property will also have to stand empty for at least two years before an order can be obtained, and property owners will have to be given at least three months notice before the order can be issued. These new safeguards will ensure that responsible homeowners do not face having their properties seized.

Midlands Medical Accommodation Project - Phase 2

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The Midlands Medical Accommodation (MMA) project aims to create, by March 2014, a new community of excellence—clinical, research and training at the Defence Medical Services establishments of Whittington near Lichfield and in Birmingham, both located in the west midlands. The project will be delivered in three phases of incremental acquisition, of which increment 1 is complete. I am pleased to say that the funding for increment 2 is now in place, and a contract for the associated work has been awarded to Carillion plc, subject to conditions precedent.

Increment 1 has already delivered a modern headquarters office building in which the Surgeon General’s strategic headquarters and the headquarters of the Joint Medical Command are now collocated and fully operational;

Increment 2 will create a modern training centre. This will include new training facilities; a new learning centre; a new lecture theatre; new messes for officers and for warrant officers and senior non-commissioned officers; service living accommodation for officers (permanent staff) and a new junior ranks’ dining and leisure facility. These will replace the existing facilities at Keogh barracks which would require levels of investment that compare unfavourably with those of the project; and

Increment 3, running along side increment 2, will provide modern single living accommodation. This is part of the ongoing upgrade programme approved under project SLAM.

The MMA project will draw together the currently dispersed components of the Defence Medical Services. The foundation of a close geographic community around Lichfield and Birmingham will encourage long-term life and career choices, particularly about stability, housing and education. This community will become a central and enduring feature in the life of the Defence Medical Services. It will be a firm base from which to exploit and sustain progress in military medicine, and a community providing respite from the intense demands of operational service. The Midlands Medical Accommodation project lays the foundation of a cohesive community of excellence and fellowship that will meet, with confidence, the strategic imperative to deliver military health care.

NHS South West

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

On 17 June 2010, I asked Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS in England, to initiate a review into the approach and behaviour of the NHS South West (the strategic health authority) in relation to Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust (RCHT), in particular, to the dismissal of John Watkinson and, by association, the trust’s position in relation to the provision of upper gastro-intestinal services in Cornwall.

Verita, a specialist company that conducts independent investigations, reviews and inquiries, carried out the review. The report was published on the Department of Health website on Tuesday 4 January 2011.

In the written ministerial statement of 17 June 2010, Official Report, column 57WS, I committed to updating the House on the findings of the report and my response. The key findings of the report were:

the strategic health authority put appropriate pressure on the RCHT board to suspend John Watkinson but was not involved in the decision to dismiss him;

the strategic health authority was justifiably concerned about many aspects of RCHT’s performance in the period leading up to the RCHT board’s dismissal of John Watkinson;

the RCHT chair and non-executive directors were relatively inexperienced within the NHS and it was good practice for them to take advice from the more experienced strategic health authority before making their own decision what to do; and

NHS South West is considered to have acted appropriately given its performance management responsibilities for NHS organisations in the south west and the fact that RCHT was not a foundation trust.

The report has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Seasonal Influenza Update

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Seasonal flu virus circulates each year and this year is no exception. This statement is to update Parliament following developments during recess.

Seasonal flu is different from the outbreak of pandemic flu in 2009, when a new flu virus emerged (H1N1, or “swine flu”) against which humans (particularly those aged under 65) had little or no natural immunity. When the pandemic flu virus emerged in 2009, our pandemic preparedness plans were triggered. These plans entailed the mass distribution of “antiviral” drugs, the launch of the “National Flu Line”, and a “Catch it. Bin it, Kill it” advertising campaign designed to help members of the public understand how they could limit the spread of flu.

There is no flu pandemic this year, so these plans have not been triggered. Although the H1N1 virus is circulating, it is now one of the seasonal flu strains. This is because when it circulated in 2009-10, it helped to establish a residual level of immunity in people exposed to it, which means that H1N1 now circulates like other seasonal flu viruses.

In the United Kingdom, the H1N1 and influenza B viruses are the strains of flu that are circulating widely. H1N1 is the predominant virus, and is behaving—as expected—as it did in 2009-10. This means that H1N1 is likely to infect younger people—particularly those with underlying disease—and pregnant women.

A seasonal flu vaccine is available this year, as in previous years. This vaccine protects against all three strains of flu which the World Health Organisation identified would be most likely to circulate this year. Surveillance data show that these strains are circulating and that the vaccine is a good match.

General practitioners (GPs) order seasonal flu vaccine direct from the manufacturers according to their needs. This system is different from the childhood vaccination programme where the Department procures vaccine centrally and distributes it free of charge to the NHS.

We are aware of some reports of flu vaccine supply issues in some areas in England. We are working with NHS at the local level to ensure available supplies of surplus vaccine are moved to where they are needed. If efforts to source seasonal flu vaccine locally are not successful, the H1N1 monovalent vaccine (Pandemrix) is now available to GPs, for patients who are eligible for the seasonal flu vaccine.

I have already agreed for a review of procurement options of the seasonal flu vaccine to be undertaken, including central procurement, although no decisions have yet been made.

As in previous years, and on the basis of procedures which have existed for decades, the Government take expert advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). This year, as last year, the JCVI advised that those aged 65 and over, and those in clinical at-risk groups, should be vaccinated. Because of the specific characteristic of the H1N1 virus, the JCVI also advised for the first time that healthy, pregnant women should be vaccinated with seasonal flu vaccine. The JCVI has recently assured me that this advice is appropriate for this year’s flu season.

As in previous years, only certain groups are being targeted for vaccination. We have therefore focused our efforts on ensuring that these groups are vaccinated. Current information for vaccinations given up to 2 January 2011 shows that 70.0% of over 65s have been vaccinated and 45.4% of those in clinical at-risk groups have been vaccinated, which is broadly in line with previous years.

The latest data indicate that the rate of GP consultations for influenza-like illness (ILI) is currently 98 per 100,000 people but we need to be cautious about interpreting the data due to the holiday period. The highest recorded level this year was 124 per 100,000, which is lower than that recorded during the pandemic in 2009-10 and below the epidemic level of 200 per 100,000 people. Nevertheless, given that they reached these levels I have taken the decision to reinstate the “Catch it, Bin it. Kill it” campaign.

Data indicate that this year’s flu has resulted in greater than usual numbers of patients requiring critical care. These patients have largely been infected with H1N1, and the pattern is consistent with H1N1’s characteristics last year. As a result, where necessary, local NHS organisations have increased their critical care capacity, in part by delaying routine operations requiring critical care back-up. This is a normal operational process which is initiated by NHS organisations at the local level; critical care capacity is not “fixed” but is always able to flex in this way according to local need.

In addition, over the last month we have increased the number of so-called “ECMO” beds—for patients with the most severe disease—from 5 to 22.

The number of deaths this winter from flu verified by the Health Protection Agency currently is 50, with 45 of these being associated with the H1N1 infection. The number of deaths from seasonal flu varies each year, with over 10,000 deaths from seasonal flu estimated in the winter of 2008-09.

Some have queried why statistics for the number of deaths in pregnant women are not available. The only reason the Health Protection Agency has not published the breakdown is to protect those individuals from being personally identifiable, the number of such cases being small.

When influenza is circulating, antiviral medicines can also help clinical at-risk groups who have either been exposed to or have contracted a flu-like illness. This season we notified clinicians that the use of antiviral medicines in these groups was justified, but also, as a higher than normal number of patients outside the clinical at-risk groups were becoming seriously ill with flu, general practitioners (and other prescribers) were recommended to exercise their clinical discretion so that any patient who they feel is at serious risk of developing complications from influenza may receive antiviral treatments on the NHS. In response, demand for these medicines continued to rise.

We have taken prompt action to ensure that all patients have access to appropriate antiviral medicines when they need them, and there is no shortage of antiviral medicines in the country.

There is always more pressure on the NHS during the winter, but the NHS is well-prepared and is coping well. In summary, we are taking the following action:

the first line of defence against flu is vaccination, and we want to see vaccination rates increase still further. That is why we are currently working with the BMA and RCGP to ensure everyone in an at-risk group who has not been vaccinated contacts their GP and books an appointment;

the second line of defence is to practice good respiratory and hand hygiene. That is why we reinstated the Catch it, Bin it, Kill it campaign. In addition, and in advance of the new school term, we are encouraging parents to educate their children to use good hand and respiratory hygiene; and

the third line of defence is a well-prepared NHS with the ability to treat those who do need help. That is why we are working with local NHS organisation to help them escalate critical care capacity where necessary, and have increased the number of ECMO beds available for patients.

We are making available a range of winter performance information publicly available. This is published on the Winterwatch section of the Department’s website at: http://winterwatch.dh.gov.uk/.

Public Order Incident (Royal Car, 9 December 2010)

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

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

On 13 December 2010, I made a statement to Parliament about the acts of serious public disorder which took place in central London on 9 December and how these had been policed. In that statement I referred to the appalling attack on the car carrying Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. I informed the House that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police had ordered a review of the policing arrangements in place on that evening, which would report by 17 December 2010 but warned that, for security reasons, the public details of the review might be limited.

The review was completed on 17 December and I have considered its content and recommendations in consultation with senior officers of the Metropolitan police. Although it is not possible to disclose the details for reasons of security, the overarching recommendations relate to operational planning and the co-ordination of personal protection and public order policing. A number of recommended changes were put in place immediately and are already proving to be effective, and the Metropolitan police is continuing to work with the Home Office and royal household to implement the remainder of the recommendations.

While important lessons have been learned from this shocking incident, the findings and recommendations must be seen in the context of the provision of protection for the royal family that has an enviable record over many years. Such protection always has to take into account the royal family’s desire to be seen by and to be close to the public.

The most significant area of learning from the incident of 9 December is the need to look beyond the available intelligence to take a broader view of threats that can reasonably be anticipated in the circumstances, and to adapt plans accordingly. I am confident that this will be firmly embedded in future arrangements.

Reproductive, Maternal and Newborn Health and Malaria Outcomes (Developing World)

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

My Department has finalised two frameworks for results, which set out the UK Government’s contribution towards improving reproductive, maternal and newborn health outcomes and malaria outcomes in the developing world.



“Choices for women: Planned pregnancies, safe births and healthy newborns—the UK’s Framework for Results for improving reproductive, maternal and newborn health in the developing world”; and

“Breaking the Cycle: Saving Lives and Protecting the Future—the UK’s Framework for Results for malaria in the developing world”

Both frameworks for results are available on the Department’s website (www.dfid.gov.uk). I will arrange for copies of both of the frameworks to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Civil Law Reform Bill

Monday 10th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government have decided not to proceed with the proposed Civil Law Reform Bill, which was published for pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation in December 2009. The Government are grateful to the Justice Committee for its scrutiny of the draft Bill and to everyone who replied to the consultation for their comments, but in the present financial situation we need to focus our resources on delivering our key priorities.

Several of the provisions in the Civil Law Reform Bill were derived from Law Commission reports. The damages provisions were derived from the following reports published in the late 1990s: “Claims for Wrongful Death” (Law Com No 263); “Damages for Personal Injury: Medical, Nursing and Other Expenses; Collateral Benefits” (Law Com No 262); and “Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages” (Law Com No 247). The provisions relating to interest derived in part from the Commission’s 2004 report “Pre-judgment Interest on Debts and Damages” (Law Com No 295). These reforms will not now be taken forward.

I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of my letter to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), Chairman of the Justice Committee, informing him of the Government’s decision, and the response document to the consultation.

House of Lords

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Monday, 10 January 2011.

14:15

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Introduction: Baroness Kramer

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

14:23

Susan Veronica Kramer, having been created Baroness Kramer, of Richmond Park in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Baroness Hamwee and Lord Watson of Richmond, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Baroness Wheatcroft

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

14:29

Patience Jane Wheatcroft, having been created Baroness Wheatcroft, of Blackheath in the London Borough of Greenwich, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Lord Moynihan and Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Lexden

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

14:34

Alistair Basil Cooke OBE, having been created Baron Lexden, of Lexden in the County of Essex, and of Strangford in the County of Down, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Black of Brentwood, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Deaths of Members: Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Tributes

14:39

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

My Lords, I regret that I have to inform the House of the recent deaths of the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lords’ families and friends.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to Lord Windlesham, who died on Tuesday 21 December, aged 78. We remember him today principally in light of his role as Leader of your Lordships’ House from June 1973 until February 1974, but his was a career so much more than those turbulent and testing eight months. He was a man whose great qualities needed no titles to shine through. He achieved a great deal in public life, but he was admired more than anything else for his quiet, tactful and sympathetic understanding of the people and the issues that surrounded him. A liberal in character and a Conservative in party, he was not afraid to be independent minded, even if that at times set him against those of his party.

Lord Windlesham was educated at Ampleforth and Trinity College, Oxford, where he read law. He was commissioned in the Grenadier Guards—his father’s regiment—for national service, yet on graduation he soon found a passion for politics sitting side by side with a career in television. In the general election of 1959, he stood unsuccessfully as the Conservative candidate in the Tottenham seat. The tragic and unexpected death of his father—the second Lord Windlesham—in 1962 changed the trajectory of his political career and deprived the Commons of what clearly would have been one of its youngest and brightest stars. As has often been the case, their loss was our considerable gain.

Taking his seat as the third Baron Windlesham, and ever with an eye towards the topical and yet enduring questions of government, he made his maiden speech in this House on the subject of reform by supporting Tony Benn’s desire to renounce his peerage and remain in the Commons. It was not without irony, therefore, that after further reform in the 1990s and towards the end of his own career, Lord Windlesham was made a life Peer in order that he might continue to bring his considerable expertise to the service of the nation.

As Minister at the Home Office between 1970 and 1972, Lord Windlesham took responsibility for the penal system against the backdrop of a rising prison population. He handled both the Immigration Bill and the Industrial Relations Bill with calm efficiency and considerable charm, as it was then said. At the newly created Northern Ireland Office, from 1972 to 1973, his appointment as the first statutory Catholic to hold ministerial office for the Province at a time of rising tension was described as “inspired” and his way of business “even-handed”.

Thereafter, as Leader of this House and Lord Privy Seal, until the Conservative Government fell in February 1974, Lord Windlesham was the youngest Leader since Lord Grenville in 1790. Lord Windlesham brought a quiet, authoritative manner to the handling of important and often difficult business. A safe and steady pair of hands, courteous and precise, brave and yet never over-reaching, he stood by his Prime Minister, his party and his country during some of their toughest times.

Lord Windlesham continued to lead the Opposition in the Lords until the second election of 1974, whereafter he resigned the post and again turned his attention to television as managing director of ATV. In 1982, he was appointed chairman of the Parole Board, which meant more often than not defending a system that was under much criticism. In 1988, he found himself in a similarly criticised position, when he was caught between the political establishment and television documentary makers. His independent inquiry into the factual accuracy of Thames TV’s “This Week” investigation into the shooting of three members of the IRA in Gibraltar prompted disagreement with No. 10 but won the support of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

David Windlesham mixed in equal measure a keen sense of public service with an independent, liberal and fair mind. He was generous in spirit and firm in purpose. His political instincts and his media skill would not have looked out of place in a modern-day Administration. His understanding of many of the challenges that Governments of all ages continue to face was acute and will be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this sad time. They and we have lost a great man and a great friend.

My Lords, although precedent may not provide for this as such, it also seems right at this time to pay tribute to Lord Strabolgi, who died on 24 December, aged 96. He was the 11th Baron. He succeeded his father as long ago as 1953, and during Wilson’s first Government became a PPS at the Home Office and then, in 1969, PPS to Lord Shepherd as Leader of the House. After a spell as an opposition Whip in 1974 he became government Deputy Chief Whip, tasked with getting difficult and controversial business through the House. Back again in opposition, he became arts spokesman—a role that he relished—and, in 1986, Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairman, positions that he held until 2001, having been elected a hereditary Peer in 1999.

Lord Strabolgi seemed in so many ways part of the fixtures and fittings of this House. It may have taken him a while to get from the top of the stairs to the Chamber, but it was at least in part to greet his many friends from all round the House. Lord Strabolgi was a Labour man through and through. He took his party politics seriously but that was always without rancour. He was a dedicated attender and was in the House two days before he died. We send our condolences to his family and pay tribute to the extraordinary example of service and humanity which the late Lord Strabolgi leaves us.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the House, and to the Leader of the House, for this opportunity to say a few words about Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi—two very fine servants of your Lordships’ House. David Windlesham had a remarkable number of distinguished careers: in the media, in both production and management; in academia in Oxford, especially at Brasenose College; and in government, particularly at the Home Office. But of course his period in this House was equally as distinguished. I have had the honour to do just one of the jobs that he undertook, as Leader of this House, and I pay tribute to the work that he did. To be Leader of your Lordships’ House is both an enormous privilege and an exacting task, and Lord Windlesham carried out his role in this Chamber in an exemplary way.

To be a Member of your Lordships’ House is a great privilege. To be a Member for any length of time extends that privilege enormously. To be a Member for 56 years, as David Strabolgi was—as an active and assiduous Member—is quite extraordinary. David served this House well. His long service as a Deputy Speaker in your Lordships’ House reflects that and it reflects the esteem, respect and popularity in which he was held by all sides of this House. He served these Benches well too. He held firm political convictions. He served in Labour Administrations in the 1960s and 1970s, and on the opposition Front Bench in the 1980s.

Entirely coincidentally, we held a little party in my room here for David just a few weeks before his death, to mark his 96th birthday, and in the words that he spoke to us on that occasion his commitment to these Benches and to our party’s values was as clear as his commitment to the House as a whole. David also contributed much to wider society, especially in relation to the arts. He was a painter and had a studio in Paris shortly before the war. He also contributed much to Franco-British relations.

This House has lost two very fine Members who were very fine servants of their own parties. Both will be missed on their respective Benches but it is a tribute to them both that they will also be much missed on all sides of your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, we associate this side of the House with the tributes paid to Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi by the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. The deaths of both distinguished noble Lords will be a considerable loss to your Lordships’ House. Their contributions to political and public life have been unique.

In the case of Lord Strabolgi, we can dispel the suggestion of a retirement age. He had occupied many senior positions during the time that the Labour Party was in opposition and also when he was in the Government. On a more positive note, the noble Lord was born in a Liberal family and had flirted with the Liberals in his political career. The noble Lord died at the age of 96. It is a sad loss and we send our condolences to his family.

Lord Windlesham also had a unique career. He was a very resolute politician. Many of us remember his confrontation with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, at the time of the “Death on the Rock” controversy, but there was also a very gentle side to his character. I first came into contact with him when he was chairman of the Parole Board. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, the then Home Secretary, had set up a commission under Lord Carlisle of Bucklow to review the parole system. Our first witness was Lord Windlesham. He was proud of a system that provided early release of inmates under licence, and many of his suggestions were incorporated into the commission’s final report.

I was always impressed with his contribution in your Lordships’ House on criminal justice matters. The quiet but resolute way that he put his case to improve our prison system was a lesson for many of us. His book, Politics, Punishment and Populism, is a must for all reformers. We join others in sending our condolences to his family and friends.

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, on behalf of the Cross Benches, I should like to add to the tributes that have already been paid to the noble Lords. Lord Strabolgi was 96 years old, and his almost 60 years in this House make for quite a record. We will all remember his familiar figure making its slow but determined way through the Corridors of the House. He was immensely kind, courteous and cheerful, and was always immaculately dressed. When he spoke, perhaps because he spoke so rarely, he was listened to with great respect. What shone through for me was his adherence to the principle of independence, his loyalty to the party that he eventually joined and his ability to hit the nail on the head, which was evidence of a very fine mind.

I have always felt somewhat connected to Lord Windlesham by a series of curious coincidences. He lived in the village next door to me; his cousin, who is a dear friend of mine, lives in the same village as I do; and his wife was the aunt of a close friend of mine. However, I never actually met him until I got to this House. We have heard that he had a distinguished career in various ministries and as principal of Brasenose College. Although he was a somewhat quiet and reserved man, he should also be remembered for having promoted modest reform of the House of Lords, for which the Cross-Benchers will certainly be quite fond of him and will miss him greatly.

The passing of both noble Lords means that this is a sad time for all of us, but I am sure that they will be remembered by parliamentary historians. They will be greatly missed by us.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, on behalf of the Lords Spiritual, I add my tribute to Lord Windlesham and my condolences to his family. I acknowledge his particular contribution as a Roman Catholic to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. As we have heard, his appointment as Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office was described as “inspired”. Without people like him, the tensions between Catholics and Protestants in that province might be unhappier now than they are. We give thanks for him and for his contribution to the House and to the nation.

I also add, on behalf of the Lords Spiritual, my condolences to those who mourn the death of Lord Strabolgi. Reference has been made to his humanity and his untiring service, and these are qualities that we all should want to emulate. I acknowledge with gratitude in particular his service on the Ecclesiastical Committee. We give thanks also for him.

EU: Budget

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked By

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that the expenditure on accounts for the budget signed off by the European Court of Auditors shall be excluded from the contribution imposed on member states.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, the UK cannot withhold its contributions to the annual European Union budget as it is required to make those contributions under obligations imposed by the treaties. The European Communities Act 1972, particularly Section 2, gives effect within the UK to Community law.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

I ask the noble Lord in response: since the findings of the Council are subservient to the approval of the Parliament, will the Government now seek change to the Lisbon treaty to enable the European Court of Auditors to oppose expenditure on a reasoned assumption that has the support of the Council of Europe, and so then to sign off the accounts? In other words, will the Government take some step, if not that step?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to a clearly unsatisfactory situation. Year after year, the European accounts cannot get a clean audit opinion. However, it is the Government’s view that the way forward is not to press for treaty changes but to try to make sure that the whole system of accounting is made simpler and clarified. It should concentrate on what is important, and the capabilities of both the European Commission and other agencies—whether at the European level or, particularly, within member states—to manage the money should be enhanced so that we get out of an appalling situation that we do not want to see continue. However, treaty change is not the appropriate vehicle.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, can the Minister think of a better word than “grotesque” to describe the situation whereby the overall supervision of our priceless financial services has been passed to an organisation that, as he has mentioned, has been incapable of getting its own accounts signed off by its internal auditors for 16 years?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I said that the situation in which we find ourselves, with the European accounts not getting a clean audit opinion, is completely unacceptable. The connection between that and the regulation of financial services in Europe is somewhat tenuous. We should focus on ways of improving the budget situation. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already taken steps, both on this year’s budget and by talking about what we expect from the financial framework for the next seven years of the budget. Those are the ways in which we have to move forward determinedly.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, my noble friend says that we have a treaty obligation to pay our contribution to Brussels. Quite so, but surely there is also a treaty obligation to ensure that all EU money is properly spent. Secondly, if Brussels blames the nation states for these financial irregularities, why do we not put pressure on the Commission to name and shame, and then block future payments to, those countries responsible for the fraud and mismanagement?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, there are indeed things that we can do and will consider doing. The Council considers the budget issue in the early months of each year. It is rare—certainly it has not been done in recent years by a UK Government—to vote in Council against waving through the budget without a clean audit opinion. However, as my honourable friend the Economic Secretary has made clear in another place, the Government are ready to use our vote if we see accounts that fail to meet the standards that we think they should. She said in another place:

“If we see accounts that contain points made by the European auditors that we believe the Parliament is not taking on board, we will be ready to use our vote in future to challenge the Commission in a way that the last Government never were”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/10; col. 456.]

[Lord Newby]

When was the last year that DWP got a clean audit opinion?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I cannot tell the House that but I am very happy to write with the information. I think that it involves different auditing standards and a different structure but I shall be very happy to confirm that.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, those of us who have been privileged to serve at either end of this Building for the past 15 years have listened to Answers remarkably similar to the one which my noble friend has just given. Will he assure your Lordships’ House that progress is being made to the end which he desires, or are we going to listen to similar Answers for another 15 years?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I sincerely hope that we will not; anyway, I am sure that I will not be here giving those Answers for 15 years. We are making progress: the number of areas of qualification of the budget is going down and the level of fraud has been significantly reduced and is at a very low level, so there are certainly improvements in the detailed audits coming forward. However, that is occurring within a total picture which, I repeat, is not acceptable. We must work towards achieving more progress.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that many important projects and finances come through our involvement with the European Union which are valuable in areas ranging from agriculture to manufacturing? He should be well aware that, if there is excessive interest in detailed financing and control, it will be very difficult for these projects to operate.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

You just have to listen to all the important manufacturers who find involvement in Europe extremely valuable. I hope the Government will ensure that this support is effective as well as valuable.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, we are taking steps—for example, I think that we are one of only three or four countries which voluntarily publish audited statements on the way that co-managed funds are used in the UK. As a country we are doing everything to make the UK accounts as transparent and thoroughly audited as any, and the European Commission has noted that with approval. It is depressing that in agriculture, the largest area of spend, the error rate found by the auditors is going up.

UN Women

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:03

Asked By

[Baroness Prosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the launch of UN Women on 1 January, what plans they have to provide a financial contribution to the new agency and when an announcement will be made.

[Baroness Northover]

The Government welcome the establishment of UN Women and recognise that it has received strong cross-party support. UN Women should help to deliver the development commitments to which Governments signed up at last year’s MDG summit. A decision on all relevant DfID funding commitments will be made when the Government’s multilateral aid review concludes early this year. In the mean time, we have offered UN Women transitional support.

[Baroness Prosser]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree with the research that was conducted by the Department for International Development, which showed that families and communities gain better value from money spent directly on women and girls? Does she therefore agree with me that it would represent a sound investment towards global peace and security if the United Kingdom Government provided financial support to UN Women to at least the level of funding allocated to UNICEF?

[Baroness Northover]

I pay tribute to what the noble Baroness has done in this field. The Government very much agree with her point that supporting women and girls is central to development, as 70 per cent of those in dire poverty are women but only 30 per cent are men. Therefore, one can see that efforts to redress the balance have not yet worked. A lot more needs to be done, and supporting women and girls is central to that.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Will the Minister clarify whether this body replaces the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, on which my noble friend Lady Trumpington and I served—I followed her—and whether it replaces UNIFEM or is an entirely different body? I do not think that many of us are very clear about exactly what this body is.

[Baroness Northover]

This body takes into itself both those organisations, and others. UNIFEM will operate within it. Because it is clear that the position of women has not been properly addressed, it was decided when reforming the United Nations that this umbrella organisation was required, and that the existing organisations overlapped; they were rather fragmented and needed to be brought together under UN Women—and they will be. That is why this new organisation was supported. There is cross-party support for its development and we very much support its future development.

[Lord Chidgey]

Does my noble friend agree with international agencies which say that the lessons learnt from conflicts as far away as the Congo and Haiti show that tackling violence against women has to start at the very earliest stages of the relief effort and must form part of an integrated international relief programme? What therefore is the Government’s position on providing this hard-won experience as a model for other agencies to use throughout the world when tackling these emergencies? Will the Government make sure that this new UN women’s agency takes this message forward as part of its programme?

[Baroness Northover]

UN Women has only just been established and is working out its strategy, but the United Kingdom is on the board of the executive and is therefore helping to develop that strategy. The organisation’s very existence is based upon the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, points to. It is extremely important that the position of women is addressed, particularly where there is conflict. That is increasingly recognised, and we have to make sure that the United Nations and the UK are as effective as possible in addressing those problems.

[Lord Boston of Faversham]

My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that today is the anniversary of the first sitting—in, I think, 1947—of the United Nations General Assembly? I should perhaps declare an interest as one of your Lordships’ former parliamentary representatives at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Would it be too much to ask whether the noble Baroness has any plans for the UN General Assembly to resume its sittings here in London?

[Baroness Northover]

I thank the noble Lord for that. It would be an interesting development, but I cannot see that it would have universal support. However, I can always feed that suggestion through. It is clearly an extraordinary development that the United Nations exists at all. When one bears in mind the international problems that we face, we need to build on the strengths that the UN already has, make sure that in future it can do even more to resolve international conflict, and ensure that, where there is poverty, it is addressed.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

Does the noble Baroness accept that despite the enormous support that the UN has had, women still work two-thirds of the hours worked across the world, but actually receive only 10 per cent of the income, and that in those circumstances the new agency is very important? If we are to achieve the millennium development goals and see real development, we must have a strong women’s organisation at the UN to drive that. Can she assure us that the Government understand that and are determined that women take their rightful place in negotiations and in the money that is allocated at the UN?

[Baroness Northover]

I could not agree more. The Government are very seized of that and will certainly take that forward.

Equality: Act of Settlement

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:09

Asked By

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any proposals to amend the Act of Settlement to afford equal rights to the Throne for daughters of the Sovereign and Roman Catholics.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government do not have any plans to amend the Act of Settlement.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as a country, we oppose discrimination on grounds of gender or religion? It is curious, to say the least, that we allow such discrimination to continue in the succession to the Throne. Does he also agree that, given that there is a bar on Roman Catholics, it is odd that there is no bar against Jews, Muslims, Hindus or even atheists? Does he further agree that the matter is of some urgency? If His Royal Highness Prince William and his bride have children, it would be invidious to change the arrangements then. The time to do it is surely now.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I might agree with many of the propositions that the noble Lord has put forward, but as the previous Administration recognised, we are dealing with Acts of Parliament that govern not only us but a number of countries where the Queen is Head of State. For that reason, we have been proceeding with extreme caution.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the central provision for the establishment of the Church of England is that the Sovereign, as Supreme Governor, should join in communion with that church? Does the Minister agree that, unless the Roman Catholic Church is prepared to soften its rules on its members’ involvement with the Church of England, whose orders it regards as null and void, it is hard to see how the Act of Settlement can be changed without paving the way for disestablishment, which, though it might be welcome to some, would be of great concern to many and not just to Anglicans or, indeed, to other Christians?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, that intervention shows the wisdom of proceeding with extreme caution on these matters.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, shortly after joining this House more than 10 years ago, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill that was torpedoed very effectively by my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley and which sought to prevent the heir to the Throne marrying a Roman Catholic? The then Government used exactly the same argument, saying that it required countries in which the Queen is Head of State to pass legislation and that they would take the matter forward. It is more than 10 years since that commitment was made. What progress was made and what was done?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord down from his mountain in Antarctica. Messages from the mountain top are always welcome. We are talking about an Act that is 300 years old and that has served this country not too badly when one considers the 60 years of religious and communal strife that went before it. Therefore, although 10 years seems a long time, there have been consultations. I thought that, at least in this House, talking of progress in terms of centuries would be much appreciated. As is known, the previous Administration initiated discussions among Commonwealth countries. Those discussions are proceeding under the chairmanship of the New Zealand Government and we will continue to keep the matter under consideration.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I share almost totally the views of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, just told us: that there were apparently discussions with the various countries that recognise the Queen as their Monarch. Can he tell us when the last meeting of those countries was and when the next meeting is going to be, and perhaps give us a gentle glimpse of the agenda?

[Lord McNally]

I never cease to be amazed at the penetrating way in which the Opposition demand action this day on matters it sat on for 13 years. I have told the noble Lord that the discussions I referred to have not ended; they are ongoing. I shall consult the New Zealand Government, and if they are in a position to let me have that information I shall write to the noble Lord.

[Lord St John of Fawsley]

Perhaps I may ask noble Lords whether they agree that in principle one must support what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, and that one must favour equality for women. As Disraeli said, “I owe everything to women”. I hope that they will remember that at the Garrick. Heaping a coal scuttle of fire on the head of the right reverend Prelate, I say that I hope that we can have an assurance from the Government that they have no intention of excluding or reducing the representation in this House of the Bishops of the Church of England, because it is the national church of the country and that would send entirely the wrong signal from this House.

[Lord McNally]

That is a matter for another day and another debate. I will settle on the statement made by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who said that the Act of Settlement was,

“discriminatory. I think it will disappear, but I don't want to cause a great fuss”.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, is it not the case that Section 1 of the Act of Settlement 1701 does not specifically proscribe any member of the Catholic faith from succeeding to the Crown? Rather, the wording is that the Crown shall devolve upon:

“The most excellent Princess Sophia Electress”—

who was the mother of George I—

“and the heirs of her body”.

The words “being Protestant” were then added.

[Lord McNally]

I will not start debating, discussing or challenging the noble Lord’s interpretation of Section 1 of the Act of Settlement 1701. I believe him.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as someone who was born and baptised a Roman Catholic. However, noble Lords will be gratified to know that I have no ambitions at present to succeed to the Throne. Does the Minister not recognise that it is not only an offensive but an anachronistic symbol of division, discrimination and inequality in an age when we are trying to inculcate the opposite in every other aspect of society? If it were sufficient grounds for retaining a law that it had been around for 300 years, we would still be hanging people for stealing sheep and jailing children for stealing bread. Will the Minister make his advice known privately through the Privy Council and government channels that this set of values is incompatible with modern Britain? Before he asks whether I did the same when I was in government, the answer is yes.

[Lord McNally]

In response to the noble Lord’s introductory remarks, I say that that makes two of us. I also appreciate that some of these matters perhaps cause greater problems in Scotland than elsewhere. I have said, and I think that it is accepted, that there are discussions with the Commonwealth countries. We are conscious that there are anachronisms in the Act, but we still advise the House of the wisdom of proceeding with caution.

Schools: League Tables

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:18

Asked by

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider omitting from school league tables children on free school meals or statemented as having special educational needs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to giving parents more information rather than less. We want to raise the attainment of the most disadvantaged and lowest attaining pupils, and to report on how schools do in narrowing the attainment gap. We will also support such children through the introduction of the pupil premium, which will be targeted at those on free school meals, many of whom will also have special educational needs.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I thank the Minister for his reply and note that the Secretary of State for Education has recently decided that the judgments in league tables on the passage through GCSE for five subjects is to be tightened up, to ensure that schools choose not the softest subjects but rather the crucial subjects for their children to take. I commend him on that. However, given that schools will be judged on their work with not just the highest flyers but children with the greatest need, I wonder whether it would be wise in the league tables to exclude children with special educational needs from the attempt to measure schools comparatively, and to include a list or proportion of the number of specially educationally disadvantaged children at a school to ensure that head teachers and others do not attempt to escape from their responsibilities.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

First, I think everyone in this House agrees on the need to try to narrow the attainment gap. The previous Government did quite a lot of work in that regard, which I am happy to recognise. I recognise the challenge that schools have with special educational needs but, by the same token, many who know far more than I do about the issue would not want to take the step of excluding children with special educational needs from measurement or being treated in the same way as other pupils in the school. More generally, it is important to publish more information about a school’s performance. My noble friend is absolutely right that we need to hold those schools to account for their performance and we think that that is best done by publishing more rather than less information.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Is the Minister aware, as I am sure he is, that when the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, produced her report, she referred to children who needed statements with special educational needs as being approximately 2 to 2.5 per cent of the 20 per cent of children who are not statemented, and should not be, but who have special needs? Is he also aware that many of those are concentrated in schools that have a welcoming atmosphere, and that take on board children with special needs at the risk of those special needs interfering with their attainment? Surely—this applies to all Governments—the ideal is to measure the value added by individual schools rather than merely looking at the attainment.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I accept fully the force of that point, and one of the changes that we are keen to make with our new floor standards is to measure both attainment and progression. The previous floor standards had only an attainment measure and we are planning to introduce a progression measure. I accept the force of that entirely. To go back to the previous point, it is clear that children come in all shapes and sizes, and one needs to try to have measures that reflect what a school does to bring out the best in those children, regardless of where they start from.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

Is my noble friend aware that many years ago I worked for the Inner London Education Authority in Hackney, dealing only with children receiving free meals? There was by no means any link between the fact that they received free school meals and their educational ability, and it would be a great mistake to use that as a divining rod of what the results should be.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with that point. On the back of the Question I looked at precisely that area, to try to correlate schools with the number of free-school-meal pupils and the results. A quick look bore out the point made by my noble friend. Mossbourne Academy has 54 per cent of its pupils on free school meals and 72 per cent of those pupils get five A to Cs including English, maths and science.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:24

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, at a convenient point after 4 pm my noble friend Lord Howe will repeat a Statement on the review of support for those infected by blood and blood products.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:24

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 20, Schedule 2, Clauses 21 and 22, Schedule 3, Clauses 23 to 26, Schedules 4 and 5, Clause 27, Schedule 6, Clauses 28 to 31.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (7th Day)

15:25

Amendment 54ZA

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

54ZA: Before Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Committee of Inquiry on Parliamentary constituencies
(1) There shall be a Committee of Inquiry, chaired by a High Court judge, comprising members of both Houses of Parliament, including representatives of the principal political parties in the House of Commons, as well as individuals with no party attachment, and others.
(2) The Committee of Inquiry shall—
(a) review the current rules for conducting Parliamentary boundary reviews (contained in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986) considering in particular— (i) how to address the inequality of constituency sizes;(ii) how to stabilise the size of the House of Commons;(iii) the relative importance of electoral equality against the specific character of individual constituencies, including the rules relating to geographical considerations, local ties and ‘inconveniences’, and the rules on crossing borough and county boundaries; and(iv) make recommendations;(b) examine in this context the question of the optimum size of a constituency taking into account the need to maintain the Union, the proper role of MPs in their constituencies and in Parliament, and the implications for these roles of the responsibilities of other representative bodies including local authorities and the House of Lords, and make recommendations;(c) consider the implications of an optimum size for the House of Commons for an optimum size for the House of Lords, and make recommendations;(d) review the time taken to conduct boundary reviews, particularly in England, and make recommendations;(e) review the alignment between the timing of local and parliamentary boundary reviews to ensure that stable local government electoral boundaries can form the basis for each parliamentary review, and make recommendations;(f) examine the question of a role for keeping the operation of the rules under review and ensuring consistency of approach by the four Parliamentary Boundary Commissions, including monitoring their standards of performance, and make recommendations; and (g) examine the arguments surrounding the statistical basis on which electoral areas are currently constructed, in particular whether the eligible population rather than electoral statistics should be used, and make recommendations.(3) The Committee of Inquiry established under subsection (1) shall report to Parliament annually on its progress, and deliver a final report with recommendations to the Secretary of State within three years of the passing of this Act.
(4) Within 6 months of the Committee of Inquiry’s report the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament, for Parliament’s consideration, a scheme including draft Bills to implement the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry.”

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, perhaps noble Lords would leave as quietly and as quickly as possible, so that we can all hear the noble Lord introduce his amendment.

[Lord Wills]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy.

Rather curiously for this House, I support the Bill’s objectives. I support a referendum on the alternative vote system and I support any attempt to make the process of boundary revisions fairer and more efficient. Who could possibly be against any reasonable attempt to cut the cost of politics? However, as I and many other noble Lords have already argued, there are profound flaws in how the Bill proposes to achieve those objectives. The amendment is designed to remedy some of the worst of those flaws in Part 2. It is lengthier than I would have wished, because it sets out to provide a comprehensive solution to those problems, but I would be happy to withdraw it if the Government could give an assurance today that they will find a better way to secure such a solution.

At the heart of Part 2 lie assumptions about the optimum size of the House of Commons, the optimum size of a parliamentary constituency and the process of altering constituency boundaries. Those issues are central to the machinery of our democracy, yet the Government have conceded that the assumptions that they have made are arbitrary. They are not subject to any governing principle and they have not been subject to adequate consultation and scrutiny by the people whom they are meant to serve. Those issues are all the subject of vigorous debate.

Our electoral arrangements should never become the subject of partisan dispute, as that corrodes public trust and undermines the foundations of our democracy. Therefore, for many years, all political parties have sought consensus on such issues and, for the most part, they have succeeded in finding it. The Bill is a deplorable exception to that good practice, to which the amendment attempts to return. The amendment would not substitute my judgment for that of the Government in addressing these issues. Instead, it sets up a process for an independent, fair and principled set of judgments to be made. In doing so, it is intended to restore faith in the impartiality of the process for changing our electoral arrangements by requiring the Government to set up a committee of inquiry, such as a royal commission, to investigate and make recommendations on all those key and contentious issues.

The royal commission is a tried and tested mechanism for addressing such important, complex and contentious issues. It has worked well in the past and is generally accepted as a fair mechanism for dealing with such contested issues. Its composition would be for the Government to decide, but it should include Members of both Houses of Parliament, including representatives of the principal parties in the House of Commons, as those with most direct experience of such issues, as well as individuals with no party attachment, and others.

It would be for the Government to decide the process of such a committee of inquiry, but I draw Ministers’ attention to the Liberal Democrat conference resolution of 2008, which pledged to set up a constitutional assembly or citizens’ summit as a deliberative mechanism for the people of this country to pronounce on precisely such important issues as this. I am profoundly sorry that the Government have not followed the recommendation of that Liberal Democrat conference of 2008. It may be that they will now seize on this amendment as an opportunity to do so. They could even vote with us on this.

The remit for the commission would include consideration of how best to equalise constituencies, particularly taking into account all those issues of local identity and character about which such widespread concerns were expressed at Second Reading, which I think all Members of this House have had expressed to them in correspondence since Second Reading. The amendment proposes that the commission examine the optimum size for a constituency. This is a crucial consideration in creating a principled approach to the equalisation of constituencies. I am not against equalising constituencies, but I want to see it being done according to a fair, impartial and principled process.

What is the appropriate relationship between a Member of Parliament and their constituency and what size of constituency best sustains that relationship? The United States, with a population approximately six times that of the United Kingdom, has 435 Members of the House of Representatives and 100 Members of the Senate. A proportionate adjustment for the United Kingdom would result in a House of Commons of around 90 MPs.

15:30

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Would my noble friend not accept that the United States has a federal system so that every state has its own Senate, House of Representatives and governor and within each state there are county legislatures? Therefore, the system is very different from that in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Wills]

Of course I accept that. I was about to make very similar points in my remarks. What my noble friend has so accurately pointed out is that this is a subject for debate. He has made a very good point. This is precisely the sort of issue that should have been debated before the Government brought forward this legislation. What is the best size for a constituency in this country? I will come to the other constitutional changes that might affect this in a moment, but of course my noble friend is right.

If 90 is not an appropriate size for the membership of the House of Commons, why not? The Government have given us no clue. Surely, as I was saying, before embarking on such radical reform we need to seek agreement as far as possible between all political parties in this country on what principles should determine the size of the constituency and hence the size of the House of Commons.

In arriving at such principles, any review must take account of the other impending changes in our constitutional arrangements such as the increasing decentralisation of power to local authorities. All parties agree on the need for this. There are measures already coming forward from the Government. We need to look at the impact of those measures on the optimum size of a constituency, but the Government have not done so. We also need to look at the implications for the size of the constituency and the relationship between the Member of Parliament and their constituents of the impending reforms to this Chamber. Many Members will oppose such reforms, but the Government want to bring them forward and they owe it to the British people to have a proper discussion about the implications of such changes on the optimum size of a constituency. What will be the implications for the nature and role of the Member of Parliament? We have had no such discussion, and this amendment offers the opportunity to have it. I think that it would be very valuable for the health of our democracy for that to happen.

The commission would also need to take account of the principle that has been followed by all parties that believe in the value of the union of differential protections for the minority nations of the United Kingdom. This is a crucial point for all those who believe in the value of maintaining the union. The nature of the union has changed dramatically since the Labour Government brought forward measures of devolution, and that relationship is continuing to evolve. There is no evidence whatsoever in the Bill that the Government have appreciated this or recognised its significance. This amendment gives them a chance to look at the implications of the changing nature of the devolved constitutional arrangements of this country on the proposals in this Bill.

The statistical basis on which the size of constituencies is equalised is also crucial. It is bad enough that the Government are seeking to conduct a wholesale boundary review on the basis of an electoral register that is neither comprehensive nor accurate. It is deplorable that they appear to be doing this in the pursuit of partisan advantage. It is perhaps even worse that this fundamental redrawing of the electoral map should be done in such an arbitrary way, leaving key questions not even raised, let alone answered. How far, for example, should the electoral register be the basis for such equalisation? How far should population be the basis? These are clearly issues that any committee would need to consider, so they are included in the amendment.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

This matter has taxed many of us over a long period. I understand that when my noble friend was the Minister responsible he did some work in the department on the use of population—

[A noble Lord]

Speak to the House. Face forward.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I am sorry. Perhaps my noble friend would set out what work was carried out. It would help us, in moving our amendments, if we knew of his experiences.

[Lord Wills]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. As he said, the previous Government—I was the Minister responsible for this—did a lot of work on how we could more fairly ensure that everyone entitled to be on the electoral register was on it. We brought forward legislation putting a duty on the Electoral Commission to bring forward such measures. That is another reason why I am in such despair that the Government are rushing ahead on the basis of such a flawed electoral register. If only they had had a little patience and had waited just a few months longer. There was every chance that the Electoral Commission’s work would produce a significantly improved register, which might even have been comprehensive and accurate, as it should be.

These issues now need to be debated. They are issues not just for this House or for the other place; they are issues for the British people, who have had no say in this fundamental building block of their democracy. This amendment offers the opportunity to the Government to give the British people that say in these arrangements. I very much hope that they will take it. I have also included provision—I think that everyone will agree with this—for boundary reviews to be timely. I do not think that there should be any dispute about that.

Finally—I know that this will be of concern to the Government—there is the question of a timetable. I had some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he said at Second Reading that the time had almost come for constitutional reformers just to get on with it. I hope that I am not quoting him inaccurately. Of course, anyone who wants to see constitutional reform must beware delay, which is always the enemy of truly radical reform. I recognise that cynical members of the Government—I am sure that noble Lords on the Front Bench are not so cynical—may regard this proposal for a committee as nothing more than a device to push all these issues into the long grass. That is not my intention. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I support the objectives of this Bill.

My amendment does not leave this process open-ended, but specifies a timescale. In my judgment—I did considerable work on these issues when I was the Minister responsible in the previous Government—three years is an appropriate timescale in which to explore all these issues with appropriate rigour, to hear evidence from all concerned parties, including members of the public, and to produce recommendations that can command popular support.

More generally, this is a typical timeframe for a royal commission. The average time to report for the past 10 royal commissions has been slightly less than three years. This is a reasonable amount of time to give the committee to report. But I have added further comfort in this amendment to those who might be concerned about undue delay. The amendment includes provision for the commission to report annually to Parliament on its progress, so that Parliament may have regular opportunities to contribute to the continuing deliberations of the commission. The Government will always have the option to take steps to ensure a speedier dispatch of this work should they think that that is necessary, which I very much hope that they will not.

This amendment is detailed and complex because the issues covered are detailed and complex. They are also vital to the health of our democracy. I hope that the Government may feel able to accept the amendment, if not in this exact formulation then at least in one perhaps better drafted to achieve the same objectives. Whatever view is taken of the merits of the objectives of Part 1 of the Bill, no independent observer could consider Part 2 to be anything other than at best botched legislation and at worst a partisan attack on fundamental constitutional proprieties. Such profoundly flawed legislation is unlikely to endure and I just say to Ministers opposite that history is not likely to look fondly on its perpetrators.

The amendment offers the Government a chance to find a way out of the swamp into which they have waded with little care or consideration. It gets them to the place that they say that they want to be with a delay of only a few months to allow for independent examination and the engagement of the public in issues of great importance to our democracy, which, after all, is meant to serve the public, not the interests of the Government of the day. It would enable this legislation to proceed on the basis of constitutional principle not on that of arbitrary and partisan calculation. I beg to move.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I had not planned to speak this early, but I may as well intervene to support my noble friend in his amendment. I begin by commenting on my reflections over the Christmas Recess on how I see the progress on this Bill. My comments stem from conversations with Members of the other place, some of whom spoke on the Bill during its transit through that House. The conclusion that we have all come to is that the way in which this legislation is being handled is a clear breach of any reasonable process. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, looks as if I am saying something that causes him some anguish, but the reality is that this is a constitutional Bill in its two principal components. AV, which is a huge change to the electoral system with massive constitutional implications, and the change to constituency boundaries are big constitutional issues that in both cases require, in my view, a proper inquiry before this legislation goes through Parliament.

The reality is that, because of our arrangements in the House of Lords, at least we are able to give the Bill some level of scrutiny, but I do not believe that the level of scrutiny that we can give it satisfies in any way the gravity, importance and significance of the legislation that the Government are seeking to introduce. I am saying all this as a strong supporter of a change to the electoral system. Indeed, I would probably go down the route of the Liberal Democrats on this matter if only they would be honest in the position that they took as against supporting this miserable little compromise. Also, the concept of a reduction in the number of seats is not altogether alien to me; indeed, it has never been a great problem for me. The question is the process by which we arrive at that.

I believe that my noble friend’s amendment is critical for securing proper consideration. As he said, it was the subject of a resolution carried at the Liberal Democrat conference. Both the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler, are in their places today and I hope and expect them to have the courage to argue on the back of this amendment the case that was argued forcefully at their annual conference basically in support of the principles that my noble friend is seeking to establish.

15:45

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, with this clause, we reach Part 2, which is a more technical part of the Bill—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords—

[Lord Lipsey]

I am sorry. I thought that the noble Lord had resumed his seat.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I thought that I was taking an intervention. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. The Government will not get off that lightly.

The Government should be reminded of the relevant sections in the very well written report of the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I understand that the report’s recommendations were carried unanimously by the membership of that committee. All parties subscribed to the principles set out in paragraph 11, which states:

“We regret the fact that this Bill has not been subject to either pre-legislative scrutiny, or to prior public consultation”.

That is to say, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Peers all support that statement.

The report continues:

“We conclude that the Government have not calculated the proposed reduction in the size of the House of Commons on the basis of any considered assessment of the role and functions of MPs”.

My noble friend’s proposed inquiry would do precisely that. It is fair to ask the question: why 600? Why not 590? Why not 500, as my noble friend Lord Rooker has suggested? Why not 550? Why not 700 or 800? All the coalition Government have done is pick figures out of the air and say, “Yes, the Liberal Democrats want 500; the Conservatives want 600. Let’s settle on that figure”. That is not the basis on which the size of what is perhaps the most important Parliament in the world should be decided.

We then have to consider the whole issue of Lords reform. Until we know what the arrangements for an elected House will be, how can we even begin to comprehend the nature of the relationship that will develop between individual constituents—because there may well be individual constituents—and Members of an elected House of Lords, and the extent to which that will impact on how many MPs there should be in the House of Commons? That matter has not even entered into the discussions that have taken place prior to the introduction of this legislation.

There is also the whole question of population, on which I intervened during my noble friend’s speech. I have pondered over the Christmas Recess on why population should not be taken into account when, particularly in the inner cities, many of the people who come to MPs’ surgeries would be excluded from the electoral register. I cannot see why those groups who are excluded should not be taken into account when one is deciding the workload of a Member of Parliament and the size of any constituency.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

The noble Lord makes a valid point about people who are not on the electoral roll. I think of my previous constituency of Glasgow North East, to which the Home Office decided that a large number of asylum seekers would come. Not one of them, with the problems that they had, was turned away. Moreover, almost every asylum seeker had a lawyer who would also make representation to me as the local MP. It got to the stage where 90 per cent of the cases coming to surgeries were those of asylum seekers. Only those who were Commonwealth citizens as well as being asylum seekers were entitled to go on to the voters’ roll.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

That intervention by my noble friend is extremely significant. That matter has not been taken into account by the Government. I know that there were problems in Glasgow, because I have been reading about them. There was a huge campaign that was referred to a few weeks ago by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock to deal with the whole issue of registration, which threw up the particular problem to which my noble friend referred. Indeed, the Democratic Audit paper on further findings on equalisation, which no doubt most Members of the House will either have read or will want to read prior to our debates in the future, deals precisely with this issue of population. Mr Lewis Baston says:

“Approximately half of the countries that delimit districts use ‘total population’ as the population base for determining equality across electoral districts. Another third of the countries employ registered voters as the population base”.

Several European countries use citizen population as the relevant base for determining population equality. Lesotho uses the voting age population as the base and Belarus uses the number of voters in the previous election, although that would not be particularly helpful here, would it?

The facts are that countries can use census material and population statistics as against registered electors, particularly when we know that the registered electorate, as far as the purposes of this Bill are concerned, are based on a register that is effectively out of date and which excludes, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton was saying only a few weeks ago, some 3.5 million people. Some 3.5 million people are excluded from the register. Why cannot the great proportion of those be included on a register by changing the basis on which the register is drawn by moving it over to a more population-based system?

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

Has my noble friend seen the Electoral Commission’s excellent report published in March this year entitled The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain? Not only are there that number missing from the electoral register, they are not missing in a proportionate way. There are areas where there are numbers missing disproportionately and Glasgow particularly comes to mind. With an average in Scotland of 92.1 per cent completeness, Glasgow is only 67.8 per cent complete.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have not read that report although it is on my reading list. There are a number of reports I have to read next weekend in preparation for the debates that will take place next week.

The point is that this is not the peg on which to argue the basis on which people register. My noble friend’s amendment simply says, “Let us have an inquiry that does precisely that”. He is saying, “Let someone, somewhere, do some homework on this whole area before Parliament is required to carry any particular piece of legislation”. That is my case.

[Lord Wills]

My noble friend has made an important point about the importance of considering population. But does he agree that this emphasises yet again the folly of rushing this? In a short space of time we will have the results of the 2011 census—probably around 2013 or 2014. It is absolutely crucial in deciding the validity of going forward on a population basis, but also in ascertaining just how under-registered the British people are. What is the degree of under-registration in different constituencies and different population groups throughout the country? Does this not prove the folly of rushing ahead like this?

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I could not agree more with my noble friend. If we are going to have a five-year Parliament, why cannot those data be used? It would still leave the opportunity for legislation to be introduced to deal with this whole issue. Why, in other words, on the back of a whipped vote on the coalition Benches, is this measure being driven through this House when we all know it is an abuse of process and wrong in every possible way?

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I, too, endorse the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wills and follow some lines of argument developed by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. Lord Randolph Churchill described Gladstone—presumably still something of an inspiration to at least some noble Lords opposite—as an,

“old man in a hurry”.

This Bill and other pieces of legislation we are seeing are redolent of a Government of young men in a hurry. That hurry is palpable and inexcusable. I would not accuse the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, of being young men—in a hurry or in any other sense—but the hurry is certainly still there.

A reference has been made to the interesting report of the Select Committee on the Constitution—a most distinguished body, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours remarked. There are some additional matters on top of those to which he referred, but first, following the valid point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, about asylum seekers, another point has been overlooked. Within towns and cities, and across the country, EU citizens resident in this country and entitled to vote in the local elections—though not parliamentary elections—are also outside the compass of this proposal to determine the size of constituencies. They have a vote and are undoubtedly contributing to council tax and the rest in this country, which might be thought a material factor.

The report also concludes in paragraph 29 that,

“the Government have not calculated the proposed reduction in the size of the House of Commons on the basis of any considered assessment of the role and functions of MPs”.

That matter was touched on by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. The committee concluded that the Government,

“have not made a proper assessment of the impact which the reduction in the size of the House of Commons may have on the relationship between the executive and Parliament”.

That is also a significant point. The committee was not persuaded that the reduction—essentially to be made among Back-Bench Members in another place— would necessarily be adverse to the balance but the matter does not seem to have been considered at all and it was,

“concerned that the Bill could possibly result in the Executive's dominance over Parliament being increased”.

On the timing of the boundary review, the committee observed that,

“additional resources will be required, particularly for the first such review”.

What estimate has been made of the additional resources required if and when this Bill goes through, in particular for that first review? The committee shared the concern of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that it was,

“not clear whether political parties have the necessary resources and resilience at a local level to adapt successfully within this timeframe to contesting new constituencies”.

The report goes on to say that,

“the Government should set out how they propose to meet the need for parties, candidates and electors to know the shape of their constituencies a sufficient length of time in advance of each general election”.

One of the Ministers giving evidence to the committee rather dismissed that issue but it is significant for those of us on the ground.

On the crucially important question of equalisation, the committee affirmed that,

“pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation would have enabled a better assessment of whether the new rules as to equalisation are overly rigid”.

What does the Minister make of that judgment?

On public participation, I mentioned in a previous debate that I had been engaged—on one occasion professionally and on another in a political capacity—in giving evidence at local public inquiries about both ward and parliamentary boundaries. The Bill in effect proposes to end the system of public inquiries of that kind and to rely on written evidence. The crucial difference between written evidence and a public inquiry is that the evidence cannot be tested by those with a contrary view—whether they be a different political party, an individual citizen or any other interest group. It is most important that, particularly when dealing with sensitive areas of locality, these issues are properly argued out in public. Written submissions will not, I believe, have that effect.

16:00

We already have experience of some rather difficult hybrid constituencies. For many years, I have represented a ward that was at one time in the constituency of Newcastle Central and then became part of a constituency called Tyne Bridge, which included part of Newcastle and part of Gateshead and was divided only by the River Tyne. I have occasionally likened Newcastle and Gateshead—of which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has intimate knowledge, as chairman of a concern that tries to unite the two areas in promoting their economic interest—to the city of Budapest, which also comprises two quite separate places brought together, although I hesitate to indicate which might be Buda and which might be Pest. Nevertheless, even in an area as compact as Newcastle and Gateshead, there is a distinct feeling of difference, so the Tyne Bridge constituency was never a happy compromise. Most of us, on both sides of the river, are glad that our respective constituencies are now confined to areas on either side. Such significant local issues would be even more salient, as many of your Lordships will know from the many e-mails and letters received, in areas such as Cornwall and the Isle of Wight. However, all of that appears to have been dismissed.

The Constitution Committee’s report also states,

“we believe that a number of concerns, particularly with Part 2 of the Bill, have not been properly addressed by the Government”,

but it does not look like the Government have much intention of giving them that further consideration. Indeed, it is sad that a committee of the distinction and weight of the Select Committee on the Constitution should have to conclude:

“We are concerned that the constitutional relationship between the provisions of this Bill and the Government’s other proposals for constitutional reform have not been adequately thought through. … The Government should set out how they consider that this Bill and its place within their programme of constitutional reform makes the political system ‘more transparent and accountable’”.

To that I would add that the Government should also set out how the Bill will make the political system more comprehensible to the public, whom the Government are here to serve, who must be encouraged to participate more fully in the democratic process.

My final point is on the continuing problem with electoral registration. Levels of registrations are very variable up and down the country, as noble Lords have mentioned. Given the requirement for individual voter registration that will eventually come into force, it seems likely that the existing problem will become worse rather than better. I ask the Minister what resources will be devoted to ensure that the maximum effort is made to have as full a register as possible. What methods might be used to promote registration? For example, will data sharing and the like be promoted, and would that be compatible with the individual registration that will be required in due course?

There is certainly scope for improvement in our electoral system, but that is not likely to be achieved if legislation is rushed. Like many noble Lords—on, I suspect, all sides of the House—I hope that the Government will think again about the process and look sympathetically on the very constructive Amendment 54ZA, which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Wills.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I am slightly hesitant in rising to speak to the amendment because I had hoped that we might hear a contribution from the other side of the House. No one could argue—perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, could respond to this point—that the issues that we are discussing today are not of profound constitutional significance. The provisions in the Bill will alter the relationship between MPs and their constituents, the overall number of MPs and the ways in which the public can be involved in determining the electoral areas from which they will send their representatives to Westminster. If those issues are not of profound constitutional consequence, I do not know what issues are.

I must also say—if I may get my retaliation in first—that I really find it offensive to hear continual references to filibusters taking place when discussions of this significance are before the House. In fact, I would say that there is negligence on the part of groups, parties and individuals who do not make a full contribution to this debate. No one could possibly argue that there was a full debate in the House of Commons. I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace—it is convenient that he is in his place—that it was his leader who described these changes as the most profound since the Great Reform Bill of 1832. I have not had access to those debates, but if they really consisted of only one party having anything whatever to say about those proposals, and if those proposals were shovelled through both Houses in next to no time—this is a timetable that I have never seen before—then I would be very surprised indeed. It is our duty to examine these issues. They are of profound significance.

As for my noble friend’s amendment, although I would guess that he and I disagree on a huge range of issues connected with constitutional reform, I regard this as a masterly amendment. I defy anyone in this House to explain in detail why this is the wrong way to go about major constitutional reform. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, when he sums up, will not read out what I would guess his briefing notes suggest—that this legislation must be passed by 15 February in order for there to be enough time to hold the referendum on 5 May. That is not a reason for rushing through major constitutional reforms, so I hope that he does not say that.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord also does not say that there has already been excessive consideration of the Bill. This Bill—a huge Bill, a constitutional Bill—has so far had six days in Committee on the Floor of the House. I would ask him to look through the record of the previous Government, or of any other Government, to see the amount of time that was taken on Bills of far less significance. That is not to say that those Bills were not important—they were—but they had far less long-term, irreparable and unchangeable significance than this one. If you are changing the constitution, it is very difficult to change it back. The noble and learned Lord will find several Bills that took longer than this one has taken. We have got through roughly half the Bill—through Part 1—in six days in Committee. If the next period in Committee takes six days as well, it will still be impossible to meet the deadline of 15 February. That is not filibustering—that is the minimum required scrutiny. In fact, I would regard that as far too slight a scrutiny of a Bill of this importance to enable us to say that it has been considered properly by this House.

I must confess to being politically naïve. When I heard that the Conservative Party was suggesting that there should be a reduction in the number of MPs, I did not like it, but I was relatively relaxed about it because I knew that there would be plenty of time for discussion. I knew that you could not hurry Boundary Commissions. I knew that the last Boundary Commission for England took six years, so I thought, “Well, at least I will have plenty of time to discuss whether this is a good or a bad proposal”. It honestly did not occur to me for a moment that they would be scrapping the whole system of democratically accountable local inquiries—it just did not cross my mind that they would do that. Nor did it cross my mind that they would want to spend £12 million or so having a rushed Boundary Commission report—which is what the last Boundary Commission for England cost—when they keep telling us that every penny has to be saved.

As for the Liberal Democrats, it did not occur to me in my wildest dreams that they would say, “The thing we must do first in this new Parliament is to ensure that by 5 May we are asking the people whether they want the alternative vote system of proportional representation”. We know what the Liberal Democrats think about that system—I will not embarrass them by quoting their leader yet again; I think we all know the answer to that one—but for them it is a temporary, short-term arrangement so that they can move on in due course to full proportional representation.

I say to the Government that if they are wondering why the Bill is taking a long time, as they seem to suggest, they should look at the issues raised in my noble friend’s amendment. They should give us some sensible answers to the questions about why there cannot be a commission, and about the relationship between the two Houses. Here we have a Government who are reducing the number of Members of Parliament by 50 but, let us get this on the record, since the general election the number of new Members appointed to this House—many of whom I am delighted to see here; I am not complaining about them—is 117 so far. I remind the House that this is what the Deputy Prime Minister has described as a hugely important series of constitutional Bills that are all interrelated, and that great brains have been operating on them in order to show the nuance of the balance between the various pieces of legislation that are being brought forward. If there is any rational overview that allows simultaneously 50 fewer MPs and 117 additional appointed Members of the House of Lords, please could the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, explain to me what it is?

I have a final plea but it is one not made in hope, or indeed in expectation. Maybe just once, in response to one of the amendments from this side of the House, the Government could do what most Governments do from the Front Bench—many of us have been there—and say, “Look, we don’t really like the form of this amendment”, but at least acknowledge that there is some really powerful argument or justification for the points that we are making. At least they could say, “We’ll look at some of it, and we’ll bring some proposals back on Report”. I ask the Government not to regard this botched Bill as an impregnable piece of perfect legislation that should not be subject to any change.

It will be a test for the Government to see how they respond to a totally justified and well argued amendment, supported by people on very different sides regarding electoral reform and the future of the House of Lords; my noble friend Lord Wills and I are certainly on different sides. Let us hope for something better from the government Front Bench than we have had on any amendment so far.

[Lord Snape]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Grocott’s earlier remarks about the debates that we have had so far on this enormous piece of legislation. For the same reasons as my noble friend, I feel strongly about much of its content. Like him—perhaps I could put this slightly stronger than he did—I deplore the lack of speeches from the Benches opposite. Indeed, having attended every day of the Committee so far, I have to say that this is the largest attendance that I have seen from the Conservative Party. The flesh might be present, though, but the spirit is pretty weak; we are still not seeing any contributions of either support or opposition from the Conservative Benches.

The Conservatives are slightly shamed by their coalition partners who are here in strength, although we are not hearing a great deal from them either, other than expressions of cynicism and impatience from one or two of them so far. It is regrettable that they cannot bring themselves to put some coherent arguments together in support of this enormous and extremely important piece of legislation.

My noble friend Lord Grocott mentioned the fact that there are accusations—this has not so far been said publicly, but there have been attempts to give this impression—that there is somehow some sort of filibuster taking place on the Labour Benches. I was contacted during the Christmas Recess by someone purporting to be from the Sunday Times, not a newspaper that I am overly fond of these days. I understand that investigations were taking place into the contents of some of the speeches on this legislation from this side of your Lordships’ House. Nothing has appeared in the Sunday Times yet because, I fear, when the reporter concerned put this story together, as reporters do, they managed to give the impression that what had been happening so far was that the Labour Benches had been doing the job for which they were appointed to this House and the Benches opposite had not. That would not for a moment satisfy the editorial tendencies of the Sunday Times, so it is no wonder that we have seen no more. However, the constitutional outrages in the Bill ought to be properly reported. If we had a press in this country that reported proceedings in this House and in the other place, rather than paying braying public schoolboys to pour buckets of verbal ordure on those they consider to be their social inferiors, the country at large might be alerted to the coalition Government’s outrageous behaviour and their attempts to rig both Houses of Parliament under these proceedings.

16:15

Like my noble friend Lord Grocott, I find myself in many of these arguments on the opposite side to my noble friend Lord Wills, who moved the amendment. However, it is an important and comprehensive amendment to which I hope the Front Bench opposite will give due and proper consideration. My noble friend’s amendment should certainly be considered in so far as it mentions local ties in relation to future constituency boundaries.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the Local Government Act 1972 will be aware of the dismay which was caused throughout the country by some of the boundaries of the then new local authorities. Indeed, in West Bromwich East, the constituency which I had the honour to represent in the other place for 27 years, many people were never reconciled to the new borough of Sandwell, which was created by the 1972 Act. After nearly 30 years many people looked blank when that name was mentioned. Yet here we have a Bill that proposes that constituency boundaries should be drawn up while paying no attention to local sentiment or action. Imagine, again from the point of view of my former constituency, a constituency that embraced West Bromwich East and West and Walsall. There is no great love between those two areas; they have their own football teams, structures and local authorities. They do not love each other. However, under these proposals, someone will have to try to represent such a constituency.

I look at the party opposite and one or two of the Conservative Benches. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who is as diligent as ever in these matters, is in his place. Imagine what would happen in Sutton Coldfield—his former constituency, which he represented with such distinction—if it were put next to somewhere like West Bromwich, for example. The uproar would be enormous. Reconciling the respective populations to it would be extraordinarily difficult, but these are the proposals that we are asked to approve in your Lordships’ House. This is the direction in which the Bill intends to take democratic matters in the years to come.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, who is not in his place today, wrote a piece in the Times some weeks ago, to which I have referred previously, in great support of the Bill. He said—I paraphrase—that the important thing in the Bill was to ensure that constituencies were of about the same numerical strength, taking one with another. He felt that the present imbalance in constituencies—the fact that some inner city constituencies, largely represented in the other place by the Labour Party, were smaller—was unfair. In his eyes the only way forward was to equalise constituencies numerically, although he conceded that there would be some electoral advantage for the Conservative Party in this. However, reference has already been made—I think by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours—to the United States system of government. In the House of Representatives, that is exactly what happens. I do not think that the United States is in exactly a happier frame of mind because everyone in the House of Representatives represents around the same number of electors.

[Baroness McDonagh]

With regard to the newspaper article by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, does my noble friend agree with me that there are no significant size differences between Conservative and Labour seats in the other place?

[Lord Snape]

There are no great differences between them, as my noble friend says. However, to be honest, I would not be much concerned if there were. That is a red—or, rather, a blue—herring as far as this argument is concerned. It is surely a recognisable fact on both sides of your Lordships' House that voters are apt to be found in clusters, with Labour voters in inner-city areas and Conservative voters in more rural areas. Liberal voters are, however, diffused throughout the country.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

We must not continue with that misunderstanding and misapprehension. For many years I represented 800 square miles of rural Scotland, and in 1997 I had a Labour majority of 21,000. Constituencies throughout Scotland such as Eastwood, Edinburgh South and Dumfries, which were thought to be Tory constituencies in perpetuity, are now Labour seats. We can win these seats and we will win many more of them.

[Lord Snape]

That has put me in my place.

[Noble Lords]

Answer that!

[Lord Snape]

I will do my—no doubt inadequate—best to do so. There are, of course, seats in England—we are not talking about Scotland now—where a Conservative voter is a lone voice indeed and where Conservative councillors are non-existent. Perhaps we should leave it there before I provoke any more reminiscences from my noble friend about what happens north of the border.

Before my noble friend Lady McDonagh intervened, I was talking about constituencies being based on numbers and nothing else. I looked up the origin of “gerrymandering” but with my customary forgetfulness—it must be old age—I have forgotten what my conclusions were. However, I understand that the word originated in the United States, so if gerrymandering takes place big time in the United States I do not see how a numerically even system of government is necessarily a fair one. I hope that I do not raise any further ire, or knock the scabs off any old sores, when I point out that for many years gerrymandering was said to be a way of life in Northern Ireland, although seats there were not based on numerical balance. I cannot for the life of me see how the coalition can claim that equalising constituencies numerically in the way proposed under the legislation will prevent at least the accusation of gerrymandering in the future.

My concluding remark on the widely read and circulated article of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is that this matter is all about political advantage, and the coalition Government ought to have the courage to say so. Conservative Back-Benchers who are silent but supportive ought to have the courage of their convictions and say, “We in your Lordships' House are not prepared to put up with legislation being rushed through in this way”. I do not feel any obligation not to participate in this debate in order to enable the Government to hold a referendum on a certain date in May to please their coalition partners. That is a matter for them, not for this House as a whole. I hope and believe that if my noble friend Lord Wills, who has so ably moved this amendment, is not satisfied with the response from the Front Bench—having participated in previous debates on the Bill, I think that it would be pretty unusual if he were—he will test the mood and will of the Committee. Let us see proper impartiality prevail before we wreck our unwritten constitution and rig the other place as well as your Lordships' House.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

What I find extraordinary about this debate on the topic raised by my noble friend is the question of,

“the proper role of MPs in their constituencies and in Parliament”.

Is there any doubt about that? Should we be raising it at all? My noble friend is quite right to address this issue. There is a profound difference between the way in which Members of Parliament in urban and poor constituencies react and the way in which MPs in country districts react. They are quite different. Perhaps this issue is being addressed by my noble friend.

The amendment is rather convoluted and we should address the issue directly: is there a difference between the way in which urban and country Members react? I represented an inner London constituency for a long time, and I held six surgeries a month—which is quite a lot. There is no doubt that my constituents put numerous questions to me and I found that I could not satisfactorily react to them by holding only four surgeries a month. That was inadequate. That is why I held six a month. I found that that also was inadequate, but I could not do more.

It is essential that this issue is addressed. Perhaps my noble friend is doing that—I do not know. The issue ought to be addressed directly, which is where the amendment falls down. On the whole, I was impressed by what my noble friend had to say, but he has not directly addressed this point.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

In supporting the amendment, I will make two brief points on subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause on what the basis of how we set up representation in this country should be. I should be very hesitant to criticise one word of this excellent amendment, but reference to the European Parliament would also have been useful. MPs have to consider how they relate not only to local government—or, if they are in London, to the Greater London Authority—but to the European Parliament and what will become the elected House of Lords. If this amendment or something like it is supported, I fear that an enormous opportunity to look at how those different levels of elected politicians can relate to each other will be missed. That is important not simply for politicians, although it is important for any of us in this profession, but from the point of view of the electorate. To whom do they go with their problems, whether those relate to asylum or housing?

I am sure that any Members of your Lordships' House who have been Members of Parliament—I have not—will know that people will go from one to the other. They will start with a local councillor, and if they cannot get an answer there they will go to their MP. Occasionally they come here, but they certainly go to where I used to work in the European Parliament. It is not good for the consumer or the citizen if they cannot know easily which elected Member can help them with their problem. This amendment should have been an opportunity to look at how those various elected members work together. That would have been invaluable if this amendment were to be passed.

16:30

I raise a second issue: what is the proper way for a constituency to be put together? In case not everyone reads the Guardian, I quote Michael White discussing—this will be no surprise—the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency. He describes the constituency and asks:

“What unites its redbrick Victorian terraces … and snooty”—

forgive me, it was the Guardian—

“stone villages such as Diggle, Delph and Saddleworth are high-handed boundary changes which lumped the villages into Oldham in 1974. In 1997 they created the marginal constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth. It is Coronation Street meets Last of the Summer Wine … a shotgun marriage”.

I am not certain, much as I respect Michael White, that he is accurate in thinking that it is wrong to have a constituency with such a varied make-up. I have often thought that it would help Conservative Members if they had some very deprived areas and understood the problems that some of us go on about. Perhaps, looking at it the other way around, Conservative Members might think it advantageous for Labour Members to have more rural areas and an understanding of different issues such as hunting.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

On that point, I put it to the noble Baroness that she is making the argument for proportional representation.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

That is quite a different argument. I am saying that I do not know whether it is better for a Member of Parliament to represent a much broader area of the country and our communities and therefore to unite and understand those, or whether it is better for them to be very specialised and to represent an area that feels very close together with a lot of shared interests. I see the merit of the amendment as enabling a committee of inquiry to think about how our communities can best be represented, whether at local government level, or, as it particularly addresses itself, within the House of Commons. Building on that, because I assume that it involves the same building blocks, would be an elected House of Lords, and indeed an elected European Parliament.

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, I want to make a point not about individual constituencies, because I have never been in another place, but about the importance of the amendment as making certain things statutory. Those of your Lordships who have read Richard Crossman’s diaries may remember the glee with which he said, “Oh, the Boundary Commission are our people and they will fix these boundaries in our favour”. For many years we have conducted affairs more or less according to the idea that the party in power has a licence to fix things in its own way. I think that we have now come to the stage at which it is very likely that we will have coalition Governments, and when you have coalition Governments you have to stop doing that sort of thing. You have to put things on a statutory basis. What I like about my noble friend’s amendment is that it very systematically establishes a committee of inquiry that will report year after year and will take a comprehensive look at a number of these issues, including the time to conduct boundary reviews, et cetera. What we are debating here is not so much whether one should equalise or not—maybe we should equalise—but how we equalise. It might be inevitable that diverse constituencies are put together. This is not so much about what we do but about how we do it and how we continue to do it on a permanent basis.

That is an important part of the amendment. By putting it in the way he has—and I hope that the Minister will take this very seriously—my noble friend is adding something to the constitutional reform process on which the Government are embarked. This will prove a very important brick to give greater legitimacy to the kind of reform the Government want than they have got so far. Therefore, when it comes to House of Lords reform and determining the size of the House, if this amendment is accepted it will be much easier for the Government to propose the new size of the House of Lords because they will be able to say that a committee of inquiry has been permanently established that can consider and report on the matter. This is why I commend my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I make no apology for speaking briefly from these Benches. I do not believe that it is proper to criticise the detailed approach to this question of many Members of this House. If we did not give the matter our deepest thought and most conscientious consideration, we would have no right to call ourselves a reviewing Chamber.

I follow very much the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in regarding the amendment as a breath of fresh air, sanity and common sense. I suppose that every Member of this Chamber would accept the proposition that the mother of Parliaments, when considering a totally new regime relating to so many aspects of its life, deserves the best and most assiduous efforts that we can imagine. In other words, we should not approach any one of these problems in a piecemeal way. Nor should we think of a final solution to any of these matters. These are immense problems and we should not think in terms of any ultimate solution save after carrying out the most detailed and assiduous scrutiny of all possibilities that are open.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Is it not extraordinary that not one word has been heard today from the coalition Benches on this vital issue?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I am tempted to comment but, mustering all the neutrality that I can command as a Cross-Bencher, it would probably be better for me to remain silent. I invite noble Lords to consider the issue of determining that the number of Members of the House of Commons should be reduced from 650 to 600. I mention in passing that the effect on Wales would be utterly disproportionate. It would lose about a quarter of its Members of Parliament; the number would be cut from 40 to 30. The case that I put to the House with humility and sincerity is this. I can imagine that if one had a body of the wisest and most appropriate people to examine this question, one might find considerable support for the proposition that the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced from 650 to a lower figure. The argument in favour of that might have something to do with devolution, although we were told many months ago by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the reduction from 650 to 600 had nothing to do with devolution and that any reduction would be simply on account of the determination in general that the number should be reduced.

I can also imagine that that body would come to a totally different conclusion and state that, if one looks at all the duties that have been added to the working life of an ordinary Member of Parliament over the past 50 years, there is a strong case for having a number of MPs greater than 650. I can also imagine that a body, having looked at the matter conscientiously and competently, would come to the conclusion that while on the whole there was a case for an increase, there were good psychological and social reasons for leaving the number at 650. In other words, each of those conclusions can easily be imagined in the case of a body charged with that particular duty; yet the Government are deciding this matter in a wholly arbitrary and rushed way, without any evidence to support them.

In relation to the question of the size of constituencies, many of us in the House commented at Second Reading that the idea of equality based on a mathematical commonality is utterly chimerical, artificial and misleading. On the one hand it might seem attractive to say, “Let every constituency be more or less the same size—76,000 give or take a small percentage”. That does not give equality at all. If you live in an urban constituency which you can cycle across in 15 minutes, you can have access to your Member of Parliament’s office in a matter of minutes. Just imagine doing that in a vast rural constituency, such as Brecon and Radnorshire in Wales, or Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross in Scotland. The idea of equality turns on many different factors. Mathematical uniformity is only one and probably the most misleading and artificial, yet the coalition Government have worshipped at that altar on this matter.

My only criticism of the proposed new clause is that it should have preceded Clause 1. Everything I have said applies to Part 1 of the Bill. I ask the House to bear in mind conscientiously and sincerely that as a Parliament we may well be rushing into decisions that we will greatly regret in years to come.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, as he made a powerful speech from a point of view that I share, in that he referred to the amendment as a breath of fresh air. I would go as far as to say that my noble friend, in tabling the amendment, has offered a lifeline to the coalition. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in his place. He is someone for whom I have the greatest respect, and he must be uncomfortable with the process that brought this legislation to the House. There has been no consultation or prelegislative scrutiny and there is a rumour going round, which I hope is not true, that on the coalition Benches a timetable is being kept on how long Members on this side of the House take to speak. Frankly, I regard that as bullying. Anyone who attempts to bully me usually comes slightly unstuck. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, agrees with me. The fact that we have this amendment gives us an opportunity to get the Bill back on to a proper track.

One of the areas that I found most difficult on Second Reading was the figure of 600. I am not absolutely wedded to the idea that there must be 650 Members of the other place; changes come about and we should be prepared to look in detail at the construction of areas. In my former constituency, one village, Chapelhall, went from being a sleepy village to an agglomeration of a number of very attractive housing estates. The very place from which I take my title, Coatdyke, has been linked with one town or another on about half a dozen different occasions. I do not feel too strongly about that, but I should like to know where the mandate is behind the figure of 600. One coalition party in its manifesto wanted 500; another coalition party wanted 575. I did not go to a very posh school—my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan and I went to the same school—but normally, when we worked out a compromise, it came in the middle. How do you go from 500 to 575 and come away with 600?

I see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is in his place. Perhaps he and his noble and learned friend Lord Wallace could collude and come up with an answer as to why that figure is 600. I heard another rumour that some work has been done proving that the figure of 600 disadvantages the Labour Party more than any other party. I am with my noble friend Lord Foulkes in that I do not care what gerrymandering goes on with the constituency boundaries. It is the arguments that will sway people and we have seen that in other parts of the country.

16:45

[Lord Wills]

I, too, am perplexed by how the figure was arrived at. My noble friend may wish to know that I made a freedom of information request some time ago for any deliberations made on the electoral consequences of different figures for the size of the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, promised on Second Reading to let me have such deliberations, if in fact they had taken place. I am still waiting to know from him whether such calculations were made and, if they were, to see them. I am still waiting for the freedom of information request to be responded to. I think that it is already out of time; I hope that I will not have to wait too much longer. I will of course share the results with the House.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for that interesting piece of information. This is a subject to which I shall return—as, I am sure, will my noble friend—again and again. I will not be bullied into shutting up about it.

My noble friend Lady Hayter also made a valid point when she referred to subsection (2)(b) in my noble friend's amendment and the European Parliament. The issue of where someone with a problem goes becomes even greater in areas such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If I, as a constituent, wish to get some advice, I can go to my local councillor, or should I be going to my Member of the Scottish Parliament, my Member of Parliament, or my Member of the European Parliament—or should I even be bothering a Member of your Lordships' House? One complexity that has not been addressed in the legislation—one that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, knows well—is that constituency boundaries for the Scottish Parliament are shaped and based on the former Westminster model, because a decision was taken to retain the membership at 129. Therefore, there is a disjunction between the boundaries of the Scottish Parliament and what is proposed.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

On that point, I advise Members of the House to listen very carefully to what my noble friend is saying, not because of any reputation that she may have but because—I hope that I am not giving away a secret; I know that she will tell me off if I am—contrary to what my noble friend Lord Desai said, when she was Secretary of State for Scotland and had a decision to make which could have advantaged the Labour Party in relation to boundaries for Westminster seats in Scotland, she took the very principled decision to accept the view of the independent Boundary Commission, and the redistribution went ahead. That is why she should be listened to with great care, because of the great integrity with which she took that decision.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. Since he has given up the chairmanship of Hearts Football Club, he has become secretary of my fan club. I do not know whether that is more auspicious or inauspicious than being chairman of Hearts Football Club.

The issue of the shape and construction is very important. I say to the Liberal Democrat members of the coalition, who have, over the years, made a very convincing argument for localism in politics—that all politics is local—that what is proposed is an aberration. It completely denies the local input into the shape and size of constituencies.

I made reference on Second Reading to the fact that the very last speech that the late John Smith made in Scotland, the day before he died, was to the Boundary Commission, because there was a proposal to split the constituency that I went on to represent right down the main street. People assume that if you come from a mining community or a working-class community—if you do not come from a 12th-century mansion house and can trace your ancestors back to 1066—you do not care about the history of the place that you come from. My experience is that you care passionately about the nature of the place that you come from. People become grossly offended when bureaucrats—as they see it—simply pluck a figure out of the air and construct an artificial community as a consequence. That becomes enshrined in this legislation, and this adoration of localism is why my noble friend’s amendment is so important. It is critical to stand back, take time and do this properly. I urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, when he replies, to give us an answer on the figure of 600 and to recognise that these are not partisan points, but are about the nature of the communities that make up this country. He should properly take into account that the passion that people feel for their own communities requires that there be a proper consideration of the nature of their democratic representation.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, this legislation has been constructed in haste and is being pushed through Parliament in haste. It was constructed in haste during the hasty negotiation of the coalition agreement; it is being introduced in the first Session of a new Parliament—so there was no Green Paper, no consultative process, nor, indeed, as has been noted, was there any pre-legislative scrutiny within Parliament; and it was very hastily proceeded with in the other place before it reached us. For all these reasons, it is right and proper that it should be carefully scrutinised not only by us here in this House now, but also on the basis that my noble friend Lord Wills has put forward.

Under my noble friend’s proposal for a committee of inquiry, the great advantage would be that people of enormous experience and wisdom would be brought into the process, and it would be conducted in a context that would ensure impartiality. I am sure that noble Lords want to produce the right outcome in the broader interests of our constitution and our country, but it is in the nature of the adversarial processes that characterise our Parliament that it is very difficult to achieve a consensus in parliamentary proceedings. However, under the process that my noble friend has advocated there would be a real prospect of being able to reach a large measure of agreement, proposals could be recommended not only to us but to the people of this country, and there would be a wider public debate on the interim recommendations of my noble friend’s committee and then, of course, on its final conclusions. That would be a better way to approach these enormously important issues and responsibilities than the way that the coalition Government have adopted.

Frankly, the way that the Government have introduced this Bill, and the way they are proceeding with it, is not a good way to govern. These are major issues that need to be treated with proper deliberation, bipartisanship and responsibility—issues such as the appropriate size of constituencies, the number of Members of Parliament who should serve in the House of Commons, the make-up of a House of Commons that very possibly will be elected under the alternative votes system instead of first past the post, the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents, and the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. One recites the issues that fall to be resolved in this process and it is self-evident that they are of major importance to the health of our democratic culture and to the good functioning of our Parliament. So my noble friend’s recommendation is one that we ought to welcome and embrace.

Among the particular issues that he has itemised and drawn attention to in his complex amendment is the relative importance of electoral equality. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, spoke very well on that issue. Coming—as he also does—from Wales, I am particularly conscious of the devastating impact on the structure of political life in Wales that a dogmatic insistence on numerical equality in the size of constituencies would bring about. We have a responsibility not to proceed as recklessly as that. Of course it is desirable, other things being equal, that constituencies should be more or less of equal size, but I think that the very narrow margin of fluctuation of 5 per cent either side of the norm of 76,000 electors that the Government propose is simply inadequate.

So the committee of inquiry ought to examine the options for a 5 per cent toleration, a 10 per cent variation and, indeed, other margins of flexibility, so that the desirability of constituencies being of equal size should be weighed against what is also, surely we must all agree, highly desirable—that the integrity and character of particular communities should be recognised and respected and, of course, that the relationship between parliamentary constituencies and the boundaries of local authorities should also be so designed as to make sense.

The Deputy Prime Minister compares this legislation in its significance to the Great Reform Act of 1832. But the difference between his approach in this measure and the approach which was enacted in the 1832 legislation is that it was the 1832 legislation that, for the first time, established in our parliamentary culture and our practical parliamentary arrangements the representation of communities. It was because people in the newly urbanising and industrialising communities, particularly in the north, objected to being represented in Parliament by county MPs, and because people in the counties themselves found that unacceptable, that the pressure grew to look again at how parliamentary representation was constructed. It was in consequence of the 1832 measure that the great industrial cities and the new industrial communities—Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bury, Rochdale, Bradford; these very significant and very important places—got proper parliamentary representation and that, for the first time, the people who lived in those places had the chance to elect their own Members of Parliament and to hold their own Members of Parliament to account. Of course the accountability was imperfect on the limited franchise, but we saw a development from that point which led to a state of affairs in which—even though the pressure for reform rightly persisted for more than 100 years after that, and there is still pressure for reform—there was a pride in the British constitution and an ownership of the British constitution.

We all are concerned that that pride in our constitution has diminished. However, hastily spatchcocked reforming measures which are perceived, fairly or unfairly, to be tainted by a bias in terms of party interest—for example, whether the number of 600 constituencies, a figure apparently arbitrarily chosen, has been calculated to be to the disadvantage of the Labour Party—give rise to doubts and questionings about the process that we are engaged in at the moment, not only for noble Lords on this side of the House but for many people in the country. Many people are very uncertain whether this is the right way to be going.

If we could take the suspicion of partisan politics out of the process through the establishment of the committee of inquiry proposed in this amendment then we would help to build the public’s confidence in this important reforming process. We shall of course have opportunities to debate specific amendments about numerical equality and what exceptions should be allowed for that, but let us recognise now that there are protests coming from Cornwall, from the Isle of Wight and Ynys Mon which have to be taken seriously. There is a danger that places which regard themselves as authentic communities will be split and that others will be yoked together with places with which the residents of both feel that they have nothing in common. That will not be at all good for confidence let alone for pride in our parliamentary democracy.

My noble friend Lord Wills also rightly makes the point in subsection 2(b) of his amendment that the House of Commons is part of a much larger system. You cannot simply take a chunk of the constitution and push it, pull it around, mould it and remake it as if it was a piece of plasticine while ignoring the impact that a change in one part of the constitution has on other parts. If you alter the size of the House of Commons, if you alter the relationship between Members of Parliament and the Executive, and if you alter the capacity of Members of the House of Commons to scrutinise legislation, from all of these things there necessarily follow major implications for the work of this House.

It has been noted by a number of speakers that we ought also to consider the relationship between the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the devolved representative institutions of government. I think that that point is not included in my noble friend’s amendment, but perhaps we can reconsider his amendment on Report, and perhaps amendments can be made to his amendment so as to perfect the excellent scheme that he has put forward for our consideration. Additionally, the relationship between Members of the House of Commons and elected members in local government has always to be considered when you are considering making changes to the House of Commons. You cannot change the House of Commons in isolation without there being very important implications. It is not of course just the interests of MPs and elected councillors that count, although their capacity to do their job is in itself important, but we have to consider above all the interests and views of members of the public.

My noble friend and indeed all of us agree that the present system of boundary reviews is imperfect and needs to be reformed because clearly it takes too long to achieve changes in boundaries. But how long the Boundary Commission ought to take in its processes is not something that we are going to be able to resolve in the course of debates in this House or back in another place. As a number of noble Lords have already argued today, it is again of the greatest importance to ensure that boundaries are appropriately determined, and particularly that the people who are to be represented by Members of the House of Commons have themselves had an opportunity to contribute to the formation of the judgment and decision as to what the revised boundaries ought to be. This is a complex matter that needs impartial, expert and thorough consideration which again a committee of inquiry would be well placed to undertake. For this and a considerable number of other reasons, what my noble friend has suggested is a helpful and excellent idea.

My noble friend did suggest the committee of inquiry should be a Royal Commission, but hearts are slightly liable to sink at that suggestion because Royal Commissions have a reputation for taking minutes and going on for years, or whatever the saying is. But he has written in to his amendment that an interim report should be made each year and that there should be a final report within three years of the passing of this Bill. Although I think it would be a tight squeeze, it would then be possible for all the key decisions to be taken within the life of this Parliament. Perhaps not all the consequential legislation could be enacted, but the decisions would be taken so that this would indeed have proved to be a great reforming Parliament. The coalition could claim with better justification that it was a great reforming Government, but the reform should have been designed on the basis of impartial, expert and thorough deliberation instead of hasty legislation subject to the force majeure of the Whips. That is not a good basis for ensuring lasting and well-judged reform.

17:00

[Lord Thomas of Swynnerton]

My Lords, I speak as an independent who usually supports the coalition Government, but I must say that I am very much influenced by the speeches in favour of a committee of inquiry and of delay on this matter. Again, I speak as a completely independent Member, and there is one thing that should be considered. If there is a committee of inquiry, there is the fact that the other place made one major change during the course of the 20th century which was not legislated for and was not really discussed either in this House or in the other place. It is the very large increase in the number of governmental supporters who receive some kind of emolument or support from the Government of the day. In the case of the last Government the figure went up to about 100 Members as a matter of course. There has been no parliamentary approval of that, it has just happened. Perhaps we should not allow such a monumental change to happen again without discussion.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, with this amendment, we move from Part 1 to Part 2. I shall make one important observation relevant to the case that my noble friend Lord Wills has made. In the case of Part 1, there was an inquiry—I know, because I sat on it. It was the Jenkins inquiry. It is perfectly true that the referendum will be not on the recommendation of Jenkins but on half of it; namely, the alternative vote. That inquiry did not completely crack the problem, but it moved the debate forward. As we found when we debated Part 1, all the speeches made were informed by the famously articulate report of Lord Jenkins and the analysis that it contained. Some agreed with it and some did not, but it shaped the analysis and therefore enabled us to have a much better debate.

The second advantage to flow from having a prior report is that, between the setting up of Jenkins and the introduction of this Bill, many people, whether mostly or wholly, changed their minds. There are many people, particularly in my own party, who are adamant first-past-the-posters and can still see the arguments for it today, but they are prepared to contemplate the argument set out in Jenkins for moving a little way in the other direction by having the alternative vote, which is an improvement on first past the post in the view of many of them.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords—

[A noble Lord]

A visit from the dead!

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving way. He was a very distinguished member of the commission that was set up and chaired by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Why does he think that, 10 years afterwards, we have had no action on its report? Does he not share our cynicism that the proposal of his noble friend is simply a way of privatising, pushing out and delegating responsibility for these important decisions so that nothing should happen? The experience that he and I have had of the complete failure of the Government whom he supported to do anything on the basis of that commission’s recommendation, makes us very cynical about asking somebody other than Parliament to take decisions on this matter.

[Lord Lipsey]

The noble Lord was very grateful that I gave way, but I am even more grateful to see him popping up to speak. The silence is broken—omertà is finished with. I am sure that we will have many contributions from him in the future.

There is no intention among anyone, I think, to stop this legislation, as considered properly, going through. Let us be clear that what will destroy the legislation is not the danger of delay but the danger of haste. The danger is that this ramshackle legislation, half considered, will be forced into law and that a subsequent Government, seeing that it is half baked, will force it out of law and we will have achieved nothing. That is the plan that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is urging on the Committee. I beg this House, which is a great example of the benefit of the rational consideration, to reject that way forward.

I was saying before I gave way to the noble Lord that many first-past-the-posters have been converted to the alternative vote, but I take more pleasure in another form of conversion that has taken place. There were many people, and the Electoral Reform Society was in their hands, who believed in wholesale, immediate electoral reform and full-scale proportional representation. I have never been persuaded of the case made for proportional representation; I do not believe in it and I do not agree with it—nor did Jenkins. However, during those years since Jenkins, and in months and years of debate, those people have moved their position so that now the Electoral Reform Society is a very strong backer of the yes campaign in this referendum. I think that it sensibly sees that a consensus reform that goes half way is better than a wholesale reform that later gets reversed, and that it is more likely to get reform by settling for a halfway house than by holding out for ever for the whole cake.

Through the post-Jenkins process has emerged a greater level of consensus on where we are going. It is not a wholesale consensus—that would require the verdict of the people in a referendum—but there is a greater level of consensus and a greater clarity on the arguments. That makes a hugely strong and powerful case for proceeding by reflection.

[Lord Desai]

Is my noble friend suggesting that the first part of this Bill is all right and the second part is causing problems, and that therefore we should hive the two things off and think more about Part 2?

[Lord Lipsey]

I made my criticisms of Part 1 during its passage. We have another chance to consider it on Report. I think it can be improved but I am broadly in favour of everything about it except the referendum date. That is my broad position. It is also my position that Part 2 needs much more improvement than Part 1. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the chance to make that point.

Without absorbing too much of the Committee’s time with interventions, perhaps I may be forgiven if I take one example of the kind of issue drawn from the long and comprehensive list in my noble friend’s amendment on which really considered inquiry and judgment is needed. That is the number of MPs. The figure was snatched out of the air. Half the time Ministers admit that. It should not have been snatched out of the air. There are lots of facts that are relevant. It is true that since 1950 the number of MPs has grown by 3 per cent. It is also true that the electorate have grown in the same period by 25 per cent. That is to say that every MP has 22 per cent more constituents to service. On the servicing of constituents, I have never been in another place but I did work for a Member of another place, Anthony Crosland, in 1972, and if we received 30 constituency letters per week we were astonished. They were dealt with by his constituency secretary and his local party without difficulty. Now I am told that 300 letters is the average and there is much more communication in other ways.

The research think tank, Democratic Audit, has produced some other facts that should be weighed. For example, it turns out not to be true, as the Government have argued, that we have vastly more representatives than other countries. We have barely more than France and practically the same as Italy. But other countries benefit from having far more local elected representatives to deal with a great many other things that our Members of Parliament have to deal with themselves. Whether we should go down that road is another matter but that is what was concluded. Then there is the question that has been raised briefly in this debate about the danger of cutting the number of MPs but keeping the number of Ministers precisely as it is. The Executive become even more dominant in our politics and in our political culture and even more able to get their way with the minimum amount of criticism and fuss.

I do not say that these arguments are conclusive and that the number of MPs should stay as it is, be reduced or increased. I understand the populist wave of emotion that causes people to think that the number of MPs should be decreased. It may be that an objective inquiry concludes that that is right. I do not express any opinion on those matters at this stage. All I say to the Committee is that it is surely reasonable that arguments and facts such as these should be independently weighed and considered before a final verdict is reached and before legislation making it the law of the land is forced through Parliament.

[Lord Touhig]

The Committee should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Wills for his amendment because it gives it and the coalition partners the chance to take stock and reflect on this seventh day in Committee on the Bill. If they were to adopt the proposals in the amendment that my noble friend has moved perhaps we would start to move towards some consensus on major constitutional change. That would be the common-sense approach, although I well remember as a teenager, my mother used to say to me, “Son, in life you’ll find that sense isn’t that common”.

My brief remarks all relate to subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause, which says that this inquiry would take,

“into account the need to maintain the Union”.

This is a matter I referred to at Second Reading because I believe that the Bill as constructed is a threat to this precious thing we have: the union of the nations in these islands. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, briefly referred to the Bill’s impact on Wales, where it would reduce the number of Members of Parliament by 25 per cent. If the Parliament of the United Kingdom treats Wales in this way, it will have an adverse effect on the view, Wales takes of the Union.

Welsh is the first language of the majority of people in five parliamentary seats in Wales—Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Ceredigion, and Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. Wales is the only part of the Union where a substantial number of people—some 20 per cent of the population—speak two languages. If my noble friend’s amendment were accepted, it would at least give an opportunity to look at the impact that this legislation has on the representation of people whose first language is Welsh in this Parliament of the United Kingdom. Only Wales has a big linguistic issue so far as the rest of the union is concerned.

17:15

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Does the noble Lord recollect that this matter has been carefully considered before, in 1992 when the Boundary Commissions Act was passing through both Houses? In the House of Commons, the invitation was held out to Kenneth Clarke, the then Home Secretary, to considerably reduce the number of constituencies in Wales. He said that he would do no such thing because it had long been accepted that the national, cultural and many other considerations in relation to Wales were of such nature to demand that the same number be maintained.

[Lord Touhig]

I endorse the point made by the noble Lord. As part of the structure of our unwritten constitution—thank God we do not have a written constitution—it is important that we recognise that elements of the Union have to be taken into account. I made the point at Second Reading that in California, tens of millions of people send two senators to the United States’ Senate as does a state like Wyoming which has fewer than half a million people. That needs to be taken into account. If my noble friend’s proposals were accepted, the Government would then have a chance to reflect more sensibly on how we should proceed with these major reforms.

Welsh representation in Parliament goes back to the 16th century, although there is evidence that in 1322 and 1327—700 years ago—Wales was invited to send 24 Members of Parliament to the House of Commons. The Bill as proposed would give Wales just 30 MPs. The regular reviews of parliamentary constituencies have their origins in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944. The Act instructed the Boundary Commission for Wales to look initially at abnormally large constituencies but also to conduct a review of all seats with a view to keeping them under constant review. The rules for redistribution for the initial review stated that Wales should have not fewer than 35 seats and that rule remained in place for the first periodical review published in 1954. The second periodical review in 1958 stated that Wales should have not fewer than 35 seats. The fourth and fifth periodical reviews did much the same.

We shall perhaps get into this wider debate as we progress this Bill through Committee. I believe strongly that to treat Wales in this way is a threat to the Union. We will have a referendum in the spring on more powers for the Welsh Assembly. Whatever people’s views—they are entitled to them and I am sure they will express them—it is putting the cart before the horse to say that Wales will have fewer seats whether or not the people of Wales decide to transfer more powers to the Assembly in Cardiff. It is also offensive to people in Wales whose first language is Welsh to say that it does not matter if the Welsh language is well represented in the House of Commons. The point was made in evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place that this would adversely impact upon Welsh-speaking areas.

I urge the Government to take great consideration of my noble friend’s amendment. It would give us a chance to reflect and gain some consensus. I say to the Government that I think that the people of Wales will take offence at being treated in a way in which no other part of the union is being treated. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, one in four Members of Parliament from Wales would cease to go to the other place. That is disgraceful and, I believe, would be injurious to the Union.

Both the Conservative and Unionist Party, which once prided itself on being the party of the union, and the Liberal Democrats, which is the party of Lloyd George—Lloyd George would be turning in his grave at what is being proposed—need time to reflect on the issue. If they would take on board those points in the way that my noble friend’s amendment would allow, we could perhaps reach some consensus. I say to the Government: “Do not be so offensive to the Welsh people”.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I support Amendment 54ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wills, because it would give us an opportunity to put together the bigger picture of constitutional reform, in the absence of such a picture from the Government. The amendment would help the Government greatly if it offered us an insight into their thinking across the range of constitutional reform proposals and how all the measures that we are debating might fit together. Indeed, the amendment would allow that picture to be put together in such a way that no one would even voice a suspicion that the measures were being put together in any kind of partisan political interest.

For such significant constitutional reforms, I believe that it would be in the interests of the country for us to start by setting out the roles and responsibilities—as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of the new clause that Amendment 54ZA would insert—of all our representative bodies, starting with Parliament. Starting with the relationship between the legislative and executive functions in both Chambers and taking into account the representative function of the other place, we could then go on to examine, in the language of subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause,

“the proper role of MPs in their constituencies and in Parliament”.

Having established that point and having had some consultation and agreement on those very basic issues around how Parliament and our democracy should work, we could then work through the issue of Parliament’s relationship with other Parliaments and Assemblies, including the European Parliament, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hayter, and the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Touhig and others. The role of local authorities could also be considered, as my noble friend Lord Beecham set out.

Once we had established those sorts of relationships, we could then discuss what a sensible fixed term for Parliament might be. Instead, we are to consider in due course the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill in isolation. Such a piecemeal approach to legislation does not enable us to see the bigger picture.

Once we had established all those matters, we might then be able to think about what the appropriate size of each Chamber in Parliament should be. Having established the appropriate size of each Chamber, as referred to in subsection (2)(c) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 54ZA—indeed, we will discuss later tonight if we are lucky, or on Wednesday otherwise, my Amendment 63YA that also deals with the relationship between the size of the membership of this place and that of the other place—we could then discuss, in the context of the committee of inquiry that my noble friend Lord Wills proposes, the size and composition of each House and how each House would get there. Unfortunately, Part 1 of the Bill, which we have already debated, anticipates the need to ask the question about the alternative vote through a referendum, but that is a piecemeal approach. We should be doing this as part of a much wider picture that we could all understand, so that we can all make judgments accordingly.

Of course, in thinking about the composition of both Chambers, we could then get into some of the more interesting and thorny issues, such as that which came up in Questions today on whether a reformed Second Chamber should include a place for the Lords spiritual and what value is provided by having the voice of independent expertise of the Cross-Benchers, whom we all know and respect. In a radio programme that was broadcast last night, I was fortunate enough to be able to discuss these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and all three of us agreed that there is an absence of that bigger picture at the moment. We are having to discuss and debate—at great length, I am afraid—these issues in isolation. If we had a more coherent vision of where things are going on constitutional reform, perhaps that would save time. The phrase “more haste, less speed” comes to mind in the context of the Government’s approach to these matters.

I have one or two things to say about the phrase,

“the proper role of MPs in their constituencies”,

in subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause, because there has been some debate from some on this side—they would be on this side, as there has not been much debate from anywhere else, except for an important pair of contributions from the Cross Benches—about the characteristics of different constituencies for Members of Parliament. For two Parliaments, I was fortunate enough to represent the constituency of South Dorset, which has both very urban areas, some of which were quite deprived, and very rural areas. It was notable to me that the characteristics of the caseload that I had in the different parts of my constituency were profoundly different.

When I was holding surgeries in the borough of Weymouth and Portland, I predominantly had housing cases. I also had a fair amount of immigration cases and a fair amount relating to problems with the tax credit system and the child support system. I had far fewer of those sorts of cases over in the Purbeck end of my constituency, where things such as planning would come up much more regularly along with fundamental issues about the rurality and isolation of that part of the country, including the islands that I represented. Brownsea and one or two others were a real struggle for me to get to because I had to go through several constituencies to catch the ferry to visit my constituents.

That leads me to make some final comments about subsection (2)(g) of this proposed new clause, on examining,

“the arguments surrounding the statistical basis on which electoral areas are … constructed”.

I could seek to detain the Committee by talking through some of the excellent arguments in the Electoral Commission document that I referred to earlier when I intervened on my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, but I will save that. Suffice it to say that in my own experience, having represented that seat of South Dorset for two Parliaments, drawing boundaries in such a way that they do not take account of such basic things as the ability of people to get around creates problems.

For me to visit Brownsea, which I was able to do on only a few occasions during the time I represented that constituency given that it had only about six electors on it, I had to travel about an hour and a half from my home at one end of the constituency to get a ferry. The ferry would go every now and then and ultimately I would get there. It took all day to meet one or two constituents who might have issues that they wanted me to address. Thank goodness for the telephone, and in this case for e-mail, although some of the comments that we have had about the amount of correspondence that Members of Parliament have show how much is generated by e-mail now. It is quite astonishing.

Equally, the main industrial estate where the vast majority of my constituents in Weymouth worked was not in my constituency but in the neighbouring constituency of West Dorset, because it sat just the wrong side of the local authority boundary. I certainly welcome some of the freedom that the Bill might offer the Boundary Commission to cut across local authority boundaries. Brownsea Island is in Dorset and Poole is in Poole. That is why Brownsea Island was lumped into South Dorset. Making some sense of all of that would certainly be welcome, but to have some kind of very crude system that is based only on numbers and not on constituencies of interest would be very retrograde.

That is why the Government are being offered a fantastic opportunity to accept this amendment from my noble friend Lord Wills, which has clearly been thought through in some detail, as demonstrated by its length. It gives them the opportunity to allow us, as a country, to think about these constitutional reforms in their entirety and not to see individual measures rushed through which I am sure we would all live to regret.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wills has done the Committee an enormous service by presenting this amendment today, because it has enabled those of us who have engaged with the debate at least to consider the conspiracy not to talk about certain matters that really needed to be resolved in advance of taking final decisions on this legislation. I know there has been a lot of comment about an apparent conspiracy among Labour Members of the Committee to spin the discussion out. I have to say to your Lordships that I am not part of that conspiracy. I have not previously intervened in Committee on the Bill to speak on any of the amendments.

17:30

[Lord Rennard]

Has the noble Lord just confirmed that there is a conspiracy and that he is not a part of it?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am merely saying that some people—the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is clearly one of them—believe that there is such a conspiracy. I can assert that I am not part of any such conspiracy, if one even exists. I wanted to speak today specifically because of the importance of considering the nature and character of representation. This is the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred, and on which I intervened previously, not in Committee but when we debated in the Chamber the Bill’s potential hybridity and what it is about a locality that underpins the nature of representation.

While we may have had the silence of the lambs on the Benches opposite, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Lord who has just intervened on me, what has been most notable about the discussion is the dogs that did not bark—the specific issues. The amendment provides an opportunity for those points to be considered in depth. The dogs that have not barked are serious debates about the nature of representation and of Parliament, and about what we want the House of Commons and Members of Parliament to do and how we want them to operate.

The issue of optimum size is critical, but we have not debated or discussed it in any real detail; the number appears to have been offered down from on high without any consideration. I have not had the privilege of being an elected Member of the House of Commons, but I was an elected public representative in London for 26 years. For part of that time I was the directly elected representative of 5,000 people in the Hornsey central ward of the London Borough of Haringey. For part of that time I was the directly elected representative of the people of Brent and Harrow, a constituency with an electorate of something like 400,000. I have therefore had experience of two extremes of the nature of representation, and the 400,000 figure is probably more consistent with the size of the constituencies of the United States Congress.

My point is not that I am advocating one or other as being the norm for the House of Commons; I am simply saying that there is a world of difference between the type of representation at the lower end of that scale and the type at the higher end. To pretend, therefore, that there will be no difference whether Members of the House of Commons represent 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 or 90,000 people is ludicrous. There has to be recognition of the nature of the relationship between constituents and their Member of Parliament, and that seems to be lacking in the Bill.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I have had the privilege of serving in the other place. I started immediately after a boundary redistribution with 60,000 to 65,000 constituents, and finished up with 95,000. I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that in the latter years my constituents got a worse service.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

No, my Lords, I am suggesting that the noble Lord no doubt had to work 50 per cent harder to deliver the service that he regarded was appropriate at the beginning of his time in the other place. That is fine, but we ought to—

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is making a very powerful case for equalising the numerical strength of each constituency.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The case that I am making is that we have to define the appropriate numerical relationship between the electorate and the Member of Parliament. If you want to go down the route of equalisation, you should first define what the appropriate ratio is. If you do not know that, the argument is, frankly, pointless and otiose.

However, I do not necessarily believe that equalisation is the sole point that we should be looking at. One of the dogs that have not barked in this debate has been the question of what other factors are important, and the amendment provides the opportunity to consider the character of localities and their different natures. When I was the elected Member of the London Assembly for Brent and Harrow, I had the privilege of representing the most ethnically diverse local authority area in the country and, separately, the most religiously diverse. To suggest that the characters of those areas did not influence the nature of the work that I did as a public representative is, again, ludicrous. The characteristics of local constituencies matter. You will find that nearly every other jurisdiction recognises that as part of the factors that need to be taken into account when it comes to deciding where to draw boundaries.

The other dog that has not barked has been the size of the House of Commons. The issue has been brought up today but we have not had that debate. What will be the most effective size of the House of Commons to do the work that we believe it should carry out? What is the effective size for both representing constituents and scrutinising legislation? Where is that debate? We are sidestepping it because of the desire to push ahead without proper consideration of these issues.

My noble friend Lord Beecham talked earlier about the relationship with local authorities. My noble friend Lord Knight, who has just spoken, said that he was in favour of this. I have to say that I am against it. The Bill encourages, or at least would make it far easier for, constituency boundaries to cross local government boundaries. I do not believe that that is in the interests of good and effective representation. It will make it more difficult for MPs to cover the ground, and for them to have a relationship with local authorities so that in partnership they can achieve things for their constituents both at local government level and in working with central government in Parliament. Those are the issues that make talking about crossing local government boundaries in this way so inappropriate.

The final issue that I want to refer to, in terms of dogs that have not barked in this debate but that should have been allowed to be considered in detail, is the nature of the electoral data on which all this is based and the frequency with which they change. I have spent all my political life in London. London is an area in which, historically, there has often been underrepresentation because of the number of people who are registered to vote. That underrepresentation was at a particular peak when the community charge—the poll tax—was introduced, and all that went with that. A large number of residents in London chose to drop off the electoral register, as they did in many other urban areas and no doubt elsewhere. That legacy of underrepresentation remains.

We should also consider the turnover in big inner-city populations and the number who come in. At one point when I was leader of my local authority, the collection register for the community charge turned over by one-third each year, indicating a great flow of population dropping into and out of the area. That was partly a consequence of migration and partly because of the mobility of populations at that time, but it also involves the recognition of particular areas. Because the Bill is constructed around drawing up these boundaries and quotas on the basis of an already flawed electoral register, we are building into the system an inappropriate bias against areas with historic underregistration and areas with an historically very high turnover.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Does my noble friend agree that the factor he has just been speaking of will be exacerbated in consequence of the coalition Government’s housing benefit changes?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The projections that people have talked about—of the flows of people having to move because they will be displaced by changes to housing benefit—necessarily means that he will be right. I also suspect that we will see more people dropping out of the system and being difficult to pick up. They will be trying to avoid various obligations as a consequence of that. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was moved to intervene again but he has not done so, which is fine.

My point is that these are fundamental issues which should be considered before we make a final judgment as to the direction we are taking in this legislation. It may be that, after proper consideration, a simply numerical allocation would be the most appropriate way forward. It is not one that I would favour but I can see how we could get to that. First, let us debate these issues properly. This legislation is not giving us the opportunity, whereas my noble friend’s amendment would enable that to take place, for the public to be engaged in it and for this to be as transparent a process as possible. If I remember correctly, transparency is one of the objectives of this Conservative-led coalition Government; they believe it is so important. Let us see that importance reflected in this legislation.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I make just two brief points, which arise from the debate so far. The first follows what my noble friend described as the dogs that did not bark. I ask Members of this House to imagine a Labour Government proposing an arbitrary number in the House of Commons, without any consultation or a Green Paper, and without any hearing arrangements whatever. What squeals we would hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We would have heard lectures from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, about how it breached human rights. We would have heard squeals of high dudgeon and moral outrage from the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, about its being disgraceful and undemocratic. What have we heard in this debate of now two hours and 16 minutes? There have been three interventions from the opposite side, which is not prepared to engage in the argument.

I understood that the House of Lords gave us an opportunity to revise legislation—to debate it, which means to look at both sides of the argument. The situation now appears to be that the coalition is prepared just to sit there on its Benches, waiting for the debate to finish and prepared to use a built-in majority to push the Bill through without any debate. That is a negation of democracy. I do not understand how Liberal Democrats who sat through the Labour Government, attacking and criticising us for such things, can sit there and accept it. My noble friend Lord Grocott will recall that in the Labour Government there were certainly people on the Back Benches of the Labour Party arguing the case, questioning, challenging and making sure that the issues were properly discussed. It is quite astonishing that, apart from Labour Members and two distinguished, excellent contributions from the Cross Benches, no one has entered this debate.

My second and last point is for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who will reply to this debate and who I know very well and have great respect for. I hope he will reply properly to the debate and deal with the issues that have been raised. I want him to deal specifically with this one. The Scottish Constitutional Convention preceded the setting up of the Scottish Parliament. It involved all the parties, civil society in Scotland, the universities, the trade unions and everyone in Scotland. It discussed what the powers of the Scottish Parliament should be, what should be devolved, how many Members there should be and what the electoral system should be. Before legislation was introduced, the Labour Government allowed that debate to take place. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will not agree to this for a major constitutional change to the House of Commons, he needs to search his conscience very strongly. Those are the only points that I want to make.

17:45

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, we are privileged in this House to serve in a Parliament that is widely perceived the world over as the mother of parliaments. That is a privilege we enjoy and one that several of us have now enjoyed in both Houses. I had a period of almost five years’ absence from the Palace of Westminster, living and working in a country that was a new democracy. It valued its written constitution, which encapsulates some of the highest possible ideals of democratic participation and values. However, it was located in a continent—Africa—where, frankly, democracy has, over the years, been stretched and at times broken, albeit a continent that is now beginning to demonstrate a degree of movement towards a better and more truly representative democracy. Therefore, along with many other Members on all sides of this House and in another place, I have spent time—through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other institutions—working with parliamentarians and groups of citizens globally. They have seen in the Westminster system of democracy something that they seek to emulate and aspire to.

I have had an opportunity, over the past four years while I have been absent from this place, to see at first hand how parliamentarians and civic groups throughout Africa look to this place for examples of how they can better conduct themselves and how they should embark on constitutional reform. It is worth this House’s while to reflect, just for a moment, on how this measure is perceived outside Westminster—not just in our own country but abroad and, in particular, in those places that have traditionally looked to Westminster as the best example of how to conduct constitutional reform and embed democracy in governance.

When we pause for a moment to think about how we are perceived externally, we might see something of value. I certainly see something of value in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wills. It gives us time to pause and reflect; it seeks to proceed on a firm basis of evidence; it seeks to arrive at a consensus on the way forward in crucial matters, as many noble Members of this House have articulated in this afternoon’s debate and earlier on Part 1; and it seeks for that to take place under the auspices of a High Court judge. That is important. Members from all sides of this House have been out and about globally, talking to and sharing with colleagues in other Parliaments on issues of governance, sometimes in very fraught situations. In the past we have always been able to reply in the affirmative to one of the questions that they have asked us: in the United Kingdom we proceed with constitutional reform on the basis of consensus. Speaker’s Conferences and other devices have brought about a degree of consensus, and only when that consensus has been achieved are we prepared to go forward, even when it has meant delay or perhaps taking longer than many would have liked.

What I find so disturbing about Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill is that they are clearly being driven through without consensus; for us to pretend otherwise is just spurious. It will weaken our hand in the world as we argue for better governance globally, as we will no longer be able to say, “In our country we proceed by way of consensus”. We will no longer be able to say that in our country—this applies particularly in relation to how constituency boundaries are drawn—we proceed only on the basis of an inquiry presided over by a legal figure in which people on all sides are able to give evidence and in which their views are heard.

[Lord Soley]

I am grateful to my noble friend for touching on an important issue that I want to raise when we discuss Amendment 59: namely, that when we act as international observers at elections overseas, most notably in some of the former Communist countries, one of the things we always look at is who decides the size and structure of a parliament in the context of whether that is done with all-party agreement or on an independent assessment. That is one of the ways in which we can flag up warning signs.

[Lord Boateng]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reflecting on that. Many Members on all sides of the Committee, some of whom are sadly silent this afternoon, know that what my noble friend says is true and that we will be weakened by the measures that we are debating and which some seek to push through the House. I ask us to pause and give serious consideration to the proposal in the amendment, as it would at least enable us to say that we have sought consensus and respected the role that the judiciary can, and ought to, play in this area of constitutional reform. A number of us have visited countries in the immediate aftermath of hotly contested and inconclusive elections, just as our election was hotly contested and inconclusive. We have said to them, “The last thing you as a Government should be doing now is pushing through a measure which could be perceived as enshrining your own power for longer than the electorate have given you a right to expect”. Noble Lords on all sides of this House have given that message to others; it is a lesson that we ought to take on board ourselves.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I have no mandate to speak on this matter for the coalition but I have listened to the debate for two and a half hours and I have heard assertions being made which certainly ought to be rebutted, not necessarily by the Minister but by those who have taken a strong interest in constitutional reform in this House and in another place. I have served in Westminster for 44 years and I am bound to say that the view that constitutional reform should be based on consensus is so unhistorical that I cannot recognise it as having even a scintilla of truth. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, suggested that we should react to the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference. I served on the Speaker’s Conference when it considered the voting age of members of the public. If that is not a fundamental question, I do not know what is. The Speaker’s Conference recommended that people should have the vote at 20. The Labour Government of the time did not consider that that was right. The late Lord Gardiner, for whom I had the greatest respect, summoned me to his chambers to ask why the Labour Party’s policy on having the vote at 18 had not been reflected in the Speaker’s Conference recommendations. Did that Government respect the recommendation of the Speaker’s Conference? No, they did not. They went ahead with the vote at 18.

Time and again we have had references to the 1832 Act. What sort of a royal commission was called before that 1832 Act was passed by Parliament? What kind of consensus was there in the country? There was nothing. There was political leadership from Earl Grey, who had strongly advocated these matters for some time.

[Lord Wills]

I have great respect for, and pay tribute to, the noble Lord’s very distinguished history as a constitutional reformer and he was right to remind the Committee of that. I know that it was a long time ago and he may have forgotten exactly what I said in my opening remarks but I do not think that he was listening quite as carefully as he should to those remarks which informed the rest of this debate. I specifically mentioned practice over the past 100 years or so. I am not talking about the 19th century but of relatively modern times. I am not talking about the broad constitutional issues about which there will always be debate. My noble friends Lord Grocott and Lord Snape talked about the broad constitutional issues of the alternative vote system and I fundamentally disagree with them on that. I am talking about achieving consensus on a process that is, as far as is possible, independent and fair minded. Does the noble Lord not recognise that?

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

What I do recognise is that in my lifetime the entitlement to vote has changed considerably. There was, for example, a multiple vote. My father cast two votes for parliamentary elections in different constituencies and that was perfectly legal. I am conscious that that change in the law did not come about as a result of a high-powered discussion led by a judge. We know the opinion of judges. We have heard from former judges in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, gave us his view. What is there to suggest that a judge sitting on a committee comprising partisan people drawn from both Chambers will come up with any different view from that of the elected House of Commons, backed or not backed by this Chamber? It is a chimerical view that we could have a consensus on this set of propositions. It is a method of delaying decision, and constitutional reform requires decision.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Does my noble friend—I still think of the noble Lord as my noble friend—not agree that the Scottish Constitutional Convention, of which he was part, provided us with an excellent model whereby we had a White Paper, then an all-party discussion and discussion with people from the community—indeed, I think there were some lawyers on it as well—and that that is exactly the right kind of model that we should be encouraging in this instance?

18:00

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I, alas, disagree with the noble Lord on that. As he said, I served on the Scottish Constitutional Convention but I am bound to say that it was a device to fill a gap in time when it was not possible to extract from Parliament the decisions that reformers such as the noble Lord were in favour of. It was a method of trying to cover up political delay. I am sorry but I do not think that it was ideal. I think it was he who suggested that all parties had participated. That is not the case. The Conservative Party did not participate.

I also sat on another convention which was attempting to draw up a constitution for Europe and, again, was filled with representatives of national Parliaments from all around Europe. I am bound to say that it came to nothing. What has come to something has been the treaty of Lisbon, which came about as a result of executive government in a number of different countries plucking from that convention the best that they could to give us a framework for our European constitution.

I am sorry, but I profoundly disagree with the thread of argument that has been built upon the amendment that we heard eloquently defended and advocated at the beginning of this debate. We have seen this process of setting up commissions. We had a commission—a royal commission—set up on the reform of this place, sitting under the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. How many of its recommendations, consensual as they were, have been implemented here? Virtually nothing has happened.

The most notable reforms of the Government which preceded the present one did not all come about as a result of commissions of inquiry or looking for consensus. One of the most remarkable reforms was that which resulted in the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to the Cabinet and concerned taking out of this Chamber active judges—active Members of the House of Lords, sitting in its judicial capacity—and the creation of a Supreme Court. That was done by the decision of the Prime Minister, backed by some influential members of his Cabinet. It was certainly not accepted generally or widely. There was no consensus about it. It was torn apart in this House and was considered for months in a committee of this House, but it was certainly not produced as a result of seeking consensus. After the event, it seems to have been a very wise move, which was backed by the then great Lord Bingham, who was the senior Law Lord.

[Lord Sewel]

I wonder whether the noble Lord will now try and square the argument he is putting forward with the argument for participatory democracy that his party advocates?

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Yes, I will. We have a very imperfect system of participatory democracy, because we have a rotten electoral system. The first past the post system does not reflect in Parliament anything like the aspirational end of participatory democracy, and although I do not regard the alternative vote as the ideal system—again I speak for myself and not the coalition—it is none the less a step towards a better representation and a more participative end point in our constitution. It will, I believe, make people feel in their constituencies generally that their vote does count.

[Lord Sewel]

In that case, is the noble Lord saying that the individual citizen is limited to being just the individual elector and not an active citizen in the legislative process?

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

There are many ways in which one can be an active citizen, and I enumerated some of them when introducing a debate on that very subject in this House shortly before Christmas.

I do not wish to detain the House, and I am conscious that the hour is late and that many will wish to reach a decision on this. However, I want to say that I am distressed by the fact that so many noble Lords for whom I have a high regard should imply that this deliberative process would bring about a better end point than the deliberations of our Parliament, which the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, referred to as the mother of Parliaments. It is so highly regarded largely because it is thought to act, usually, in a deliberate and wise way. On this occasion, the silence on these Benches indicates consent to what the Bill is putting forward, and an awareness that those opposing it are seeking to stop it from making progress and to stymie the efforts to achieve the constitutional reform that is long overdue.

[Lord Gilbert]

My Lords, in the 27 years that I was in another place I represented all that time the good people of Dudley. The extraordinary thing is that I represented no fewer than three distinct and different constituencies, and was chosen to stand as a candidate for a fourth constituency, within the boundaries of Dudley. That was not so much an inconvenience to me, but an infuriating irritant to the good people of Dudley.

I have also seen the consequences—as, no doubt, many other noble Lords have—of constituencies that cross local authority boundaries. That is not only an inconvenience to the Member of Parliament but an enormous inconvenience to elected councillors and paid officials of the different local authorities. It is beyond an irritant; it drives ordinary citizens berserk because they do not know who to go to. It is not a question of parliamentary convenience.

Long ago I came to the view that this manic idea that we have to have precise mathematical equivalence in constituency numbers is a hobgoblin of very small minds indeed. We should be big enough to accept certain anomalies in our constitutional system without recoiling with shrieks of “unfair, unfair”. There is no such thing as a fair system, because what is unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, whose speech I largely agreed with, is fair to me; and vice versa. There is no such thing as an ideal fair system which is just to be grasped and which ordinary reasonable people would sit down and agree with. Ça n’existe pas, it never will, and we should accept anomalies.

Earlier in this debate, one noble Lord talked about his difficulties in visiting a part of his constituency which was an island. When I first represented Dudley, it was an island.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Gilbert]

Oh yes it was. The centre of Dudley was a part of Worcestershire that was wholly surrounded by Staffordshire. I represented a constituency called Dudley, but which was actually and simultaneously Dudley and Stourbridge. The country got by quite well with that, except rather inconveniently at electioneering time when my wife and I swapped ends. In the mornings, I was in Dudley while she was in Stourbridge, and vice versa in the afternoons and evenings. However, the principle was exactly the same as that adumbrated by my noble friend. Surely to god this country is big enough to accept a few minor anomalies and have something like the Isle of Wight with a much bigger electorate, if it wants that. The idea that we should try to produce equivalence in numbers of constituents—with all the consequences that it produces—is quite absurd.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, this is a very important amendment and is the inevitable consequence of doing what the constitutional committees in both Houses of this Parliament have complained about.

The chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in the Commons issued a report on 2 August which stated:

“Your legislative timetable has put me and my committee in an extremely difficult position. When the House agreed to establish the committee, it did so, in the words of the Deputy Leader of the House, ‘to ensure that the House is able to scrutinise the work of the Deputy Prime Minister’. In the case of these two bills”—

one of them is this Bill—

“you have denied us any adequate opportunity to”,

scrutinise. Our own Constitution Committee said:

“In general we regard it as a matter of principle that proposals for major constitutional reform should be subject to prior public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. We recognise that there may exceptionally be good reasons for departing from this principle, but the perils of doing so are well illustrated in the present Bill. The case for proceeding rapidly with one Part of this Bill is far stronger than for the other”.

It is possible that the effect of Part 1 of the Bill as drafted will have no effect on our constitution. There is no doubt that if Part 2 in its current form goes through, it will have a substantial effect on our constitution. I very strongly empathise with the very powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Boateng. What would we say to a country that said, “We are going to reduce the number of Members of Parliament in our country by 50 by using our majority to do so”? We would say, “It may well be sensible to reduce or increase the number of Members of Parliament in your country, but presumably there is some sort of independent process by which the number is to be assessed”.

The number of Members of Parliament in this country has fluctuated over a period of 60 or 70 years. That fluctuation has always been as a result of recommendations of the Boundary Commission. It is a very dangerous precedent for a majority in the House of Commons, and then a practical political majority in this House, to push forward a change in the number of Members of the House of Commons.

Even if there was not some independent justification for the reduction from 650 to 600, is there some intellectual justification for the reduction from 650 to 600? How many of your Lordships were present when the Leader of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave as the justification that it was a nice, round number? There is no intellectual justification and no independent justification of any sort whatsoever. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, whom I respect for the work he did in pioneering the way for constitutional change, says sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and go for it; it is leadership that matters. We have never done that in this country since 1944 in relation to how our democracy is based.

In 1944 a Speaker’s Conference set up the current method for determining constituencies and the number of Members of Parliament. That was given effect in an Act of 1949. There was a further Act in 1954 which gave effect to a consensus that there should not be too radical changes in the number of Members of Parliament. There were further changes in 1986 by a Government led by Mrs Thatcher—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—which we, the Labour Party, broadly supported. Further changes were introduced in 1992 by a Government led by Mr John Major, which we broadly supported. There was one occasion in which jiggery-pokery was attempted by a Government and that was in 1969 by a Government led by Harold Wilson and the Labour Party. What happened was that this House rejected the Bill that sought to tamper with a boundary revision.

So do not tell us that Parliament has not proceeded by way of consensus; Parliament has behaved exceptionally well. I think that it is a disgrace that there is absolute silence from the other side, as without independent justification and without intellectual justification a Leader of this House treats this House and the parliamentary system with contempt by saying it is a nice, round number. I see Back-Benchers nodding that it is a perfectly respectable argument, but it is not; it is a disgraceful argument.

18:14

There are two alternatives. The alternative that was forced upon me when I sought to reform the role of the Lord Chancellor was that this House spent 18 months looking at that Bill and a much better Bill came out at the end. A better alternative would be to do what the two cross-party committees say is the right thing to do, which is to have proper consideration of the Bill. Perhaps we could go through some of the issues which have not been considered at all. First, what is the right size of our Parliament? What has been said on this side of the Committee, as well as by a whole range of independent commentators, is that the way to determine the right size of the House of Commons is by identifying what you want your Members of Parliament to do. That has two aspects to it: first, what they do as constituency MPs and, secondly, what best makes the House of Commons function well. Some work should be done on that.

I ask the wholly admirable noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, what work has been done on that? What consideration have the Government given to that issue? What foreign examples, if any, have they sought to guide them in relation to that? What effect do they think that an increase by 25 per cent in the population over the last 25 years, when there has been only a 4 per cent increase in the number of Members of Parliament, has had on the work that they do? Do they agree with the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that it has had absolutely no difference whatsoever on the workload of MPs?

As the former MP for Great Yarmouth, Tony Wright, said last year, today we need to ask the question as to what Members of Parliament are for, not least because they are asking it themselves and others are asking it of them. Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place:

“I would have preferred a debate about what the function of the House of Commons should be and what the appropriate number of MPs should be for that function and then having the debate about the number of constituencies”.

[Lord Mawhinney]

Just for the record, I made no such implication as the noble and learned Lord has attributed to me. The point that I was seeking to make was that, whether the number of constituents is 65,000 or 90,000, it is perfectly possible for a Member of Parliament to handle that level of workload.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I apologise. I misunderstood what the noble Lord said. Obviously, further work would need to be done. I am happy to say that when I said further work was required, the noble Lord nodded—that is the point that I am making. First, what is the workload on a Member of Parliament and what is the right size for Parliament in relation to that consideration?

Secondly, what should be the basis of determining the constituencies? Of course, I think that it should be the electoral register, though there is an issue about population. There is a respectable view that says, where you have constituencies which have very significant populations which are much higher than the electoral register, those constituencies should, in some way, reflect that increase in the size of the population. For example, just as we have a geographical limit because we think it is too far for an MP to travel all around the constituency, is there a population limit above the electoral register which should have some effect on the size of constituencies?

Thirdly, the purpose of the deviation figure of 5 per cent from the electoral quota is to ensure that constituencies are broadly the same size. That would lead to a difference in the size of constituencies of about 7,000 if 76,000 is the average size of a constituency. The purpose is to get rid of what is described as the malproportion factor. Published work, in particular by Thrasher and Rallings, and by Lewis Baston, suggests that a deviation figure of 10 rather than 5 per cent would have the same effect in reducing the malproportion figure yet at the same time allow one, in determining constituencies, to keep communities together and not have the radical effect that the government proposals would have. What work have the Government done on whether 5 or 10 per cent would make a substantial difference to malproportion? Has any research been done on that? What effect on, for example, crossing county boundaries would a 10 per cent as opposed to a 5 per cent deviation have? The Government will not be able to answer all these questions; I am asking about the research that is being done on them.

Thirdly, what effect will this have on the Executive? Reducing the size of the House of Commons from 650 to 600 will increase the size of the Executive and reduce the number of Back-Benchers. Is it the intention of the Government to stick with that? If so, what effect will that have on Parliament as a place to hold the Executive to account?

Fourthly, what will be the effect of removing local boundary reviews that can be conducted in person? These reviews have had a 64 per cent effect on changing constituency boundaries. What work has been done to determine the effect on the reliability and acceptance of the boundaries that removal of the reviews will have?

If the Government will not answer those questions or have not done the work, the questions should be answered by somebody. This is not a great reform like the 1832 Act, as the Prime Minister said; it needs work doing on it. The effect of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wills is that that work can be done. As my noble friend Lord Boateng said, our democracy is something that we rightly prize. The idea of rushing into this change, which has the support only of one side of the Houses of Parliament—let alone of either the country or the rest of the world—is wrong. It is not an acceptable justification to say that the Tory party agreed it with the Liberal Democrats between Friday and Tuesday after the latest general election. That looks like the worst sort of political gerrymandering. I ask the Government to reconsider and to give ground in relation to an independent look at the changes that they are making.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for introducing a debate that has given rise to a considerable number of important contributions. I am not sure that I can address all of them, but I will do my best to pick up most of the salient points. It is clear that the debate on this amendment has touched on many issues that will inevitably come up as we go through the Bill. Future amendments have already been tabled that deal with some of them. I hope to explain the principles that underlie the proposals that we will debate further. I hope also to explain why the proposals are reasonable and why a committee of inquiry is unnecessary.

It is clear that the amendment would slow down the proposed reform of our political process and system. It is highly unlikely that the proposals in this amendment would be in place in time for the next election. There would be a three-year deadline to report, six months to draft measures giving effect to the recommendations, and then time to legislate. That would be only for the legislation that set new rules for conducting boundary reviews. The reviews themselves would then need to be carried out. Therefore, even if the rules were in place before the next election, the new boundaries could come into effect only at the election after that.

I do not want to suggest that the political purpose of this has been to kick the Government's proposals into touch, although my noble friend Lord Tyler referred to previous committees of inquiry that delayed and postponed for many years what were seen by many as desirable reforms, and there was a general groundswell of support for his point on this side of the House. I also want to knock on the head the idea that I have accused noble Lords opposite of filibustering. The only complaint I would make is about the time taken up by them complaining that I might accuse them of filibustering. I also take great exception to the suggestion that the proposal is partisan. I do not believe that the opposition case stacks up. The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, pointed out that the issue of the size of constituencies applied as much to Conservative constituencies as to Labour ones. One cannot on the one hand say that reform will have the same impact on Labour and Conservative constituencies and on the other say that what we are trying to do is partisan.

I will pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, about his freedom of information application. I apologise that the noble Lord has not yet received a reply to his request. I will seek to ensure that he receives one as soon as possible. However, my noble friend Lord McNally, who is sitting with me, has indicated that as far as we are aware no work has been done on any kind of partisan measurement of what a new size of 600 for the House of Commons would bring about. No modelling has been done on that basis. I also say at the outset that amid all the outrage that we have heard from the other side, one would think that it was a constitutional outrage to support the principle of one vote, one value. That is what is enshrined in this part of the Bill; one vote should have one value in all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that to be a constitutional outrage, except in Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles. I am happy to argue that, as the noble Lord's party did in the Scotland Act in the case of Orkney and Shetland.

My second point is that there would not only be a delay. If the 2015 election is to be fought in England on boundaries that took as their electoral registration base the year 2000—15 years previously—can anyone suggest that that is a constitutional principle that we should seek to uphold in this House? We wish to make progress with this so that we can have a boundary review that will deliver its report and be in effect by the 2015 election.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, albeit slightly after the point that he was making. He said, on behalf of himself and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that no political modelling had been done on the implications of this reform. I would have been very surprised had he told us that the Civil Service had done an exercise on behalf of Ministers that had demonstrated what the political consequences of these changes would be. However, is he also giving us an assurance that such an exercise was not prepared either by a special adviser—a political adviser in the relevant government department—or by the political parties concerned?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is absolutely right about the Civil Service. It would be improper for it to do this, and it has not done it. Nor are the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I aware of any special adviser who has done it. I cannot speak for the Conservative Party, and while I may be able to speak for the Liberal Democrats, I honestly do not know what the answer is. I simply reaffirm the point that the principle here is one vote, one value. It would be a rash person who would predict the political fallout from this reform.

[Lord Lipsey]

How does the noble and learned Lord square what he is saying about this part of the Bill being about one vote with one value, with the argument that he and his Lib Dem colleagues have put forward for years that the only votes in our system that have value are those in marginal seats, because in all other seats the votes do not count at all because of the huge majorities?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

We are debating the earlier part of the Bill and are not going to debate electoral systems. That would be beyond the scope of this amendment. What we have done in Part 1 of the Bill will lead to a better system. That is my personal view, and the view of my party. The Government as a whole will not take a view in the referendum. I have a number of important points to make and would like to do justice to them.

18:29

[Lord Soley]

I understand the noble and learned Lord’s problem in that he is a member of the Liberal Democrat party but is speaking for a coalition Government. The idea of reducing the size of the House of Commons to the suggested figure is not new. It was first put by the Conservative Party in 2004 and reiterated in 2009 and 2010. The two reasons given were, first, that the Tories did not get sufficient seats from the system with the current number, and, secondly, the cost. Those are the only two reasons that were given until the general election. They are in writing in a number of Conservative Party documents.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord rightly reminds me that I am speaking on behalf of the coalition Government, and I reiterate that we have not done any political modelling on the possible political outcome of a House of Commons of 600.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not sure that I will ever be able to answer all the points.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble and learned Lord has dismissed suggestions as to why the Government might have alighted on the figure of 600 parliamentary constituencies. He has explained why they did not make that choice, but what is the rationale for that figure?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thank the noble Lord for that question, because he has illustrated that if he had not intervened I might have reached that point by now. I hope noble Lords will allow me to answer that important point, which was made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I hope to respond to these points as we proceed.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, has made an ambitious attempt to balance the effect of almost every electoral procedure against every other one. His amendment asks us to wait longer to turn the Bill from a Bill that is workable and achievable into a deeply analysed but almost impossible one that would then have to be taken forward. As I have said, our objectives are clear and we believe that they are attainable. We want one elector to have one vote throughout the United Kingdom. By contrast, the amendment promises a comprehensive overhaul of the whole system that we are considering, including the maintenance of the union and the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament that might produce a magic number of electors and the optimum constituency size.

The current rules by which the Boundary Commission carries out its work have not been considered by a committee since the 1940s. They have been changed on a number of occasions since then by the decision of Parliament through legislation. There is a clear precedent for adjusting boundary rules in the light of experience. The changes have included important elements, such as a longer period of reviews of 10 to 15 years rather than three to seven years. It was right for a Speaker’s Conference to determine the basis for boundary reviews when that happened for the first time back in the 1940s. When the Boundary Commission has asked in its reports for the rules to be made more coherent, Parliament has not asked a conference, a committee or an inquiry to consider what an independent—I stress independent—Boundary Commission has asked for. It is right for the debate to take place in Parliament. Even the 1944 Speaker’s Conference recommended that electoral equality across the constituencies of the United Kingdom should be an overriding principle. We should allow the Boundary Commission to commence that work without delay.

On Second Reading my noble friend noted the dangers of a perfectionist approach, which perhaps is the approach summed up in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, when he said:

“The Bill is not a panacea. It is not some holy grail in the scripture of political re-engagement, but it is a good start”.—[Official Report, 15/11/10; col. 594.].

Again I say to noble Lords opposite that it is a great pity they did not start the process when they were given such a long opportunity to do so. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, that there is no perfection of fairness; one person’s fairness may be seen as another’s unfairness. I believe that the Bill, by establishing one vote of equal value across the country, goes a long way to getting a better perception and reality of fairness. I would add that the British Academy report found that the new rules set out in the Bill,

“are a very substantial improvement on those currently implemented”,

and that,

“they have a clear hierarchy and are not contradictory”.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked how the figure of 600 was reached. We have never suggested that there was anything magical or ideal about a House of Commons of 600 any more than the current size of 650 is ideal. It is flawed legislation that has allowed the size of the House of Commons to creep up over time.

[Lord Bach]

The noble and learned Lord says that in the past Parliament has directed certain matters regarding the redistribution of boundaries, and he is right about that, but does he agree that no Parliament has ever set an exact number, such as the 600 in this Bill? No Government have ever done that. In the 1986 legislation and other previous legislation, Governments have left the Boundary Commission to set the exact number as a result of its inquiry. This Government in this Bill are trying to set a number of 600. That is unique, is it not?

[Baroness McDonagh]

May I add to that?

[Noble Lords]

Order.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I will give way to the noble Baroness in a moment. The noble Lord is factually correct but as I was about to say when he intervened, the legislation in place has allowed the number to creep up and up. The only occasion on which it has come down since 1945 has been post devolution to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated that the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, brought forward the order, quite properly, to reduce the number of Scottish constituencies from 72 to 59. Under this proposal, we are going even further. That is the only occasion when the number has come down. The fact that no number has been set has allowed the numbers to creep up and up over the years.

[Baroness McDonagh]

I want to add that not only has the number crept up but the electorate has increased from 33 million to 42 million in this period.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Indeed, but the point I was about to make about the present size of the House of Commons is that it is the largest directly elected national chamber in the European Union, and at 600 it would still be relatively big. It would have fewer than the chambers of some comparable countries. The Bundestag, for example, has 622 members and the Italian Chamber of Deputies has a similar number. As indicated in an exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Wills, each country has its own internal arrangements, be it some federal situation as in Germany or the United States, or devolution in our own country.

[Lord Bach]

The noble and learned Lord said that the numbers have gone up. I am sure that he knows that the number of Members of Parliament who were elected in 1945 was 640, with a population, as my noble friend just said, of 33 million. The number elected in 2010 was 650, with a population that is much higher than that. Will the noble and learned Lord admit that those figures are correct?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I have no reason to doubt the noble Lord, Lord Bach, but will he accept that, with the exception of the reduction of Scottish Members post the 1945 election, the numbers have gone up on every occasion?

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

In fairness, it is the noble Lord’s amendment, but I want to address the points that have been raised.

[Lord Wills]

I do not want to delay progress unduly, but the noble and learned Lord misrepresented, or misunderstood, the exchange between me and my noble friend Lord Foulkes. The point was not that one country has a better system than another. Those other countries—Germany and the United States—all had a profound, rigorous public debate on the right arrangements for their constitution. They have written constitutions. We are not having that debate now about this Bill, and we should. That was the point of the exchange and what we are asking the Minister to consider. We want a proper public debate on these crucial issues.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The point that I was making about the exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Foulkes, was that a point was made about the Senate having 100 members and the US House of Representatives having approximately 434. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out that there are also state legislatures in 50 states. We are not comparing like with like. I took the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that international comparisons take you only so far. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, made the point about the word “gerrymandering” coming from the United States and seemed to suggest, although I am sure he did not mean to, that the Boundary Commission would somehow be heavied by the Government of the day. In the United States, as the commentaries following the elections in November made clear, the new boundaries will be set by the state legislatures, not by an independent boundary commission. That is the fundamental difference. I hope that noble Lords will accept that.

To elaborate further, under our proposals, the 1 December 2009 register suggests that the electoral quota for the United Kingdom would be about 76,000. More than one-third of existing constituencies are already within 5 per cent either side of that illustrative quota, so the impact of our proposals will see constituencies of a size well within existing norms. However, if the House were to have, for example, 500 Members, that would push the size of the average UK seat above 90,000, and only three existing seats would be within 5 per cent of that quota. For that size to become commonplace would perhaps be too great a departure from what Members and the public are accustomed to. We therefore thought that 600 would seem to strike the right balance without reducing by too much and having regard to the fact that one-third of existing seats would be within 5 per cent either way of the existing norm. In addition, a slightly smaller House will mean that savings can be made without, in the Government's view, losing the capacity of individual Members or the Chamber as a whole to perform their functions.

Other points have been raised: for example, the fact that that should be linked to reform of your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that there will be ample opportunity to work out the implications for the reform of your Lordships' House when the draft Bill is brought forward. An important point was made first by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and picked up by several other noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. That is the relationship between the Executive and the elected House, the other place, if the number of MPs is reduced but not the number of Ministers.

The Government indicated in the other place that we agree that that is indeed an issue to be considered, but we do not believe that it is one that needs to be resolved in the context of the Bill. Reduction in the size of the House will not take effect until 2015, and we should therefore consider that issue in the light of decisions on, among other things, the size and composition of a reformed second Chamber. Historically, there has not been a consistent relationship between the size of the House and the number of Ministers within it. The number of Ministers in the Commons will be determined by what is needed to carry out the Government’s parliamentary business, and will not be affected by the change in the size of the Chamber. It is not clear that legislation is the answer. If the issue is the size of the Government’s payroll vote, there are ways to address that without legislation—for example, a reduction in the number of PPSs.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

That was an absolutely riveting piece of information that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, dropped into the conversation—which is that, as I understand it, the size of this House will determine whether the Government are to reduce the number of Ministers. Have I misunderstood what the noble and learned Lord said? If I have, can he please explain it? Is it better if this House is bigger or smaller for the size of the Executive?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I indicated that an important factor would be the size of the reformed House, because if the overall number of Ministers is to be retained, it may be considered preferable to draw them from the elected House, with tested accountability mechanisms, rather than increasing the ministerial numbers elsewhere, including in this House.

The noble and learned Lord raised that issue, although the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised it first. It is an important issue. It is an issue which the Government have indicated needs to be addressed, but not in the Bill. There are other implications. For example, if Ministers were not to be in the other place, would they automatically be in this place? Would they have voting rights in this place? There are a whole host of issues which are perhaps more relevant to the debate about the constitution of the second Chamber in the context of a reduced House of Commons than to be dealt with in this debate.

18:45

Another consideration which the amendment addresses is the time taken to complete the boundary reviews. As I said, the issue at hand here is simple. Reviews take too long, meaning that boundaries become out of date. The Government propose five-yearly reviews, with the first review to report in 2013. That leads on to another issue raised by noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Harris of Haringey, and Lord Wills, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. That is whether we might use a population base rather than an electorate base to draw up constituencies. The electoral register has always been used for that task. I took the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to indicate that that is still his basic position. The 1986 Act, which contains the current rules, passed through Parliament without the intervention of a committee of inquiry. The secretary of the Boundary Commission for Scotland gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee where he discussed the practical problems with using population. I cannot see what an inquiry of potentially three years could resolve here that previous Acts of Parliament and the opinion of an independent Boundary Commission cannot.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord will get an opportunity to reply.

That does not mean to say that that is not an important issue. We have debated it in the context of Part 1. As the Committee will know, the Government are committed to taking forward the proposals already set in train—by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, himself—on individual registration. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also indicated that there will be a pilot scheme to allow local authorities to data match with other sets of data to try to get a better understanding and a better way to identify those who are not on the electoral roll.

To think that to fight an election in 2015 on an electoral roll that has as its basis the electorate in the year 2000 is in some way better defies rational consideration. What the Bill proposes—a rolling review every five years and efforts which we are making which, I think, will be widely supported across the Committee, to encourage individual registration and to identify where there are people who ought to be on the electoral roll but who are not—is far more likely to have an effect for the general election of 2020 than setting up a committee of inquiry that might take ages to report and then to have legislation following on the back of that. We are more likely to achieve what is a perfectly laudable and proper aim of ensuring that as many people who are entitled to vote as can be are on the electoral roll by the way that we are going about it. That is more likely to lead to success.

The noble Lord’s amendment also questions whether equally weighted votes should be given priority over other factors. We are aware of and sensitive to other reasons—the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and others mentioned the importance of local ties and communities—for proposing exceptions to the principle. An identity with or affiliation to certain areas of community is something that many people feel to be of considerable importance. Those of us in this House who have been Members of the other place feel that in particular. We acknowledge that there is a strength of feeling, and we would certainly want those with a local interest to make representations to the Boundary Commission in relation to local ties and for the Boundary Commission to be able to take them into consideration. The Bill will allow for constituencies to vary in the number of electors by as much as 10 per cent—that is, 5 per cent either way—of the UK electoral quota. That will allow the commission to take local factors into account. We will no doubt debate possible exceptions: I am sure that amendments have already been tabled to allow us that debate.

Another issue raised was workload. It is not the case that workload is a factor taken into account by the Boundary Commission at the moment. One speech suggested that somehow the Government excluding that was another manifestation of evil. It would be a judgment of Solomon for any independent inquiry to work out what is a relevant workload for a particular Member of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, mentioned the high asylum-seeker numbers in the constituency which he formerly represented with great distinction. I remember as a Scottish Minister once visiting his constituency on an asylum-seeker issue; I know precisely what he means. However, as a representative of a landlocked constituency, he never had to deal with an oil tanker carrying 84,000 tonnes of crude oil crashing and spilling its oil in the middle of his constituency. There are different things which different Members of Parliament have, by the very nature of their constituencies, to deal with. It would be more than a judgment of Solomon to try to weigh up what the different workload was for different Members of Parliament.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I did have the Forth and Clyde Canal to worry about.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

And the mind boggles as to what kind of issues that may have given rise to. That probably just proves the point that every person who has been a Member of the other place can say why their constituency was that bit different.

I turn to the specific point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Elystan-Morgan, about their concern about the union. I am as passionately concerned about the union as they are. The important point to remember is that the reform means that a vote in Cardiff will have an equal value to a vote in Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh or London. To me, that does not undermine the union; giving an equal value to a vote in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and London will, we hope, bring the union closer together. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, indicated that she brought forward an order that was of significant cost to the Labour Party in terms of the number of seats in Scotland following devolution. Indeed, if this Bill goes through, there will be a further decrease, but I have to be honest and say that I do not really remember the rafters falling in in Scotland. Indeed, people thought that it was important. My party argued within the Scottish Constitutional Convention that there ought to be a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster if we got a Scottish Parliament dealing with a whole range of domestic issues. When it comes to workload, how are we going to evaluate the workload of an English MP vis-à-vis a Welsh MP or a Scottish MP? Is there going to be a differential? I do not think that anyone has suggested that we should have different MPs in terms of their quality.

The question of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked me to address was partly addressed by my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart. The noble Lord’s mind is perhaps playing tricks. It was not facilitated by a Labour Government prior to legislating for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Constitutional Convention was established under a Conservative Government. It not only did not include the Conservative Party; it did not include the Scottish National Party either. That was through no fault of the convention, I hasten to add, but because those parties chose not to join it.

There is no way in which I can say that the number of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament was a consensus arrived at by all the parties. One day, I will perhaps tell the House how the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and I reached the number of 129 but if I do—“Not now” says the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—it probably means that the number of 600 will hit the heights of scientific measurement compared to how that was done.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

One day, I will be very interested to know how the figure of 129 was arrived at. There are many different versions of the story. The point I would make to the noble and learned Lord is that when we came to the point of laying the order that reduced the number of MPs coming to Westminster, it was done with broad agreement across the House. This is the very point that I and others are trying to make to the coalition: if you proceed with consensus, or even seek to achieve consensus, you end up with a much more robust constitutional settlement at the end of the day.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I sincerely hope that when the Boundary Commission produces its review, if this Bill goes on to the statute book and the Boundary Commission review takes place, whoever is the Minister responsible for bringing forward the order will do so with the same determination and integrity as the noble Baroness. An acknowledgement that it had been done by an independent Boundary Commission would command support right across both Houses of Parliament.

A number of noble Lords made the point about how we bring this together. I conclude by indicating that the Government have an ambitious programme for political and constitutional reform. We are keen that Parliament has adequate time to debate all the proposals, and I have not complained that this debate has taken so long. Important issues have been aired. The committee is interested in how the Bill makes the political system more transparent and accountable, but our proposals will give the people a say in determining the method of electing Members of Parliament under Part 1, which they have never had the chance to express a view on before. It is with the people in mind that we want to equalise the size of constituencies to give their votes more equal weight. With these thoughts and reflections, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, this has been a significant debate. Everyone who has sat through the past three and a half hours would agree that everyone who has spoken has made an important contribution to public discourse on these important constitutional issues. However, in many ways the most significant speeches are those that were not made. As has already been pointed out, apart from a handful of brief interventions and one speech which seemed not to have been premeditated but to have been motivated by the rather noble intention to fill the great silence echoing across the Chamber from the other Benches, there was nothing from the Liberal Democrat or Conservative Back Benches. I wonder just how it is that all those distinguished Peers sitting on the government Benches have nothing to say about these crucial constitutional issues. As many noble friends have pointed out, that is revealing.

Then there was the speech that the Minister did not make. I would have hoped that he would have shown some recognition of the potential risks of rushing through this legislation in the way that the Government are doing. There are risks. These are very technical issues. They are complex and relate together, and the consequences are potentially profound. They have not been considered. Over and over again we have heard it admitted by Ministers. These issues have not been thoroughly considered. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer asked for evidence of the deliberations and discussions. It could not have been deliberated upon or researched with any seriousness in the timescale available to the Government. That is what is needed. These signal a profound change in our constitutional arrangements, yet the Minister has avoided any recognition that there are risks involved in proceeding in the way that he has.

Nor did he produce any serious argument against this amendment. The only argument that he produced is that there is a need for speed, but what is this need for speed? This amendment does not kick it in to the long grass. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. It is not inevitable that a commission of inquiry will mean that it is going to get bogged down and will never happen. It is simply a question of political will. If the Government have the political will to drive this forward now, surely in just three years, within the lifetime of this Parliament, they can muster the same political will again. It is entirely a matter for them. There is nothing inevitable or inexorable about this getting bogged down if this amendment were accepted. The Minister produced no good arguments.

I would have hoped that at the very least he might have done what my noble friend Lord Grocott urged him to do, which is what Ministers since time immemorial have done, which is to nod wisely and sagely and say that they will at least consider the issues raised by this amendment and perhaps return to it on Report. But he did not even do that, and I am surprised. I had not expected to push this to a vote because I had thought that I would have a more encouraging response from the Minister. But I did not get it, so I am now in two minds. On the one hand, I think that the frailty of the Government’s position has been so exposed in this debate that it should perhaps be tested in the Lobby. But I am not without hope, so the other part of me still hopes that even now the Government may reconsider their position. I hope that they will recognise that their current position is so bereft of principle and so damaging to their credibility, not just in this Chamber or the other place, but among the people of this country who deserve and demand a say in the arrangements by which they will choose the people to represent them in Parliament. I hope that that will give them pause and that between now and Report they will reconsider and see whether there is a way that they can engage seriously with these issues.

Finally, I remind the Minister that I am not seeking to substitute my judgment for that of the Government on all these important issues. I am simply asking for an impartial, fair and independent process to resolve these issues within a timescale that most people would recognise as reasonable. In the end, I have decided that I will withdraw the amendment in the hope that the Government will reconsider. If they do not, I am afraid that we will have to return to all these issues on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 54ZA withdrawn.

House resumed.

Blood and Blood Products

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:59

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, I should now like to repeat a Statement made earlier by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, I should like to make a Statement on hepatitis C and HIV infected blood.

Mr Speaker, what happened during the 1970s and 1980s when thousands of patients contracted hepatitis C and HIV from NHS blood and blood products is one of the great tragedies in modern healthcare. It is desperately sad to recall that during this period the best efforts of the NHS to restore people to health actually consigned so many to a life of illness and hardship. As the current Health Secretary, and on behalf of Governments extending back to the 1970s, I begin by saying how sorry I am that this happened and express my deep regret for the pain and misery that many have suffered as a result.

It is now almost two decades since the full extent of the infection was established and two years since the independent inquiry led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, reported. The majority of the noble and learned Lord’s recommendations are in place, as are programmes of ex gratia payments, administered by the Macfarlane Trust and the Eileen Trust for the HIV infected and by the Skipton Fund for those with hepatitis C. But significant anomalies remain and I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to other noble Lords, and to honourable Members from all parties for highlighting them.

In October, my honourable friend the Member for Guildford announced a review into the current support arrangements to look at reducing the differences between the hepatitis C and HIV financial support schemes and to explore other issues raised by Members during the recent Back-Bench debate, including prescription charges and wider support for those affected. We also asked clinical experts to advise on the impact of hepatitis C infection on a person’s health and quality of life and to consider whether an increase in financial support was needed.

My honourable friend the Member for Guildford met with representative groups to understand the impact that these infections were having on people’s lives. She also met many right honourable and honourable Members and noble Lords who have been strong advocates on behalf of those affected.

We have now considered the findings of the clinical expert group and accept that the needs of those with advanced liver disease from hepatitis C merit higher levels of support. At present, the amount of money paid to this group depends on the seriousness of the infection.

There are two stages at which the Skipton Fund will make a payment. The first is when the person develops chronic hepatitis C infection. At this point, a person is eligible for a stage 1 relief payment—currently a lump sum payment of £20,000. Some may reach a second stage of developing advanced liver disease, such as cirrhosis or cancer, or require a liver transplant. They then become eligible for a stage 2 payment, which is currently another lump sum payment, of £25,000. Under the new arrangements that we will introduce, this second-stage payment will increase from £25,000 to £50,000. This will apply retrospectively. So if a person has already received an initial stage 2 payment of £25,000, they will now get another £25,000 lump sum, bringing the total to £50,000. In addition to this, we will also introduce a new, annual payment of £12,800 for those with hepatitis C reaching the second stage. This is the same amount that those who were infected with HIV receive.

Those infected with both HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood will now receive two annual payments of £12,800 if they meet the stage 2 criteria—one payment for each infection—along with the respective lump sums. All annual payments made to both those so infected with HIV and those with hepatitis C will now be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index to keep pace with living costs.

We know that some of those infected with HIV or hepatitis C from NHS blood and blood products face particular hardship and poverty. Those infected with HIV can already apply for additional discretionary payments from the Eileen Trust and the Macfarlane Trust, but no equivalent arrangements are in place for those infected with hepatitis C. Therefore, we will now establish a new charitable trust to make similar payments to those with hepatitis C who are in serious financial need. These payments will be available for those at all stages of their illness, based on individual circumstances. Discretionary payments will also be available to support dependants of those infected with hepatitis C, including dependants of those who have since died. Again, this will echo the arrangements in place for those infected with HIV and enable us to give more to those in greatest need.

We must also ensure that those infected through NHS blood and blood products get the right medical and psychological support. I can therefore announce two further measures. First, those infected with hepatitis C or HIV will no longer pay for their prescriptions. They will now receive the cost of an annual prescription prepayment certificate if they are currently charged for prescriptions. Secondly, the representative groups raised the issue of counselling support for those infected through blood and blood products. We fully recognise the emotional distress that they experience. As a result, we will provide £300,000 over the next three years, allowing for around 6,000 hours of counselling to help these groups.

While we focus on those still living with infections, we must also recognise the bereaved families of those who have died. At present, no payment can be made to those infected with hepatitis C who passed away before the Skipton Fund was established. This is a source of understandable distress for those who survive them and it is something that we now want to put right. I can therefore announce that, until the end of March 2011, there will be a window of opportunity where a posthumous claim of up to £70,000 can be made on behalf of those infected with hepatitis C who died before 29 August 2003.

A single payment of £20,000 will be available if the individual had reached the first stage of chronic infection and another single payment of £50,000 will be made if their condition had deteriorated to the second stage where they suffered serious liver disease or required a liver transplant. We will work with the Skipton Fund and various patient groups to publicise this new payment to those who may benefit. These new payments, which will go to the individual’s estate, should help more families to get the support that they deserve.

Taken together, these announcements represent a significant rise in the support available to those affected by this tragedy. Putting an exact figure on the package is difficult, as there is some uncertainty about how many will be eligible and how their illnesses may progress. However, we believe that these new arrangements could provide from £100 million to £130 million-worth of additional support over the course of this Parliament.

All payments will be disregarded for calculating income tax and eligibility for other state benefits, including social care, and while these changes apply only to those infected in England I will be speaking to the devolved Administrations to see if we can extend this across the UK.

Today’s announcements cannot remove the pain and distress that these individuals and families have suffered over the years, but I hope that these measures can at least bring some comfort, some consolation and perhaps some closure for those affected. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

19:08

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, perhaps I may start by wishing the Minister and other noble Lords a very happy new year and by commending the Minister for his patience: he finally got to make the Statement. I welcome the Statement and congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on making progress in building on the work that the noble Lord knows we were trying to do on this important and tragic matter, to which I had a personal commitment. Of the haemophiliac community, almost 2,000 of the 5,000 infected people have died in the intervening period. For those with hepatitis C, it has become more urgent that the ex gratia payments should be reviewed.

This is a campaign about which we know people feel strongly. One of the saddest documents that I have read recently was a letter to the Prime Minister, written in October on behalf of the campaign for all those infected. It described how about 100 people travelled to London to listen to a debate and to lobby for the day. A number of them were very sick, including a double liver transplantee. There were widows, young people who had lost their fathers and another person whose son had died only weeks before. They felt very aggrieved by the business in the other place, which did not produce the results that they had expected. A shocked and saddened group of people struggled down the stairs from the Public Gallery to leave Parliament. The letter concluded by saying:

“It is not an Act of Parliament that is needed, but an act of political will”.

To an extent, that is what has happened today. Indeed, their disappointment was added to before Christmas when they were expecting the announcement that we now have before us. I particularly welcome the extra amounts of money available and the fact that these will not be taken into account for the purposes of taxation and means-tested residential social care support, but I have some questions for clarification.

The first question concerns how the money will be distributed. The Statement says that a new trust is going to be established. Will the Minister expand on how the money is to be distributed through that trust? Will the trust be like the ones that exist at the moment or do the Government envisage something new and different? I should like some information about how the money will be made available and how it will be distributed. I would also like some clarification on prescription charges, because the Government’s decision to abandon free prescription charges for people with long-term conditions has obviously impacted on the groups that we are referring to. I know that the Minister suggested that the prescription charges will be mitigated, but can he clarify whether that will cover, for example, those in the early stage of hepatitis C, not only stage 2? Will it cover everyone encompassed by the different stages of these conditions?

The areas that I feel are less welcoming concern the issues that have been discussed in this House on many occasions to do with considerations about mortgages, life insurance and travel insurance for people affected by these conditions. I cannot see anything in the review that suggests that consideration has been given to these matters. They form part of the completion and closure that is needed. I would also like an assurance from the Minister about support for the Haemophilia Society, particularly as I understand that the Government will be working with the society to help to deliver the information programme that is going to be necessary to ensure that people in this community take advantage of the benefit that the Government are offering.

My final questions concern where the money to fund this is coming from. If the Government are successful in persuading Scotland and Wales to expand this scheme, which I hope sincerely they will be, how is that to be funded? That is the question that those Administrations will be addressing. However, I very much welcome this Statement and I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the progress that they have made.

19:13

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am heartened by and grateful for the welcome given by the noble Baroness to this Statement and the package of support that was announced in it. We think that it represents a fair and reasonable recognition of the suffering that many of these victims endure. We wanted to recognise that and I hope, as I said in the Statement, that it will be of some comfort to them and their families that they will receive better support.

The noble Baroness asked me some specific questions. She asked me first about the new trust and in what respects it will be different from the trusts that currently exist. I can say to her that we intend to set up the new charitable trust as quickly as possible. Its primary task will be to administer the discretionary elements of the payments that we have announced. In the mean time, the payments will begin immediately; in other words, there will be an in-year pro rata payment for the current financial year where people are due for an annual payment, and we can proceed with that speedily. As she will see in the paper that we have published, our advice is that those who feel that they have a claim should contact the Skipton Fund. There will also be a notice on the department’s website to direct them appropriately. The new trust will be essentially a charitable trust with the kind of mandate that we have seen with the Macfarlane and Eileen trusts and the Skipton Fund, but for a different cohort of people.

The noble Baroness also asked me about prescription charges. What we concluded was that, while many of the victims of this tragedy are already in receipt of free prescriptions, there are some who are not. We have received vociferous representations from them and their representatives. Therefore, we will make arrangements through one of the charitable trusts, probably the new one, to pay those who are eligible a sum equivalent to the cost of an annual prepayment certificate, so that in practice all their prescriptions will be free of charge.

The noble Baroness asked about insurance and what consideration we had given to the requests made by campaigning groups on that score. The review highlighted to us that making provision for access to insurance was, first, unlikely to represent value for money because the administrative costs would be enormous in comparison with the benefits obtained. Also, and crucially, it would have been fraught with difficulty, including administrative complexity. There is no need to remind the noble Baroness that the current fiscal context makes it even more imperative that we achieve value for money in everything that we do. We judged that it was more important to set up a discretionary fund where, if necessary, people who were in particular hardship could look for additional support and perhaps fund insurance premiums from that support. However, an across-the-board arrangement for insurance premiums, as will be apparent from the report that we have published—I should also tell her that we took advice on this from the Association of British Insurers and various specialist insurers—ruled itself out for a number of reasons.

We intend support for the Haemophilia Society to continue. The noble Baroness also asked where the money is coming from. There will be a significant immediate cost to the departmental budget during this current year. I am pleased to say that we have found savings in our current expenditure for this year, which enables us to make room for these payments. We have had this in mind for some considerable time and I am pleased that it has come to fruition. In future years, we have found room in our central budgets for the ongoing annual payments.

As regards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, obviously it would have been preferable if there could have been a UK-wide announcement, but clearly it is not for us to prescribe to the devolved Administrations what they should do. However, as I indicated, we are talking to them actively and it is up to them to consider whether this is something that they wish to do for those infected in hospitals in the various devolved regions.

19:20

[Lord Morris of Manchester]

My Lords, I have two interests to declare, both non-pecuniary: as president of the Haemophilia Society, and as the architect of the independent public inquiry into the contaminated blood disaster headed by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell.

Is the Minister aware that, of the 1,241 haemophilia patients infected with HIV, only 361—29 per cent—are still alive, and that the number of deaths in the hepatitis C-infected community is much higher and continues to rise? Is he further aware that, as of now, an estimated 2,007 people have died from being treated with contaminated NHS blood and blood products? I congratulate the Minister on the progress that he has made, but will he now meet the haemophilia community and listen again to its plea for a response that is more in keeping with the scale of the disaster?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, to whose efforts I pay particular tribute in the context of this debate, as in many other contexts, has reminded us of the devastating effect of this tragedy on individuals and families. The previous Government recognised this and significantly improved the payments that were available to the victims of this disaster. We felt that there was still further to go, hence today’s Statement. We have arrived at this point following a brief but nevertheless thorough review of the arrangements, informed by a scientific report which is also published today—noble Lords can read the advice that we received—to enable us to understand rather better the suffering that these victims endure in clinical terms as well as in human terms. On the basis of that, we have arrived at the arrangements whose details I have repeated.

We believe that this is a fair and reasonable package of support for these poor victims. We do not intend to revisit it in the future. I acknowledge that some people might have different views on the appropriate level of payments for this patient group, but the package needs to be considered in the context of the whole range of support that is available for the group, especially Department for Work and Pensions benefits, the care available under the NHS and the care available from social services. Having consulted widely, we consider that the sums announced in this package, taken in the round with the other support available to this patient group, are both appropriate and reasonable. So, while I understand the noble Lord’s request, I am not in a position to accede to it at this point.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the package announced in the Statement today. We very much welcome both it and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, the huge progress that has been made. Given that the commitment to review the current arrangements was made just last October, the Minister is to be congratulated on the swiftness with which this matter has been brought back to your Lordships' House. I hope that it serves to bring some comfort to those who have for so many years campaigned for justice, and particularly to the relatives of the deceased and the many other victims of this tragic episode.

The Minister announced that there would be a window for posthumous claims until the end of March 2011. There is concern that that is not a very big window and that it does not offer a lot of time to locate people and, for the many who may need assistance, to put a claim together. Perhaps the Minister can say why it is such a small window. Is he satisfied that it is sufficient time in which to track down as many people as possible who may have lost out?

It is not quite clear from the Statement who will receive posthumous payments. Will widows, partners and children be included in the arrangements? I would appreciate clarification on those points.

[Earl Howe]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. The window of opportunity referred to in the Statement—until the end of March, which is the best part of three months—should be sufficient to enable those with a valid claim to come forward. On the whole, we believe that, in the haemophiliac community, the victims’ families know who they are. I acknowledge that there is more difficulty with those who were in receipt of whole blood, but, again, we believe that the victims’ families know who those individuals were as well. Our job now is to publicise these arrangements so that the families are aware of the support that is currently available to them. We think that the window is sufficient.

My noble friend asked who is to be included in posthumous claims. One claim per deceased estate will be considered. The deceased person may have left his or her estate to a spouse or, indeed, to charity, but whoever it is, the beneficiary of that estate is the person entitled to come forward to claim the money. We will deal with claims on the basis that the validity of the claim is proven in relation to the estate of the deceased person. That is a matter of public record.

[Lord Archer of Sandwell]

I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement and recognise his readiness to listen to and act on representations, but will he also recognise the efforts of a vast number of people of all political parties and none who have worked assiduously for a very long time to ensure that financial relief of a proper order is made available to those who have suffered from the tragedy and to their dependants? If it is in order, I would also like to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Thornton, who throughout this has shown a ready ear and sympathy for those who are affected. Of course I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Morris, who has worked tirelessly throughout so many years.

I congratulate the Government on addressing one very important anomaly that is suffered by the dependants of deceased recipients of the Skipton Fund. Do I take it that that is the only anomaly that the Government are proposing to address, or will their ears be open throughout the discussions to some of the other anomalies that have been uncovered? I am grateful for the increased benefits, but will the Minister explain why they are paid through charitable trusts and not directly from government offices as a direct entitlement of the beneficiary? There may be good reasons for that, but, so far as I am aware, they have never been given.

Finally, since this announcement was in the form of a Statement, does that foreclose further discussion on what is to be done, or will there continue to be discussions about the proposals during their progress through Parliament and into the future?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, is himself to be thanked and congratulated on the immense amount of work he did to inform the thinking of the previous Government and the current Government in these matters. I immediately echo his tribute to the work of so many people—people, as he said, of all political parties and none—who enabled us to gain a proper understanding of these issues. I am also well aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was working very hard up to the time of the last general election to see whether a better package could be delivered. I was particularly pleased to hear her support for this series of announcements.

The noble and learned Lord asked me about the benefits for deceased victims and whether these were the only anomaly that we sought to correct. We identified two principal anomalies in the situation that has pertained hitherto: the first was the one to which he referred in relation to those who died prior to 29 August 2003, which was an arbitrary cut-off date; and the second was the clear imbalance of benefits for those who suffer hepatitis C as a result of receipt of contaminated blood. There was a gap to be filled there, and we were even clearer on that having read the scientific report that we received. We therefore sought to redress that particular imbalance. There are a number of other new elements in the package, but I have identified the two main ones that stood out to us.

The noble and learned Lord asked why we were choosing to use charitable trusts as the mechanism for payment. We feel that the arrangements have worked well so far through charitable trusts and we do not think it appropriate for these benefits to be paid through the Department for Work and Pensions. It is not really in the department’s remit to do that; it is there to pay benefits and certainly not to decide on discretionary payments. We hope and believe that the victims who are currently in receipt of the benefits have good relationships with the trustees of all the funds.

As for the practical arrangements for paying these new sums, if there are queries we will endeavour to answer them. As I have indicated, we are directing people towards the Skipton Fund as the point of information on this, but the package that my right honourable friend announced today should be regarded as the final one because we believe that it settles the outstanding issues that we needed to address.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome the Statement today. As a former Health Secretary, I took some interest in this matter, but, like the Minister, I would like to congratulate my colleagues who have been involved in the issue in recent years. The one thing that I came to understand was that this was not only an intractable problem but an increasingly intractable problem. There are two reasons for that: first, as time passed, the human tragedy of the people afflicted became more and more obvious; and secondly, the scientific evidence became more and more complicated and difficult for the Government to avoid.

I have two quick questions. First, we have finally reached a stage which may not be completely the end and may not be completely satisfactory, but which is much fairer than the previous one. But does he accept that if there is a disparity between Scotland, England and Wales in terms of the treatment of victims and there is seen to be inequality and unfairness, it will detract greatly from any value that this has created? Secondly, as my noble friend and colleague Lord Morris said, although this goes a long way, there may still be outstanding issues. Will he not close the door completely to further discussions that could arise in the light of further scientific evidence?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who comes to this with considerable knowledge and experience as a former Secretary of State for Health. He is right: it has been a difficult if not an intractable problem for successive Secretaries of State. He is also right to say that the human tragedy has become more obvious as the years have passed. For one thing, it was not so obvious in the early days that there would be so many victims of hepatitis C, because that condition only tends to emerge after a considerable lapse of time. The HIV infection was more immediate and more obvious.

The noble Lord is right that in making this announcement for England, we are creating an immediate disparity with the devolved Administrations. As I indicated, I hope that in our discussions with the devolved Administrations—who are, after all, autonomous—we can arrive at a more equitable package for all victims across the United Kingdom. I am sure, without wishing to appear to interfere in the affairs of the devolved Administrations, that that is something that, as human beings, we would like to see. But I cannot pre-empt the decisions that will be taken in those Administrations.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Haemophilia Society. I am very pleased that the Government have recognised the plight of so many people and families who have suffered this disaster. But what safeguards are in place to prevent any infections from blood transfusions or blood products happening in the future? Prevention is so important and one never knows what is on the horizon.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is, as always, absolutely on the mark. This has been an important issue not just for the current Government but for the previous one.

The measures in place to ensure the safety and quality of human blood, blood components and the blood products manufactured from them have developed significantly since the mid-1980s. We test for viral markers. Donations contribute to a plasma pool which is also tested for viral markers. In 1985, the introduction of heat treatment in the UK removed the risk of both HIV and hepatitis from blood products. Testing of all donations for HIV was also introduced in 1985. Testing for hepatitis C was introduced in 1991 when tests became available. The European directive is now in force. As of 2002, it sets standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing and storage and distribution of human blood and blood components. We have a Community code for medicinal products which affects blood products such as clotting factors. On completion of manufacture, blood products are tested for compliance with specification by the manufacturer. All batches of blood products undergo independent testing by an EU official medicines control laboratory. We are in a different world entirely now from that of the 1970s and 80s.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

My Lords, can I ask—

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sorry but we are out of time.

Health: Parkinson’s Disease

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:42

Asked By

[Baroness Gale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recommendations of the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parkinson’s Disease, Please Mind the Gap: Parkinson’s Disease Services Today.

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Group for Parkinson’s Disease and as a member of the charity, Parkinson’s UK. Parkinson’s is a long-term neurological condition and can be hugely debilitating. The fluctuating yet progressive nature of the condition means that symptoms can vary from day to day and even from hour to hour. Access to the right health and social care can make a huge difference to people with Parkinson’s. It can enable them to live a more independent life for longer and preserve dignity and quality of life. With the right support, people can hold down a job and continue to lead a full life. When the necessary complicated medicines regime is carefully managed, symptoms can often be minimised.

In 2009, the All-Party Group for Parkinson’s Disease conducted an inquiry into access to health and social care for people with Parkinson’s, with the support of Parkinson’s UK. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for his excellent contribution to the inquiry panel. It brought to light stark inequalities in Parkinson’s services across the UK. We found that a postcode lottery dictated people’s chances of receiving the support they need. This included seeing a specialist Parkinson’s nurse, access to professionals such as physiotherapists and speech and language therapists, and ongoing review and rehabilitation. For instance, at that time more than one in four people with Parkinson’s had never seen a Parkinson’s specialist nurse, yet they can cut hospital admissions by 50 per cent. Although the number of nurses has substantially increased since then, mainly due to sustained investment by Parkinson’s UK, it is vital that we do not see numbers fall back to the unacceptable low level. The inquiry found that half of people with Parkinson’s had never seen a physiotherapist, whose treatment can avoid falls and injuries.

Worryingly, new threats to physiotherapy are emerging across the country. Some posts left vacant by retirement are not filled, leaving local people with Parkinson’s without one of their most valued services. The previous Government put in place the national service framework for long-term neurological conditions, which set out key requirements for health and social care. The Department of Health is sending conflicting messages about the future of this framework. When will a decision be made? Can the Minister assure me that, if it goes, it will be replaced by something sufficiently robust?

This brings me to the likely impact of the Government’s health White Paper. Some of the language used by the Government suggests that “localism”, “choice” and “innovation” are more important than equal access to best treatment. Regional difference, we are told, is a good thing, driving up standards through competition. Consider that from the point of view of someone with Parkinson’s, living in an area with no Parkinson’s nurse, little access to a neurologist and no available physiotherapist or speech and language therapist, where people have to argue their case to receive NICE-approved treatments. Meanwhile, in the PCT next door, or perhaps a neighbouring GP consortium, services are much better. This approach simply seems unfair; will it drive up standards?

One area of concern is the decision to give GPs more power over commissioning. Most GPs have limited knowledge and experience of Parkinson’s disease. They typically have just one or two patients with Parkinson’s on their books. With a highly complex condition such as Parkinson’s it is clearly necessary for decisions to be taken at a wider strategic level. Within the new structures outlined in the White Paper, the only way to ensure a comprehensive approach to commissioning high quality Parkinson’s services is for the NHS commissioning board to have responsibility for this and to provide clear and specific commissioning guidance and outcomes for Parkinson’s services. To ensure we have high quality Parkinson’s services, we need specific, evidence-based quality guidelines and outcome measures. In other words, the Government must provide a standard against which patients can measure their service and, if services fall short, there should be robust mechanisms to hold providers and commissioners to account.

What assurances can the Minister offer that patients, including those with disabilities or conditions such as Parkinson’s, will be supported to seek redress in a meaningful way? One idea is that people with long-term conditions should be represented on the proposed health and well-being boards. Can the Minister say something about that?

The provision of moneys for social care is another area of concern. Local authorities say that the £2 billion for social care will fail to plug the hole left by the 28 per cent cuts they are facing over four years, compounded by the pressures of an ageing population. Further, freed from ring-fencing and national audit, there is no guarantee that moneys will be spent as intended. Councils are already cutting back by changing eligibility criteria so that only those with the most critical needs receive support. Many people with Parkinson’s and other conditions already find services inadequate. A resident of Cumbria told our inquiry:

“My only involvement with Social Services was [with] regards to a seat for the bath and I had to wait 16 weeks for this”.

Another strong message from our inquiry was that more needs to be done to support carers. One carer told us:

“It is difficult to put into words the feeling of abandonment and loneliness I feel ... Carers have enough to cope with without the constant battle to get some attention for their loved ones”.

I welcome the Government’s refreshed set of priorities for carers. In particular, PCTs are being given £400 million for carers’ breaks over the next four years, which I hope will benefit some of those who care for people with Parkinson’s and other conditions, often with very little support or respite. Who will ensure that this money is spent as intended? Another concern is that the removal of ring-fencing will make the allocation of carers’ funding to local authorities much more opaque. To ensure transparency, the Government should at least publish the nominal amount each council has received through the carers grants.

Given the current necessity to spend limited funds wisely, in the case of Parkinson’s, quality care is proven to be cost effective. Will the coming changes mean that some areas will lose their Parkinson’s nurses? Research has shown that such nurses can reduce hospital admissions by 66 per cent, which could be saving the NHS in England approximately £7.5 million.

If the Government are committed to reducing health inequalities, I urge the Minister to consider the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parkinson’s Disease, whose findings are drawn from expert evidence from more than 360 people with Parkinson’s as well as from their carers, health and social care professionals and key organisations. The report finds that huge inequalities exist in access to the care and support that are needed by people with Parkinson’s and by their families and carers. I hope that the Minister will agree that access to the right services should not depend on where people live.

On behalf of everyone affected by the condition, I urge the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that there is a strategic, comprehensive approach to commissioning Parkinson’s services that is underpinned by robust quality standards and by an effective, accessible system that will allow local people to hold services to account. I understand that the NHS commissioning board and GP consortia will have a statutory duty to reduce inequalities in healthcare provision.

My final question to the Minister is how he envisages reducing geographical inequalities in service provision, including for those with Parkinson’s. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I thank all noble Lords who are taking part in this important debate tonight.

19:52

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on securing the debate. I also pay tribute to the tireless work that she has done in chairing the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parkinson’s Disease, which is a disease that, like other long-term conditions, can have a devastating impact on patients and their families. As we have heard, one person in every 500 has Parkinson’s, which equates to about 120,000 people in the UK.

Like those who suffer from other progressive neurological conditions, Parkinson’s sufferers and their families are entitled to a standard of care and treatment no matter where they live in the UK. When the national service framework for long-term neurological conditions was published in 2005 after considerable consultation with patients and groups, the framework was very much welcomed because it set out 11 quality standards with the aim of reducing differences in the treatment, care and support for people with long-term conditions—including Parkinson’s disease—to ensure that their care is more accessible and better co-ordinated.

The national service framework applies to health and social care services that work with local agencies involved in supporting people to live independently. Such services include providers of transport, housing, employment, education, benefits and pensions. When the framework was first published, a main target was to reduce emergency bed days by 5 per cent by 2008 through improved care in primary and community settings for people with long-term conditions. As we have heard, there are places in the country where the target has been met successfully—for example, in north Devon, the provision of a Parkinson’s nurse has helped to reduce emergency admissions by 66 per cent—but that has not happened in other places. Will the Minister perhaps comment on the accessibility of such specialist nurses around the country?

Patients with Parkinson’s disease continue to suffer delays in diagnosis and in access to specialist treatment because of appalling gaps in NHS care, as the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parkinson’s Disease report mentions. The report also found severe inequalities in access to services across the country. At the time, there was a chronic shortage of specialist nurses. The report blames Ministers and health service managers for a lack of leadership on neurological services at national and local level.

Another concern is about access to appropriate services for people living in care homes and for black and minority ethnic groups. Does the Minister have any evidence to suggest that the situation for such people has improved?

In June 2006, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence issued implementation advice to accompany clinical guidelines on diagnosis and management in primary and secondary care settings, in particular for primary care trusts and acute trusts. The advice also set out what support is available to help people with a condition to cope and how to plan for the future, with aims such as establishing individual care packages, establishing lines of communication, building support for the patients and looking out for any complications.

On care plans, which I think are very important, my previous experience from working in the NHS was that many patients were not really aware that the care plan belongs to them—they own it—and that they should have a copy of it. They should be able to take it home and share it with their families and relatives, but that is not always the case. Given that people are now living much longer with these long-term neurological conditions—indeed, people are living longer generally and are therefore more prone to developing such conditions—are care plans being reviewed to take that into account? Are care plans updated regularly? A patient’s needs and conditions will change and vary quite radically over the years, but the care plan might not always be updated to reflect that. That is one of my concerns.

Other problems cited by the all-party group’s report include poor access to therapy services, which has already been mentioned, and a lack of information for patients about what services are available. The limited provision of respite care is also an issue.

The NICE guidelines set out the importance of access to occupational health services and other allied health professionals. The key principle must be that it is important to treat the patient rather than just the condition because everyone is different and everyone has different circumstances. By doing that, we could prevent unnecessary deterioration and thereby reduce the burden on the health and social care system. Is the Minister satisfied that, in line with the NICE guidelines, patients have access to the full range of services, regardless of their postcode?

Finally, I pay tribute to Parkinson’s UK, which has been at the forefront of campaigning for greater research and information on the disease and on treatment and therapies for patients living with Parkinson’s disease.

People with Parkinson’s disease deserve the right to access the essential services that they need, notwithstanding the inevitable budget cuts and other restraints on local authority budgets. There are concerns that the eligibility criteria will be tightened in some councils, as has already happened over the years, and that the criteria will differ from council to council. Does the Minister agree that standards should be set for such eligibility criteria, given that it does not seem fair that the criteria for people living in one borough might be tightened to a greater extent than in another borough next door with the result that people might not be entitled to the level of support in social care services on which they rely?

19:58

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for bringing this report on Parkinson’s disease to the notice of your Lordships. The noble Baroness is a dedicated chairperson of the All-Party Group for Parkinson’s Disease.

My late husband was diagnosed with Parkinson’s, along with other complicated conditions. He was diagnosed in London but, as we live in North Yorkshire, I found there was a lack of interest in that specialty when I tried to find a consultant in the north. We found one consultant in Leeds, which was a long distance from home, and a very helpful Parkinson’s specialist nurse. That perhaps illustrates from first-hand experience how the specialist care that is needed by people with Parkinson’s is patchy throughout the country, as is stated in the report.

Two years ago, a friend living in the North Yorkshire dales needed the expertise of a consultant with a special interest in Parkinson’s. I was pleased to find such a consultant in Leeds who visited a private hospital in Harrogate. I passed on this information and received a letter from the friend who said that he was very pleased with the consultant, whom he liked and found very helpful. When one has to have complex drugs, it is important that one can have trust and confidence in the consultant who is prescribing the drugs. When I read in the report that there are many people with Parkinson’s who never see a consultant it causes concern, as having expert advice makes all the difference to the patients and their partners or carers.

As I read my Christmas cards this year, I had one which said: “Maureen cannot write this card as she has Parkinson’s”. People with Parkinson’s need the help of expert doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists as well as social care. All have a part to play in the patient’s journey while living with Parkinson’s. There is concern among many people involved in patient care and groups of people living with long-term conditions that things may not get better when GP consortia are in charge. Can the Minister say what the terms and conditions of commissioning will be, and what will be the safeguards?

I congratulate Parkinson’s UK on pump-priming nurses for the first two years. I wonder how many trusts take on the services of these specially trained nurses and how many, after two years, do not. The report states that the role played by Parkinson’s disease special nurses in the care of people with Parkinson’s disease was strongly endorsed by submissions from people living with the condition, from carers and from those medical specialists working alongside nurse specialists. Many people with Parkinson’s disease and their carers outlined how Parkinson’s disease nurse specialists provided them with a regular point of contact for advice on all aspects of the condition and for adjusting their complex medication regimes. This service was particularly valued by the group. When individuals did not have access to a nurse specialist, it tended to be identified as the most significant service inadequacy. I should be grateful for the Minister’s views on nurse specialists.

A person with Parkinson’s said in the report:

“The biggest help has been specialist Nurses, bit of a life saver really, could not imagine coping without them”.

There is a great deal to do to make services better for all people living with Parkinson's disease: for those in care homes who are often neglected and for those who find help is not forthcoming or that there is a lack of joined-up working between health and social care. I hope this report will be read and used by many people. I have already sent it to someone in Yorkshire. I hope it will be used by health professionals, many of whom need educating about the needs of people with Parkinson’s disease. I hope that the Minister will help to make services better for these people who really need them.

20:03

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Gale and all her colleagues on Minding the Gap and on producing a groundbreaking contribution to the understanding of Parkinson’s and its effects on people affected by it and on carers. I hope that the noble Earl will spare some of his time to talk about the carers, who have a particularly difficult time in caring for people with such a difficult disease as Parkinson’s. I look forward to the Government’s response and I hope that the fate that befell the multiple sclerosis review will not befall the NICE guidelines for Parkinson’s this year, when the review is taking place. It would be very helpful to have an assurance that will not happen.

The 2011 review, indeed, offers a real opportunity not only to examine the recent evidence on the new drugs and treatments for managing symptoms but to scan the full multidisciplinary range of services provided to Parkinson's people for their present effectiveness. It would be helpful if NICE could include Parkinson's in the list of conditions for which it develops quality standards, because that will help avoid any postcode lottery approach to Parkinson's which undermines the proper national and comprehensive service which my noble friend Lady Gale has already mentioned. Again, I ask: is that possible?

Also, at a time of impending NHS reorganisation, it is imperative that GP consortia, which will be at the centre of change, should also commission services once they have sought expert advice and support from Parkinson’s experts. Third sector organisations such as the Neurological Commissioning Support service, or NCS, should also be fully consulted, especially as they represent a joint initiative of the Mind, the MS Society and Parkinson’s UK. The NCS is best placed to advise GP consortia about people with long-term neurological conditions. I wonder whether we can have an assurance there.

I should, perhaps, mention a local initiative in Chester and North Wales that may qualify as a contribution to the big society espoused by the Government. Last year, with the noble Lords, Lord Wade of Chorlton and Lord Jones, I was present at the launch of a co-operative arrangement between the local MS support centre and the local Parkinson’s branch, of which I am very honoured to be the president. Indeed, we are having our Parkinson’s branch AGM in the MS support centre later on in January. Such collaboration between natural allies should be encouraged as providing added value and not just as a cover for cost-cutting.

However, the more that I have come to understand Parkinson's, the more I have come to understand the central role of the Parkinson’s specialist nurses, on which the two previous speakers commented. Those nurses stand as advisers, advocates and allies of Parkinson’s people between the GP, who seldom has the detailed knowledge, and the consultant, who seldom has sufficient time within the very busy days that occupy them. The importance of the specialist nurse is that Parkinson’s is a shape-shifter of a disease, which requires the prompt attention of expert nurses to match its every deleterious move. Some years ago in Chester our specialist nurse was axed by the local PCT, which was then experiencing financial difficulties. We fear that the new NHS commissioning changes will again imperil our specialist nurse post, which was re-established after the community worked long and hard to finance its future. Indeed, I fear for all 300 of the national team of specialist nurses for Parkinson’s, who are in place and funded by local groups, Parkinson’s UK and local PCTs. Can the noble Earl give us an assurance on maintaining the efficacy of that team?

For people with Parkinson's, maintaining personal mobility is key to leading a normal lifestyle. My local branch, for instance, has just supplied its specialist physiotherapy team with the latest laser-enhanced walking aids for their diagnostic programmes. They cost £150 but work wonders. Any move from specialist nursing to a more generalised provision of nursing will turn off the tap of such innovative approaches. Nurses are crucial advisers when it comes to mobility and passing on best practice. Indeed, one such best practice is the use of Nintendo Wii programmes that now help those who want to maintain their balance by, for instance, using a ski programme that allows you to go down ski slopes. That helps people with Parkinson’s to maintain balance. We should be encouraging all these items.

I shall end on a more amusing note. It is good that Michael J Fox, who is himself a sufferer, continues to pour money into research into Parkinson’s, but I was struck the other day that there is a new romantic comedy doing the rounds called “Love and Other Drugs”. The feature of the film is that Anne Hathaway plays the part of an early Parkinson’s sufferer. She tells us that she has enormous respect for Parkinson’s, which she has learnt about as a result of doing this romantic comedy, and she says that in the throes of a passionate embrace on one occasion she had to simulate a Parkinson’s tremor at the same time. It is interesting that something that is a reality for so many people outside is now beginning to filter in and be represented in films like this romantic comedy.

I commend again the work of the all-party group headed by my noble friend Lady Gale, and I hope that the Minister, who has always had a strong interest in all these issues, is able to give us some promising responses today.

20:12

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, in speaking in this important debate I must first declare an interest as a vice-president of Parkinson’s UK, and as a neurologist who has looked after a great many people with Parkinson’s disease in the course of my professional career.

It was in 1817 that James Parkinson, a general practitioner in Hoxton in London, published an essay on the shaking palsy, describing a disease that had previously been known as “paralysis agitans”. As a result of that important essay, the disease eventually became known across the world as “Parkinson’s disease”. The pathology of the disease was well recognised many years ago, largely dependent upon the failure of nerve cells in a part of the brain stem called the substantia nigra. It was in the middle of the previous century that two Viennese pharmacologists discovered that the normal substantia nigra produced an important neurotransmitter called dopamine, and that when these cells degenerated, the dopamine declined. That ultimately resulted in the introduction of a drug, a precursor of dopamine called L-Dopa, or levodopa, which was of course a major development in the treatment of this condition. I had the privilege in the 1960s of conducting and supervising the first controlled trials of treatment in Parkinson’s disease conducted by the Medical Research Council in the UK.

Many new drugs have been developed since that time. Some of them are new precursors; some of them are what are known as dopamine agonists, trying to persuade the cell to produce more endogenous dopamine; and there are many others. The treatment has improved immensely. The side effects of the treatment, however, are substantial. One of the lessons that everyone looking after patients with Parkinson’s disease has learnt is that it is crucial to develop expertise in knowing how to handle that drug therapy—to adjust it according to the on-off periods that occur. This is a matter of great expertise, which is why Parkinson’s patients require the expertise of a well trained neurologist or, at the very least, a well trained geriatrician with neurological training. That is crucial.

There have been crucial developments in research. We now learn of the importance of the alpha-synuclein gene and we note that free radical scavengers play a part in the etiology of this disease. There has even been exciting work done in which foetal nigral neurones have been implanted into the brains of some patients, producing dopamine. The benefits have been substantial but the side effects are great, and more work will have to be done before these forms of treatment become a most effective part of the management of these patients.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, because it was a privilege to serve on this inquiry, which she expertly chaired, dealing with the management of patients with Parkinson’s disease and the range of services available across the country. I repeat the first point: neurological assessment and the proper handling of treatment and drug therapy are crucial. However, so too are the services provided by carers, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and others. There is no doubt whatever that to have a team of people looking after those with Parkinson’s disease, with a range of expertise, reduces the number of patients who are admitted to hospital for emergency care. That in turn is of great benefit to the National Health Service.

Sadly, though, as the report has demonstrated, the postcode lottery continues; it is alive and well. The range of services across the country is still desperately uneven. We have heard about the 2005 national service framework and the NICE guidelines that were published in 2006 to try to persuade health authorities across the country to provide a standardised range of services for people with Parkinson’s disease, but they have not been universally adhered to.

I have serious concerns about the proposed GP commissioning consortia. I talked to the Secretary of State who said that the specialised commissioning services for this and other neurological problems will be handled by the specialised health commissioning board. I cannot see that a single national board is going to be capable of dealing with all the complexities of the specialised neurological services that Parkinson’s and others require, and I do not see how it will work without some kind of continuing regional services for the commissioning of these services. Whatever the excellence of the general practitioners and the commissioning services of consortia that they produce, I do not believe that this will be adequate to meet the needs of patients with Parkinson’s disease.

It is right that the Government must take action to do what they can to produce uniform national standards of care. Under the health Bill, have the individual care packages and accounts that were proposed by the previous Government made any contribution in the care of patients with Parkinson’s disease? Are the Government taking account of the work of the neurological commissioning support service established by three major charities—the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Parkinson’s UK and the Multiple Sclerosis Society? This body has made several important and far-seeing proposals. It is very important that the Government should take account of its views.

These developments are things that people with Parkinson’s disease and their families deserve. I hope the Government will take full note of what has been said today. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for so expertly chairing this inquiry.

20:18

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on initiating this debate, and thank her for her commitment to Parkinson’s disease and for chairing the important all-party group’s report. I doubt I shall address a question to the Minister that someone else has not already asked. None the less, as is traditional in your Lordships’ House, I shall continue to speak.

As noble Lords will know, Parkinson’s is a long-term degenerative neurological condition. Symptoms can include stiffness of movement, pain, incontinence and dementia, which fluctuate from day to day, as noble Lords have mentioned, and worsen over time. It has a profound impact on people who have it, their families and their carers. I might be the first person in this debate to mention that one of the key problems with Parkinson’s disease is the stigma that goes with it. People may not recognise that people have Parkinson’s. They might think that they are drunk or that there is something else wrong with them. That is an additional burden that people with Parkinson’s disease have to carry with them.

The background to this debate is the brilliant report Please Mind the Gap, which took evidence from 360 people with Parkinson’s, their carers, health and social care professionals and representatives of public bodies, royal colleges and the Government. It brought to light many of the geographical inequalities in availability of services across the UK.

We know that the timely intervention of a specialist nurse or a physiotherapist and proper access to services can reduce hospital admissions and greatly improve quality of life. We have discussed this. We could substitute many conditions for Parkinson’s disease. We know that is the case. We know, therefore, that getting the provision of services for people with Parkinson’s disease right is not only right but cost effective.

Take, for example, Parkinson’s nurses. As a result of the investment from Parkinson’s UK, which pump-primes nurses for two-year periods and to which I pay the highest tribute, there are more than 300 Parkinson’s nurses. I have to say that I agree with other noble Lords: there must be a question mark over their future. I ask the Minister whether there can be some monitoring of what happens to these nurses. As pressures increase on primary care trusts and reform moves forward, what happens when you lose a Parkinson’s nurse? How many more people are admitted to hospital? The Government need to look at what evidence there is.

The same applies to allied health professionals, such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, psychologists and specialists in neurology. They are all vital in treating Parkinson’s and other neurological conditions. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me ask how such coherent and co-ordinated provision will be made available under the proposed changes to the NHS commissioning structures. Parkinson’s UK is extremely worried that it will mean a worsening of access to Parkinson’s nurses, as well as all the other allied health professionals that are needed. Indeed, Parkinson’s UK reports that it is hearing of posts remaining empty following retirement.

It is clear that proposals to transfer commissioning powers from PCTs to GPs are of great concern, not only to Parkinson’s UK but to many organisations that deal with long-term and complex conditions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, that there must be a question mark over the ability of an NHS commissioning board to make sure that these services are delivered adequately by GP commissioning when we are not even sure how many GP commissioning boards there will be. One needs to ask: how will those consortia be able to commission the expertise to supply the support for this and the other neurological conditions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant?

How will the Government ensure that the GP consortia involve the third sector in the delivery of these services? This question is being asked not just by Parkinson’s UK. I happened to be at a meeting attended by the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Motor Neurone Disease Association and they expressed the same concern about the ability of the consortia to commission the right services at the right level at the right time for patients when a doctor may only ever see two patients with Parkinson’s disease as it is such an uncommon disease. We know that you effect change in the NHS through leadership. How can the Government ensure that the leadership for this condition will continue and develop? The NICE guidelines are to be reviewed this year. If the Government do not go ahead with that review and do not come forward with robust guidelines, how will they ensure that the leadership for this condition will be maintained?

The Minister cannot have failed to notice that the same questions have been asked with regard to stroke, diabetes, MS and epilepsy. With all those conditions the same level of anxiety is evident about what the future holds under the proposed changes to the NHS. I am merely amplifying what has already been said but we are getting to the point where we need answers about how these conditions will be managed.

20:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for tabling this Question for Short Debate. I very much recognise the considerable personal insight that she brings to this subject, not least as chair of the all-party parliamentary group.

Noble Lords have spoken eloquently this evening about Parkinson’s and the devastating impact that it can have. The all-party group’s report paints a compelling picture of the many failings of the health and social care system: limited information for patients and poor access to expert nursing and therapy services, underpinned by a failure to deliver joined-up services. The previous Government produced a number of policy documents designed to improve services and support people with Parkinson’s disease. The National Service Framework for Long-Term Conditions, to which noble Lords have referred, and the NICE clinical guideline are both strong statements, which this Government support. The problem, made clear in this evening’s debate, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is that all too often the vision of these documents is not put into practice and areas such as Parkinson’s services find themselves at a disadvantage when competing for attention and resources. We want to put that right. Our reforms to the NHS will ensure that patients have far more information about services, more choice about their treatments and more influence over how healthcare is shaped in their community.

Local Health Watch organisations, building on local involvement networks, will ensure that the views and feedback of patients and carers feed into decisions about local health and social care services. Devolving responsibility for commissioning to GP consortia will mean that decision-making is closer to patients and more responsive to their individual needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, is right: we will have to ensure that GP commissioners are ready and have the skills and awareness that they need to take these decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to that matter, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.

As noble Lords are aware, poor commissioning is one of the main reasons for the low quality of some Parkinson’s services and the patchwork quilt of standards about which we have heard. I know that some patient groups have expressed concerns about the skills and knowledge of GP commissioners. The key to this will be creating better care pathways. That is my main answer to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who expressed his scepticism on this score. We will expect consortia to involve relevant health and social care professionals in helping to design care pathways or care packages for those with Parkinson’s that achieve more integrated delivery of care, higher quality and more efficient use of resources. They should also talk with their local authorities, which will play an increasingly important role in co-ordinating care as we move toward joint commissioning and planning through health and well-being boards. There are certainly opportunities for patient groups to contribute to developing GPs’ understanding of the condition and how to commission for it effectively. Regional neurological alliances, to which a number of noble Lords referred, have an important role to play, working with the NHS and councils, to make sure that patient needs are being met locally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, referred to outcomes. The new NHS outcomes framework will help to deliver care that is safer and more effective and provides a better experience for patients. The outcomes and indicators in the NHS outcomes framework have been chosen specifically to capture the full range of NHS responsibilities. Where appropriate, they are not condition specific, but rather seek to capture those outcomes that an individual with any condition would consider important.

In these financially challenging times, it is important that we make the most of the resources available. Parkinson’s services are a good example of where much more can be done and where inadequate services waste resources. With an ageing population, the number of people with Parkinson’s is increasing and, as the Fair Care campaign highlights, the best way to save money is to deliver good-quality Parkinson’s services when and where people need them.

Better, more effective care does not necessarily mean more resources. Doing things differently, good multidisciplinary teamwork, specialist support, early interventions and care planning can all make a significant difference. High-quality information, combined with the right support, is the key to achieving better care, better outcomes and reduced costs. We have been consulting on a new information strategy to improve the range and quality of information available to patients, professionals and the public, to increase transparency and strengthen accountability in the system.

Good social care is vital for people living with Parkinson’s. It enables them and their carers to live the independent life that most of us take for granted. We want to build a social care system that is fair and sustainable—one that reflects individual autonomy and ensures that everybody is treated with dignity and respect. In November, we published our vision for social care, setting the future direction for adult social care in England. The vision looks at the role of social care in contributing to the development of the big society and includes a new leadership role for local councils to improve preventive services and develop community capacity, which is in part an answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—in other words, inspiring and supporting communities to look after themselves. The vision encourages care and support to be delivered in a partnership between individuals, communities, the voluntary sector, the NHS and councils, including wider support services, such as housing.

Carers exemplify the big society. They provide care and support entirely from their own time and resources. In government, we need to reciprocate this commitment with measures that support carers. Last year, we published an update to the National Carers Strategy—Next Steps for the Carers Strategy. It provides a clear plan of action for the next four years, focusing on what will have the biggest impact on carers’ lives.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred enthusiastically to the role of specialist Parkinson’s nurses. Specialist nurses provide a very important source of support and advice to patients with Parkinson’s disease and enable many patients to manage their condition effectively. It is of course the responsibility of local health bodies to make decisions on the funding of Parkinson’s nursing posts. The Long-Term Conditions Delivery Support Team has, however, developed a guide to writing a business case for epilepsy specialist nurses for commissioners to use in making the case for improving those services. This guide could be adapted to make the case for specialist nurses for other long-term neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s. The new commissioning arrangements will take all the evidence into account in deciding to what extent specialist nursing will be commissioned.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked whether all areas will retain their levels of Parkinson’s nurses. We think that localism is the best way of holding local organisations to account. These decisions should in the end be made locally and will be influenced by the important inquiry that she has chaired.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and others referred to the national service framework. While the vision of the NSF reflects that of the White Paper, the new NHS architecture, and particularly the arrangements for commissioning, will render somewhat outdated any lessons learnt from the review. Better outcomes for people with long-term neurological conditions will in future be achieved through the NHS outcomes framework. The framework will enable patients to judge the overall performance of the NHS and to hold the Government to account for progress. Through the Long-Term Neurological Conditions Research Initiative, the department has funded the development of Quality Neurology, a comprehensive audit tool for local health and social care economies to use in assessing their current status in meeting the quality requirements of the NSF for long-term conditions.

The noble Lords, Lord Harrison and Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to GP consortia needing to involve the third sector. I have already referred to this issue. The onus is on regional neurological alliances and patient groups to engage with GP consortia in the first instance. Through the then Section 64 scheme, the department funded the Neurological Alliance to establish a network of RNAs across England. The case for developing a quality standard for Parkinson’s disease will be considered as part of the development of the comprehensive library of standards, in line with the plan set out in the White Paper. The longer-term aim is to develop a broad library of quality standards covering the majority of NHS activity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece asked about the status of the NSF for long-term conditions. The Government’s health reforms place outcomes at its heart, as I mentioned. That fits very well with the aspirations of the NSF for long-term conditions. The issue is not the delivery mechanism—in other words, the NSF versus the Government’s health reforms—but, rather, ensuring that services for people with a long-term neurological condition achieve the best possible outcomes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked how we can ensure that money for carers would be spent as intended. It is for PCTs and, after them, GP consortia to manage their budgets and make decisions about how best to meet the health needs of their local populations, but we are looking at how we can make decision-making more transparent. That includes using the NHS operating framework, which sets out the priorities for the year ahead and makes it clear that breaks for carers are important. The NHS outcomes framework and the outcomes framework for adult social care will also push for clear and unambiguous accountability in this area.

As so often happens, the clock is moving against me. I have much material here to answer every question posed by noble Lords. I apologise that I will not have time to do that in my allocated slot and I will write to all noble Lords with answers. Suffice it to say that, while tonight’s debate has highlighted variations in the quality of care, the fact is that there are some very good examples of Parkinson’s services. In Barnsley, for example, there is an holistic, multidisciplinary service in a range of locations tailored to meet the needs of patients. We need to replicate such models, ensuring that everybody has access to comprehensive services and expert multidisciplinary care. Through our health reforms, we are determined to continue to transform standards and to achieve better outcomes for people with Parkinson’s disease.

20:38

Sitting Suspended.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (7th Day) (Continued)

20:41

Amendment 54A

Moved by

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

54A: Clause 10, page 8, leave out lines 14 and 15 insert—
“(a) initially by a date to be specified by the Boundary Commission, once the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible; and(b) no later than every six years after that.””

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, Amendment 54A stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Bach and Lady Thornton. It would leave out lines 14 and 15 of Clause 10 on page 8 of the Bill. Clause 10(3) states:

“For subsection (2)”—

of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986—

“there is substituted … ‘A Boundary Commission shall submit reports under subsection (1) above periodically … before 1st October 2013, and … before 1st October of every fifth year after that’”.

We propose that the two dates should be deleted and the following inserted:

“initially by a date to be specified by the Boundary Commission, once the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible; and … no later than every six years after that”.

We propose the change because in practice—this is their timetable—it has taken Boundary Commissions six to seven years to complete the past five reviews of parliamentary constituencies. The Bill proposes that the first review be completed before 1 October 2013. If the Bill were passed tomorrow—which seems unlikely—the work would have to be completed in two years and nine months. That is less than half the time that ordinary reviews have taken so far. While everyone would want the process to be quicker than it has been before, the Bill proposes that one should do it in less than half the time that it has taken before, even when one has to redraw every single boundary in the country. I say that because the chair men and women of Boundary Commissions came before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons and said that it was probable that every constituency in the country would be affected by the proposals that were being made.

20:45

In the first instance the Bill states that the work should be completed in two years and nine months—assuming that it gets Royal Assent tomorrow, which it will not—and before 1 October of every fifth year after that. It appears to acknowledge that the review process will take twice as long as the first review that the Bill proposes. One is struck immediately by the fact that there must be some driving timetable for the first review, other than practicalities. As noble Lords may know, under the current rules governing the boundary review process that are contained in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended by the Boundary Commissions Act 1992, Boundary Commissions are required to conduct reviews every eight to 12 years. As I have said, in practice Boundary Commissions have taken around six to seven years to complete the past five periodical reviews of parliamentary constituencies. On account of comparative size, reviews in England have obviously taken more time than those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some argue that in practice a review every six or seven years is too long and that it carries the risk that population movements in the mean time are not taken into account. I have sympathy with that view, and it may well be possible to expedite the time it takes to undertake a boundary review, although that would obviously require additional resources. We will come to that point in a later amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bach.

A wish to speed up the process is one thing, but why are the Government proposing to conduct this first review under a new set of rules in less than three years? Let us not forget that we are not even talking about a standard boundary review. The secretaries of the four Boundary Commissions acknowledged that “every constituency will change”. The Government propose arguably the biggest, most controversial and most complicated redrawing of constituency boundaries since the departure of the Irish MPs in 1921. They intend to do it on the basis of an entirely new set of mathematical rules that will see factors such as geography, history and community pushed to one side by the need to adhere unbendingly to a higher electoral quota. The Government’s proposal of a timetable of less than three years is artificially quick, even under the Bill’s own terms.

As I said, further reviews, according to Clause 10(3), which amends Section 3(2) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, will be held on a five-yearly basis. That initial dramatic redrawing of boundaries is being tracked even faster than this apparent ideal. Why is that? Are the Government trying to minimise the risks of the results being made out of date by interim changes in the population? That cannot be the reason or they would be proposing that three years should always be the period for boundary reviews if the problem was “out of dateness”. The highly respected Constitution Committee of this House concluded that it could see no reason for the haste of this process. Indeed, that was its key criticism of the way in which this Bill has been presented: that it has been tagged on to the provisions for the referendum on voting systems. One, arguably, has some time sensitivity. The urgency of Part 2 of the Bill is, however, fabricated.

As the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nicholas Clegg, said in the other place on 5 July. He said that,

“we need to start with the work of the boundary review as soon as possible in order that it can be concluded in the timetable that we have set out”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/10; col. 37.]

I underline the words,

“in the timetable we have set out”.

The Deputy Prime Minister was questioned by the members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee in oral evidence about this timetable and gave no other explanation other than that it had to be concluded,

“in the timetable we have set out”.

Rather than conducting a boundary review of this magnitude according to an entirely arbitrary and politically motivated timetable, the change should not begin until the basis for making it is reliable.

As I think that everyone around the House accepts, our electoral register is not up to scratch. Measures that were introduced while my party was in government—the rolling canvas and individual registration spring to mind—have improved and will further improve the situation, but further improvement is needed. In the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, this will be,

“the biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832”.

The boundaries are to be redrawn on data from which the Government admit 3.5 million eligible voters are missing. The Great Reform Act 1832 extended the franchise. How ironic it is that, in promoting the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister will be rolling back the franchise. Millions of eligible but unregistered voters will be left out. For example, 9,651 are missing in Tooting; 12,421 in Bristol East; 17,528 in Leeds North West; and just shy of 50,000 in the Cities of London and Westminster. The national average registration is 91 per cent, but in a significant number of cases, mainly in urban constituencies, only about 80 per cent are registered to vote. That means that in some cases, as many as one in five voters are missing.

Those figures highlight both the extent of the problem—cautioning against the timetable for boundary changes envisaged under the Bill—and what is realistically achievable. If some inner urban constituencies in Birmingham and Manchester can register 95 per cent of eligible voters, why cannot similar seats do the same?

[Lord Tyler]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I am finding it difficult to follow him. I think that this is the most important part of his amendment: the trigger to start the process. I should say that I sit on an informal all-party advisory group which the Electoral Commission consults occasionally. I really do think that his amendment imposes on the Electoral Commission a responsibility that it is not ready to take and would not wish to take. How can he suggest that there are criteria by which the Electoral Commission could certify that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible? I cannot see how it can do that. The work done by his Government previously may have helped, but it certainly has not enabled the Electoral Commission to take the very subjective view that he suggests.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I do not think that it is a subjective view. The commission would not be asked to guarantee that everyone, or 95 per cent of people, was on the electoral roll; it would be asked to check that the local authorities had taken all reasonable steps. I envisage that it would set out what it would expect a reasonable local authority to do—for example, house-to-house inquiries if there were very high levels of underregistration; or getting the figure up to 95 per cent in certain sorts of area. It would not be difficult to identify the criteria that had to be satisfied before the commission could be satisfied. There are so many other areas in which public bodies certify that reasonable steps had been taken. I do not regard it as beyond the wit of man for the commission to do the same in relation to local authorities.

[Lord Tyler]

The noble Lord’s amendment says that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps, so presumably no Boundary Commission operation could start or any review be initiated until every local authority had been able to satisfy the Electoral Commission that it had taken reasonable steps. That is an impossible target. I am sure that, from his ministerial experience, he would agree.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

This new review could not start before every local authority had done that, but what would the excuses be? Why should one, two, three or four constituencies be prejudiced?

[Lord McAvoy]

I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. Is he aware that the City of Glasgow Council recently conducted an exercise and, I am reliably informed, got an extra 30,000-odd voters on to the register? Does that not show that each council area can vary so much that it is not right or proper that we can have such variation in the country? Therefore, the measure of compulsion, if you like, on all local authorities to do what Glasgow has achieved should be in the Bill.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am absolutely clear that the Electoral Commission would be perfectly capable of setting out what it would regard as the criteria that had to be satisfied. If you impose a provision like this, I have no doubt—and I have experience of this having been the Minister involved in ensuring good electoral practice—that that would have the effect, as far as the local authorities are concerned—they are, in practice, responsible for registration—of lifting all the votes up. I cannot envisage a local authority that would want to be one of two or three in the country that were incapable of meeting the standard. I cannot envisage that anybody in this House does not want the standard that I have described to be met. If the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thinks I am imposing too high a standard, I am sure that he wants some standard imposed, and I would welcome his contribution about the margin of error that he would regard as acceptable as far as the Electoral Commission is concerned. I have detected no one in this House who has not supported the proposition that we should try to do all that we can to get the 3.5 million people—a broadly accepted figure—who are not on the electoral register on to it. The effect of my amendment is not that everybody has to get on; it is that the local authorities have to make a reasonable effort to get them on. If they do, and if the Electoral Commission certifies that they have done all that they can, then, and only then, can this process start.

My noble friend Lord Lipsey, who I am delighted to see in his place, made a speech before dinner in which he made the point that if we proceed with this very significant change in relation to the drawing of the constituency boundaries on the basis of the December 2010 register, which is what the Government are proposing, we are going to build in the bias. Who is the bias against? It is against young people, those in private rented accommodation and members of the black and minority ethnic groups. It might be said that that group would tend to favour Labour or even the Liberal Democrats, but that is not the point. You do not want to start with a great section of our population—the young people—being disenfranchised because they do not want to vote.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The sentiments that the noble and learned Lord expresses are wholly admirable. One wants to get every single person on to the register, but as I apprehend it, the problem is not a technical one; it is that there is a mass of disaffected younger people in our country who simply cannot be bothered to vote. They are not galvanised to take part in the democratic process. How does he propose to overcome that?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I know from my experience as the Minister responsible that if, for example, you do door-to-door inquiries, check who lives there, hand over a form to get on to the register, rather than sticking it in an envelope, and then go back and pick it up, you dramatically increase the number registered. My noble friend Lord McAvoy referred to the effort by the city of Glasgow. In my speech, I referred to the way that Manchester and Birmingham have 95 per cent registration because they are making the effort whereas London and Nottingham have 91 per cent, which is much lower. Picking up the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, work has been done to identify the practical steps that can be taken. That is why I am submitting that it is not unreasonable and does not impose an unreasonable burden on local authorities for the Electoral Commission to say that it expects good practice from everybody. Our democracy is crucial to the well-being of our society and only when all the local authorities have got to that standard, measured not by an absolute number but by doing the right thing, do we then move on to this particular approach in relation to registration. We then avoid the bias against young people, particularly in the BME communities and in the private rented sector.

21:00

[Lord Desai]

Does my noble and learned friend agree that, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said, whether people want to take part in voting is a secondary issue? The first issue is that we should never put any obstacles in the way of a person’s right to vote. A judgment, such as, “Oh, these guys are never going to vote so let us not register them”, would be much more damaging to democracy than allowing as many people as possible on the register and then leaving it to them to vote or not vote.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I certainly agree that we should not put any obstacles in their way, but I would go further perhaps than my noble friend Lord Desai. I do not know whether it will be the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who replies but I hope that they will perhaps give us some examples—I know that there are examples—of where registration efforts have had an effect. It is those efforts that I am trying to build into the system.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I was encouraged by him saying that he supports the sentiments of the amendment. If he supports the sentiments, perhaps I can persuade him that you can make a difference by what you do. If the Electoral Commission is set up to judge that everyone has done what they should, would not that, I ask rhetorically, have the effect of improving registration, which is what everyone in this House wants to achieve?

Our amendment addresses this problem. It sets a standard for the electoral register of the UK to be certified by the body in charge of such matters, the Electoral Commission, before the redrawing of the boundaries begins. The status of the electoral register matters. Correct counting of the numbers of those living in different parts of the country matters. The Christmas adjournment debate in another place on miscounting in certain London borough constituencies during the 2001 census shows the impact that can be wrought on local communities in terms of allocation of local services and resources.

We have heard throughout this debate that what this Government aim for is fair votes and fair representation. That has been the headline into which the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have resorted when seeking to justify this Bill. Basically, this amendment proposes that you have a starting point that means you have got as many people as you reasonably can on the register. It reflects the fact that these boundary reviews take time and that you should have reasonable time between the reviews so that the up-to-date process can be given effect to.

I respectfully believe that those are sensible and realistic proposals.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I wonder whether my noble and learned friend will press the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on something he said at the beginning of this debate. He referred to the informal party advisory group of which he is a member. Do we have an informal party advisory group for the Labour Party which meets with the Electoral Commission?

[Noble Lords]

Yes.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord talked about a group. I am presuming that all parties belong to this group and not just the Liberal Party. It was the way the noble Lord phrased it. Forgive me: I will not press my noble and learned friend.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, I can possibly help. I have said on the Floor of this House that it was the case when I was Speaker that the Electoral Commission had to report. There was a weakness in the Electoral Commission in that it would not allow former party agents in its membership. As a result, although there were former chief executives of local authorities, you never got someone like Jimmy Allison—God rest his soul—who used to be the wily agent of the Labour Party in Scotland. As a result, it was agreed that there would be an informal committee to give the type of advice that was needed when there were proposals for delivering leaflets and meeting the electorate. We all know that when you meet the electorate, sometimes you have to face an Alsatian dog, and when you get by the Alsatian, you get a Rottweiler. The chief executives did not really know about that, but Labour Party agents did.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I sat on the committee with the Speaker in which we discussed those matters, and I remember the setting up of the informal committee. Since then a Bill has been passed which allows former politicians to sit on it. Happily, your Lordships have answered all the questions so I have not been put in the embarrassing position of doing that which I am not allowed to do, which is to press the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, because he is supposed to be pressing me in the course of this debate.

I have set out the reasons for this amendment. It is a very important amendment because it requires a justification as to why it is two and a half years, why we should not wait for an up-to-date register, and why gaps of five years are suggested. Those are the questions that this amendment raises. I beg to move.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My noble and learned friend is absolutely right that this is a very important amendment. It is double-barrelled in that it deals with two things. It deals with the redistribution to make sure that it is based on the real number as near as possible of people eligible to vote in a constituency, and it encourages people to register and to vote. It is important from the point of view of the redistribution of boundaries, but it also has a wider and more beneficial effect.

For the first aspect of this, I have an amendment, Amendment 89C, which I hope we will come to later this evening. I hesitate to say that it is better than my noble and learned friend’s amendment, but it is simpler because it just says that,

“for the purpose of this Act”,

the electorate will be taken as the number of people eligible to vote, not registered to vote. We can always find out the number of people who are eligible to vote through the census or whatever. I hope, in anticipation of that—which is why I am giving the Minister a bit of extra notice—he will look at his briefing. It is a simpler amendment and I hope it is one that the Government might accept.

However, my noble and learned friend’s amendment has the double advantage of getting people on to the register and, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, encouraging people to vote. There are lots of ways of doing that which we have discussed previously. One of those is compulsory voting. A number of colleagues were a bit doubtful and unsure about that, and with good reason. I say that because I have just been reading about the compulsory vote in Belgium, but because that country has a daft proportional representation system, which my noble friend Lord Grocott will particularly appreciate, it has not been able to form a Government for seven months, and the guy who was appointed to mediate between the various parties in order to try to get a government has just resigned. That is the sort of thing that happens when you have daft systems of proportional representation. Someone asked me who is running the Government in Belgium, and I said that I supposed it was the civil servants. They answered, “What’s different? Doesn’t that always happen?”. I hope that is not the case, but it is worrying that you can get to that position even with proportional representation and compulsory voting. You would think that that might improve the situation.

[Lord Grocott]

My noble friend referred to it as a “daft” system of proportional representation. For the benefit of the Committee, I wonder if he could list for us the good systems of proportional representation.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

No, I cannot; there are not any. It is an even dafter system than the one included in the Bill.

What is proposed in the amendment has a very important aspect to it; that is, getting people on to the register. We should do everything that we can to achieve that. I am a little worried about the current situation, because, with public expenditure cuts, local authorities will spend less money on canvassing people to get on to the register. They will take the cheapest option of sending out letters once and hoping that they will be returned, instead of going round, knocking on doors, returning if they do not get a reply and really making sure that everyone in a household is on the register, which is vital.

It is not being party political or fighting the class war to say that it is much easier to get people to register when they are living in detached houses or houses that are easy to access. It is much more difficult to get to houses in multiple occupation; for example, tenements in Glasgow. Sometimes, you cannot get in through the main door to get up to the front door of the flat concerned to get people to register. It is therefore vital that we put in place a system or series of systems that encourage people to get their name on to the register and local authorities to get out and make sure that they reach as many people as possible. That is why the amendment needs our support.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that it is not a responsibility of the Electoral Commission. Well, if it is not the Electoral Commission’s responsibility, who is charged with it? It seems obvious that it should be the Electoral Commission, which has extended its responsibilities during the past few years. As my noble friend said, the commission now has on it political party representatives, including my noble friend Lord Kennedy, who understand what they are talking about in relation to these matters. The Electoral Commission should therefore be able to take on this extra responsibility.

The amendment would put a constraint on the Electoral Commission to certify that all reasonable steps had been taken and on government not to be able to progress until such certification was obtained. I hope that the Minister will understand the importance of getting as many people on the register as possible.

We are going now through a series of issues which ought not to be party political and on which we all ought to find common ground. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, are very old friends of mine—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has been for many years, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used to be one of my constituents—but I somehow get the impression that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, listens more to the arguments that are being put forward, picks them up and responds to them. I hope that that is a presage for his feeling able, on some of these issues which are not really party political, to say, “I’ll have a look at that. I’ll pick it up. I’ll go back and talk with my colleagues about it and then come back at Report stage”. The coalition Government would find the passage of this Bill, which has been difficult for them, a lot easier if they were to do that. I know that that is difficult for two reasons: first, because there is a coalition, with differences of opinion between the two parties, I am led to believe, on certain aspects of the Bill. I have no inside information—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is shaking his head—but I still think that there might be some differences of opinion. I know that that takes some time. I know also that Ministers in the other place have principal responsibility for this; Ministers in the Lords do not necessarily have ministerial and departmental responsibility and they therefore have to consult with Ministers in another place.

The third thing that will make it difficult for them is that there are two departments dealing with the Bill. There is the Ministry of Justice in which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is a Minister, and the Deputy Prime Minister within the Cabinet Office also has responsibility. There are some differences of accountability there. Notwithstanding that—I am using this amendment but it will come up a lot in others and I hope I can be excused special pleading in relation to Amendment 89C—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not just come up with an argument against everything that we put forward. I hope that as time goes on and we go through the Bill this week, next week and the week after that, on issue after issue, he will look at this carefully. If he gives it that kind of positive response, he will find a lot more sympathy on this side of the House.

21:15

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, can a local authority or the Electoral Commission speak with accuracy regarding steps being taken by a local authority? The amendment says that,

“every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”.

That does not mean that it has to be so exact that, as in the days when I was in engineering, you have to be half a thou within your measurement. The amendment says “all reasonable steps”.

I know through experience that the Electoral Commission is a well resourced body. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, had this experience, but it even said that it wanted copyright for a teaching pack to teach returning officers how to carry out their duties. That is the extent to which the Electoral Commission goes into these matters.

Talking about accuracy, my thoughts go back to the days when Strathclyde region was on the go and the famous poll tax was a big worry for every Member of Parliament in the west of Scotland. Strathclyde region took in the whole of the west of Scotland. People were deliberately staying off the electoral register. It was not a case of the man or woman of the house coming to the door and forgetting to say that one of the sons was working offshore but was resident in the household and therefore the canvass could be inaccurate to one person in a family because of the wrong information. This was particularly single people making sure that they stayed off the register to avoid the poll tax. It used to be called the community charge. That was a nice phrase. We called it the poll tax because that was what it was.

Mr James Woods was put in charge of electoral registration for the whole of Strathclyde. All the Members of Parliament for Strathclyde met him and said that the voters roll would be inaccurate. When it came to appeals and the Boundary Commission, a big matter would be the number of people on the electoral roll. He told us all, “Here is what I’ve done. Come and visit my department. I do a canvass and then I do a second canvass and if we suspect that there are people who are taking their names off the electoral roll, we make inquiries”.

There was also the question of people having two homes. Sometimes a wife would register in one home and a husband in the other to avoid a double poll tax. Mr Woods assured us that he was putting a high and accurate return on to the electoral register. It would be reasonable for the Electoral Commission to interview someone such as Mr Woods and ask, “What are you doing? What facilities have you got? We want to visit your premises and see what you are doing”. That would be good enough to give a certificate.

It must be remembered that people used to speak with fondness about a local authority called Saltcoats down on the Ayrshire coast which had the cheapest rents in Scotland—the reason being that it had no direct works department and was a small local authority. The local authority was so small it would even meet if it had to hire a foreman gardener. Local authorities such as that are no longer with us. Local government has been streamlined. There is often a criticism that some chief executives in local government get paid more than the Prime Minister of the day because of their large responsibilities. I do not wish to go into that as I would stray from the amendment but all local authorities that I know of in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland would be well able to hire a highly competent electoral registration officer who could easily convince the Electoral Commission to give the local authority a certificate to say that it is working to ensure an accurate register. If the Government had a worry about the Electoral Commission, it need not be the Electoral Commission but someone else. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned certification; certification is given to shipping, factories and other bodies.

[Baroness Thornton]

This is my first intervention in the Bill. I am pleased to join my happy band of colleagues to, I hope, help with the discussions. I want to get involved in the issue of voter registration in this part of the Bill because of my work with young people, particularly excluded ones, in a variety of charities and also because I am from Bradford. My title is Baroness Thornton, of Manningham. I suspect that Manningham in Bradford probably has one of the lowest records of voter registration in the whole of our city, for reasons that we will discuss in the next series of amendments.

We know that those who are absent from the registers are likely to be drawn from the same social groups as under-registered voters in previous decades. This is not a new issue. Variations in registration levels by age, social class and ethnicity have long been recognised and it is predominately densely populated urban areas with significant concentrations of mobile young people that have the highest levels of under-registration. That is why I, along with other noble Lords, support amendments pressing our concerns for different groups of our fellow citizens.

The Electoral Commission’s March 2010 report The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain highlights that matter. The report states that,

“there are some grounds to suggest that geographical variations in registration levels may have widened since the late 1990s. Available data sources suggest that registration rates in London appear to have stabilised, and may even have improved slightly, since the late 1990s. By contrast, English metropolitan districts appear to have experienced a clear fall in registration levels. Canvass response rates show a similar pattern. In 1996, the average canvass response rates for metropolitan districts were 93%, significantly higher than the 87% achieved by the average London borough. However, by 2004 the average response rate among London boroughs had risen slightly to 89%, while it had fallen to 84% in the English metropolitan districts. Despite improved response rates among metropolitan districts in 2008, the 90% average remained just below the 91% figure achieved by London boroughs”.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said, if the electoral roll is to be frozen as at 2010, how much more inaccurate will it be in those areas of the greatest vulnerability by 2015? We know that more than 3 million people are not on the electoral roll. How many more voters would the coalition Government find it acceptable not to appear on the electoral roll by 2015? I think that the Minister needs to answer those questions, given that millions of people—young people, ethnic minorities and people who live in rented accommodation in areas of high density—will in effect be disfranchised by the Government’s proposals.

Our amendment suggests, quite reasonably I think, that the Electoral Commission should ensure that the local authorities that have responsibility for the canvasses that produce the electoral roll should do their job as effectively and as efficiently as possible. I cannot see what is unreasonable about that. Indeed, our suggestion seems entirely proper, so I am surprised to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has a problem with it, as I cannot think what that problem would be. We need to get those 3.5 million people back on our electoral rolls and then—although, as my noble friend said, this is a different matter—to consider voting. I support Amendment 54A and I hope that the Government will do so as well.

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, I rise to speak on the role of the Electoral Commission, in which I, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others are involved. I apologise first to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for missing the opening phrases of his speech, but I know very well what his amendment is about and have considerable sympathy for it—indeed, I fully support it—as it deals with an important issue.

Of the two things that I want to say, the first relates to the Electoral Commission. When I have spoken on previous occasions when we have considered the Bill, I have not mentioned that I am a representative on the Electoral Commission’s parliamentary advisory group, which includes Members of both Houses and all parties. The parliamentary advisory group offers advice on the Electoral Commission’s proposals and the Electoral Commission listens to our comments.

Given that a number of problems with registration need to be looked at, there is certainly a case for having a debate—although perhaps not at this stage—on the role and powers of the Electoral Commission. The commission performs an important job, for which, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, pointed out, it is also well resourced. However, I think that the noble Lord would agree with me that one problem is the lack of real clarity on the commission’s powers to investigate and to make strong recommendations on the effectiveness of local authority registration processes. Various members of the Electoral Commission frequently mention—and the Members from the political parties who attend the parliamentary advisory group recognise—that, although the commission can try to persuade local authorities to drive up registration levels, it does not have the power to say, “This is not good enough, so we will not certify you”. Without that power, as I think was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, the local authorities ultimately do not need to try that hard.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and others have pointed out, we should all be able to agree that registration levels in this country could and should be far better. The current levels are not good enough. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Thornton quoted the Electoral Commission’s March 2010 report, which makes the point—this is true—that registration levels in London went up and then stabilised but appear to have gone down in other areas.

21:30

My other point is that, as I and others in this House have seen, when a local authority makes a major effort to improve registration, it achieves it. When my own local authority in Hammersmith set out to increase registration, it went up dramatically. As I think my noble friend Lord Foulkes was saying, it was a matter of going and knocking on doors and handing the form to people, asking them to fill it in and then following that up if it did not arrive back. In areas such as London and, indeed, in some other big cities, this is particularly important because you have a very high turnover of population. One estate in my area, the White City estate, had at one stage a 25 per cent turnover of population every year. There was still quite a stable core to the estate’s population, but all the others were changing. I remember making that point strongly to the Electoral Commission a couple of years ago and it was sympathetic. It understands the problem and would be the first to say, “Yes, the local authority ought to make that extra effort”.

There are two issues. First, local authorities can and should make a far greater effort than they are doing and there should be less variation in the country if we are all agreed—as I assume that we are—that registration ought to be maximised. The other point is that, as I have indicated, at some stage we need to think about whether the Electoral Commission has enough power to say to the local authority, “You are not doing well enough and we expect you to do better, or you will not get properly registered or certified”. We really need to increase that power. As I understand them, this amendment and the following amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lipsey, will both have the effect of making it more likely that we will get people to register than we will at the moment with the Bill.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Given that the Electoral Commission does not have this power, was it not highly irresponsible of it to push individual registration on local authorities when it knew that it could not enforce it?

[Lord Soley]

There are two views about individual registration. I understand the argument, but this is not the time to have it. I accept my noble friend’s underlying point: if we are going to give the Electoral Commission the power to enforce in some way or to put heavy pressure on the local authority, we will need to think through some of these underlying issues, because there is a legitimate argument on both sides of the point that he has just raised—even though I have one particular view, which I suspect is the same as his.

Let me go back to my main point. If we are going to make sure that local authorities maximise registration, we really need to ensure not only that they have the time to do it but that we, as a Parliament, put the pressure on them to do it. Given that there is some acceptance that the Electoral Commission cannot enforce this as fully as one would like, the Government need to say that each local authority will be asked to demonstrate that it has maximised the registration on the voters roll in its area and that it will be asked for evidence of that, where there is a track record of its having a lower registration than other, similar authorities. That could be done in part by accepting these amendments, but there really needs to be some leadership from the Government on this issue.

The debate before the dinner break was on the crucial issue—it is a central issue for me—of the constitutional factor. We will return to that when my amendment comes up, which I suspect will not now be tonight. I hope that it will be on Wednesday. All of this is in the context of a Bill that is doing the very thing that I have said before that the Government are doing: presenting us with the image of a Government who do not care too much about the quality of our democracy and are determined to drive through the changes. In that sense, they have become an overpowerful Government. You can see that in the Public Bodies Bill or in this Bill, where they are determining the size of the House of Commons at the same time as they are increasing the numbers in the House of Lords to a position where they almost have a majority. All these things are deeply worrying. There is a massive increase in the use of Henry VIII powers, about which all the members of the Regulatory Reform Committee, including me, expressed their acute concern in their report on the Public Bodies Bill. All these things are coming together. The Government, simply in terms of their own image, need to demonstrate that they are taking these matters more seriously than they seem to be at the moment.

It troubles me, as it troubles other Members, that, particularly in the previous debate, which was so clearly on a matter of acute constitutional importance, virtually no one took part—except one Liberal Democrat Member—from the government Back Benches. I know, and I challenge the Government to deny this, that all the Back-Benchers from the political parties in the coalition have been instructed not to speak on that issue because it would take up time. I challenge them to deny that the Back-Benchers have been whipped not to take part in debates that add to the time on this Bill. That was particularly true in the previous debate.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords—

[Lord Soley]

I will give way. I want to hear a clear indication that that did not happen, because I have been told that it did.

[Viscount Eccles]

I have received no such instruction. I would not expect to receive one, and if I did I would pay no attention to it.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Soley]

I am very encouraged by that. I have to say, though, that I would rather hear it from the Front Bench, because I am sure that this did not come round in the form of a letter or even an e-mail.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Soley]

I will give way in a moment, if I can take one intervention at a time. I know, as does everyone who has dealt with party politics, that you advise your group not to do something in meetings and by word of mouth. That is how it happens.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The noble Lord threw down the gauntlet and someone has to pick it up. Exactly as my noble friend has just said, no one has said any such thing, and if they did—I must not use unparliamentary language—I would not be impressed.

[Lord Soley]

I am delighted to hear that. I am sure that Members did not receive e-mails or letters of that type. However, I challenge the Front-Benchers again to give a clear indication that they did not tell Members on their Back Benches not to take part in the debate in a way that would add to the time taken on the Bill. I want to hear that.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

They are refusing.

[Lord Soley]

All I know is what I have been told. I respect people’s privacy, and I respect individuals who say that it has not happened; I am sure that people on this side would say the same. But I also know, from all my experience in Parliament and in this House, that it happens in all parties—I am talking not just about my party but about all parties, including mine; I have seen and heard it happen in all of them—that a recommendation goes out that you do not take part because that will use up time when a Government are worried about time on their Bill. We all know that that is what this Government are worried about. I would be less concerned about that if this were a conventional Bill, but on a constitutional Bill this is profoundly serious.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I am surprised to hear these suggestions. I have been here for some little time now and, needless to say, I have never had advice from anyone not to speak. I am assuming that no such advice has gone out from the opposition Front Bench to its Back Benches.

[Lord Soley]

With respect, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is one of those Members to whom no one would say that—just as they also would not say it to me, actually. But I know the way in which it works in all political parties: when a Government are worried about time on a Bill, they try to get their Back-Benchers to stay quiet and then they accuse the other side of filibustering. That is what we had today; the evidence is before people. In that major constitutional debate, only one Member from the Liberal Democrats, who suddenly got very angry about one aspect, spoke. Not one other Member spoke on the issue.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I cannot resist it when he is casting these aspersions across the Chamber. Can he assure the House that he has not received any instructions to waffle on ad nauseam on this issue?

[Lord Soley]

I most certainly can. What is more, I can go a bit further. At our meetings to discuss how to handle the Bill, there was a clear view that we should not filibuster. I say that categorically and give my word of honour. There was not one occasion when anybody supported the idea of filibustering. What we have seen this afternoon, sadly, is the reverse of a filibuster. A government party—or two parties—refused to take part in a serious debate about the constitutional matter of a Government taking on themselves the power to change the size of Parliament. That is a major issue. I do not want to make it directly relevant to this debate, which is becoming slightly off-side. I will simply say—and I will leave it on this point—that in a situation where a Government are allowed to change the size of a Parliament, you cannot deny that it is a major constitutional issue. The voting system is not. The voting system and even registration are not major constitutional issues. They are very important but they are not constitutional issues in the sense that changing the size of Parliament is.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

Compared to the noble Lord, I am still an apprentice in the procedures of this House, but should we not be talking about the amendment before us? That might be the best thing to do.

[Lord Soley]

My noble friend still thinks that he is in his previous role. If he was in that role here, he would have ruled me out of order, which would be quite right. However, we do not have that system.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

The noble Lord was the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He would never have allowed any Minister in the Labour Party to tell Members not to speak. That would have been an invitation for them to speak.

[Lord Soley]

I am not sure that I wholly agree with that. I certainly would not encourage people to speak, but let us be clear. Whips at all times have said, “If you speak on this from the other side, you will be here very late tonight. Alternatively, we won’t get the Bill passed in time”. What matters to the Government, on this Bill more than any other, is time. That is what this is about. We need to be very clear about it, which is why I say that what happened earlier was a filibuster in reverse. It was a silent filibuster, if you like. That does not alter the fact that, on this issue, my reason for arguing and the reason why we diverted is precisely that the registration of citizens is important in the voting process. In the context of a Bill that is incredibly important constitutionally because of the power to alter the size of Parliament, you cannot argue that this is irrelevant. It is an important part of it.

The Government need to show some willingness to move on these issues. If we agree that registration is not as good as it ought to be in this country and accept that at the moment the Electoral Commission does not have as much power and authority as one would like it to have to instruct local authorities, there is a duty on the Government to do more to make sure that representation on the electoral roll is as good as it can be. I would expect leadership from the Government on that. I would expect them to stand up and say, “Yes, we will do this and we will discuss with other political parties how to deliver it”. That is the sort of statement on which we need to get some cross-party agreement for a very important Bill.

21:45

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, “more haste, less speed” is a maxim that every Lib Dem Minister in the coalition—and, perhaps, other Ministers—should pin up above their desks in large Day-Glo letters. We can see that the dynamic behind the Bill—and the reason why the coalition seeks to thrust it through as fast as it can—is the ambition of the Deputy Prime Minister to establish himself as an effective constitutional reformer and his anxiety that he does not have much time in which to do it. How very much more important it is to get it right than to do it hastily. That is why my noble friends were quite right to table this amendment which would place some restraint on the Boundary Commission process.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, talked about the Electoral Commission and the art of the possible. We ought also to consider what it is reasonable and realistic to expect the Boundary Commission to do. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in his opening remarks, the proposition in the Bill that the Boundary Commission will submit reports for the redrawing of effectively every constituency in the United Kingdom in a short period of some two and a half years before 1 October 2013 is not a sensible thing to undertake to do, and I do not think that it is a proper thing to undertake to do. While there are all sorts of reasons why it would be very difficult for the Boundary Commission to do that satisfactorily, not least because it would be impossible for the citizens of this country to have the opportunity to make their representations on the process in this abbreviated timescale, there is also the factor of electoral registration. This amendment, which focuses particularly on the indispensability of having a decent level of electoral registration before we draw the boundaries of the new constituencies, is absolutely right. You can reform electoral systems and constituency boundaries as much as you want but it will be a hollow process if you fail to ensure that those who should be the beneficiaries of these reforms—the citizens of this country—are in a position to benefit from them. If you merely reform without ensuring that people will be able to exercise their vote under your reformed system, it is effectively a case of “Hamlet” without the prince.

The reasons for declining turnout at successive elections over a considerable period of our modern history are mysterious and it is a very difficult phenomenon to understand. There are a number of proximate causes that we can see. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, drew the House’s attention to the decision by a significant number of people to drop off the electoral register when they saw the poll tax heading towards the statute book. Certainly, more of them did so after it had become law. That is one reason why, since the late 1980s, the electoral register has not had the respect and integrity that it had before then. There are other factors. We will see some new factors that will cause imperfections in the electoral register in our own time. One of them will, I fear, be the effect of housing benefit changes because more and more people, particularly tenants of private rented accommodation, will be on the move because they cannot afford to continue to live in the same place in which they were living. That will impair the electoral register; so will rising unemployment, particularly among people who have been employees in the public sector. They will also be on their bikes and on the road, trying to find work in new places. All that makes it more difficult to ensure that we will have an adequately up- to-date and comprehensive electoral register. Therefore, the pressure that this amendment would introduce into the system is extremely valuable.

I refer to another reason why we should be worried about what may happen to registration. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, as I am not confident that, as he said, local authorities will necessarily have the resources to employ more electoral registration officers. We are going to see very draconian reductions in local authority budgets and they will find it very difficult to do anything that is not mandatory. Anything that is discretionary expenditure will be difficult for them to take on board.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

Given the size of local authorities, it is not a question of having more electoral officers but of having a specific official to look after electoral registration. That person in turn would give an account of his or her stewardship to the Electoral Commission. That is different from employing more people, and it is not the point. It will be a sad day, given the size of local authorities in the United Kingdom, when there is no official in charge of electoral registration.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I certainly share the noble Lord’s hope that that will indeed be the case, and it is important that it should be, because it will be more difficult for the regime which this amendment envisages to operate if local authorities do not have registration officers in place doing their work energetically and with adequate resources. It is something on which we will need to keep a careful eye. I do not have quite the confidence that he does that that will necessarily be the case.

I should like to make just one observation on paragraph (b) in Amendment 54A, in which my noble friends have proposed that the Boundary Commission should submit reports every sixth year, rather than every fifth year, after 2013. That is wise for a number of reasons, but at this time of the evening I shall mention only one of the reasons. If constituencies are to be redrawn—and perhaps quite radically redrawn—at pretty frequent intervals, it creates problems for political parties. If political parties have to be re-formed election by election—and we know that they will all have to be re-formed in the period between 2013 and 2015, if the election is postponed for that long, and at quite frequent intervals thereafter—that creates a lot of difficulties for political parties.

We know the problem—I suspect that all political parties share this problem—of securing an adequate membership. We need a degree of stability to ensure that political parties can perform their role. Healthy, thriving political parties are a precondition for healthy, thriving local government and for healthy, thriving parliamentary democracy. So I do not think that we want to cause upheaval in political parties any more frequently than is really necessary. Of course the Boundary Commission reviews need to be of sufficient frequency and of a regularity to ensure that they adequately reflect the changing composition of the population of this country. That is essential and we all acknowledge that. It is a question of judgment and of striking a balance between that imperative and what I think is also very desirable, which is not to keep on throwing the system up in the air and destabilising political parties. For that reason, the modest change that my noble friends have proposed—having reviews every six years rather than every five years—makes good, practical sense.

[Lord Lipsey]

The nearest that any noble Lord comes to being economical with the truth is when they stand up and say they are going to be brief. Let me try, for once, to ignore that rule and be brief.

First, we all agree that we need a better electoral register—that is common ground. Secondly, and slightly less obviously, the accuracy of the electoral register matters far more under the system that the Government are proposing for constituency boundary drawing than it does at the moment. The Boundary Commission now has reasonably wide discretion. If there is an extra elector here, the commission can make an adjustment there. It cannot do that under the Bill. If there is one voter more than the 5 per cent threshold, all the boundaries of that seat, and in consequence the boundaries of all the surrounding seats, need to be redrawn. An upheaval can rest on whether a single voter is registered.

I have a third point, and given that we are at Committee stage, perhaps we are allowed to inject new ideas into the debate. I can see why the Government are reluctant to go along with the excellent amendment moved by my noble and learned friend, because they think that it will delay the process. However, there is an alternative. Instead of the Boundary Commission trying to equalise the actual number of registered electors, it should try to equalise something different: notional registered electors—that is, the electorate as it would be if there was 100 per cent registration everywhere. That is perfectly achievable.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

That is exactly what my Amendment 89C proposes. The easiest solution would be for the three wise men on the Front Bench opposite to agree now to accept that amendment later when I move it.

[Lord Lipsey]

The noble Lord has led me to be even briefer, because I was about to refer to his Amendment 89C and to a similar amendment that I myself proposed. It is quite easy statistically to equalise notional electorates. It depends on, for example, the proportion of rented tenure in the given constituency. Perfectly good equations can be developed that pretty accurately project the notional electorate from the actual electorate. Equalise those within whatever limit the House may decide and you have a much more sensible approach than that which is in the current draft of the Bill.

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he accept, even if some of his colleagues would not, that one of the disincentives to registration is that people—perhaps particularly if they are transient through the area—think that if it is a very safe seat, their vote simply will not matter? It is the correlation between safe seats under the first past the post system and the disincentive not just to register but to bother to vote even if they do register. I think that at least he will accept that that is one other reason. How does he propose to tackle that problem if, as seems to be his colleagues’ wont, they want to resist any improvement to the electoral system?

[Lord Lipsey]

I am proposing to tackle it in the very same way as I hope he is proposing to tackle it—by voting yes to AV whenever we get round to the referendum, whether on 5 May or, as I hope, a later date.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I know that it is a shock to see somebody rise from this side but perhaps I, too, may make a speculative intervention following what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has said. I have not thought this through, but it seems to me that if it were possible to take the number of potential electors—let us call them that—as the governing yardstick for the size of constituencies, then Amendment 54A becomes unnecessary because one would then be in the position that all one needed to be satisfied about is that the local authorities had done their work properly in time for the election concerned. If, however, you take the system as it currently prevails, then the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is the way to go. But, as I say, it would take away one of the time constraints if one was to go down the Lipsey-Foulkes line, if I can call it that.

The other thing that is worth not forgetting—because a lot has been said about the difficulty, or more than difficulty, of having everything sorted out by 1 October 2013; a number of noble Lords opposite have made that point—is that paragraph 37 of the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, states:

“The Boundary Commissions have confirmed that this timetable is achievable”.

That is to say, things will be sorted out by 1 October 2013. It, after all, should know what it is talking about. With that assurance, and with a new method of calculating the mean, it seems to me that Amendment 54A may not be necessary.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

First, I welcome greatly the fact that someone on the other side is actually participating properly in the debate—genuinely debating and listening to the debate. I can reassure him. Just in case the Government are preparing to say, “We cannot work out, or we do not know, what the notional figure, or the actual electorate, is”, how can they say that 91 per cent are registered here, or 85 per cent are registered there? There is no way of calculating the percentage unless they know the number of people eligible to vote.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

22:00

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has just quoted from a Boundary Commission document, which states that this is achievable.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I hesitate to interrupt, but the quotation was from a report not of the Boundary Commission but of our own Select Committee on the Constitution, which is rather more important in this respect.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

It may well be achievable but on the basis of a deficient register. That is at the core of our complaint. We do not accept that the review should take place on the back of a deficient register.

I do not challenge my noble friend Lord Soley, but I do put it to him that when the Electoral Commission tells him that registration rates in London have gone up, that is at variance with the statistics that have been published by the Office for National Statistics in Wales. The director-general wrote to Chris Ruane, a Member in the other House who has led the charge on this issue over recent years. He has tabled hundreds if not thousands of Questions, and has a library of statistics that is of great interest to those of us who take an interest in these matters. In June of last year, the director-general of the Office for National Statistics in Wales wrote to him:

“I have been asked to reply to your question asking what the electorate was in each year since 1997 in the 100 parliamentary seats which have had the largest decrease in the number of electors on the register since that date … This is the latest year for which comparable data are available”.

One can look at where the London boroughs stand in this table of the bottom 100. I will start from the bottom of the table. Kensington and Chelsea, the Cities of London and Westminster, Regent’s Park and North Kensington, Holborn and St Pancras, Hampstead and Highgate, Hammersmith and Fulham, North Southwark and Bermondsey, Islington South and Finsbury, Brent East—I intervene at this stage to suggest that they are not doing well in London, despite what the Electoral Commission might say—Wimbledon, Vauxhall, Tottenham, Lewisham, Deptford, Islington, Hackney. There are more that I could reel off.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, tells us that the problem does not necessarily arise in the way that we suggest because many of these are safe seats where people do not think that it is worth voting. I argue that most of the seats in London that I referred to are highly marginal.

[Lord Soley]

The figures that my noble friend gives are very important. I will look at them and draw them to the attention of the Electoral Commission to get its response. Without being sure what we are comparing here, it is difficult to be confident. The statement about the London boroughs was, to the best of my memory, that registration had gone up and stabilised. That was in the last report of the Electoral Commission. I do not know what date the statement related to, but I am happy to take on board the figures and ask for an explanation of them.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Perhaps I may tell my noble friend exactly what the figures relate to. The percentages were calculated using the mid-2007 population estimates for parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom of those aged 18 and above and the number of people registered to vote in parliamentary elections on 1 December 2007. We have a clear description of what we are talking about. No doubt the Electoral Commission will pore over our contributions to this debate and respond to us accordingly.

I turn to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. He knows that I have huge respect for him. We have worked on many issues over the years. However, I found his intervention extraordinary. It was almost like the intervention of a government Back-Bencher in the House of Commons desperately defending the position taken by the Government when clearly there is a deficiency in that position. What he is arguing essentially is that it would be acceptable for the Boundary Commission of England and Wales to set boundaries and to change those boundaries on the basis of every local authority having not taken,

“reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”.

That proposition is ludicrous.

I suspect that the Government will resist this amendment because they know that local authorities will not have the resources available. The issue has been raised by my noble friends, and I have discussed the Bill with a number of electoral registration officers in the past month, to which I have referred on previous occasions. They make it absolutely clear when I speak to them discreetly that they are very concerned about what might happen to their budgets in conditions of declining local authority expenditure. I cannot see how the Government can assure us that we will gain the high levels of registration that are required when they know that they are subject to these cuts. They know equally that local authority budgets are not ring-fenced, and I hold our own Labour Government responsible for that. We allowed local authorities to proceed on the basis that those budgets would not be ring-fenced. If we had decided to ring-fence them at the time, we might not be arguing as we are arguing today. We are arguing in fear of the fact that we know that electoral registration levels will not be as high as they should be.

I have another reason. I think that the Government are not prepared to secure the high levels of registration in the inner cities that are essential to make registration work. When we dealt with the Bill on electoral registration, I talked to electoral registration officers the first time the Labour Government tried to push through individual registration in the teeth of opposition from some of us. This was about 2006 when my noble friend Lord Bach was in Committee. He will remember the amendments that I moved to try to block individual registration. The fact is that parts of Britain’s inner cities are completely inaccessible to electoral registration officers. There are no-go areas in Britain’s inner cities. There are places where you cannot send canvassers. You cannot pay them to go into those areas because they are frightened of violence.

When I raised that problem on a previous occasion, people said that it did not arise. Why do they not go into the inner cities and talk to the people who have to knock on doors, ask the questions and hand over the forms? There is a real problem here. I had a number of conversations with electoral registration officers and I felt so angry that I wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, when it was inquiring into the Electoral Commission a few years back, to complain that the commission had failed to consider that matter when it was pushing electoral registration on Members of Parliament in the hope that they would get Parliament to approve individual registration. It got it in the end because the Government backed the recommendation.

[Lord Tyler]

If the situation is as dire as the noble Lord suggests in a minority but nevertheless presumably in a number of local authorities, I do not understand how the requirements of his noble friend’s amendment could possibly be met.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

That is precisely the point. The amendment says that,

“all reasonable steps to ensure”,

must be taken. We might well have to invest additional resources in the inner cities for canvassing teams to go around with forms to ensure that people are being properly registered. Unless there is an enforcement regime to deal with that problem, you will not get the electoral registration levels that are required.

Furthermore, the problem is escalating. I intervened on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, last week on when the subsequent boundary review—not the next one—will take place. It will take place on the basis of a register that he has drawn up on individual registration. I see a much larger problem arising in the long term, in perhaps seven or eight years’ time—not at the next election, but at the election after—which Parliament has not even begun to consider. When we dealt with this matter during the course of the Bill on electoral registration, we did not consider it because we did not realise that we would be faced with the nonsense that we are being faced with today.

As I said, I do not believe that the resources are there. They must be made available to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible before the Boundary Commission can complete its work.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, bearing in mind the late time of the evening, I will also try to be relatively brief. First, I apologise to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton for missing the first moments of his moving the amendment. I am inspired to speak by an encounter with my friend with a small ‘f’, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who earlier this evening urged me to speak in the debate because he had missed my dulcet tones, as he put it. I am always at the disposal of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, referred to Strathclyde Regional Council’s electoral registration duties. I was for five years a councillor on Strathclyde Regional Council, and I can testify to the noble Lord’s account of how it took its duties seriously. We were severely affected in Scotland and—my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport has referred to this—are still affected by the poll tax. The integrity, the aura, if you like, of the electoral register has been damaged. It is no longer an article of faith to make sure that you are registered. Lasting damage has been done to democracy by the imposition of the poll tax.

In discussing the Bill, I keep thinking that something is ajar or unbalanced. This is a constitutional Bill. One combination of votes in a House of Parliament can force through constitutional change, especially in a House where, previously, no single combination had the majority to deliver such legislation. I know that some people will jump up and say, “We are a coalition; we are still Conservatives and Liberals”. In this place, the Government are a combined operation and have a majority. That is unhealthy. This is a constitutional Bill, so that is entirely wrong. The rush to get it through is causing problems. It is causing problems for the Government, because I can read people's faces to a certain extent, and although the noble Lords on the Front Bench try very hard, they are not convincing all their Members. At this stage, most of them are voting for it—I think that the occasional Peer may vanish—but they are not winning the intellectual argument, because those on our Front Bench are putting the case.

The rush through this House is causing strains. It is causing noble Lords on the government Front Bench to act in a manner which, with two exceptions, is foreign to their character. I do not know about the third one, but certainly for two of them it is foreign to their character. Surely the electoral register has to be right before we start drawing boundaries on the basis of it.

The amendment would ensure that the Boundary Commission had to do everything “reasonable”—that is the key word—to ensure that people were registered to vote. Earlier, a noble Lord mentioned that we cannot make folk vote. As a noble friend of mine said, that is a different argument. It is our job as parliamentarians—Government and loyal Opposition—to ensure that people want to register and have that choice. It would be outrageous if they did not have that choice. If they do not vote, that is a condemnation of us all. We all have a duty to try to get there, but no one party or combination of parties should have the power to legislate, especially when it is changing the constitution of the country.

22:15

The harsh realities of local government life, especially in the next year or so at least, will be cuts. There is not a statutory duty on a local authority to have a positive electoral registration policy and to go out and look for people to register. The harsh reality is that the pressure is on councils to deliver a social work department, especially for the elderly and children, or an education department and, life and human nature being what they are, electoral registration is nebulous and not an immediate thing for the people concerned. That is the damage that this coalition Government are doing to democracy. I do not think it is an evil coalition; I do not think the coalition Government are there to do bad things deliberately; but the effect is bad, and that is the damage they are doing to democracy.

A previous friendly skirmish with my good old quarry, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, prompted me to table a Question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, regarding over-18 populations and those who are registered. For instance, in my former constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West in 2008, the population was 80,103 but the electorate came to 77,363, which is an imbalance of almost 3,000. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, may say that because the register is going to be taken from December 2010, there is a hope—it can be only a hope—that they will have caught those missing people and got them on. I trust the figures of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and arithmetic was never my strong point, but when I totalled all the different figures, there was a disparity of 281,000 people over 18 in Scotland who were not registered to vote in mid-2008. Without a measure as contained in this amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend, I do not see how that can be made up. Surely 283,000 is a massive disparity. I understand the pressure of getting a Bill through the House, although I have never resorted to writing notes or anything like that. The figure of 281,000 was only a couple of years ago, and who is to know what the disparity is now? The figures for 1 December 2010 will not be published until February, so I cannot refer to them. It is quite clear that there is a lot of work to be done on the register.

I am surprised that somebody has not jumped up and said that the previous Labour Government did not do anything about this. Is it going to be the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace? That is fine, but the difference is that if the previous Labour Government can be criticised for not doing enough on that, that previous Labour Government was not undemocratically changing the constitution of this country. That is the difference because that is what is happening. I am glad that the noble Lord took over to raise that while I am on my feet. We have this problem with registration. If this amendment is not the proper way to go about doing something about it, I do not hear anything coming from the government Front Bench to tackle that disparity, and I look forward to hearing whether there is any positive response to the justified fears that are being expressed.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, I promise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that I will genuinely be brief. I had not intended intervening in this debate, but it occurred to me as I was listening that if, for some bizarre reason, BBC Parliament and Radio 1 got confused and Radio 1 listeners had to listen to the nature of the debate we have had tonight, they would assume that this House had been overtaken by Martians because we are talking geek language. We are geeks, and we live the language of electoral registers and the necessity to get people involved in the democratic process.

But if we take it right back to basics, we have to be honest on all sides of this House that the craft of politics is held in very low regard in this country at the present time. We have an opportunity with this amendment to go some little way towards trying to restore that. This should not be a partisan point. Those of us interested in democracy and in the constitution of this country do so from the best possible motives. The way in which the Bill is crafted reads as if the lowest common denominator would be acceptable; that is, to get a register regardless of how accurate that register is.

If we are to make a breakthrough particularly with young people, disadvantaged people and those who feel that they are outside the system, if they turn up at a polling place and find that they are not on that register, we will have undone all the work that all of us in this House want to see done to re-engage people with the craft of politics. I urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—I know that his freedom of manoeuvre is limited—at least to say that he will look at these issues and the very important points that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made in his introductory remarks. The fact that a complete review has to be made of every constituency in this country is a measure of the scale of what is involved here. If the coalition Government were prepared to look at that, I am sure that we could together work to find a way that would help to reassure people that at least the lowest common denominator is not acceptable.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for this amendment, which has given us an opportunity to raise the two issues—the double barrels, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, referred to it—of the timetable for the boundary review and the very important issue of trying to ensure that the electoral register is as accurate as it can be. In the spirit of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes, I want to make it clear that this should not be a partisan issue with regard to trying to ensure that as many people who are eligible to register do register.

Perhaps I should also say at the outset, if it keeps the noble Lord, Lord Soley, happy, that I have not asked any of my colleagues not to speak. I know full well what their reaction would be if I tried to do so. Maybe he will interpret my not asking them not to speak as being to encourage them—I hope noble Lords follow me.

[Lord Soley]

I want it to be clear that no one on the government payroll has asked Members not to speak because of the time that it takes.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think that I have made it clear that I have not asked any of my colleagues not to speak. I am not quite sure that I could make it any clearer than that.

With regard to the timetable, the indication we have given is that we wish the changes in Part 2 to be in effect for the election due to take place in May 2015. One could say that that is dependent on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, but in any event, even under our present constitutional arrangements for the timing of elections, the latest date would be May 2015. It is the wish of the Government that constituency sizes should be of an equal size in time for that election. That is why we are asking the Boundary Commissions to bring forward their reports by October 2013. That would give time between the reports—one for each constituent nation of the United Kingdom—being published and an opportunity for the parties, the importance of which I think someone mentioned, to gear up, as it were, to what will be different boundaries.

With regard to the issue that I think was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about whether this is feasible, my noble friend Lord Phillips quoted from the Constitution Committee report where the Boundary Commission had indicated that it would be feasible. In giving evidence to the committee in another place, the secretary of the Boundary Commission for Wales said:

“I don’t think the timescales for Wales are going to be too challenging”.

The question was then directed to the secretary of the Boundary Commission for England, which is obviously much larger. He said:

“Taking a potential worst case scenario, based upon what is in the Bill in front of us, the initial view of myself and the Commission is that the timetable is achievable”.

The noble and learned Lord went on to ask why not do this in two and a half years every time, and why institute five-yearly reviews after that? The reason is that a five-yearly review would mean that there would be a boundary review in each Parliament. If he thinks about it, with a two and a half year or three-year review, you could have two reviews within one Parliament and a boundary review producing constituencies for an election that would not take place. I am sure he agrees that that would be farcical. That is the reason for the five-yearly review, and later we will debate other amendments regarding seven and eight year reviews. As was noted by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, the second part of the amendment has a six-yearly review. We believe that a review every five years would mean that in each Parliament, if the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill goes through, there is less likely to be disruption. The more frequent the reviews, the less the opportunity for wide divergence and therefore the less would be the likelihood of disruption.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I wish to intervene very briefly on the quotations used by the noble and learned Lord from the secretaries of the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, when they gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place. The note I have confirms that the secretary of the Boundary Commission for England said that the timetable was “achievable but tight” and that,

“extra resources would certainly be needed”.

I do not know what date it is assumed that the process would start and what extra resources would be provided.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not making any presumption about the date it will start because it would depend on Royal Assent, and therefore I am not going to speculate on when that might be. I know that the noble and learned Lord has a later amendment regarding resources, tabled for the avoidance of doubt. When we come to it, he will see that it is not necessary because as the Bill stands, the resources ought to be there to be drawn on for the purposes of this review. If he thinks about it, given all the comments made by noble Lords opposite about the Government wishing to get this piece of legislation through, they are hardly likely to wish then to frustrate it through lack of resources. That is perhaps self-evident. We will have a better opportunity to discuss the level of resources when we come to that particular amendment, but I would assure him that we do not anticipate that the issue of resources will be a barrier to the timetable being delivered.

Perhaps we may move on to the other barrel of the amendment, which would have the effect of delaying the boundary reviews until such time as,

“the Electoral Commission has certified that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”.

That is quite a steep requirement. My noble friend Lord Tyler questioned whether it would be appropriate for the Electoral Commission to make subjective judgments in cases that could have major consequences for a boundary review, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised some of the practical difficulties that again were picked up in an exchange with my noble friend Lord Tyler. I would simply observe that if the Electoral Commission decided that, in its judgment, one local authority in the whole of the United Kingdom had not done this, a boundary review could be put off indefinitely. It certainly would not be in time for the 2015 election, it might not be in time for the 2020 election, and it might not even be in time for the 2025 election. That is the possible logical consequence of the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord.

If there was a problem with a boundary review where the baseline for the review would be 1 December 2010, if we held elections in 2020 or 2025 where the boundaries for England were based on a baseline of data from the year 2000, that really does not address the very legitimate issues he has raised with regard to people who might be eligible to vote but might not be on the electoral roll.

22:30

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does the Minister really think that it is fair to draw boundaries in the inner cities on the basis of electoral registration figures that have been damaged by the fact that a whole canvass was not possible? Surely that full canvass has to be completed and maximum registration achieved before we can even begin to consider redrawing the boundaries. By not agreeing with me, the Minister is conceding, in the case of the argument about violence, that violence in many ways pays.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am only indicating that it could be a circumstance in which the Electoral Commission may take that view. All the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, identified may well have been addressed, but there may be a recalcitrant council somewhere in the country which, for one reason or another, has not done that.

I remind the Committee that electoral registration officers are under a statutory duty to compile and maintain comprehensive and accurate electoral registers. It is not as if it is a voluntary activity; there is an obligation on local authorities to compile as best they can comprehensive and accurate electoral registers. As was commented on earlier, the Electoral Commission’s report on performance standards for electoral registration officers in Great Britain, published in March, showed that just under 96 per cent of electoral registration officers met the completeness and accuracy of electoral registration records standard this year.

I salute what Glasgow has done—the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, mentioned this—and that should be the model. It is important that we have as accurate and comprehensive registers as possible. It is worth reminding the Committee that another report of the Electoral Commission, The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain, also published in March, stated that the UK’s registration rate of 91 to 92 per cent compared well with other countries. I am sure that that touches on the question of notional registration, which I am sure we will debate further when we come to Amendment 89C—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for advance notice of it. The 91 to 92 per cent figure for completeness is derived from the 2000 census, but it is an approximate measure. It could not form the basis of a boundary review as it does not provide sufficiently robust data to give confidence for something such as a boundary review. However, I take the noble Lord’s point and I shall carefully look at his amendment before we come to debate it.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Is the noble and learned Lord saying that this reforming Government are really satisfied that the present condition of electoral registers will do, that they are as complete and accurate as they need to be, and that it is therefore perfectly acceptable to go ahead with the boundary reforms on the timescale that is written into the Bill? Is he really saying that we can be complacent and be satisfied with the state of affairs that we have at the moment, particularly in the light of what my noble friend said about Bradford?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am rather disappointed because I have tried my best to listen to what noble Lords have said, and I rather regret that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, did not listen to me at the very outset when I said that I hoped that there was common ground in our not being satisfied that people who are eligible to be on the electoral roll are not. That should concern noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber. I apologise if I did not make that clear enough to the noble Lord.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Is the Minister saying that he is happy for the legislation to proceed on the basis of the present condition of electoral registers?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am saying that I do not believe that it is an either/or. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, mentioned the previous Labour Government. I think it is fair to say that 3.5 million people have not suddenly disappeared from the electoral register since 5 May 2010. Indeed, the figures which the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, gave related to mid-2008. It is a problem that occurred under the previous Administration; it is a problem which we must address. It is not as if we are sitting back; we are being far from complacent. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, said that there should be some leadership. I indicate to him and to the Committee that a pilot will be launched for local authorities to compare the electoral register against public databases to identify people who are not currently on the register.

There are other things, such as the door-to-door canvass, which has been referred to, and the importance of going back to contact people who have not responded, which there is an obligation to do. It is important that councils use their own data, such as council tax data. Some do and I understand that some do not, but it is important that they use that data. There ought to be other data. We are looking at using public databases to identify people not currently on the register—for example, the national insurance and DVLA databases. Those are the pilots that we want to set up.

[Lord Maxton]

I am delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord say that, because we have to use all the public databases available to us to ensure that we have an accurate register. We should start with a register and then check off its accuracy rather than the other way around. Could school records be included? That is one source where you know that someone leaves school at the age of 16 and you know where they live. Would it be possible to use those data for the electoral register?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hesitate because I do not want to say anything definite if there are data protection problems, but that is a positive suggestion and one that I will no doubt look at to see if it can be done. The noble Lord is absolutely right. It is one possible way and if it can legitimately be done I am sure that it will help. The pilots will be tried later this year. The precise locations have yet to be confirmed, but a report will be published by the Electoral Commission towards the end of the year. When pilots have been run, it will be possible to broaden the scope.

This is not an either/or. It is important that we do this. However, if we were to proceed with the amendment, not only is it possible that one or two councils would not be certified by the Electoral Commission before the 2025 election, but even on the basis of the 2015 election we would still be using data for England that would be 15 years old. If there are 3.5 million people missing, I suspect that the data for 2000 are even more damaging. There is a difference between the data that are used for calculating the numbers for the constituencies and the important objective year in, year out to make sure that the electoral roll is as up to date as possible and that people are on it who ought to be on it.

[Baroness McDonagh]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I certainly appreciate some of the things that he is looking at. However, to return to the point about evaluation of the registration system used by the Government, is he aware that this is self-assessment and that there is no independent validation of the system that the Electoral Commission uses? Will he look at an independent validation of the system?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hesitate because I am not entirely sure that I fully understand what the noble Baroness is asking me to do. I am sure that it is one of the things that I can look at in the record.

[Baroness McDonagh]

My point is that the figure that the noble and learned Lord is using of 96 per cent validation that the register has been compiled to the best of the person’s ability is completed by the person operating the system. They are the ones who sign a form to say that the work has been done adequately. There is no independent validation of the electoral registration system in this country. As part of the process that he is looking at in terms of data and so on, will he look at whether it is possible to have an independent validation of the system that is operated, as happens in most other government agencies?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There are two points there. The first is that the figure that we have been using of 96 per cent comes from a report published by the Electoral Commission. It was not published by the Government. That is a matter that will need to be taken up with the Electoral Commission. The point that the noble Baroness has made will be drawn to the Electoral Commission’s attention. The second point underlines that it is not necessarily the wisest move to say that the Electoral Commission then has to make a subjective judgment as to whether the terms and conditions of the certification that is inherent in this amendment are met.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Following what my noble friend said, why can there not be a random selection, a pilot project, to check whether the statistics to which my noble friend referred are accurate? It might well be that local authorities are not submitting particularly accurate returns. I presume that these figures from local authorities come from electoral registration departments. They could maybe take a dozen local authorities in various parts of this country and check whether that is the case. Secondly, when the Minister referred to the pilot projects before, is it true that the pilots, and the registration levels that arise as a result, will not influence the statistics that are to be used by the Boundary Commission in its review?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The first point is, as I have indicated, a matter for the Electoral Commission. At least two noble Lords in this debate—the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and my noble friend Lord Tyler—have identified themselves as advisers to the Electoral Commission. These points will have been noted.

As I confirmed in a debate before the Christmas Recess, the base for this boundary review was this 1 December past and the next one will be 1 December 2015, if this Bill goes through in full. That is more likely to be able to take account of the information from these pilots, and, I hope, broaden that out. I understand that there are issues on the Benches opposite about individual registration. It is more likely that these will be taken into account quicker than were we to wait for the day when certification comes from the Electoral Commission, as is proposed in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am grateful for the trouble that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has taken here. As he rightly says, there are two bits to this. The first part of my amendment questions the proposition that you could effectively complete a review of every constituency in this country by October 2013, which is what the Bill proposes, when there is agreement across the House that hitherto it has taken between six and seven years to complete such a review. I was looking for the reasons why that which hitherto has taken six to seven years can be dealt with between the date upon which this Bill gets Royal Assent—a date we know not but assume is some time in the next few months—and October 2013.

The evidence that the noble and learned Lord relied on was that the secretaries of the Boundary Commissions had said to the Political and Constitutional Committee that they think it can be done but—he might have disputed this—that the timetable would be tight. How will it be done? I do not know and it strikes me, from my knowledge of the way that such bodies operate, that to manage a much more complicated and difficult review than they have ever done before—it will touch every single constituency in the country—sounds unrealistic. I do not in any way criticise the noble and learned Lord for his answer but it did not really offer an explanation to me that provided any consistency on how this marvellous process could be done so much more quickly.

The second point is that we should really make efforts to ensure that people who are not registered are registered. The noble and learned Lord made the quite valid point that surely not every single local authority has to comply. Maybe we should have some rule or process that says “substantially all” local authorities should comply, but that was his only point. I am willing to be guided by him: he might produce some proposal if he thinks mine is too draconian. Let us give more room for manoeuvre. Every single person who has spoken in the debate has said that we should do something about under-registration. If our idea was too draconian, I would have expected the noble and learned Lord to have come forward with some idea about how we would achieve that which appears to be an aim shared by all Members of the Committee.

I thank the noble and learned Lord for taking the trouble to respond in the way that he did, but I have to say that his reply was disappointing. Of course I will not ask the Committee to divide at this time of night, but I will certainly come back on Report with an amendment to deal with the unrealistic timetable for the first review and to propose how one might deal with the issue of under-registration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 54A withdrawn.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.46 pm.