House of Commons
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
1. What plans he has for the future of RAF St Athan.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
The defence technical training change programme is currently considering options for the future location—or locations—of defence technical training. St Athan is one of the options being considered.
Alun Michael
I really do not understand the Government’s approach to this one. Does the Minister not realise that not going ahead with the St Athan defence training establishment as proposed snatches the advantages of integrated training away from all three services, and will be a body blow to south Wales, which is a region that has always been massively supportive of the services? Can we please have a decision from the Government on something positive about the future of St Athan?
Nick Harvey
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the private finance initiative project to deliver an integrated solution at St Athan failed—it simply was not possible to find a cost-effective solution and raise the funds necessary to build it. However, it does not follow that we have abandoned the proposition of an integrated solution. That is precisely what is being pored over at the moment by the change programme team. We hope to be in a position to draw that work to a conclusion as soon as possible.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that, in these times of financial hardship, rather than building a new facility it would make more sense to consolidate defence training in areas with spare capacity, such as HMS Sultan in my constituency? It delivers outstanding engineering training and is in the heart of a military community.
Nick Harvey
The current training takes place at a variety of locations across the three services, some of which, including HMS Sultan, are in good order and could provide training well into the future. However, I have to say that other locations are in rather less reputable states of order and will have to be replaced. The change programme is currently considering whether there are such overwhelming advantages to having everything on one site that they would overcome the case against leaving some of the better facilities, such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned. As soon as we have a conclusion, we will report to the House.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
2. What estimate he has made of the number of armed forces personnel and their dependants who will be affected by proposed changes to the uprating of armed forces pensions; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The change in the future uprating of public service pensions to the consumer prices index applies to all new pensions coming into payment, those pensions currently in payment and to the future uprating of deferred pension rights. CPI is deemed more appropriate than the retail prices index because the Bank of England uses it to measure inflation and it is an internationally standard measure. We understand the concerns that have been raised about this matter, but such is the scale of the economic problems that we inherited that no part of society—not even the armed forces—can be fully exempt from the need to find ways to reduce the budget deficit.
Mr Hanson
I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that the change to CPI will mean a lower pension for those currently on one, which will be particularly difficult for service personnel who are retiring early because of grievous injuries caused in conflicts we are currently undertaking. Will he confirm to the House whether the change is intended to be temporary for the purposes of deficit reduction, or whether he intends to short-change our personnel on a permanent basis?
Mr Robathan
We most certainly do care about those whose pensions may be affected. In April 2010, RPI was less than CPI—it was actually negative—so RPI is not always better than CPI for pension uprating. The move is intended to be permanent because it will go forward for all public sector pensions and will be how public sector pensions will be determined in the future. If the Opposition wish to change that, perhaps they should announce now that they will change all public pensions back to RPI, should they ever—God forbid—be re-elected to office.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
There is increasing anger about this policy, and that has now been joined and taken up brilliantly in a campaign by the Daily Mirror. Yet the Government will not say how much the move will save them; they will not admit that it could cost a young Afghan war widow £750,000 in payments; and they have not explained that although the deficit is temporary, this cut is permanent. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to offer a direct answer to a direct question: given that, as we now know, this is not about deficit reduction, has he consulted the armed forces families federations, and what have they told him about this permanent cut?
Mr Robathan
I shall be meeting the armed forces families federations in the very near future. However, I have been reading an article by the right hon. Gentleman in which he said that his pride in the armed forces was “lined with anger”—an interesting use of English! I was proud of the armed forces throughout the 18 years I served, and I, too, am angry—I am angry that we are faced with a financial situation that is damaging this country and our armed forces.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of Iran’s potential nuclear weapons capability; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons as assessed. However, it continues to pursue uranium enrichment and the construction of a heavy water research reactor, both of which have military potential, in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. We share the very serious concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran not having adequately explained evidence of possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme. We will therefore respond accordingly.
Richard Harrington
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but in the light of recent comments by Meir Dagan, who recently retired as the head of Mossad, about Iran’s first nuclear weapon possibly being ready by the middle of this decade, will he make a statement on how the Government intend to proceed in their approach to Iran’s nuclear programme?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend raises perhaps one of the most important questions at the present time, which is: how do we assess Iran’s intentions and how do we assess the time scale? Despite his long experience, I think that Mr Dagan was wrong to insinuate that we should always look at the more optimistic end of the spectrum. We know from experience, not least from what happened in North Korea, that the international community can be caught out assuming that things are rosier than they actually are. We should therefore be clear that it is entirely possible that Iran may be on the 2012 end of that spectrum, and act in accordance with that warning.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
May I invite the Secretary of State to read the article in the current edition of International Affairs by Professor Nigel Biggar, the regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at Oxford? He argues that
“one lesson that we should not learn from Iraq is never again to violate the letter of international law and intervene militarily in a sovereign state without Security Council authorization. The law’s authority can be undermined as much by the UN’s failure to enforce it, as by states taking it into their own hands.”
The one thing that might be worse than action against Iran is Iran possessing a nuclear weapon.
Dr Fox
The right hon. Gentleman makes a useful point. With the United Nations having made the assessment that it has, it is clear that we have a moral obligation to carry forward the actions outlined, not least the economic sanctions, which are now beginning to have an effect. For Iran to have a nuclear weapon would be the worst of all possible options for global security, not least because it is likely to usher in not only the end of non-proliferation but a nuclear arms race in the world’s most unstable region.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What sort of signal does it send to Iran and other hostile would-be proliferators that our nuclear deterrent could be put at ransom in the event of another hung Parliament, as a result of our not having signed the key contracts and the hostility towards the replacement of Trident evinced by the Liberal Democrats?
Dr Fox
The Government remain committed, including in the coalition agreement, to the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. As I am sure my hon. Friend would expect, I will be campaigning to ensure that the next Parliament is not a hung Parliament, but one in which we have a minority—[Interruption]—a majority Conservative Government.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I shall forgive the Secretary of State that slip of the tongue. Has he made any assessment of the breakdown of the P5 plus 1 negotiations in Istanbul, and can he say whether there are any plans to resume them?
Dr Fox
There is always a need to maintain the dialogue, if only to make it clear to Iran that there is no weakening in the position of the international community. It is also essential that, as well as just talking, real measures are taken. If we are serious about the Iran issue, we need to look at it this way. It is a binary question: Iran will either become a nuclear weapons state or it will not. If we are intent on the latter course, the international community needs to act as well as speak. At the present time, that primarily means ensuring that the financial sanctions, which are having an effect on the regime in Tehran, are fully implemented and that no domestic considerations are put ahead of international security and well-being.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the value for money of the AirTanker private finance initiative project.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
The price for the future strategic tanker aircraft service was set in competition and also assessed against a public sector comparator before the contract was let in March 2008. Nevertheless, because I understand the concerns about the use of PFI for military procurement, I commissioned a thorough, independent review of the contract, which concluded that there was now no persuasive value-for-money case for pursuing an alternative mechanism to secure this urgently needed capability.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Minister for that reply. This is but one of many apparently wasteful and expensive private finance initiative projects within the Ministry of Defence—including, most recently, dog kennels at the Defence Animal Centre that are reported to cost more than rooms at the Park Lane Hilton hotel. Does the Minister think there is a case for taking a very detailed look at the MOD’s PFI contracts to lower their cost and improve value for money to the taxpayer?
Peter Luff
I agree with my hon. Friend and I am glad to say that a lot of work is being done within the work strands on renegotiation of PFI contracts. Three operational PFI projects have been selected and the pilot phase has commenced with the aim of making savings as part of the renegotiation process. The three projects are the Corsham development, Main Building redevelopment and the defence sixth form college. We expect to have the potential savings identified by the end of March.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the AirTanker project secures tens of thousands of jobs in the UK and was the best option in comparison with the more expensive and sub-standard option put forward by Boeing?
Peter Luff
I am quite clear that the AirTanker will be an outstanding aircraft and do its job very well. It is urgently needed to repair a fragile air bridge and perform its main function of in-air refuelling as well. I understand, however, the hon. Gentleman’s point of view.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
5. What his policy is on the provision of benefits to veterans; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Veterans who are injured as a result of their service before 6 April 2005 can apply for compensation in the form of a war pension. For those whose disablement affects their ability to work, additional provision may be made in the form of supplementary allowances, paid in addition to the war pension.
Mr Robathan
The hon. Gentleman ought to discuss that matter with his own Front-Bench team, as it was the last Government who appealed against the ruling in favour of the atomic war veterans—
Mr Robathan
Absolutely. As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) will know, the courts have now decided in favour of the Government. I pay tribute to those who took part in the tests many years ago, but it was about 60-odd years ago and I am afraid that the courts have found that there is no causal link whatever between many of the disabilities and illnesses suffered and exposure to any radiation.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Will the Minister expand a little on his reply in respect of the long-term help that veterans will receive. He has referred to the short-term help, but many of the injured veteran personnel in my Devizes constituency are concerned about where the support will be in 20 or 25 years’ time.
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Injured personnel have a high profile and the support of the country at the moment, but in 15, 20 or 30 years’ time, it might be rather different. We are putting in place a whole raft of initiatives. I pay tribute to the last Government, who put a lot of it together. We supported the personnel recovery centre, among others, and there will be such a centre in Tidworth. God willing, we look forward to opening it in the near future.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Prime Minister announced a “health for heroes” scheme for veterans in a newspaper article on 23 January. How much funding has the Ministry of Defence dedicated to this scheme?
Mr Robathan
This is not actually an MOD but a Department of Health measure. As I understand it, the whole mental health package is worth £400 million and it will be announced in April. Some part of it will go towards assistance with mental health problems among members of the armed forces. We already provide a great deal of support to those with mental health problems, not least through the “Fighting Fit” report of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What his policy is on the use of individual and direct offset agreements in defence contracts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
The Ministry of Defence does not have offset agreements in defence contracts. We do invite prospective offshore suppliers to propose, on a voluntary and non-contractual basis, how they would work with UK companies in support of a contract placed overseas. Following the publication of a Green Paper in December, all policy issues relating to the acquisition of defence equipment are the subject of a consultation that closes on 31 March.
Mr Sheerman
Will the hon. Gentleman consider looking at this offset very seriously? Other countries use offset to great benefit, some using it to stimulate investment in environmental technologies. I know that the Government are consulting, as he says, so will he meet a group who have been discussing the issue and some of the industry leaders to discuss it further?
Peter Luff
I would be delighted to do so, as part of the Green Paper consultation process.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
8. What steps he is taking to increase the level of UK defence exports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
As I reported to the House during Question Time on 13 December, we are supporting defence exports through an active and innovative defence diplomacy initiative, working closely with the UKTI Defence and Security Organisation. Exports help to build and enhance relations with allies, to support the UK’s defence industry, and to drive down the cost of equipment for Britain’s armed forces. Ministers and officials from across the Government, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, are already actively promoting British defence exports overseas.
Eric Ollerenshaw
Does the Minister agree that there is a real potential for increased defence exports and the increased jobs that they would bring to every part of the country? Perhaps he sees the Type 26 global combat ship as a perfect example of that potential.
Mr Howarth
The global combat ship frigate programme does indeed present a tremendous opportunity for the United Kingdom to put the policy into practice. I am delighted to say that we are in close discussion with the Canadians. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just returned from an extremely profitable visit to Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Turkey. All those countries have expressed interest in joining the United Kingdom in a collaborative programme that would have the benefit of bringing together not only members of the Commonwealth but some of our key allies, while also driving down costs for the Royal Navy.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us how he will protect the United Kingdom’s defence industry, as other Governments throughout the world protect theirs? Or will he be leaving it open to market forces, which will inevitably mean that our armed forces will be supplied by foreign Governments and companies?
Mr Howarth
The United Kingdom is the second largest exporter of defence equipment in the world. This is a fantastic opportunity that builds on the very strength of Britain’s defence industry, which is the second most successful in the world. It is that on which we are capitalising, it is that which we are determined to support overseas, and it is that which, I am pleased to say, commands respect overseas. Let us not knock it; let us support it.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
At a time of necessary cuts in Government, some of my constituents would like to see the UKTI Defence and Security Organisation closed. What assurances are the Government given by our allies who receive defence exports that they will not use them to harm or, indeed, to intimidate their own people?
Mr Howarth
I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman wants to see UKTI DSO closed. I can see a few Opposition Members whose faces reveal that they view that prospect with great alarm, as indeed do all my hon. Friends—as well as, I see, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). UKTI DSO is doing a fantastic job, but that job is not done in isolation; it is done in accordance with long-established law, under which we ensure to the best of our ability that we do not export irresponsibly.
I repeat to the hon. Gentleman, who clearly failed to understand the purport of my original message, that defence exports are not there simply to generate income. They are there to strengthen alliances with existing allies, and to promote alliances with new, important allies, in a very volatile world.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to ensure value for money in his Department’s procurement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
The Government are determined to drive out the mismanagement of the equipment programme experienced under the last Administration. Developing a balanced, affordable programme must be our first priority. The strategic defence and security review and the current planning round process are major steps on the road to achieving that, but ongoing acquisition reforms, the work of the defence reform unit, and the appointment of Bernard Gray as Chief of Defence Matériel are also signals of our determination to address the issue successfully.
Mr Raab
I thank the Minister for his answer. I also welcome Lord Currie’s review of single-source pricing regulations. The major projects reports produced by the National Audit Office in 2009 and 2010 issued scathing assessments of the last Government’s record of purchasing defence equipment. How will the Currie review ensure better value for money for taxpayers?
Peter Luff
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the review, which I announced to the House last week. Given that some 40% of work by value is secured through this route, it is crucial to the taxpayer that we secure value for money from procurements. It is important for industry to be given incentives to reduce costs, and this will be good news for small and medium-sized enterprises, many of which find the present procedures for procuring work exceptionally onerous. Moreover, by making industry more competitive on world markets we will increase our export potential. It is a win-win situation.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell the House what the implications of the strategic defence and security review are for organisations and companies that depend almost entirely on Ministry of Defence contracts—for example, Remploy? The Remploy factory in my constituency depends entirely on MOD contracts and its workers are frightened for their jobs. Can he give me assurances that I can offer to those workers that their jobs are secure for the future, based on MOD contracts?
Peter Luff
I cannot offer that specific assurance—I am not aware of the specific situation—but I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the situation in detail, if that would help.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
What is the nature of the inquiries taking place into the procurement of the search and rescue helicopter contract? Do they involve the police or potential disciplinary action? When will we know whether the contract has been completely invalidated by what has been discovered?
Peter Luff
The investigation into the issue notified by the preferred bidder is ongoing. Until the issue has been properly considered it is not possible to progress to procurement. I hope that it will be possible to make a further statement to the House on the way forward. No decision has yet been taken on this matter and, in view of the issues involved, there is nothing more I can say at this stage to the House.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
10. What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of relocating Tornado maintenance facilities away from RAF Marham.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
As I said in answer to my hon. Friend on 8 November, all relevant costs, including those arising from any necessary relocations, will be given full consideration prior to any decision being taken. However, because the facilities she refers to are a major infrastructure installation, operated by contractors, it would inevitably be expensive to relocate.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the Minister for his answer. In Thursday’s The Press and Journal he is quoted as saying:
“The costs of relocating out of Marham would be very high”.
He also described the economics of making that decision as being “not…clever”. When is he going to present a full analysis? Given the state of the deficit, does he agree that cost should be a major factor in making the decision?
Nick Harvey
Let me make it clear to the House that the primary consideration in the basing study will be the military advantages and the military necessity of locating particular things in particular places. We will, of course, have to take account of the financial climate in which these decisions are being made and their socio-economic impact. We are addressing all these things and hope to make a full announcement in the spring.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on last week’s press reports that he told a meeting at RAF Lossiemouth that RAF Marham would be too costly to close. Those comments will have appalled those working at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Leuchars, who believed that they would get a fair hearing from Ministers as they carried out their base review. Should we not conclude from his comments that the review is nothing but a sham?
Nick Harvey
I should correct the hon. Gentleman by saying that the meeting in question took place at RAF Kinloss. What I said to the Moray Task Force, whom I was meeting at the time, was that the costs of moving the in-depth maintenance facilities from Marham and, indeed, paying to relocate the staff of the contractors involved would be so prohibitive that it would potentially undermine any savings that might accrue from closing a base. The economics of moving the in-depth maintenance facilities for Tornado at this stage in Tornado’s life cycle would, as I said on Thursday last, be very questionable indeed.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
11. What steps his Department is taking to increase the effectiveness of project management for its major projects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
The National Audit Office’s recent major projects report shows that the well-documented problems with some of the largest procurement projects have generally been caused by poor and deliberate policy decisions, and that project management itself is improving. But we are doing more to improve project management, including: running a programme to increase skills; forming a major projects performance board to review our most significant projects regularly; and appointing Bernard Gray as Chief of Defence Matériel, where he will build on the improvements made by his predecessor.
Stephen Barclay
Following numerous Select Committee recommendations, the Department’s own guidelines run to eight pages in setting out what should be included in project histories, yet the £4 billion Nimrod project history runs to just two pages; makes no mention of senior responsible owners or senior staff changes; and took the Department seven weeks to produce, even though it already has this document, which is marked unclassified and had no redactions. Will the Minister write to me within the next month listing all the major defence projects that do not comply with the Department’s own guidelines on documentation and what the gaps in documentation are?
Peter Luff
I am reluctant to turn this into a diary session for my diary secretary, but I think it would be very helpful to discuss this important issue with my hon. Friend. Departmental good practice guidance on maintaining project histories allows scope for project team leaders to interpret it and decide what best meets the needs of their project depending on its size, complexity and nature. The format and content are not mandated and, frankly, the problems with the Nimrod MRA4 project are about the most well-documented of any major procurement programme we have.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
Based on what I saw on my recent visit to Afghanistan, including my conversations with commanders and politicians, I assess that important security gains are being made. They are not irreversible and we can expect a high tempo over the winter and throughout the year. Although there are many challenges, there is cause for cautious optimism in the growth of the Afghan national security forces. We have the right strategy, numbers and equipment in place and now a little strategic patience is required to ensure that we are successful. Both 2011 and 2012 will be key years in that regard.
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the best way forward for Britain’s long-term strategic security interests is to form long-term relationships between the international security assistance force military leaders and the Afghan police and military commanders? What observations would he make on the level of co-operation between UK forces and Afghan security leaders?
Dr Fox
That is an ongoing and progressing relationship. I point my hon. Friend to one particularly successful project—the police training taking place in Helmand. Those involved in that project throughout the country would recognise that what the British armed forces are doing is very possibly and very probably the leading project of that kind. If we can not only continue with what we are doing but export it as best practice to others, we will be making a doubly important contribution.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Gains that are clearly being made by our armed forces at an operational level will be undermined if we do not get things right at the strategic level. The growing of the Afghan national security forces and the attacks being made on the Taliban leadership will not be enough on their own: what is being done to pump some life into the reconciliation process? Surely we need to get that strand of work up and running and get the Americans committed to it before the 2014-15 deadline.
Dr Fox
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. It has always been the case that there could not be a political settlement without a military settlement and vice versa. We now have quite large military gains on the ground, as he says, but he is quite correct that those gains cannot be maintained unless we get an acceleration in the pace of the political programme. There are gains being made at national and local level but they are neither widespread nor deep enough. We need to ensure that throughout this year we push the Government of Afghanistan to understand that we need to make progress now, while we have a reasonable following wind, because this is the crucial time to be able to get the gain on the ground that will make what we are trying to achieve sustainable.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that all the emphasis in recent months has been on the withdrawal of our combat troops by 2015 and that it would be worth while concentrating on putting some more flesh on the bones of the role that we will continue to play after then, including, perhaps, in officer training?
Dr Fox
Clearly, there will be a role for the United Kingdom to play in that period, but it would be impossible to assess now what it will look like without knowing what the contribution from the international community will be. We very much hope that our international allies in ISAF will recognise that the concept of in-together, out-together is a sensible one and that countries do not simply transition from the safe areas that some might be in at present, right out of Afghanistan, but instead take part increasingly in the NATO training mission. By that means, we can have a proper share of responsibility after the transition away from combat forces. I think that would give us greater legitimacy and would give the mission greater acceptability in the UK.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I agree with so much of what the Defence Secretary said in response to those questions. I returned from Afghanistan yesterday with the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary. We were all moved by both the bravery and the modesty of our armed forces in Afghanistan. I agree with the Defence Secretary that people are moving away from a sense of reluctant pessimism to cautious optimism about the effort in Afghanistan. With the international forces exiting combat roles by 2015, as he mentioned, and given the point that he made about training the army, which has to be strong, even though most recruits cannot read and write, and many recruits cannot even count the number of bullets to place in a rifle, what success has there been so far in trying to persuade some of those nations, which are leaving earlier than us, to commit to that training effort not just in their own areas, but across the whole of Afghanistan?
Dr Fox
May I say first how grateful we are to the Leader of the Opposition for reasserting the bipartisan approach to Afghanistan? It is very important for our national security and for the morale of our armed forces. I am grateful for that support, even if I know that it is not endorsed by all sections of his party. That makes the decision even braver and even more in the national interest, so I thank him for that.
The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) is right that it is important that we encourage those of our allies who may be moving out of a combat role into a training role. The decision taken by Canada in recent weeks is welcome. We wait to hear more details of the decision that may be taken by the Dutch. The National Security Council, on the Prime Minister’s instruction, has sought to find areas where Ministers have a particular personal engagement, where we might be able to maximise the pressures that we can bring to bear to get exactly that training mission outcome.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
13. Whether any components for the construction of Trident replacement submarines are to be purchased prior to main gate decision in 2016.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
We are currently considering the initial gate business case for the successor submarine and, as part of the next phase of work, we would expect to purchase some long-lead items so that the first boat can be delivered in 2028. This is normal good practice for major build programmes.
Dr Huppert
How much is the Minister planning to spend on Trident replacement before he gets parliamentary approval in the main gate? Will he seek parliamentary approval of such spending?
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
May I say how pleased I was to accompany the Minister with responsibility for procurement, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), around Barrow shipyard a couple of weeks ago? The Defence Secretary knows that of the £3 billion of so-called savings in the Trident value-for-money review, more than half are deferments. Will he tell the House the increased cost of deferment, and why he thinks that approach is acceptable, given how often he spoke out against it when he was in opposition?
Dr Fox
There are two imperatives. The first is to ensure that we have the successor programme. The second is to ensure that we do it within the financial constraints that the Government are forced to take on board, given the economic position that we inherited. Through the value-for-money study, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, we looked to see how we could extend the life of the current programme, if possible, to minimise the expenditure in early years. That is helpful not only in reducing the deficit in the period set out by the Government, but in ensuring the success of the programme itself.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
It would appear from the answers to freedom of information requests that the steel, the computer systems and the combat systems, among other things, for the first submarine have been ordered and will have been paid for. It also appears that the three reactors for the first three submarines will have been ordered and paid for before MPs can scrutinise the main gate business case. What will remain unspent for the first submarines? Will we be so financially committed that the whole main gate decision is made irrelevant?
Dr Fox
Whatever amount of money is spent on the lead items, technically it is up to any Parliament at any time to determine whether any programme can or cannot go ahead. It is clear from the coalition agreement that we are committed to maintaining a continuous at-sea minimum credible nuclear deterrent that will protect this country from nuclear blackmail and ensure that we make our role apparent in reductions in total nuclear armaments.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
How can the Government, who plan to save money by closing libraries and selling off our forests, justify wasting tens of millions of pounds on a useless virility symbol when they cannot give any plausible future situation in which Britain might use a nuclear weapon independently?
Dr Fox
I have explained the same point to the hon. Gentleman before. I can only explain it to him; I cannot understand it for him. What is important about the concept of deterrence is deterrence; that we do not need to use it. The whole point of deterrence is to make it clear to any potential aggressor that we will not even consider the impact of nuclear weapon strikes against the United Kingdom and so will maintain a nuclear deterrent to ensure that we never get to that position.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
14. What assessment he has made of the effect on armed forces pensions of proposed changes to indexation arrangements for public sector pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
No robust assessment of the kind requested can be made as future movements of the retail price index and consumer price index are not known. To use the current 2010 rate as the basis for any forecast would give an unreliable representation of future payments in the long term as these rates will fluctuate over time.
Gregg McClymont
I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not agree that most studies suggest that CPI produces a higher pension than RPI? Does that not count as a cut in military and service personnel pensions?
Mr Robathan
If I may gently prod the hon. Gentleman, he has it the wrong way round: RPI is more likely to produce a higher pension than CPI, which is not what he said. As I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), there was no upgrading of pensions at all in April 2010 because RPI was negative in 2009, and that is the way things are. It was a hard decision, but we believe that it is in the best interests of the country and of the armed forces as a whole.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
15. What estimate his Department has made of the cost to the public purse of returning British troops from Germany (a) between 2010 and 2015 and (b) between 2015 and 2020; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
The strategic defence and security review stated the Government’s aim to withdraw all forces from Germany by 2020. That objective is now being taken forward within a wider basing study aimed at making the best possible use of the defence estate. The basing study will take into account a range of factors, including cost, and is expected to report in the spring. Any costs incurred as a result of rebasing should be offset by the savings made in the longer term. While on a day-to-day basis it is more expensive to base troops in Germany than in the UK, this policy is not primarily about saving money. It is about enhancing our operational effectiveness and welfare.
Grahame M. Morris
I thank the Minister for that answer, but how much will the UK Government need to pay the German Government in compensation or reparations when our bases are vacated by British troops and handed back to German control?
Nick Harvey
The Government may need to pay redundancy costs to locally employed civilians, depending on circumstances, and costs might also be incurred in buying out any contractual obligations. However, the UK Government are not obliged to compensate either the Federal German Government or local communities for the impact of the British Army leaving Germany. The net injection to the German economy is around £700 million a year, so the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on whether that might be better injected into the British economy.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of the considerable capital investment programme of the past 10 years for garaging and other heated facilities for armoured vehicles of the British Army of the Rhine. Will there be a similar programme in this country, or will the vehicles remain in Germany?
Nick Harvey
There is a general principle that we do not ask the Army to relocate to premises that are inferior to those in which they are already stationed. It would certainly be our intention to ensure that that is the case when they return to the UK.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
16. What recent assessment he has made of how the commitments in the strategic defence and security review are to be funded from his Department’s budget settlement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
The strategic defence and security review established the policy framework for the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, and the capabilities that they will need to meet future challenges. It includes a period of rebalancing over the next few years as we transform, but further work is required to fully balance the books because we are not there yet and are still in planning round 11.
Kevin Brennan
In a recent Financial Times article on the subject, headed “MoD faces fresh crisis over funding”, which predicted a £1 billion shortfall for each year, a senior military figure is quoted as saying:
“Every day at the MoD these days seems like a day at the dentist.”
What on earth could he have meant?
Dr Fox
I have no idea, but, given that I can pick in any one newspaper on any one day at the present time some quotation from some senior former or serving military personnel, I can put all sorts of interpretations on all sorts of things. What I am very clear about is that Ministers and the military will work together to deliver the SDSR and our 2020 vision. Hopefully, through that period of transformation, we will come out with armed forces properly equipped and shaped for Britain’s proper national security.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
17. What recent discussions he has had on civilian personnel reductions in his Department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I have regular discussions, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on civilian reductions. There is also an ongoing dialogue between officials and the recognised departmental trade unions over the implementation of the civilian reductions.
Luciana Berger
I thank the Minister for that response. Can he kindly outline which units in the Ministry of Defence he anticipates the 25,000 job losses announced in the strategic defence and security review will come from? If he cannot say now, can he outline when he will be able to end the uncertainty?
Mr Robathan
That is a perfectly reasonable question from the hon. Lady, but I am afraid I cannot say now. There are two things that I should say, however: first, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are meeting the trades unions about those reductions late in February; and secondly, the permanent secretary to the MOD announced on Friday night—released, therefore, to most people this morning—the forthcoming launch of the voluntary early release scheme. I am sure that the full text will be in the Library.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended now and in the future, that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in their military tasks and that we honour the armed forces covenant.
Nick Smith
In terms of the Department’s major projects, how much does the Minister think it can save through contract renegotiation, as announced in the SDSR?
Dr Fox
There can be some savings on contract renegotiation, and they are currently being discussed, but in the very near future I shall set out a new set of rules for the management of financial projects, which I hope will ensure that we get real-terms control over budgets. Far too often, we have been looking at post-mortems by the National Audit Office, and in my previous profession I did not regard post-mortems as a satisfactory outcome.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
T2. As my right hon. Friend seeks to build the armed forces covenant, will he pay close attention to the Strachan report and, in particular, those recommendations to offer enhanced accommodation allowances, expand the pilot shared equity scheme and encourage banks to offer forces-friendly mortgages, so that members of our armed services get a firmer foot on the property ladder?
Dr Fox
It was, indeed, a valuable set of recommendations, and we are going through them one at a time at the moment. I am instinctively very much in favour of all the elements that my hon. Friend sets out, and in the very near future we shall in fact produce some further projects, which I hope will provide considerable enhancements to some elements of the covenant not previously covered—and at minimal cost to the taxpayer.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State wrote to the Prime Minister on 27 September saying that scrapping Nimrod would
“limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly…increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime counter terrorism, remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan.”
Given the sight of Nimrod being broken up last week at Woodford, can he tell the House whether that decision was taken for defence reasons or because he lost his battle with the Prime Minister?
Dr Fox
Here is the extent of the humbug. The previous Government, in March 2010, actually took the Nimrod MR2 out of service, so there was already a capability gap by the time this Government came to office. First, we looked at the strategic environment, and the service chiefs and the intelligence services advised us that the gap that would be left could be managed with the assets that were already being used to fill the gap that the previous Government left when the MR2 was withdrawn. Secondly, the financial project itself was too long over time, and too far over budget—it was not able to fly and carry out the tasks that were asked of it. It should have been cancelled years ago. This Government had the nerve to do it; the previous Government did not.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
T3. Will my right hon. Friend explain the steps that he is taking to ensure that in future the defence budget is put on a sustainable footing, so that future incoming Governments do not have to cancel capabilities such as the Nimrod MRA4 because of the reckless spending of their predecessors?
Dr Fox
None of us wanted to see reductions in the defence budget for their own sake. What the House and the country need to understand is that the size of our national deficit is a national security problem. Next year, this country will be paying £46 billion in debt interest against a defence budget of only £37 billion. Even if the current Government eliminate the deficit within five years, that debt interest will rise. That is money being paid for nothing because the last Government were unable to contain their urge to spend, spend, spend.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
T4. Can the House be assured that the pace of submarine production at the Barrow shipyard is sufficient to retain the skills that will deliver an independent, British-made successor to the Vanguard submarine?
Dr Fox
Yes. In the SDSR, we are committed to the seventh Astute submarine, partly to ensure that the skills base was there as we went through to the successor programme. We regard the ability to build and maintain our nuclear deterrent successor programme as part of our sovereign capability.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
T6. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that British small businesses get a greater share of defence contracts, in terms not only of volume, but of value?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that very important plank of our policy towards the defence industries. At present, we are consulting through the Green Paper and I urge him to respond to that consultation. There are 18 separate questions on what we can do to improve the relationship between small and medium-sized enterprises and the MOD.
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the outstanding work of the Centre for Defence Enterprise, which is bringing innovative SMEs into the defence market for the very first time, and is very much welcomed by those SMEs.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
T5. The Big Lottery Fund has recently extended the deadline for the excellent Heroes Return 2 scheme, administered from Newcastle, that provides funding to help veterans and their families take part in commemorative visits, either in the UK or abroad. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been encouraging my constituents to take advantage of the scheme. Will the Minister outline what support he and his colleagues are providing to encourage uptake of that funding?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
We certainly support the scheme, which I understand is largely run by the Royal British Legion, although I do not have the details at my fingertips. It is an excellent scheme. We support the national lottery, the Royal British Legion and the whole programme.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
T7. Given the Government’s desire to improve armed forces accommodation and obtain greater value for money for the taxpayer, does the Minister accept that useful lessons can be learned from the Canadian Government’s example of outsourcing the management of armed forces housing, a policy that produced savings and improvements to accommodation facilities?
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend is right. We are looking at every option as to how we can make housing for our troops more efficient. We shall certainly look at what my hon. Friend has mentioned as well; if he wants to make a submission, he is very welcome so to do.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Ministry of Defence is aware that Moray is the most defence-dependent community in the UK and uniquely faces the threat of a double RAF base closure. Does the Secretary of State understand the damage that the delayed basing announcement is having on the economy of the north of Scotland? Why is there a delay in the announcement in the first place, given that the RAF made its basing recommendation at the end of last year?
Dr Fox
We have some evidence, but not the final submission, on that. Of course, we are also awaiting from the Army the elements of rebasing that may be part of the issue relating to the return of British troops from Germany.
I fully understand that many have an increased level of anxiety because of the time taken to make those decisions. But they are not single decisions; they are interrelated decisions. Although I do understand, I am afraid that we have to ensure that we make the right decision, not just a quick decision.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
T8. Shortly after the formation of the coalition, Lord Levene and others were appointed to review defence procurement. Some of us hoped that that might mean a radical reform of protectionist procurement. What progress can the Minister report on Lord Levene’s review and any recommendations that may be forthcoming?
Dr Fox
Before the general election, we set out four aims for procurement: that it would give our armed forces what they need when they need it, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer; underpin our strategic relationships; give greater stability for planning; and increase exportability. Those are all still aims that we are hoping to achieve. The review is well under way. The Defence Reform Unit has considered a number of these issues. Together with the appointment of the new Chief of Defence Materiel, I can assure my hon. Friend that, if anything, we will be at the radical end of reform.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I know that Ministers touched on this issue earlier, but air-sea rescue is of enormous interest, not only to me but to the nation. I have attempted to get the answer to this question, so can he tell me whether the lead Department is the Ministry of Defence or the Department for Transport? When can we expect a statement in the House about this issue?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
Both Departments are involved, but the lead Department is the Department for Transport, and any statement to the House will come from Transport Ministers. We hope that that will happen as soon as possible but, as I think the hon. Gentleman will understand, legal complexities are at play. The key thing is to decide how we are going to take forward search and rescue facilities, and I hope that the Department for Transport will be in a position to make a statement to the House very soon.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
T9. Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the importance of the contribution of smaller countries to our mission in Helmand province, and, in particular, the very gallant and disproportionate contribution made by Estonia and Denmark?
Dr Fox
Few things give me greater pleasure in this House than to acknowledge the sacrifices made in Afghanistan by some of the smaller countries, two of the most important of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend. I hope to make a visit to Afghanistan with Defence Ministers from some of those countries. The whole House will want to place on record our solidarity not only with the families in Denmark and Estonia who have suffered loss, as have families in the United Kingdom, but with the outstanding military contribution that they have made, which is perhaps, in many ways, a good example to some of the sleeping giants in NATO.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Government have pledged 12 new Chinooks, which are crucial for the UK defence industry capacity and for national security because of their role in Afghanistan. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have signed the contracts for these new helicopters? If not, can he explain what that means for the British defence industry, when he expects the contracts to be signed, and when these much-needed Chinooks will enter theatre?
Mr Speaker
I counted about four questions there, but the Minister is a specialist in pithy responses, and we will hear him.
Peter Luff
I can confirm the answer to that question when the current planning round is settled, but I assure the hon. Lady that we understand the importance of these helicopters for the mission in Afghanistan.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
A key player in the security situation in Afghanistan is Pakistan, which, in the war on terror, has seen more of its civilians and security and military personnel killed than any other country. Last week, I was part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Pakistan. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking the Government and people of Pakistan for their efforts to date and encourage them to maintain that level so that our forces in Afghanistan are supported?
Dr Fox
What we are attempting to deliver in Afghanistan will not be possible without the support of the Government of Pakistan. Perhaps a good note for all of us to have would be one that reminds us to thank the Government of Pakistan when they do what is helpful to the mission rather than criticise them when the opposite is true. It is also of great importance that we in the United Kingdom, and our allies, make it clear that we have a post-Afghanistan strategy for Pakistan and that we intend to have a long-term programme of help and encouragement.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Health Protection Agency has said that servicemen present during atomic bomb tests more than 50 years ago have since been plagued with cancers and rare medical conditions. Did the Minister see reports in the media yesterday that the MOD has ignored urgent calls for research into the health of nuclear test veterans, and will he agree to have the DNA of test veterans studied as a matter of urgency?
Mr Robathan
There have been many studies into the health of those who witnessed the explosions on Christmas Island, and they have concluded that those who witnessed the explosions have not suffered greater health problems than others. I stand by the clinical and legal position on that, as did the previous Government, whom the hon. Gentleman would presumably like to say he supports.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Has the Secretary of State assessed the state of rehabilitation services for members of the armed forces who have received trauma care, and who are living with complex, life-changing injuries? Will he accept representations from me on behalf of a constituent?
Mr Robathan
I would be happy to accept representations. The trauma care given by the medical services in the armed forces is excellent. There is a 25% chance of survival, whereas there is only a 6% chance of survival in the national health service. The Secretary of State for Health and I went to Birmingham 10 days ago for the opening of the new Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology research centre at the Queen Elizabeth hospital. That is an excellent facility that leads the way in trauma care in this country.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Given that the Department is currently holding a consultation on how to decommission nuclear submarines, will the Secretary of State give my constituents a cast-iron guarantee that not a single bolt will be taken out of those submarines until a waste route has been identified and, crucially, established?
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that avoiding nuclear arms proliferation, wherever it comes from, is a key objective of his Department? Will he update the House on what he is doing to pursue that objective?
Dr Fox
As I mentioned earlier, the House will be aware that there is one great threat to global non-proliferation: the ambitions of Iran. There is no more important policy for long-term security and for the maintenance of the non-proliferation treaty than ensuring that Iran, although it may have access to civil nuclear capabilities, does not become a nuclear weapons state. I do not think that I could have ended on a clearer note.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Why, when the Prime Minister said there would be no cuts in infantry capability while we were on a combat mission in Afghanistan, is the strength of the Royal Marines being cut?
Nick Harvey
There is a very small headcount reduction in the Royal Marines—the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. However, those units were not going to be deployed to Afghanistan and, in consequence, this will not undermine the effort in that country.
Greg Mulholland
(Leeds North West) (LD): The city of Leeds has very close connections with HMS Ark Royal, following the remarkable fundraising campaign by local people and the adoption of the ship in 1941. On 12 February, the crew of HMS Ark Royal will be given the freedom of the city of Leeds and will take part in a parade. Will the Secretary of State join me in saying what a wonderful event that will be? Does he agree that there should be a permanent commemoration of this link?
Reform of Health Services (Wycombe)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) presents his petition, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, extending the same courtesy to the petitioner that they would want to be extended to them.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The petitioners of the residents of Wycombe declare that they are
concerned and unhappy about the continuing loss of control in the hospital services that are in the constituency.
The 1,547 petitioners
therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to take steps to ensure that the constituents of Wycombe are given the freedom to use the latest health reforms to work towards fair funding, make the hospital subject to greater local control, and that clinical staff have freedom from centralised planning and targets.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Wycombe,
Declares that the petitioners are concerned and unhappy about the continuing loss of control in the hospital services that are in the constituency; and notes that, in recent years, the petitioners have witnessed the closure of Accident and Emergency, the temporary closure of the maternity unit, and the potential loss of urology services at Wycombe Hospital.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to take steps to ensure that the constituents of Wycombe are given the freedom to use the latest health reforms to work towards fair funding, make the hospital subject to greater local control, and that clinical staff have freedom from centralised planning and targets.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000881]
Egypt
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the situation in Egypt. First, may I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State for his absence? The House may be aware that he is attending a Foreign Affairs Council today, where this issue is at the top of the agenda.
The calls for political reform in Egypt have been peaceful, but the general unrest has become increasingly dangerous, with elements of violence leading to lawlessness in some areas of major cities such as Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. Severe restrictions on freedom of expression, including the closure of internet access and mobile phone services, have only fuelled the anger of demonstrators. We have called on the Egyptian authorities to lift those restrictions urgently.
I am sure that the House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to all those affected by the unrest in Egypt, including the families and friends of those who have been killed and injured. Casualty figures remain unclear, but it is estimated that at least 100 people have died. On Saturday, the army took over responsibility for security in Cairo, and its role has so far been welcomed by protestors. Our aim throughout these events has been to ensure the safety of British nationals in Egypt and to support Egypt in making a stable transition to a more open, democratic society.
I turn first to consular issues. There are an estimated 20,000 British tourists in Egypt, the majority of whom are in the Red sea resort of Sharm el Sheikh, where, according to our latest information, the situation remains calm. We estimate that there are a further 10,000 British nationals in the rest of Egypt.
On Friday 28 January we changed our travel advice to advise against “all but essential travel” to the cities of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and Luxor due to the severity of demonstrations there. On Saturday 29 January, we heightened our travel advice further to recommend that those without a pressing need to be in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez leave by commercial means where it was safe to do so. Those in Luxor are advised to stay indoors wherever possible. A daily curfew remains in place throughout Egypt from 3 pm to 8 am.
Cairo airport is open, but has been operating under considerable difficulties. The situation was particularly difficult yesterday, but our ambassador in Cairo reports that it has eased a little today. Flights are operating but are subject to delays or cancellation. The majority of British nationals have been able to leave Cairo airport today. We estimate that about 30 British nationals will remain at the airport overnight, to depart on scheduled flights tomorrow. The situation also appears to be improving in Alexandria, with road access to the airport now secure. We have staff at Cairo airport working around the clock to provide assistance to any British nationals who require it. We also have staff in Alexandria, Luxor and Sharm el Sheikh, who are providing regular updates about the situation on the ground in those parts of Egypt and staying in close touch with tour operators and British companies on the ground.
Additional staff reinforcements from London and the region have been sent to Egypt to help embassy staff maintain essential services in these difficult circumstances. A 24-hour hotline is available for British nationals to call if they need assistance or advice, and help is also available around the clock from the crisis resource centre at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am sure the House will join me in recognising the hard work and dedication shown by all our staff, in both Egypt and London, in responding quickly and professionally to the unfolding events.
I turn to the political situation in Egypt. The UK has major strategic interests in Egypt, which has played an important role as a regional leader, including in the middle east peace process, and we are the largest single foreign investor. The scale of the protests is unprecedented in Egypt in the past 30 years. We have called on President Mubarak to avoid at all costs the use of violence against unarmed civilians, and on the demonstrators to exercise their rights peacefully.
In response to the growing protests, President Mubarak announced on 28 January that he had asked the Government to resign. On 29 January, he appointed the head of the Egyptian intelligence services, Omar Suleiman, as his vice-president and Ahmed Shafiq, most recently Minister for Civil Aviation, as Prime Minister. Further Cabinet appointments have been made today. However, demonstrations have continued and are now focused on a demand for President Mubarak to resign.
It is not for us to decide who governs Egypt. However, we believe that the pathway to stability in Egypt is through a process of political change that reflects the wishes of the Egyptian people. That should include an orderly transition to a more democratic system, including through the holding of free and fair elections and the introduction of measures to safeguard human rights. Such reform is essential to show people in Egypt that their concerns and aspirations are being listened to.
We continue to urge President Mubarak to appoint a broad-based Government who include opposition figures, and to embark on an urgent programme of peaceful political reform. We are also working with our international partners to ensure that those messages are given consistently and that technical and financial support for reform is available. The Prime Minister has spoken to President Mubarak and President Obama. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and EU High Representative Baroness Ashton over the weekend, and he will also be discussing the situation in Egypt with EU colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council today.
The situation in Egypt is still very uncertain. The safety of our citizens is our top priority, and we are putting in place contingency plans to ensure that we are prepared for all eventualities. I commend this statement to the House.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing a copy in advance.
The House is united today in expressing our concern at the loss of life in Egypt since last Wednesday. As the Minister said, it has been reported that more than 100 lives have been lost, and I join him in expressing condolences to the families and friends of all those who have been killed or injured. Thousands of courageous Egyptian citizens have taken to the streets to demonstrate for the basic political freedoms that we in the United Kingdom can take for granted. We welcome what the Minister has said today in support of an orderly transition to a broad-based Government who will address the legitimate grievances of the Egyptian people.
Two weeks ago, we expressed concern about the speed at which the Government were offering support to British nationals who were stranded in Tunisia. We welcome the lessons that have clearly been learned since then, as this has ensured a swift response in getting the information and guidance that the Minister has described to British nationals in Egypt. As he said, the Foreign Office has issued travel advice urging British nationals not to travel to Cairo, Alexandria, Luxor or Suez, and to leave by commercial means when it is safe to do so. I thank the Minister for updating the House today on the assistance that is being given to those British nationals trying to leave Egypt, and I join him in commending the hard work and dedication of the FCO’s staff in Egypt and here in London. I also welcome his announcement of additional staff. Can he assure the House that the Government have contingency plans in place to cover every eventuality, and that they now have enough consular officials on the ground to provide the necessary advice and assistance to UK nationals in Egypt?
The European Union has an important role to play in promoting regional stability and security in the middle east and north Africa, and it is encouraging to hear that Egypt is at the top of the agenda for today’s European Foreign Affairs Council. Does the Minister agree that the European Union should place greater emphasis on supporting the development of democracy, pluralism and human rights throughout the middle east and north Africa?
Over the past 30 years, Egypt has played a crucial role in fostering steps towards the middle east peace process. There are legitimate concerns that a political vacuum in Cairo could undermine the already precarious prospects for peace. Can the Minister update the House on discussions with Egypt’s neighbours, including Israel and the Palestinian Authority, who have important concerns for the peace process and for the stability and security of the wider region? The Minister told us that the Prime Minister had spoken to President Obama about events in Egypt. Could the Minister update the House on the progress of those discussions with the US Administration?
A disturbing feature of the past week’s events has been the regime’s censorship of independent media. I join the Minister in calling for an urgent end to restrictions on internet access and television broadcasting across Egypt. As he said, it is not for the United Kingdom to decide Egypt’s future path; that is a matter for the people of Egypt. Does he agree, however, that the United Kingdom has a responsibility to those people to support their demands for freedom and to encourage an orderly transition to a more open, democratic and pluralist Egypt?
Alistair Burt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone and content of his remarks, and particularly for his appreciation of the work of our consular staff in London and Egypt. I think that he and I see the political situation there in very similar terms.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question on consular staff, we have 20 members of staff at Cairo airport. They are very visible, because they are wearing orange bibs so that people can see them. I understand that we are the only Government who have staff there. Indeed, a number of them slept there last night in order to be on hand constantly to deal with any issues and to show a degree of solidarity with the British citizens who were required to spend the night at the airport because of the curfew restrictions. We hope we have enough people in place to do the job of answering all the questions.
In terms of EU support over a period of time, Egypt has an association agreement with the EU, which is implemented through a jointly agreed action plan. Although Egypt has implemented some of its commitments on economic reform, progress has been more limited on political and social reform. Indeed, the engagement with the EU contains vital steps on political and social reform—those are pressed on all nations that wish for such relationships. It is only to be hoped that reform ideas will be further implemented as a result of the events that we have seen taking place.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the middle east peace process. He is right that this situation has come at a very difficult point in that process. An awful lot of work is being done to try to get the parties closer together. Egypt has been an ally in terms of moderate Arab opinion, and of course made its own arrangements—a peace agreement—with Israel some time ago. Clearly, whatever Government emerge in Egypt, and whether the president continues or something else happens in due course, our strategic interests remain the same. We clearly hope for a Government in Egypt who see the middle east peace process as the absolute bulwark to the solutions that are needed in that whole region, and who see that it is crucial to proceed with the process. I know that those concerns are shared in Israel.
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about media restrictions, and we are pressing Egypt extremely hard on those matters. Egypt has international commitments to freedom of expression, which has been severely curtailed by restrictions on the internet and electronic media. Our sense is that that actually does no good at all, because of the way in which information spreads these days. Clamping down on one media simply squeezes the bubble and more information appears elsewhere. For all sorts of reasons, not least in respect of getting information to people when there are security difficulties, which we need to do, it would be best not to stop information spreading.
The Prime Minister has had conversations with US President Obama, as the Foreign Secretary has with Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Again, there is a common feeling that the demands of the people in Egypt for political reform have been long-standing, and that they are not going to go away, whether they are suppressed or repressed. The only way forward is to look for a proper political process that will give an orderly transition to a state of government of which political reform, free and fair elections, and an acknowledgment and acceptance of free expression, are key parts. On that, the US and UK are absolutely agreed.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned support for the people of Egypt. As I indicated earlier, it is not for this country to decide what Government there might be, but there are principles that underpin a stable society. Openness, transparency, accountability and a free political system are, in fact, not agents of dangerous change, but the foundations of political stability. The Government share that view with all in the House. We hope that there is an orderly and peaceful transition towards such a future for the people of Egypt.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
The Minister has acknowledged that while the departure of President Mubarak would be welcomed on democratic grounds, it would also remove one of the most powerful forces for foreign policy moderation in the middle east. Does he also acknowledge that Egyptian public opinion is far more radical on the peace process and other issues than the President has been, and therefore that the emergence of populist Government could carry the risk of Egypt aligning itself more with Syria and Iran, which would have very disturbing implications for the prospects of peace in the region?
Alistair Burt
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Egypt’s place in ensuring regional security and helping towards finding a way through the very difficult problems in the middle east is well known. No one quite knows what will come out of the greater involvement of the democratic process, but it is to be hoped that Egypt’s strategic interests are in regional stability and in furthering the peace process. It will be a matter of free and public debate as to how that argument continues, but this country’s strategic interests and those of others are best served by a Government of whatever sort who recognise my right hon. and learned Friend’s point—that is a Government who ensure stability in the region, and as I indicated earlier, a Government who help all parties to move towards a middle east peace process settlement as quickly and effectively as possible.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Does the Minister not recognise that stability sought through non-democratic means, including the removal of people’s freedoms, can only be temporary, and that although democracy can have many inconvenient consequences, including the election of people we do not like, it is far better, in the medium term, for the stability of the region and Egypt’s future that there be free and fair elections in which candidates of any party and persuasion can stand and take office?
Alistair Burt
The right hon. Gentleman speaks the truth. Of course, democracy has its difficulties—we all understand that very well. However, as I tried to indicate in the conclusion of my earlier remarks, it is absolutely clear that the forces of democracy, including free expression, criticism, accountability and transparency —however uncomfortable—are a better foundation for longer-term stability than anything that seeks to repress those feelings, as we have seen not only in Egypt, but in other places. I am quite sure that whatever the democratic process produces will have to be acknowledged by countries around Egypt. However, we all hope that the process will bring people to a recognition that the opportunity to express their feelings about how they wish their country to develop should be taken maturely and effectively.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does the Minister accept that in formulating our response to events in Egypt we are to some extent hindered by the ambiguity of previous policy towards not only Egypt but the region, which appeared to put security of energy supply—particularly oil—above issues of democracy and human rights? How will the Government set the balance?
Alistair Burt
Over a number of years, this country and others have engaged consistently in conversations with those in Egypt and other countries in the area about the need for political and social reform. Two weeks ago, I was at a conference in Doha with G8 countries and those representing the broader middle east and north African area. It was the seventh time that this conference had taken place and such engagements had occurred, and a recurring theme was how political and social change could happen in the region. G8 countries sent a consistent message, as the European Union has done over a period of time, and as this Government have done, and I do not think that there is an inconsistency in trying to achieve stability in such a way.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is there not the danger that the longer the Egyptian Government try to keep the top on the pressure cooker, the more people will be forced or inclined to look towards radical alternatives, not only in Egypt but elsewhere? Is not the role of organisations such as the BBC World Service of even more significance, therefore, given that we are trying to ensure that people have access to a fair interpretation of events on the ground?
Alistair Burt
As I indicated earlier, free expression is very important. People access information about what is going on by a variety of methods—it is clear that the information tide will never be rolled back. The BBC World Service has played its part, and a new and reformed BBC World Service will continue to do just that.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Minister said that Egypt is no Tunisia. In population terms, it is the largest Arab state and a force for moderation, and the treaty with Israel is important and enduring. As highlighted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), a disorderly transition could lead to huge uncertainty, particularly as far as that treaty is concerned.
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why all nations, including the EU, the United States and partners, are united in asking for an orderly transition. Opposition can no longer be repressed, but there must be an orderly transition towards a reformed Egypt to ensure stability for us all and not least the middle east peace process.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I appreciate the Minister’s position in that the Government do not want to be seen to be interfering directly in the affairs of another state. However, it is clear that the diplomatic message that President Mubarak is getting is being interpreted by him to mean that he can remain in power. May I suggest to the Minister that it is certainly open to the House to express the view that it is time for Mubarak to go?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman makes his own point, but he is correct in his first interpretation, which is that it is not for the United Kingdom Government to dictate to the Egyptian people how they should govern themselves.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The international community has called for substantial and basic reforms in Egypt. What is the time line by which the international community expects that to happen, and will the current instability and insecurity be taken into account?
Alistair Burt
In the present context, time lines are genuinely difficult to estimate. Nobody knows quite what will happen with those who are gathered in the square or how long protests will continue. Whatever the time line is, I think that the international community would agree that it should naturally be as short as possible. The expression of the people has been clear. There is a process to be gone through, but it must be quick and effective, and it must lead to a reformed Egypt, as far as political change and democracy are concerned.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister referred to developments in different parts of Egypt. Does he have any information about what is happening with the Rafah crossings and the tunnels into Gaza? There is potential for people to take advantage of the current instability and send rockets or other materials into Gaza, with wider destabilising consequences in the region.
Alistair Burt
I understand the concern with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. We have no information at present to suggest that that is happening, but his strictures are well noted and will, I am sure, be taken into account.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Following on from the previous question, from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), has my hon. Friend had a chance to assess the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly given its close relationship with Hamas in Gaza and the potentially destabilising effect on Israel? Does he agree that democracy is not just about elections, but about religious tolerance, property rights, the rule of law and human rights as well?
Alistair Burt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The general sense is that events in Egypt have not been influenced by one particular political group or orchestrated in any way. Although the two countries are different, much as with the events in Tunisia, what has happened seems to have been, as far as possible, a spontaneous expression of concern about political freedoms. Although the Muslim Brotherhood is plainly a part of the political force in Egypt, we have no evidence to suggest that it has been involved in creating what is currently happening. My hon. Friend is absolutely right as well that with democracy and governance come responsibilities. The world would be disappointed if a reformed Egypt adopted any extremist attitudes similar to those he described from the parties he mentioned.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Tomorrow the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Department for International Development will meet Dr Abu-Bakr al-Qirbi, one of the longest serving Foreign Ministers in the Arab world. I would caution the Minister not to treat each Arab country as being the same or to treat what is happening in Egypt in a similar way to what happened in Tunisia or Yemen, which have particular issues that need to be addressed. In telling countries about the need for reform, we should encourage democratic movements, rather than letting it appear that we are giving lectures about how countries should be run.
Alistair Burt
The right hon. Gentleman knows Yemen as well as any Member of the House, and I am sure he would not expect us to treat all countries in the region in any way similarly. There may be similar tensions, but each country is different and each is approaching its problems differently. There is an established process, entitled the Friends of Yemen, involving a group of countries working with Yemen to deal with its issues, but it is very much a Yemeni-led process, which His Excellency Dr al-Qirbi is well in charge of, and there is an excellent relationship with the United Kingdom. There are tensions in Yemen that cannot be ignored, but the Government are fully apprised of them, and we are working on a partnership basis.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Stevenage is the home of the Egyptian Coptic cathedral in the United Kingdom. I attended a memorial service with the Egyptian ambassador earlier this month, after a terrorist attack in Alexandria that killed 23 Christians. Will the Minister assure the House that during these times of protest we will be sending a clear message that attacks on unarmed civilians and minority groups will not go unpunished?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The attack on the Coptic church over the new year was one of the most upsetting aspects of what has become a wave of attacks against minority communities throughout the middle east. It is absolutely right that such attacks are condemned. Indeed, the Egyptian Government have been quick to condemn that atrocity and to give us confidence, as best they can, that those involved will be met with the full rigour of the law. With any instability, there is always a danger that the situation will be exploited. So far, we have no evidence that any minority community is bearing the brunt of any of the lawlessness, which we would all wish to see ended as soon as possible.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in condemning Mubarak’s attempt to shut al-Jazeera, which has proved to be an effective reporting mechanism? Does he agree that none of the attempts to shut the media will stifle the message that large numbers of young people are very angry at 30 years of human rights abuse, neo-liberal economics and unemployment, and that until those issues are addressed there will be no stability or peace in Egypt or indeed in any other country that follows those policies?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman is right to condemn attempts to shut any electronic media, including al-Jazeera. It is completely self-defeating. There will always be ways to provide information and we have, indeed, urged on the Egyptian Government the opening up of all electronic media, including al-Jazeera, as soon as possible.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
What representations did the British Government make to the Egyptian Government before the supposed elections last year about making those elections free and fair?
Alistair Burt
I thank my hon. Friend for making a pertinent point. We urged on the Egyptian authorities the appointment of independent monitors for the elections, as we have done in respect of the presidential elections that are due, all other things being equal, in September this year. A measure of transparency would have been very welcome in those parliamentary elections, and we will continue to press this route on the Egyptian authorities.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
There are a great many people of Egyptian origin in this country, including many of my constituents. No doubt we all share their concerns not just about what is happening in Egypt, but about the safety of friends and family. What my constituents asked me to put to the Minister is, first, that this opportunity for reform should not be missed; and, secondly, that if and when the old regime falls, there are likely to be profiteers escaping from the country with ill-gotten gains. Will the Minister assure us that they will not be given sanctuary in this country and that British banks will not support any attempt to take money out of Egypt illicitly?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It was noticeable, particularly in respect of Tunisia, that the international community moved quickly in response to the Government’s requests to stop money that they considered to have been abstracted illegally. The British Government would consider any similar requests, should they emerge—but that is some way down the line, as the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. These are dramatic events, which happen once in a generation, and the mother of all Parliaments should salute the people-power that overthrows a dictator. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that other nations should be looking closely at what has happened in Tunisia and is happening in Egypt? Does he also agree that we should use our influence cautiously, as we need only look over our shoulders at what happened in Iran and Algeria to see how things can turn out?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that although the underlying tensions in many of the countries in the region might be similar, each country is indeed different. Reactions to protests such as we see in Egypt are different and the reactions are often different some months after the protests. Algeria remembers, of course, the dark days of its civil war and would understandably have no wish to go down that road again. The people’s revolution in Iran—or, at least, the attempted people’s revolution in Iran 18 months ago—was savagely repressed. Nobody quite knows what the process will be in Egypt. Having experienced those examples, however, what the international community can say clearly is that in this case we would like an orderly process of reform. The opportunities for that are there; we very much hope that both parties will seize the chance and produce an Egypt that they would be proud to see taking its place in the international community.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
I know the Minister will agree that one of the main causes of unrest in Egypt is the fact that a third of the population live on a few quid a day. Will he make sure that the British Government’s position is to try to ensure that the Egyptian trade union movement is involved in any resettlement talks, so that poverty issues can be discussed?
Alistair Burt
It is not for the United Kingdom Government to dictate who might be part of political settlements in any country. I am sure that it is true that the trade union movement in Egypt has a part to play, but that is a matter for the Egyptian people to decide.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
As the House must be aware, Egypt is a highly important partner in the context of stability, not only in the middle east peace process but in the wider middle east through the Suez canal and into north Africa. Will my hon. Friend undertake to do all that he can to ensure a peaceful transition by ensuring a peaceful press, a peaceful judiciary and a transition to full, fair and open presidential elections later this year?
Alistair Burt
In mentioning the press, the judiciary and the democratic process of free and fair elections, my hon. Friend has put his finger on three of the essential items that make a country stable. They are all immensely important, no matter what difficult pains may be involved in that democratic process. I have no doubt that the Egyptian authorities will be well apprised of them, and I hope that they will be part of the process over the coming weeks and months.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s assurances about what is being done to protect British tourists in Egypt. This morning, however, I was contacted by a constituent who had been told by his brother-in-law, based in Sharm el Sheikh, that some hotels were boarded up and food rationing was in operation. According to the website of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the situation is calm. Does the Minister agree that that information should be revised in order better to advise British tourists and other travellers and their families?
Alistair Burt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Although the situation in Sharm el Sheikh is genuinely calm and we receive regular updates on it almost hourly from our honorary consul, it is true that certain hotels have taken the precaution of ensuring the safety of their guests by warning them about the curfew and indeed, in some instances, erecting barricades. That has been done in response to their own concerns about what might happen; none of it has been done in response to incidents that have already happened.
Although guests and British tourists have understandably been slightly alarmed by what has been done, we understand that it has been done entirely for their own protection, and that the situation is indeed calm. Our travel advice therefore remains that it is safe to go to Sharm el Sheikh, and we sincerely hope that that is still the case. If there were any changes we would know about them quickly, and would respond accordingly.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in condemning President Mubarak’s use of the military aircraft that were deployed yesterday to threaten and intimidate legitimate protesters on the streets of Cairo?
Alistair Burt
I am sure that none of us who saw those pictures could quite work out what was intended to be conveyed, or whether it had delivered precisely what the Egyptian Government had intended. It is not for us to comment on the reasons for the deployment of aircraft, but we sincerely hope that it does not presage attempts to use any form of violence to deal with what is essentially a peaceful reform protest.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
There have been reports in the press about attempted looting of the Egyptian museum in Cairo, which is home to many unique artefacts of global importance, including the Tutankhamun treasures. Will the Minister ensure that the British Government send a strong message to Egypt about the importance of maintaining the safety of its unique archaeological heritage?
Alistair Burt
I understand that the Egyptian authorities were equally alarmed by the possibility that lawlessness would extend to looting which might involve their antiquities, and that they have responded accordingly. It is to the benefit of the whole world for those antiquities to be preserved and for the museum to be safe, and we are sure that the Egyptian authorities are well aware of the need to do just that.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Ever since Egypt signed an historic peace agreement with Israel in 1979, we have rightly considered her to be a very strategic and reliable ally. Has the Minister made any assessment of the impact of an abrupt regime change in Egypt on our own national security?
Alistair Burt
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in line with various other bodies, is indeed considering the implications of what all this might mean. While no one can say precisely where it will end, my hon. Friend is right to observe that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom are furthered by a Government, of whatever sort and whoever leads them, who retain the same strategic sense of the importance of stability in the middle east, the need to find a solution to the middle east peace process as quickly as possible, and the need to maintain the best possible relations with its neighbours, while also playing a part in ensuring regional security—particularly in relation to countries such as Iran.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
The Minister rightly states that it is, of course, for the Egyptian people to decide their Government’s future. Nevertheless, will he inform the House what actions our Government may be able to take to minimise the possibility of an extremist Government taking over, as unfortunately happened on the Shah of Iran’s fall in 1979?
Alistair Burt
The nature of my hon. Friend’s question and the way in which he put it show that he appreciates that there is a limited amount that any external source can do to dictate to the Egyptian people what they might do with freedom of expression through the ballot box. The best thing we could do is make clear, once again, our belief that Egypt’s interests would be best served by having a moderate reformed Government who look at their place in the world and at the dangers of extremism and themselves turn away from those who would advocate that course, either in the region or in the world. We believe that Egypt should find itself with a Government with whom not only Egyptians, but others would be comfortable.
Points of Order
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance in relation to recent announcements made in the media about convictions following the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station protest. As shadow Solicitor-General, I wrote to the Attorney-General on 14 January asking for an urgent update on this case—I am yet to receive a response. When I met the Director of Public Prosecutions on Tuesday, I was informed that the Independent Police Complaints Commission was investigating the case and that no comment could be made until that process was complete. Yet, on Friday, only a couple of days later, both the BBC and The Guardian appear to have been officially informed that the DPP will appoint a senior barrister to review all 20 cases, less than two weeks after sentencing took place. Given the significance of this case and the wider questions that arise for our criminal justice system, could you provide some guidance on how I may ensure that the Attorney-General, who is accountable to this House for the actions of the Crown Prosecution Service, ensures that announcements of this gravity are made to this House, and not directly to the media, particularly where an update has been specifically requested?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am not familiar with the circumstances to which she draws attention, but I can say to her and to the House that I have not been informed of any Government intention to make a statement on this matter today. The hon. Lady asks for my guidance as to how best she might pursue the matter. The short answer is that she should discuss with the Table Office other opportunities for her to pursue the matter to what hopefully will be, from her point of view, a satisfactory conclusion.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The BBC is reporting that at a recent meeting of the 1922 committee, and in relation to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, the Prime Minister promised
“that no Conservative MP would lose out from the reduction in the total number of MPs from 650…to 600, and there would be no head-on contests between Tory MPs for the newly drawn constituencies.”
The report goes on to cite the Prime Minister as saying that anybody who lost out would be offered a seat in the Lords. Is that not bribery?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order, and I make three points, which I hope the House will readily understand. First, these are not matters for the Chair. Secondly, I am not responsible for the statements of the Prime Minister. Thirdly, I am most certainly not responsible for what takes place at the 1922 committee. I hope that that is pretty clear.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have heard the statement on Egypt and everyone’s plea that people in Egypt may have universal access to the media. In those circumstances, would you consider expanding the number of satellite channels available on the TV in this building to include al-Jazeera, which has given such good coverage of what is going on in Egypt?
Mr Speaker
May I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order, although, arguably, it is a point of some ingenuity? I think that I had better leave it there.
Health and Social Care Bill
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 235 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill can be expressed in one sentence—to improve the health of the people of this country and the health of the poorest fastest. While the previous Government increased funding for the national health service to the European average, they did not act similarly to increase the quality of care. We spent more, but others spent better. In important areas, the NHS performs poorly compared with other countries. An expert study found that out of 19 OECD countries that were investigated, the UK had the fourth-worst death rate from conditions that are considered amenable to health care. If NHS outcomes were as good as the EU15 average, we would save 5,000 lives from cancer and 4,000 lives from stroke every year. We would also prevent 3,000 premature deaths from respiratory disease and 1,000 premature deaths from liver disease every year. This cannot go on: things have to change to protect the NHS and deliver better results for patients.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I do not dispute what the Secretary of State says about European comparators, but what does he say to Professor John Appleby, who said last Friday that all those markers, some of which are not direct comparisons, are getting nearer to European targets? Professor Appleby suggested that the disruption that is going to take place in the health service will not help us to do that.
Mr Lansley
I would say two things to Professor John Appleby. First, the latest data published in EUROCARE-4, which I know the right hon. Gentleman will have seen, are clear about the gap between cancer survival rates in this country and others, and in recent years that gap has not diminished as it should have. He can read in last week’s Lancet an authoritative study of cancer survival rates in this country and a number of others demonstrating that the gap remains very wide and that we have to close it. Secondly, the King’s Fund supports the aims of the Bill and Professor Appleby, as a representative of the King’s Fund, clearly understands, as we do, that if we are to deliver the change that is needed, we need the principles in the Bill.
People trust the NHS, and its values are protected and will remain so—paid for from general taxation, available to all, free at the point of delivery and based on need rather than the ability to pay. However, a system in which everyone is treated the same is not one that treats everyone as they should be treated. Our doctors and nurses often deliver great care, but the system does not engage and empower them as it should.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On the John Appleby point, does the Secretary of State accept that what he actually said was that the rate of deaths from heart disease would be better in Britain than in France by 2012, on current trends, even though France spends 28% more on its health service? Is not that a ringing endorsement of what is happening now rather than a prescription for blowing up the system as the Secretary of State suggests?
Mr Lansley
First, I have just answered the point about John Appleby. It is true in a number of respects, as I have made clear, that although there have often been improvements in the NHS, they have not been what they ought to have been. It was a Labour Prime Minister, back in 2001, who said that we must raise resources for the NHS to the European average, but he did not achieve results that compared with the European average.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman some examples. A recent National Audit Office report showed that as many as 600 lives a year could be saved in England if trauma care were managed more effectively. Too often, the latest interventions, which are routine in other countries, take too long to happen here. John Appleby used heart disease to illustrate his point. Primary PCI— percutaneous coronary intervention—using a balloon and stent as a primary intervention to respond to heart attack was proven to be a better first response years ago. I knew that because cardiologists across the country told me so several years ago. I remember a cardiologist at Charing Cross telling me, “I have a Czech registrar working for me who says that in the Czech Republic PCI as a response to a heart attack is routine, but it hardly ever happens in this country.” Since then, it has been better implemented in this country, but that started to happen only when the Department of Health gave permission for its adoption.
The same was true of thrombolysis for stroke. That happened too late in this country, after such changes had taken place in other countries, because health care professionals there were empowered to apply innovation to the best interests of patients earlier.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the disparity in survival rates in trauma care and in many illnesses, including cancer care and heart attacks—citizens in this country are twice as likely to die of a heart attack as those in France—the NHS is in desperate need of modernisation?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. We need not only to match European spending, as we do now, but to ensure that we achieve European-level results. It is not just about benchmarking, which we know we must do. We must benchmark ourselves against the best in the world if we are to deliver the best results for patients. We must also constantly make sure that we achieve a modernised health service that delivers the best possible care—sometimes going ahead of what others achieve, and applying innovation more quickly.
In some ways, as we know—for example, in mortality rates from accidents and from self-harm, and in equity of access to health care—the NHS leads the world, but our doctors and nurses are regularly hobbled by a system that treats equality as sufficient, when what we need is both equity and excellence.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Given the Secretary of State’s praise for health care systems in Europe, which we are all connected to, will he consider allowing British patients to seek such health care in Europe, paid for by the NHS?
Mr Lansley
With his knowledge of European matters, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are in the later stages of the collective approval through the European Union of the European cross-border health directive, which allows precisely that and makes it clear that the same criteria are applied to patients seeking health care in other countries as would apply were they to seek it through the NHS in this country.
Mr Lansley
In a moment. I have just answered one question.
Why did spending more not deliver better results? We know why that is—[Interruption.] No, better results should have been achieved. Opposition Members need to realise this, because it has been at the heart of their failure in public service reform over the past decade: the Office for National Statistics said a few weeks ago that productivity in the NHS fell in every one of the past 10 years. It fell by 1.4% a year in hospital services.
Despite a huge amount of money rightly invested in the NHS, taxpayers and patients were not getting the service that they should have had. Billions of pounds have also been wasted on an ever-growing bureaucracy, taking money away from the front line and away from patient care. The number of managers doubled under Labour. I give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Margaret Hodge
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He is right to draw attention to the fact that productivity has fallen in the past 10 years, but should he not consider whether it is wise in those circumstances to distract people from driving up productivity and achieving savings by the unnecessary institution of reform? That is just taking people away from the thing that they should be concentrating on.
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Lady should understand, as I will go on to explain, that we are not distracting the NHS from the need to improve services for patients. We are enabling the NHS to improve services for patients. In her role on the Public Accounts Committee, she should understand that right across the public services, one of the consequences of dealing with the deficit is that we will have to reduce the costs of bureaucracy and administration.
We will do that in the NHS as much as anywhere else, but we will not do it in the way that the Labour party pressed us to do, which was to cut the NHS budget—[Hon. Members: “What?”] Yes, Opposition Members did exactly that. We will increase the NHS budget. As we set out in the spending review, we will increase the NHS budget by £10.7 billion over the life of this Parliament—investment that Labour opposed—and we are determined to get far more for British taxpayers’ money.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has recently been an excellent reorganisation of stroke treatment in London, with a number of hospitals earmarked as emergency centres, all of which, crucially, are within 30 minutes of every Londoner. Once patients have been through the emergency procedures and are stabilised, they are returned to local stroke centres, which are also earmarked as part of the whole programme. Can he reassure me that that kind of regional organisation of hospitals, which has delivered good results, will not suffer through some of the proposed reforms?
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind Members that interventions should be short. There are 57 Members seeking to speak in the debate, so interventions must be pithy.
Mr Lansley
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) precisely that reassurance. I was with NHS London at the beginning of last week, and it is clear that GP commissioning groups are coming together with providers to develop those kinds of commissioning plans, going beyond trauma and stroke care, which has already happened in London, to look, for example, at the integration of diabetes care between primary care and hospital services.
Under the Bill, patients will come first and will be involved in every decision about when, where, by whom, and even how, they are treated—“there must be no decision about me, without me.” The 2002 Wanless report called for patient engagement, but that did not happen. Now it will. Because patients cannot be empowered without transparent information, an information revolution will give them more detailed information than ever before, showing them and their doctors the consultants who deliver the best care, giving them control over their own care records and enabling everyone to access the care they need at the right place and at the right time. Patients and their doctors and nurses will be able to see clearly which health care provider offers the best outcomes and to make their decisions accordingly.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I assure my right hon. Friend that this is not being greeted by local GPs in my constituency as some disruptive revolution, but as a logical extension of all the debate and development in the NHS over the past 20 years or more on giving patients more power and GPs more control over the allocation of resources?
Mr Lansley
I agree with my hon. Friend. In effect, that gives the lie to what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) suggested. The coalition agreement states:
“We will strengthen the power of GPs as patients’ expert guides through the health system by enabling them to commission care on their behalf.”
Our manifesto stated that we would strengthen the power of GPs,
“putting them in charge of commissioning local health services.”
Mr Lansley
I am sorry, but 57 Members wish to speak, as you have rightly told us, Mr Speaker. I will give way as often as I can, but more than one intervention from each Member is excessive. [Interruption.] I have just quoted from the coalition agreement and our manifesto, so hon. Members have heard both.
Through the outcomes framework, which we published in December, we will stop the top-down, politically motivated targets that have led to real quality being sidelined. We will ensure that we focus on the outcomes that really matter and back them up for the first time with quality standards that are designed to drive up outcomes in all areas of care. Those standards have not been dreamt up in Whitehall, but are being developed by health professionals themselves. Similarly, doctors and other health professionals will not be told by us how to deliver those standards. The standards will indicate clearly what is expected, but it will be up to clinicians to decide how to achieve them. At every step, clinical leadership—that of doctors, nurses and other health professionals—will be right at the forefront. It will be an NHS organised from the bottom up, not from the top down.
The shift in power away from politicians and bureaucrats will be dramatic. The legislation none the less builds on what has gone before. It is not a revolution, but as the shadow Secretary of State said just a fortnight ago:
“The general aims of reform are sound—greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes—and are common ground between patients, health professions and political parties.”
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman quoted the National Audit Office earlier. Does he agree with the statement in its report that his revolution in and upheaval of the NHS risk undermining the quality initiative—the so-called QIPP programme—that the previous Government introduced?
Mr Lansley
No, far from it—actually, quite the contrary. It is only by virtue of our ability to engage front-line clinicians more strongly in the management and design of care that we will deliver those quality, innovation, productivity and prevention ambitions; and it is only if we cut bureaucracy and the costs of bureaucracy that we will be able to get those resources on to the front line more effectively. I made it very clear, and the shadow Secretary of State endorsed the view, that there is consensus about the purposes of reform, but if Labour now voted against the Bill, although we do not know whether it will, it would abandon that consensus and, indeed, its own policies when in government.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many jobs will go in front-line services and how many hospital closures there will be as a result of his policies?
Mr Lansley
I just wish that the hon. Gentleman would look at the latest published data. Since the election, we have reduced the number of managers in the health service by almost 4,000 and increased the number of doctors. For the first time, there are more than 100,000 doctors in the NHS, and we are increasing the number of health visitors, after years of their numbers being reduced under the previous Government. He should get his facts right before he starts flinging accusations about.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Lansley
No. I am going to make some progress.
The Labour party, when in government, pioneered patient choice; Labour said, “We must have patient choice.” I remember John Reid, when he was a Member, saying that the articulate and the well-off negotiated their way through the health service, and that he wanted to give choice to everybody in the health service. He was right. The social attitudes survey in 2009 found that more than 95% of people felt that they should have more choice, but that fewer than half of patients actually experienced it. The Labour party started down the road of extending choice; we will complete that journey.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On patient choice in health service design, is the Secretary of State aware that in Cornwall the primary care trust has engaged in the transfer of community hospitals and services without adequate public consultation and at breakneck speed? If “no decision about me, without me” is to apply to service design and patient involvement, is he prepared to intervene to ensure that the public are involved in such important decisions?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I have not previously been asked to comment on the matter, nor have I received information about it, but from my visits to Cornwall I entirely endorse his view about the importance of community hospitals in accessing services. He will see that, in the Bill, a specific duty is placed on the commissioning board and each commissioning consortium to reduce inequalities in access to health care. He will see also that, through the Bill, we will strengthen accountability where major service change takes place, because it will require not only the agreement of the commissioning consortium, representing as it were the professional view, but the endorsement of the health and wellbeing board, which includes direct, local, democratic accountability. Points have been made about what was in manifestos, but the Liberal Democrat manifesto was very clear about the need for democratic accountability in health service commissioning—and so there will be.
Let me return to the point, because the previous Government also went down the route of practice-based commissioning. It was their policy, but, as the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said, many GPs felt that
“they didn’t always get the power, responsibility and resources they might have wanted.”
Well, now they will, and we will give it to them.
On our definition of quality, Opposition Members say “quality matters”. It does, and it was under the Labour Government that Ara Darzi pioneered the thought that quality must be at the heart and an organising principle of the health service. It is we now who are going to make that happen. We are publishing quality standards. We are putting into this legislation a duty to improve quality that extends to all the organisations that commission and provide NHS services.
Mr Ronnie Campbell
Will there be public accountability for the private companies that will come in and do the commissioning for the doctors? I can see their people getting top salaries—the executive getting £200,000 and the financial officer getting £250,000. That is the sort of thing that we are trying to stop. What will happen when these companies run things for doctors?
Mr Lansley
The accountability in the NHS will be for the quality of the service being provided. The hon. Gentleman may not have agreed with the last Labour Government on this, and perhaps many in the Labour party are now changing their view on what was pursued by that Government, but it was that Government who introduced and encouraged a policy of “any willing provider”. In 2003, Alan Milburn said:
“If I can get a private-sector hospital to treat an NHS patient, then for me the person remains an NHS patient.”
Everybody in the NHS who provides NHS services will be accountable through the—[Interruption.] The money will follow. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee is here. Where public money goes, accountability for its use will follow.
Mr Lansley
Let me complete this point, then I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). On the point of allowing the independent sector to be a provider to the NHS, I should say that it was the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State’s predecessor, who said that
“the private sector puts its capacity into the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients, which I think most people in this country would celebrate.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 250WH.]
Well, Labour Members are not celebrating it now; they have reverted to type.
Mr Baron
The Government’s increased focus on improving outcomes is long overdue and very welcome, but will the Secretary of State address the issue of cancer networks and the concern that some of the expertise may be lost because of the funding gap between the end of funding for the cancer networks themselves and GP commissioning fully taking effect? Can the Government do anything to bridge that gap so that we allow GP consortia to be better informed in making decisions about what services to commission?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend rightly takes a close interest in these matters. When I was with him and other colleagues at the Britain against cancer conference, I made it clear—and he made it equally clear—that the cancer networks funding is guaranteed during the course of 2011-12. There is not a gap, because from April 2012 onwards the NHS commissioning board will take up its responsibilities. There will then be decisions by the commissioning board about how it will structure that.
Let me come back to what the last Labour Government did. They introduced the concept of payment by results. Unfortunately, however, payment tended to be by activity and not by results. We will now make it payment by results and really make that happen.
To complete the picture, I should say that throughout the Bill there are elements of policy that we are taking forward, such as foundation trusts. The Bill follows the brainchild of Alan Milburn and Tony Blair back in 2002. In 2005, the Labour Government said that every NHS trust should become a foundation trust by December 2008. That just did not happen. Again, it will be our task to make modernisation in the NHS consistent and comprehensive.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State say how many GP contractors he estimates will be private companies? Will he also make it clear to the House that none of the private medical providers that funded his office in opposition will gain from the change?
Mr Lansley
There are two points to make. First, we have made no estimate of the extent to which GP-led commissioning consortia will contract with independent sector providers, so I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman such an estimate. Secondly, I did not receive money directly from a private health company for my office while in opposition. So there we are.
Labour’s reforms were piecemeal and incoherent. Under the previous Conservative Government, the internal market and fundholding of the early 1990s failed to promote quality and risked conflicts of interest among GPs. We have learned from those mistakes and from the failings of a Labour Government over the past 13 years. This Bill is different. It views the NHS as a whole service, every bit of it geared towards meeting patients’ needs. This Government understand that the best health care comes from the close partnership between patients and their clinicians. Every part of the NHS, every incentive, every structure and every decision must support and strengthen that relationship.
First, we will place the individual needs of each patient above all else, encouraging, wherever possible, a personalised approach to health care, tailoring services to have the greatest individual, and greatest overall, impact. Secondly, decisions made in the consulting room, in local service design, in commissioning, and in the services any particular provider offers, will be local decisions—real autonomy and real devolution of power.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Lansley
In a moment. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers have been asking me to explain what the Bill does, and I am doing that.
Thirdly, there will be relentless focus on quality, embedded within a new legal duty. Fourthly, there will be a diverse and vibrant social market for health care. We will encourage NHS staff to set up social enterprises and foundation trusts, and we will encourage new capacity in delivering services through social enterprises, charities, private companies, and, indeed, NHS providers.
We want clinicians and their patients to lead the NHS, but they cannot do this while they sit under a vast hierarchy of regional and local organisations, all reporting to Whitehall. Everyone agrees that top-down command and control gets in the way of clinicians doing their job, so we need to dismantle the structures that sustain that interference; that is why we will abolish primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. There are many excellent people working in those organisations. Many will move to be with the new general practice-led commissioning consortia, to local authorities and to the NHS commissioning board. Some will want to set up their own new social enterprises. But even the best people cannot deliver the NHS that patients need if things stay as they are, so we will also introduce direct local democratic accountability. Councillor-led health and wellbeing boards will oversee and work with local NHS consortia, working to bring together the NHS, social care and public health services, and bringing a strategic coherence to the health and well-being of local communities.
Mr Blunkett
On bottom-up decision making at a local level, will the Secretary of State give a guarantee to the House that if the GPs now coming together in consortia decide that they wish to employ the expertise residing in the current primary care trust, he and the future health board will not intervene to stop them doing that? Will he also guarantee that he will not insist on redundancies that cost a fortune and preclude that expertise being available to the existing local consortia, with private enterprises then employing them to do the job that they were doing in the first place?
Mr Lansley
Let me make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, in the impact assessment that we published with the Bill on 19 January, we set out very clearly our estimates—they are no more than estimates since they will have to be decided by the general practice commissioning consortia and local authorities—that between 50% and 70% of the staff in primary care trusts would be employed in the successor organisations.
Secondly, the idea that somehow general practice-led commissioning consortia would engage the private sector where that has not happened up until now is, I am afraid, completely contradicted by the facts. Under the Labour Government, in the two years leading up to the election, there was an 80% increase in the use of management consultants, while at the same time the number of administrators and managers in those same organisations was rising dramatically. We arrived at the point where there were 50,000 administrators in primary care trusts, and they were still spending nearly £300 million a year on top for management consultancy. That all has to change.
One thing that Labour abjectly failed to do was to empower patients with a real voice in the health service. Through this Bill we will establish local healthwatch organisations that will represent the patient’s voice in the design of local services and help individual patients, especially the most vulnerable, to make the most of the choices available to them and to help them when things go wrong. Sitting within the Care Quality Commission, the national healthwatch organisation, too, will act as the eyes and ears of the quality regulator, and work to give the local organisations real teeth in their dealings with their local NHS—something that was completely, abjectly destroyed by the Labour Government when they abolished community health councils. Indeed, I know that families of those treated at the Mid Staffordshire hospitals welcome the additional powers for patients to have a voice.
Mr Lansley
I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) in a moment because I referred to Staffordshire.
Clive Efford
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill introduces European competition law into the national health service, and removes the existing protection once and for all. His Government have just taken the decision to put billions of pounds into stopping Irish banks failing. If a local hospital fails under the new market arrangements, will he step in and save it?
Mr Lansley
Time does not permit me to explain the extraordinary ignorance of that series of points. First, the Bill sets out that the regulator will have a responsibility to establish a failure regime. In 2003, when the predecessors of those currently on the Labour Front Bench took the health legislation through the House, they said that they would introduce a failure regime, to be implemented by Monitor, in legislation. They never did so. At the moment, there is therefore no proper failure regime.
Secondly, European competition law—indeed, competition law—applies in this country. A body was established in the national health service under the previous Labour Government called the co-operation and competition panel, the express purpose of which was to apply competition rules in the NHS. To that extent, all the Bill will do is to ensure that the rules that already apply are applied fairly, consistently and transparently across all providers.
Jeremy Lefroy
The Secretary of State referred to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, into which an inquiry is taking place. What lessons from the various investigations have been applied in the Bill to address the concerns that have been raised?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. In addition to the measures on healthwatch and patient voice, we are strengthening the responsibilities of commissioners. As I suspect he knows from his local knowledge, general practitioners knew in many cases that the services at Stafford hospital were not meeting the quality of care that they ought to have met. However, there was no transparency in the outcomes, and there was no responsibility collectively among general practices and local health professionals to intervene. There was no mechanism that enabled or incentivised them to do so. We are going to change that. When Sir Robert Francis’s report is published in due course, I hope that the Bill, by strengthening patient voice, commissioning and the regulatory structure, will give the opportunity for whatever recommendations he makes to be implemented rapidly.
Mr Lansley
I apologise, but I have taken longer than I had intended, and 57 Members are waiting to speak.
I will explain further what the Bill will do. Local authorities, with a ring-fenced budget, will bring public health to the front and centre of public policy. This is not just about the NHS, but about improving the health of the whole population. That is why we are putting local authorities at the heart of it. The health of the general public is as much about the environment, the economy, housing and transport as what happens in the NHS. Health and wellbeing boards will make the link between health and social care, which have too often been in silos. We understand how intertwined those things are and how they must work together.
Mr Lansley
No, not at the moment.
The unions, of course, are against this modernisation of our public services. I suspect that they are the “forces of conservatism” that, more than a decade ago, the former Prime Minister told us he had to fight against. They oppose the principles of our plans, or so they say, but do they have an alternative? No. That contrasts completely with the reaction of general practitioners and health care professionals in GP pathfinders.
Mr Lansley
I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman before.
General practitioners and health care professionals in GP pathfinders are, in contrast to the unions, enthusiastic about what we are trying to achieve. For example, Dr Paul Zollinger-Read, a general practitioner and the chief executive of NHS Cambridgeshire, said recently:
“In our area, the GPs got together and focused on quality of care. They looked at diabetic care, for example, and services in this area improved. That means fewer diabetics will need to go to hospital in an emergency, there will be fewer amputations and less heart and kidney disease.”
Far from GPs being reluctant at the thought of taking on new responsibilities, applications to be pathfinder consortia were over-subscribed.
Mr Lansley
No, not at the moment. Sorry.
There are now 141 pathfinders, covering more than 28 million patients. More than half the population are already benefiting from the clinical leadership of their local health professionals. I have met some of the pioneers, such as in Redbridge, where they are pioneering bringing ophthalmology and dermatology services out into the community, and in Bexley, where they have pioneered better access to cardiology services for their patients. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say that they were doing that, but my whole point is that we are turning the exceptional cases in which GPs have had such opportunities in the past into the opportunity for all GPs across the country to do so. The Opposition might like to talk to the new chair of the clinical cabinet in Bexley, one Dr Howard Stoate, whom they will recall as a Member of the House before the election.
It is not only GPs who are anxious to get on with it. We are already working with 25 early implementer health and wellbeing boards that want to start bringing benefits to their communities. By April, we expect to be working with up to half of all local authorities, and the Bill will create that framework. Whereas the previous Government often talked a good game, we will put our ambitions and the new roles into law. The Bill explicitly defines roles and responsibilities that were previously at the discretion of Ministers. Until now, legislation on the NHS has more or less said, “The NHS is whatever the Secretary of State chooses to make it at any given moment.” That was why, in the past, reorganisations took place on a practically annual basis under the Labour Government, without there ever being any consistency or coherence to them. I intend to be the first Secretary of State in the history of the NHS who, rather than grabbing more power or holding on to it, will give it away.
As well as devolving decision making, the Bill will transfer power back to Parliament and strengthen the accountability and transparency of the NHS. It will protect the NHS constitution, ensuring that the rights in it are reflected within NHS commissioning and regulation. It contains a number of new duties, including a duty on the Secretary of State, the NHS commissioning board and each commissioning consortium to seek continuous improvement in the quality of services, and to seek to reduce inequalities in access and health outcomes.
The Bill contains a duty of autonomy, so that politicians allow providers and commissioners to provide the best care as they see fit, minimising burdens wherever possible. There is a duty on Monitor to protect and promote the interests of patients, through competition where appropriate and through regulation where necessary. The role of local authorities will increase greatly, including not only the scrutinising of local health services but a duty to promote integrated working between the NHS, social care services and public health services.
As I have said, in 2003 Labour promised a proper regime in the event of the failure of any provider of NHS care. They did not provide that; this Bill will. Should a provider fail, there will be a transparent process for maintaining designated services, to ensure continuity of services for patients.
Monitor will be empowered to set up a “risk pool”, to which providers will pay a levy that will meet the costs of maintaining key services. There will also be a clear and transparent process for setting the NHS tariff for different services. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will develop quality standards, give advice and make recommendations on the clinical effectiveness of medicines and treatment. As the shadow Secretary of State said a fortnight ago, the Bill is “consistent, coherent and comprehensive”. It will put patients first and improve health outcomes.
Mr Lansley
I must conclude and allow other Members to contribute to the debate.
The Bill will change structures, abolish bureaucracy and inject added competition, but those are only the means to a much greater end. As large and complex as it is, there is one simple objective behind the Bill—better care for patients, measured not by political targets but by real results for patients. It is about gearing the entire system towards supporting the relationship between doctor and patient—a “meeting of experts”, as Tuckett would have called it, with the patient being an expert on themselves and the clinician being an expert on their clinical management and condition. It is about bringing the two together based on trust, transparency and the best available treatment from the best available provider.
Previous changes have tinkered with one piece of the NHS or another, when what was needed was comprehensive modernisation to create an NHS fit for the demands of the 21st century. That is precisely what this Health and Social Care Bill will deliver. What we see from the Labour party is nothing but opposition for its own sake—opposition to the modernisation that the NHS needs—and most of it is inconsistent with Labour’s own manifesto. It is clear that Labour opposes not only our investment in the NHS and our cuts in NHS bureaucracy but our modernisation of the NHS, which it pursued while in government.
The House knows my passion for the NHS, my respect for those who work in it and my ambition for it to be the best health care service in the world. This Bill, and the modernisation of which the Bill is just a part, are about that passion for the NHS and for securing its future. I commend the Bill to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Health Secretary is a man who is struggling to sell his plans. The more people learn about them, the less they like them. The more those in the NHS see, the more worried they become and the less they find to support. Only one in four of the public back him in wanting profit-making companies to be given free access to the NHS. Most GPs neither like nor want these changes, and three out of four doctors do not believe that they will improve services to patients.
Today, for the second week running, the Prime Minister is talking about the NHS changes. He is like a football club chairman stepping in to back a beleaguered manager because everyone else is losing faith in the manager’s judgment. Mind you, the Prime Minister does not always help the Health Secretary, because his words do not ring true with people. Last week, the Prime Minister called the NHS “second rate”. People know that it can be better, but they are proud of the NHS. They have seen big improvements during the last Labour decade, and they know that waiting lists are at their lowest ever and that patient satisfaction is at its highest ever. Those facts are backed up by international comparisons from the Commonwealth Fund, which said last year that Britain’s NHS is one of the very best in the world, and second to none on best value for money.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
The Labour Government introduced foundation hospitals, private sector provision in the NHS, patient choice and payment by results—four things on which we are now building. They also introduced GP commissioning through pathfinders. Which elements of the Blair reforms to the health service is the right hon. Gentleman not repudiating today?
John Healey
It is true that we encouraged many of the GP commissioning models that the Health Secretary now champions, but that process was always within a planned and managed system, and it was never implemented at the expense of other clinicians or patients being in charge. We used private providers when they could add something to the NHS and help it to raise its game, and when they could add capacity so that we could clear waiting lists. Of course there is a role for them in the future, but that is not the question at the heart of the Bill. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s question later, however. People saw big improvements in the NHS under Labour, but they now realise that many of those gains might be at risk as a result of the decisions that this Government are taking.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most significant change in the Bill was not mentioned by the Secretary of State? It is that the Bill introduces price competition into a market that, up to now, has allowed competition only on quality. The London School of Economics, citing academic evidence, states clearly that
“most international evidence suggests that, whereas hospital competition with fixed prices can improve quality, simultaneous price and quality competition can actually make things worse”.
John Healey
Characteristically, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. These changes to the NHS and the Bill—[Interruption.]
John Healey
I shall answer my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), then I will give way.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government will talk about some changes, but not about others. The changes are like an iceberg, with big, substantial, ideological changes hidden from public sight.
Mr Lansley
The edifice of an argument from the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), which is repeated by others, is based on one fact: in December 2009, the operating framework said that commissioners in the NHS could set a maximum price and not just a fixed price. That was December 2009. The right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Health Secretary were in the Government who put that measure into the operating framework. This Government did not put it in; the previous one did.
John Healey
The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is based on page 42 onwards of the Health Secretary’s impact assessment of the Bill, which mentions a premium for private providers of £14 per £100. The Bill allows the system to pay a premium and a bung to private sector providers.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary? Does he agree or disagree with the maximum price tariff principle that was set out in December 2009 by the previous Labour Health Secretary?
John Healey
We operated an NHS with a set tariff, not a maximum tariff. In government, we operated an NHS in which price could not be the factor that drove decisions about what services patients received and by whom they were provided. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is absolutely right to point out that the Bill will introduce price competition and the flexing of the price so that there is no longer a set tariff for treatments and patients but a maximum price that can be undercut by providers coming into the field. The Government will not talk about that.
The Prime Minister is not helping the Health Secretary, because the changes the Bill makes were not in his election manifesto, not on his election posters and not in his election speeches. I have the Conservative manifesto here. There is no mention of axing all limits on NHS hospitals treating private patients, so that NHS patients lose out; no talk or mention of undercutting on price, so that established NHS services are hit as new private companies cherry-pick easier patients and services; no mention of guaranteeing only selective hospital services, so that others can be closed and lost to local people without public consultation; and no mention of putting a new market regulator at the heart of the NHS with the principal job of promoting and enforcing competition. There is no mention in the Conservative manifesto of the biggest reorganisation of the NHS since it was set up more than 60 years ago. They did not tell people about their plans before the election and they promised not to introduce such measures in the coalition agreement after the election. There is no mandate from the election or the coalition agreement for this fundamental and far-reaching reorganisation. That is not a debating point, but a point of democratic principle.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I do not remember in the 2005 Labour party manifesto the “Meeting Patients’ Needs” programme that closed the A and E unit and the children’s ward in Burnley. Do not start getting on to us about what we are and are not closing. The right hon. Gentleman closed those things. Does he agree that what he did was a disgrace to the people of Burnley?
John Healey
May I urge the hon. Gentleman to look very closely at the Bill and beyond what he hears the Health Secretary say when he talks about it? I urge him instead to look at how local hospitals could be undercut by private health companies, and at how GPs could be forced to put out work to those companies. That will undermine local hospitals such as the one in Burnley and lead to hospital closures driven not by proper planning and the development of better services in the community, but by hospitals being driven to the point of bankruptcy and closure.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand how the health service operated under his Labour Government. My constituents in Warwickshire have been suffering because NHS Warwickshire, under the rules we inherited from his Government, set up a fixed-price, below-tariff contract with one of the trusts in its area that has led to patients being drained from the George Eliot hospital trust in my area and the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) to Warwick. It was Labour’s rules that allowed it to undercut the hospital in my constituency.
John Healey
If the hon. Gentleman was worried about the past, he should be a good deal more worried about the future, and, a bit like the Health Secretary, he should spend a lot less time talking about the Labour Government and what we did to the health service and more time talking about the plans and big changes to come.
Geraint Davies
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the core difficulty with the Bill is that it is not about patient choice but about a movement towards general practitioner choice and GP consortia choice? They want to maximise not medical outcomes but profitability. That is what this is about, and the reason is the same as what was said about flexible pricing.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. For the first time in the NHS we are facing, first, the potential for profit at the point of commissioning and, secondly, commissioning—in other words, decisions about rationing as well as referral—being made at the individual patient level, not at the collective area level, and we are looking at them being made by bodies and individuals who are not publicly accountable, including to the House.
Mr Lammy
My right hon. Friend is right to press the case about private providers. Is he surprised that the Secretary of State, in response to my question earlier, did not confirm to the House that the wife of John Nash, the chairman of Care UK, funded his office in November 2009 to the tune of £21,000? Does he think that the Secretary of State should put that on the record?
John Healey
I am surprised that the Health Secretary was asked a direct question and did not answer. I would simply encourage my right hon. Friend to keep asking the questions that he feels are important for the future.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Mr Nash’s wife also bankrolled my opponent at the last election—for all the good it did him. However, something else was not in the Tory party manifesto, and that was cuts in the health service. I have in my hand a letter from the chief executive of my primary care trust that simply states that
“healthcare in North West London will face a £1bn shortfall in funding by 2014/15, given these upward pressures.”
Is that not something else that the Tory party did not tell the truth about, and something on which it is not following the Labour Government?
John Healey
My hon. Friend won his seat at the last election because he helped to expose the truth about the Conservative plans for housing—a truth that it denied but which has now come true. He is absolutely right. The truth about what is happening in the health service now is that patients are starting to see the signs of strain and services being cut, and that is not what they expected when they heard the Prime Minister, before the election and afterwards, promising to protect the NHS.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. In my first two weeks as an MP, I paid a visit to the local PCT in Leicester, and in a meeting with the chief executive I asked how the PCT would cope with the immediate 35% cuts in management imposed by the coalition Government. The answer truly shocked me: I was told, “It will be no problem at all, because we have already increased our management by 50% in the past year.” Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that under the previous Government’s watch, the PCTs became the bloated bureaucracies that now need reforming?
John Healey
The problem for PCTs, and the managers and staff who work in them, is that they are being asked to do several things at the same time: to make unprecedented efficiencies at a time when the NHS is being put through its tightest financial squeeze in history; to axe its own jobs; and to guide the reorganisation and ensure that it can take place. That is a tough challenge for anyone. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep on his local PCT’s case.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I would accept his criticisms more openly—I think—were he prepared to acknowledge that the previous Labour Government set up independent treatment centres and rigged the market to hand over 15% of all elective operations in an area such as mine to an independent company that they more or less set up themselves, and which undermined the local acute trust and services with changes that patients had not asked for. That was forced on the PCT and not something for which it asked. It was a rigged market. Would he like to apologise to the House for the practices of the previous Labour Government?
John Healey
I am more interested in what we will be facing in future. I am more interested in the claim by the Health Secretary that there will not be, as he describes it, a rigged market in future, but a level playing field for all providers. However, my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Well, we will see. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Health, and he follows such matters closely. I urge him to read page 42 onwards of the impact assessment, because there he will see the preparations for being able to pay for the sort of thing that he criticises in the health service.
As the hon. Gentleman gives me this opportunity, let me say to him and his Lib Dem colleagues that what we are facing is clearly Conservative health policy, not coalition health policy, and certainly not Lib Dem health policy. The main evidence of any influence of Lib Dem ideas on health policy in the coalition agreement was the commitment to
“ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust”.
The Bill abolishes PCTs. The Lib Dem policy priority before the election was to ensure that local people had more control over their health services. The Bill places sweeping powers in the hands of a new national quango—the national commissioning board—and a new national economic regulator, which is charged with enforcing competition, to open up all parts of the NHS to private health companies. The Lib Dems’ principal concern was to strengthen local and public accountability of health services, but the Bill seriously restricts openness, scrutiny and accountability to both the public and Parliament. It will lead to an NHS in which “commercial in confidence” is stamped on many of the most important decisions that are taken. I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman and his Lib Dem colleagues: this is not your policy, but it is being done in your name. The public will hold you—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I know that this debate is attracting a lot of emotion and generating a lot of heat, but will Members please try to speak through the Chair? I have been accused by both sides of doing many things in this debate, and I have not done any of them.
John Healey
I accept that correction, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me put it in these terms. The policy is not Liberal Democrat policy, but it is being done in their name, and the public will hold the Liberal Democrats responsible if they allow the Tories to do this to our NHS.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the rush to establish a GP commissioning system, PCTs are being merged, and that large numbers of highly skilled staff are disappearing quickly, as is the ability of PCTs to administer anything, and all this before the Bill has even received a Second Reading? Does he not think that the Secretary of State is culpable in the rapid disintegration and disorganisation of local NHS facilities all over the country?
John Healey
That is one of the things that worries experts and those in the health service the most. It is also one of the things that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) and his Health Committee were most concerned about. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is nodding. “Disruptive” was one term that the Committee used for the changes.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Why on earth should the health service be changed? We had 13 years. We dragged the health service from the depths of degradation and hoisted it to the pinnacles of achievement. There was £33 billion in 1997; we increased that to £110 billion. All those miners in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend who wanted those knees or hips replaced—they have all been done, after waiting not for five years, but for a few months. That is what I call achievement, and that is what the people in Bolsover and elsewhere know. That is why the health service was safe in our hands and why, they assume, this one on the Government Front Bench is now going to privatise it.
John Healey
Well, my hon. Friend is right in this respect: people will come to see clearly that they cannot trust the Tories with the NHS; they will come to see clearly what these changes really mean for their services; and they will come to see clearly what the future of the NHS holds.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I cannot follow the previous contribution, but the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned democratic accountability, so will he accept that in 10 years of Labour government, nothing was done about democratic accountability in the NHS? We simply had rule by quangos.
John Healey
No, I do not accept that, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman that the measures in this Bill will undermine many of his principal concerns and policy priorities about opening up the NHS to the public and to Parliament. I hope that he will take a close look at what the Health Secretary really plans.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the NHS is supposed to be about people and their health, so does he also agree that putting different parts of the health service in competition with one another will lead to fragmented and disjointed pathways of care and undermine innovation and the sharing of best practice, as well as increasing administrative and other costs with public funding being wasted on transaction costs?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right—and the chief executive of the Patients Association, Katherine Murphy has said just that. Many patient groups are making the same arguments and issuing the same warnings.
My serious concern is that this Government have told only half the story from the start. The Health Secretary and the Prime Minister are happy to talk about GP commissioning and happy to talk about cutting management—the organisational changes—but they downplay or deny the deep ideological changes at the heart of these plans. The Health Secretary mentioned the new economic regulator, Monitor, in just one line in a speech lasting more than 40 minutes. The Prime Minister said last week in his speech on public services that these reforms
“are not about theory or ideology”.
The Prime Minister writes in The Times today, just as the Health Secretary did last week, both of them producing 700 words about their health plans, yet they made not a single mention of competition.
We will explain and expose the truth throughout this debate and the Bill’s passage through Parliament because these changes will break up the NHS; they will open up all areas of the NHS to price-cutting competition from private health companies; and they will take away from all parts of the NHS the requirement for proper openness, scrutiny and accountability to the public and to Parliament. These Government changes are driving free market political ideology into the heart of the NHS, and that is why doctors are now saying:
“As it stands, the UK Government’s new Bill spells the end of the NHS.”
John Healey
The public are being told that the reorganisation is “patient centred”, but patients are being sold a false promise on the NHS. The changes in the Bill come in only in 2013, but patients are already seeing the consequences of the Government’s handling of the health service. The Government have scrapped Labour’s waiting time targets, which were, of course, the patients’ guarantee of being seen and treated promptly. They are breaking the Prime Minister’s promise of a real increase in NHS funding, so Scotland is being short-changed next year by £70 million and Wales is being short-changed next year by £40 million. England, if we take out the double counting of cash to be spent on social care rather than on NHS services, faces a shortfall next year of £1.2 billion on the Prime Minister’s promise.
With this Bill, the Government are now breaking their promise to stop top-down internal reorganisations and they are putting extra unnecessary pressure on the NHS. Patients are starting to see waiting times rise; they are starting to see discharges from hospital delayed; they are starting to see wards mothballed and staff posts cut. That is not what people expected when the Prime Minister promised to protect the NHS. The Prime Minister’s most personal pledge to the public is becoming his biggest broken promise.
Nick de Bois
Will the right hon. Gentleman try to understand—[Interruption.] Perhaps he will. Members suggest that this is ideological. I do not see how it is ideological not to repeat the gross error of 2008-09 when, under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, managers were recruited at five times the rate of nurses working on the front line—which is not ideological either, and does not serve patients.
John Healey
This is ideological. It is about driving politics into the heart of the NHS, and in some respects breaking what has been a 60-year consensus. Parties on all sides have tried to make decisions about the best interests of patients and better services, and not about their own political ideologies. That has changed today, with this Bill.
John Healey
I want to make a bit of progress before I give way again.
The public are being told that this reorganisation is patient-centred, but most patients’ GPs will not, in practice, be doing what the Government claim they will be doing. GPs spend an average of only about eight minutes with each patient. If they continue as family doctors, the commissioning will not be done by them; it will be done in their name by the managers in the primary care trust who carry out that function now, or by private health companies that are already hard-selling their services to GP consortia. Those consortia are being sold a false promise as well. Because expanded open-ended choice of treatment means funding unused capacity in the system, it is highly unlikely to happen at a time when NHS finances are under pressure.
Despite the boast about putting patients at the heart of everything that the NHS does, there is no place for patients on the bodies that will make the most important decisions on the NHS. There is no place for them on GP consortia, no place for them on the national commissioning board, and no place for them on the regulator, Monitor.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has already heard some of my hon. Friends mention the analysis of Dr John Appleby, published in the British Medical Journal online last week. He took to task those who had made the sweeping assertion that somehow Britain’s health service lags behind those of the rest of Europe. It is an argument that the Prime Minister advances. It is an argument for change, he says, because we are still a long way from European standards of care.
Let me read something to the House. We have been told that
“if you have heart surgery in England, you now have a greater chance of survival than almost any other European country – over the last five years, death rates have halved and are now 25 per cent lower than the European average.”
Those are not my words, or even those of Dr John Appleby. They are the words of the Health Secretary, published on ConservativeHome last week.
The Prime Minister argues that this is somehow an evolution and not a revolution. The Bill, however, is more than three times as long as the legislation that set up the NHS in 1948. The NHS chief executive told the Select Committee on Health:
“The scale of change is enormous—beyond anything that anybody from the public or private sector has witnessed”.
The Health Secretary argues that the Bill is somehow an extension of Labour policies. That is wrong, and it disguises again the fundamental changes to the NHS in the Government’s plan. Make no mistake, Mr Deputy Speaker: this is a revolution, not an evolution.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I note that the right hon. Gentleman failed to answer the question about the rate of increase in the number of managers. When I last checked, the NHS had 1.3 million employees, of whom almost exactly half were administrators and half were on the front line. Is he really willing to defend such an extraordinary level of overstaffing in management?
John Healey
Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman really has to get a better briefing from his Whips than that.
Clive Efford
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in order to shoehorn private enterprise into the NHS, the regulations are being written to add a 14% premium into the tariff for private sector companies that will be tendering for work?
John Healey
My hon. Friend may be right. I have not seen the regulations, but that is certainly in the impact assessment, so he is on to an important point.
Government Members and the Health Secretary have spent a long time talking about Labour’s plans, policies and record, but the debate at the heart of this Bill is not about whether competition, choice or the private sector has a part to play in the NHS—they have and they do. The debate at the heart of this Bill is about whether full-blown competition, based on price and ruled by competition law, is the right basis for our NHS. That is why Labour Members oppose this Bill. We want the NHS run on the basis of what is best for patients, not what is best for the market. We want the NHS to be driven by the ethos of public service, not by the economics of forced competition. We will defend to the end a health service that is there for all, fair for all and free to all who need it when they need it.
If the stated aims for the reform were all the Government wanted—we have heard the Health Secretary say that he wants a greater role for doctors in commissioning, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority put on to improving health outcomes—he should do what the GPs say: turn the primary care trust boards over to doctors and patients, so that they can run this and do the job. But there is no correlation between the aims that the Health Secretary sets out and the actions he is taking. There is no connection between his aims and his actions. He is pursuing his actions because his aims are not sufficient. His actions would not achieve the full-scale switch to forced market competition, which is the true purpose of the changes.
Meanwhile, the biggest challenges and changes for the NHS will be made harder, not easier, by the reorganisation. Such challenges include making £20 billion of efficiency savings and improving patient services; ensuring better integration of social care and health care, of primary care and hospital care, and of public health and community health; and providing more services in closer reach of patients in the community rather than in hospital. But the Government will not listen to the warnings from the NHS experts, the NHS professional bodies, patient groups or even the Select Committee on Health.
Mr Anderson
In a disparaging comment earlier, the Secretary of State said that the voices of concern were the voices of the trade unions. They are led by people who were health professionals and they represent 1.3 million professionals. Surely somebody in this place should listen to what they say and not to Government Members, who have a biased reason for doing this.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. The more that NHS staff see of the changes and the consequences of this Government’s handling of the NHS, the more concerned they are about the changes and the more they are starting to see the NHS go backwards. But the Government will not listen to these warnings that are coming from all sides. They are in denial about the risks: the risk that patients will see services get worse, not better; the risk that up to £3 billion will be wasted on internal reorganisation; the risk that innovation and improvements in care that come from greater collaboration will be blocked by the Office of Fair Trading, competition courts and the new market regulator; and the risk that the Bill will create the monster of a full-blown market in health care which GPs will not control and nor will Ministers or Parliament.
If patients have been sold a false prospectus, that is true of GPs too. GPs are being told that they will call the shots on deciding who provides care for their patients, but they are being set up by the Government. They are likely to find their hands tied by Monitor and the Office of Fair Trading and by the courts enforcing competition law. They are likely to find their decisions challenged by private companies if they do not accept “any willing provider”, especially one that offers to undercut on price. The chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners recently issued a warning to her colleagues. She said:
“I understood these reforms were about putting GPs at the centre of planning healthcare for their patients, not about making sweeping cuts, which will include shutting hospitals, making enormous redundancies, closing services”.
Because the reorganisation will force doctors to make rationing decisions as well as referral decisions for their patients, they will make treatment decisions with one eye on their patient and the other on their budget and their consortium’s bottom line.
The Government say they are devolving power to front-line services, putting clinicians in control, making the NHS more accountable and improving the integration and quality of services, but in the Bill they are making the forces of competition and centralisation far stronger than those of devolution, democratic accountability or the development of quality in patient services. We will explain and expose the gap between what Ministers are saying and what they are doing in every debate at every stage of this legislation.
Patients and staff are already seeing signs of strain in the NHS. They are starting to ask, “What on earth are the Government doing with the NHS? Why don’t they listen to the warnings? Why is the Prime Minister breaking the very personal promise he made to protect the NHS?” The Bill puts competition first and patients second. That is why we will oppose the Bill tonight and expose this truth in the months ahead. These are the wrong reforms for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Because of the popularity of this debate, a six-minute limit on speeches has been introduced, with the usual injury time on two interventions. It is up to you whether you take the full six minutes and whether you take interventions, but, clearly, the more interventions there are and the longer you speak, the fewer people will get in.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill. The shadow Secretary of State started by saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State struggled to explain his reasons for introducing the Bill, but I think that the shadow Secretary of State struggled to explain why he opposes it. He struggled from the moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) intervened to draw his attention to the fact that the Bill represents an evolution of policy that has been consistently developed by every Secretary of State since 1990, with a single exception in the form of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who sits on the Labour Back Benches. The question that the shadow Secretary of State has to answer is this.
Mr Dorrell
Let me pose the question and I shall be delighted to give way. Which of the key themes does the right hon. Gentleman oppose? Is it the practice-based commissioning or the “any willing provider” model? Is it the introduction of private sector expertise into commissioning, which was first articulated in the world class commissioning programme, or is it the principle of the maximum tariff? Let me help him by quoting from the operating framework of 2009, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred. It states:
“After 2010/11, we shall move to a position where national tariffs represent the maximum price payable to a commissioner, as opposed to the mandated price for a particular activity.”
With which of those four key policies does the right hon. Gentleman disagree?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman started by saying that the policies are an evolution. If that is the case, why did he say:
“I thought we were looking to develop existing institutions rather than starting again, and that appeared to be confirmed in the coalition agreement.”
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman, who is nodding, went on:
“Then in July that approach was changed. That came as a surprise.”
Mr Dorrell
Indeed it did. I offered the right hon. Gentleman four consistent themes of policy. He accurately quoted my comments about a specific element of bureaucracy. One of the questions that the Select Committee addressed was why, since all these broad themes are so broadly supported, we went down the road of replacing the PCTs with the consortia. That is a question that the Select Committee said in its report had not been adequately explained, but that is a relatively minor question of bureaucratic presentation when compared with the broad themes of policy that were articulated in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford. Which of these key policies does Labour now wish to dissent from?
Mr Dorrell
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, an expert on health policy from the Back Benches, who may able to answer the question that the shadow Secretary of State wishes to avoid.
Hugh Bayley
I wonder whether the Select Committee agrees that private contractors, where they are engaged, should be required to publish the same information about cost, quality and outcomes as NHS providers, to ensure a level playing field and real, true comparison.
Mr Dorrell
I have been here long enough not to presume to speak on behalf of a Select Committee on a question that the Select Committee has not addressed, but I think there would be broad support across the House for the principle that where the private sector provides a service to a public sector commissioner, the private sector provider should be accountable to that commissioner on precisely the same terms as the public sector provider. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned in his intervention on the shadow Health Secretary, one of the problems about the independent sector treatment centre programme was exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman makes—the accountability expected of a private sector provider was different from the accountability expected of a public sector provider.
Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and hope that he can persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to endorse the principle of common accountability for public and private sector providers providing a service to a public sector commissioner. I see my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench endorsing the principle. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the way that they are reacting to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
This is a consistent set of themes. Why is it consistent? I want to move the debate on. The House of Commons loves debating structures in the national health service. The inference from what I have said so far might be that that means it is all business as usual—that what has gone on, with the exception of the period when the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras was in charge, is a seamless development of policy since 1990.
However, the truth is that during the lifetime of this Parliament the national health service faces a genuinely unprecedented challenge, first articulated not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the present Government, but by the chief executive of the health service before the general election in May 2009, when he drew attention to the fact that demand for health care should be expected to continue to rise at roughly 4% per annum, as it has done throughout the recent history of the national health service. However, because of the budget deficit, we will not see the health budget continue to rise to absorb that rise in demand, in the way it has over the past decade.
Therefore, during the lifetime of this Parliament, we will have to see, in the national health service, a 4% efficiency gain four years running—something that not merely our health care system, but no other health care system in the world, has ever delivered. The Select Committee has referred to that as the Nicholson challenge, reflecting the fact that it was first articulated by the chief executive and endorsed by the previous Government. Again, this is a case of a shared agenda across the House of Commons.
Given the Budget deficit, the only way we can continue to meet the demand for high-quality health care, which we all want to see, is by delivering an unprecedented efficiency gain in the NHS for four years running. That is why I support the Bill. I support it because to my mind it is inconceivable that we can deliver such an efficiency gain without delivering more effectively than we have done yet on the ideas, which have been endorsed over the past 20 years, about greater clinical engagement in NHS commissioning, which I have been talking about. Commissioning cannot be successful if it is something that is done to doctors by managers; it must engage the whole clinical community. We must address the democratic deficit, because we cannot bring change on the scale that we need to deliver the efficiency gain without engaging local communities.
Finally, the NHS must also be a national service that is accountable through the commissioning consortia, the commissioning board and the Secretary of State to this House, because it is ultimately the taxpayers who pay for it. Those are the principles that were set out by the Health Committee, and it is those that we will seek to review as the Bill goes through Parliament.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I make no apologies for the policies that were pursued while I was Secretary of State for Health, because I set about implementing every item in Labour’s election manifesto. I know that implementing promises in election manifestos has gone out of fashion on the Government Benches, but it has not gone out of fashion with me. Before I became Health Secretary, while I was Health Secretary and since, most doctors, nurses, midwives and others in the health service have said above all, “For God’s sake, leave us alone, stop diverting our attention into reorganisation and let us get on with the job of looking after patients and raising standards of treatment and care.” Presumably, that was why the Conservative manifesto and the coalition programme both stated:
“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS”.
They claim that their proposed reforms are not top-down, but I cannot think of anything more top-down than an Act of Parliament set out in 353 pages and 61,344 words, and yet it is still a broken promise.
The NHS, as we all know, is doing better than ever before: waiting lists have come down dramatically; waiting times have been massively reduced; and survival rates are dramatically improving. Most people, in most places, and most of the time, are getting a very good deal from the health service, which is why it is more popular than ever before.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Frank Dobson
No, I do not have time.
Those improvements have come about not as a result of any structural changes, but because the Labour Government put into the NHS more money than ever before, built more new hospitals than ever before, put in more new equipment and, above all, recruited record numbers of doctors and nurses. We also put more emphasis on standards and on trying to ensure that we spread best practice right across the health service.
I accept that we need more clinician involvement in decision making, but we do not need to go to GP commissioning to bring that about. All we need do is get more of them on primary care trusts with more influence there. Why is it just confined to GPs? There is no reference to greater involvement of hospital specialists and there is nothing in the 61,000-odd words about giving hospital doctors a bigger say, and they have some expertise in these matters. Many GPs, as we know, do not support the proposals, and many of them want to get on with just being doctors.
One great deception that is being promoted is saying to patients, “You and your GP will decide where you will get treated.” That is simply not true. Unless the consortium of which the GP is a compulsory member has a contract with a particular hospital, the patient will not be able to go there from their GP.
The NHS is essentially a co-operative organisation in principle and in practice, and now it will be forced to compete: every part of the health service competing with the other parts and the private sector on price. It is rather remarkable, considering all the Eurosceptics on the Government Benches, that the Government are going to force our NHS to comply with European competition rules set out in the Lisbon treaty—the Lisbon treaty that the Tories voted against. Who is most likely to benefit from those rules? The answer is American health corporations, almost all of which have been indicted in the United States for defrauding US taxpayers, doctors, patients and, sometimes, all three. I asked the Secretary of State whether he would rule out any of those outfits obtaining contracts, and I am afraid his answer was, “I can’t say.”
The next question is, how will we know what is going on? How will we and local TV, radio and newspapers know what is being decided? In the Bill, there is no serious obligation for hardly any of the decision-making bodies to hold their meetings in public; there is no obligation on declaration of interests; and there is no obligation on consultation. If anyone says, “Well, freedom of information will cope,” we know what the answer will be, “Commercial confidentiality; you can’t have it.” If we are to have a competitive system, almost everything will be commercial and, therefore, almost everything will be confidential.
These proposals will divert people in the NHS from their job of looking after people. The Government are privatising the NHS, they are fragmenting the NHS, they will cost us a fortune and do little or no good for anybody.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I shall support the Bill, because it will mean an end to the disruption and devastation of local hospital services owing to overpaid, faceless bureaucrats in palatial offices many miles from people’s local hospitals deciding that a particular service is no longer needed or is better off elsewhere. The Bill’s local democratic legitimacy policy strives to ensure that decisions on serious hospital reconfigurations never again ride roughshod over the wishes of the local community.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
When I asked the Secretary of State who would make the decision if the consortium and the health and wellbeing board disagreed on the reconfiguration of hospitals, he said the reconfiguration panel as it exists today—no difference.
Gordon Birtwistle
I am pleased that the reconfiguration board is now studying a decision that the previous Government made to close my local hospital’s children’s ward. The Secretary of State is due to rule on that shortly.
A prime example of the authoritarian nature of primary care trusts can be seen in my constituency. Without proper consultation, we have seen our accident and emergency department closed and our children’s ward transferred to Blackburn. My constituency is seriously deprived, and the decisions made by managers in Manchester have had a disastrous effect on the health and well-being of thousands of my constituents, many being seriously ill children. The proposals before us will ensure that, for the first time, commissioners and all providers of NHS-funded services have to consult the local authority on the proposed substantial reconfiguration of designated services. In my eyes, that can only be a good thing.
I want to bring to the House’s notice a young man called Logan Cockroft, who lives in my constituency. He has cerebral palsy, and he cannot speak or walk. The only thing that Logan can do is smile. His parents live near Burnley general hospital; they moved there because of Logan’s illness. He made many visits to the hospital because of his illness, the nurses knew him, and he was happy to go there. Logan seemed intent on smothering himself with a pillow, so the nurses at Burnley hospital kept a close eye on him and put him close to the nurses’ station. The family were happy with the treatment that Logan received. Unfortunately, under their meeting patient needs programmes, the previous Government closed down our children’s ward. Logan now has to go to Blackburn. The nurses on the children’s ward in Blackburn do not know Logan. They do not know about Logan’s problems.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Bill allows private providers to undercut the NHS. What would the hon. Gentleman’s reaction be if an NHS service in his constituency disappeared because it had been undercut by a private provider?
Gordon Birtwistle
The service was removed by the hon. Lady’s Government, so I do not need to worry too much about private services.
As I said, Logan has those problems. When he is in Blackburn, his parents are extremely concerned about the care that he is receiving—not because the care is poor, but because staff there are seriously stretched. An attempt has been made to put the children’s ward in Burnley into the children’s ward in Blackburn, which was already overloaded, and the staff cannot manage. That cannot be right and it would not have happened if the PCT had contacted the people of Burnley, who have signed a 25,000-name petition against the move. Almost every GP is against the move, and the people of Burnley are unanimously against it. The move would not have happened under the new system that we are setting up.
The bureaucrats in Manchester tell me that the reconfiguration is not about money but about what is best for Burnley. I tell them that their unfounded interference will result in deaths. Nobody in my constituency wanted the A and E or children’s wards to close; they were a valued service. The Bill will strengthen democratic involvement by ensuring that the full council decides on whether to refer proposals to the NHS commissioning board or the Secretary of State. The people of Burnley had no say at all in what happened to our children’s ward. The Bill will strengthen the important function of scrutiny and recognise the new enhanced leadership of local authorities in health and social care.
It is about time—[Interruption.] I have been here only six months; if Labour Members cannot win, they start arguing, don’t they? But they never stand up and say anything fruitful.
It is about time that measures were put in place to strengthen the role of local authorities and the involvement of democratically elected representatives. That is how there will be representation. We will have somebody to listen to us who has been democratically elected. I have met no one in Burnley who found anybody in the primary care trust or the palatial offices of the strategic health authority in Manchester to speak to about the closure of the children’s ward. Now the people’s voices will be heard.
I am particularly pleased that the Government recognise that district councils have an important role to play in shaping our local hospitals. I hope that the proposed health and wellbeing boards take into account the recommendations of local hospitals and listen to patients. I trust GPs in Burnley to make the right call about our hospital. I only wish that these measures had been in place before the previous Administration reduced services at Burnley general hospital to the point of non-existence.
I welcome these radical changes. Local democratic legitimacy in decision making about our hospitals is desperately needed. It is time that we gave power back to the people.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I shall move on quickly. We had seven hours and 45 minutes to debate the Bill, but the first hour and 15 minutes was taken up by Front Benchers. Given that the Government have not found time to debate the White Paper that they published in July, we should probably have had two days’ debate on a Bill as important as this. As the shadow Secretary of State said, it is far larger than the 1948 Bill that established the national health service.
I find it difficult to find any justification for such a major reorganisation of our NHS. We have had a decade of major investment and we have seen improving services and major satisfaction ratings given by patients. In November 2009, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, said that
“with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
He was supported by the now Secretary of State for Health, who said as shadow Secretary of State in July 2007 that the NHS needed no more top-down reorganisation. Indeed, even after the general election, the coalition agreement stated:
“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care.”
It went on to spell out the continuing role of PCTs in some detail, pledging:
“We will ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust…The local PCT will act as a champion for patients and commission those residual services that are best undertaken at a wider level”.
A few months later, we have this potential chaos thrown on to the national health service. Once again, people are looking at the NHS and trying to change its culture by reorganising it.
We have had 30 years of Governments of different political persuasions trying to change the culture of the national health service by reorganisation. Every time, there have been years-long delays in implementation, performance has been affected in a negative way and there have been costs—particularly on this occasion, when the NHS is being instructed to make efficiency savings.
I agree with the report on commissioning just published by the Health Committee. I am not too sure whether the Chair agrees with it himself; the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) spoke earlier. The report states:
“The Coalition Programme anticipated an evolution of existing institutions; the White Paper announced significant institutional upheaval. The Committee does not believe that this change of policy has yet been sufficiently explained given the costs and uncertainties generated by the process.”
The last 30 years should tell the House and the Government exactly that.
Mr Barron
That is an interesting comment, but the Bill does not represent that. In my borough, the PCT—as was; it still is, although it is now Rotherham NHS—will become the GP commissioning consortium. Let us not get away from that. The idea that getting rid of the strategic health authorities or anything else is going to save massive amounts of money is palpable nonsense.
Does anybody think that top-down meddling is going to end because of this reorganisation? If the local GP consortium does not offer provision as it should, the national commissioning board will tell it what to do. If that is not top-down, I do not know what is. Those will be the people responsible for whether local residents, particularly those who need specialised commissioning, are going to get the services or not. The idea that those people are going to be responsible for NHS dentistry in my constituency is nonsense. There has now been a move away from midwifery, and that was going to be commissioned nationally. The changes are nonsense; they have been ill thought out.
Mr Stuart
The Chair of the Health Committee also set out the central challenge, which was recognised by the previous Government: to make major savings, year on year, for the next four years, at a time when budgets will not be able to increase—or at least not by much. How does the right hon. Gentleman think that that issue could best be addressed? Suggesting, as he did at the beginning, that we could just carry on as we were would not be sustainable.
Mr Barron
I am not saying that savings should not be made. Indeed, the Select Committee in the last Parliament took evidence from the chief executive of the NHS on that particular point. The case that I make is about the type of reorganisation. Not only has nobody in the public sector ever been able to get 4% a year in savings, but nobody in the private sector has, in the time scale being predicted now. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that that is rubbish—it is not rubbish at all. He should go and talk to his advisers about what happens in the real world, as opposed to the world that has appeared since July last year.
I would like to say something in defence of managers. This Government have been bashing managers in the NHS every week they have been in office, and did so for many months before they got there. How do they think we got waiting lists for things such as new knee and hip joints down from years to months, and even weeks, in areas such as mine? I will tell them. It was not done by taking the surgeons out of theatres to do the administration, but by putting people in to do the administration so that the surgeons could spend more time in theatres seeing more patients. That is the real truth. The management -bashing that has been taking place of people inside the NHS might be popular on the ground, but let me say this to the Government: if they take those managers out and we go back to the waiting lists and waiting times of five or six years ago, they will see where popularity lies.
Mr Barron
No, I will not; I have given way twice. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
The King’s Fund, which the Secretary of State mentioned, supports some parts of the Bill. Indeed, I support a lot of its aims, but I do not support the reorganisation and upheaval that it will create inside the NHS. That is why I will vote against it. The King’s Fund says:
“The Bill abolishes the Health Protection Agency, places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote public health, and transfers responsibility for public health to local authorities.”
I agree with that. However, the Bill does not give me any confidence that GP consortia will have responsibility for the health of the population they cover.
Anybody looking at the history of public health in this country should recognise that we cannot run it on the basis of just handing it over to local government. The issues are far wider than that. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but people should look at the answers to questions that I got a week or so ago about what has happened to smoking cessation since this Government took over. Rates of smoking cessation have plummeted because of the advertising and promotion that is permitted. About 50% of health inequalities are created by smoking. The Government have taken their foot off the accelerator on the main thing that we should be doing to address public health inequalities, and they will suffer at the polls because of it.
Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). Although I did not agree with much of his speech, I strongly agree with his last point about the importance of keeping the foot on the accelerator to try to narrow health inequalities. That is right at the top of the priorities of Health Ministers. This is a very important and complex Bill. We all want to see high-quality care and value for the taxpayer in the provision of health care. I think it is fair to say that there has never been a better-informed, more knowledgeable and better-prepared incoming Secretary of State than we have at the moment.
The opening speeches by my right hon. Friend and by the shadow Secretary of State stood in stark contrast to one another. I feel rather sorry for the shadow Secretary of State. He is clearly an intelligent man, but he is cornered by the supplicatory role that his leader is playing to the trade union movement. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State agrees with the Government’s introduction of independent treatment centres. I am sure that he also agrees with the previous Government’s introduction of the independent sector into provision and into commissioning, “any willing provider”, practice-based commissioning, payment by results—although it was payment by activity then—and national tariff ceilings within quality standard frameworks. However, he could not say so because he is cornered.
Listening to some Labour Members, one would think that there were no improvements to be made—that the national health service was a utopian structure prior to the last general election. Let me point to 10 things that I sketched out this morning: too much money spent on administration and bureaucracy and not enough on front-line patient care; too little patient-centric information to inform decision making; too little innovation; too little clinical input into decision making; too much inertia and hostility to reform, as we have seen today; too much process-driven target culture distorting clinical decision making; falling productivity; poor outcomes across a range of clinical indicators; too often, weak commissioning of servicing; and widening health inequalities in the past 10 years, in addition to the scandals that occurred in Staffordshire and Kent. That is hardly a situation that makes the status quo desirable.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
At the risk of being accused of management-bashing, may I point out that somebody in my own trust who worked up a deficit in excess of £100 million was rewarded with a large pay-off when he left the NHS? Can that possibly be right?
Mark Simmonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember him fighting tirelessly and vociferously to try to prevent those in the health service and the then Health Secretary from allowing that to happen.
Another thing that Labour Members have to understand is that we must move the NHS towards being a service that is centred on the patient, not one where the patient revolves around the system. To enable that to happen, we must measure and improve outcomes on a continuing basis, and we must do it with patient-centric information that will enhance patient choice, not only about the choice of the provider and the location of their treatment, but about the treatment that they receive for their ailment. This Bill deals with all the failings that were present when the Labour party was in charge.
There are three or four areas where the detail still needs to be discussed, and I want to make some suggestions. There must be an opportunity for integrated care and for improved patient pathways. I would very much like acute clinicians, pharmacists and others who deliver patient care to be involved in GP consortia and the commissioning process. Some of the more forward-thinking consortia are already involving acute clinicians, and this needs to be implemented across the board. We need to find a non-prescriptive architecture to enable consortia to work together to collaborate where appropriate, not only in the all-important area of cancer, as appropriately highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), but in acute stroke services. This has been done successfully, and it must continue to be done.
Performance management is absolutely critical. The Bill seems to make no specific mention of out-of-hours care. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will remember only too clearly the terrible case of Mr Gray, who was killed by Dr Ubani, the out-of-hours doctor who flew in from Germany and prescribed him the wrong dose of a drug. That was a performance management failure. The SHA failed to monitor the PCT, which was failing to monitor the provider. We must ensure that GPs are involved in driving improvements in out-of-hours care as well as in-hours care.
We need to look at GPs’ contracts. It is rather perplexing that a PMS—personal medical services—contract could be held by a national commissioning board. Who will be in charge of revalidation, training and performance lists? We must move GPs’ quality and outcomes framework towards one that is outcome-based rather than process-based.
Mr Graham Stuart
Like my hon. Friend, I will support the Bill. Does he hope, as I do, that the Government will look very carefully at any conflicts of interest? As we rightly give the power down to clinicians, we need to ensure that they always take decisions in the interests of the patient and not for their own financial gain.
Mark Simmonds
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My understanding is that the NHS commissioning board will have a significant monitoring role to ensure that GPs commission services not automatically from themselves but from providers who provide the best outcomes for the patients they are trying to look after.
I would like to make one final point to the ministerial team. Information is the key that will drive improvements in the NHS, and that information must be comparable, easily accessible and easily understandable in order to inform patients’ decision making processes. It should not just be on the internet. We should not just wait for patients to access information—we have to find ways of taking it to them, particularly those living in socio-economically deprived areas.
The Bill is a significant step in the right direction. It preserves the best of the national health service—equality of access—while creating opportunities to improve the provision of health care in the UK, so that it can become among the best in the world, rather than lag behind. Excellence for all should be the goal.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds). Although I do not agree with much of what he said—I certainly do not agree with his rationale for supporting the Bill—he made a few genuine points that, in the calmer atmosphere of a Committee, could be looked at in detail.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the difference between the two Front Benches could hardly be starker. This is about the view of what the national health service should be. I am not disappointed for one moment that the view of the Labour party is different from that of the Conservative party and its followers from the Liberal camp. Much has been made of that great event on 5 July 1948, when the national health service came into being. Of course, at the time, it was ferociously opposed by the Conservative party. At the beginning, it was also opposed by large parts, although not all, of the medical profession.
Jim Dowd
I will not give way, for one good reason: I might get injury time for it, but others would lose out.
The medical profession has changed its view, as has the Conservative party. The Conservative party has changed its view largely because the NHS and the principles that underpin it resound so clearly with the British people. This has been a difficulty for the Conservative party over the years.
I have seen a few Conservative party reorganisations of the health service. Thirty-five years ago, I was appointed to the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority, which included such hospitals as our local one over the river, St Thomas’s, Guy’s, King’s College and Lewisham. The AHAs were set up as a consequence of the Heath Government’s reforms in the early ’70s. They were abolished, but not before Lord Jenkin suspended the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham AHA for refusing to accept the cuts in the budgets that the then Government were trying to inflict.
The Tories reorganised the health service again and brought in district health authorities. I served on Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority for some time, until in 1990 I was thrown off for having the temerity to be a local councillor. I am sure that there are others around the Chamber who suffered similarly. Who engineered that amazing transformation? It was none other than the current Secretary of State for Justice. I think that he just sacked anybody who was not on his Christmas card list, quite frankly, because nothing in that reform of the health service did anything to improve its accountability or performance. It did hand over the health service, more than ever, to central control and direction, which, we are asked to believe, the Conservative party today decries so readily.
The Conservative party, of course, contains members who believe—and who go on foreign broadcasting stations to announce—that the national health service is a 60-year-old mistake. That is what was said by an MEP who was advising Republicans in the United States to oppose the Obama reforms. He was slapped down quite quickly, unsurprisingly. It is the great embarrassment of the Conservative party that it cannot reconcile its atavistic feelings towards the health service and belief in the free market with the feelings of the vast majority of the British people.
In recent years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) pointed out, waiting times for most specialisms have come down almost to the point where they are no longer a consideration. I will tell the House briefly about the experience I had towards the end of 2009. I suffered chest pains of various kinds. I went to A and E at Lewisham hospital on 28 July. I was referred to the chest pain clinic at the same hospital the following week. I went for an angiogram at King’s College hospital two weeks after that, where the consultant advised me that I needed bypass surgery. I asked how long it would take—I did not mean the operation, obviously, but the wait. He said, “When can you come in?” I could not make the first date that I was offered, so I had to put it back. My experience was repeated millions of times across this country when the Labour party had stewardship of the NHS. It is that relationship that is so critically under attack.
The NHS is about patients—of course it is. Everybody knows that patients come first and that it must be patient-centred. Those things are meaningless clichés. Patient care and patient choice matter, but what matters more is patient trust. Patients must trust that any therapy, drug or treatment that is suggested by their clinicians and medical advisers is what is best for them—not what is cheapest or what has been contracted for. It is that critical, basic relationship in the national health service that is most under threat from this Bill and that Government.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I, too, rise to speak in favour of the Bill. There is a clear divide in the House between the Labour party, which stands by and defends NHS bureaucracy, box-ticking and putting bureaucracy in front of patients, and the Secretary of State and the coalition Government who genuinely want to deliver reforms that will benefit patients. As the Bill says, the people who are best placed to be the advocates of patients are doctors and other health care professionals. Such people are much better placed to be the advocates for their patients than the faceless bureaucrats who have made so many bad decisions, and who have put tick-boxes and targets in front of patient care.
A key issue in this debate was articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), who said that the NHS, whoever were in government, would face unprecedented strains and problems. One such problem is the ageing population. It is great that people live many years longer, but people consume the majority of their health care in the later years of their lives. Unless we reform the NHS, make it more patient-centred, and cut out the bureaucracy and put the money to better use on the front line, we will not be able to properly look after those older patients.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I agree that the issue of ageing patients is a fundamental challenge. Does my hon. Friend agree that domiciliary care, which is currently delivered through local authorities and primary care trusts, is a vital service that maintains many people’s health for the longer term and often prevents unnecessary stays in hospital? Does he agree that appropriate steps should be taken by the Government in the Bill to ensure access to high-quality domiciliary care for all?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend represents Eastbourne, which has a large elderly population. He is right to make that point. Under the Bill, health and wellbeing boards will be set up, which will deliver a proper partnership between GPs, hospitals and local councils. That will allow, for the first time, properly joined-up thinking about how we deliver social services care that is joined up with NHS care for older people. I am delighted that the Government will put in almost £1 billion to support that initiative, which can only be a good thing.
The second challenge facing the NHS, which my right hon. Member for Charnwood also mentioned, is that we are having to get more and more out of a limited resource, because people expect more and more from their health care, regardless of their age. People want, quite rightly, to be given the latest cancer drugs. They want to ensure that they have top-quality care and access to information that delivers that care. The problem with the bureaucracy that has been in place is that, far too often, it has taken too long to deliver higher quality care and a greater choice in treatment for patients. When we know that a cancer drug works, it should be available as soon as possible. It should not have to go through a process of two, three or four years of bureaucracy to be made available, and the Bill will help to change that. For those reasons, the Bill’s reforms to the NHS will provide an excellent framework in which to deliver better ways of spending limited resources and looking after our ever-ageing population.
A lot of health care professionals will be saying, as I did earlier, that far too often, medicine and health care have been reduced to a tick-box exercise, with targets and top-down bureaucracy getting in the way of patient care. Under the A and E targets delivered by the previous Government, equal priority was given to treating a patient with a broken toe as someone with potentially life-threatening chest pain. That cannot possibly be right. Putting doctors, nurses and other health care professionals in charge of making health care decisions will mean that clinical priorities and better patient care can be delivered.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the reduction in the number of managers, consultants and other bureaucrats that will be caused by moving from 152 primary care trusts to potentially 500 or 1,000 GP commissioning groups?
Dr Poulter
The Opposition need to take on board the fact that the cost of running PCTs has gone up by about £1 billion a year since they were first put in place. The cost of bureaucracy and management in the NHS is unsustainable, and most of the money that we are putting into the NHS is going on salaries and bureaucracy rather than on front-line patient care. It is surely a good thing to remove the middle strand of bureaucracy—PCTs, strategic health authorities and other quangos that cost a lot of money but do not deliver front-line patient care. That will help deliver more money to the front line and to patients, and Members on both sides of the House should support such an initiative.
I shall elaborate on the point about how PCTs have been a great source of wasted money. In my part of the world in Suffolk, they have spent millions of pounds each year on external consultants to tell them how they should be doing the job that they should have been doing in the first place. There has also been a total disconnect between primary and secondary care and a breakdown in the relationship between them. For example, as the Secretary of State alluded to earlier, hospitals have wanted to put in place outreach clinics for mental health, dermatology and rheumatology, but too often, as in my area, they have been told that the PCT will not allow them to do that.
Hospitals have said that they value and need community hospitals, because they provide an excellent place for step-up and step-down care and for rehabilitation after an acute hospital stay, but PCTs have closed down community hospitals such as Hartismere hospital in my community. We know that that is not a good thing. Far too often, PCTs have been a barrier to joined-up thinking in the NHS between the primary care sector and hospitals.
Dr Poulter
No, I have taken two interventions and I will not take any more.
The Bill will allow health care to become more localised. Some of our constituencies have urban needs and some have rural needs, and allowing GPs to set up localised consortia that are more responsive to the needs of local communities will enable them to recognise those health care needs. For example, the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has an ageing population, so the GP consortia and health and wellbeing boards will rightly focus on looking after the older population. In areas of the country such as our some of our inner cities, including parts of Bradford and Manchester where there are huge health care inequalities, the Bill will provide a real opportunity for the health and wellbeing boards and local GPs to tailor their services much more effectively to tackling local problems. For instance, they may face problems such as heart disease, diabetes and obesity more acutely than other areas.
The Bill is a good thing. It will bring to the NHS framework and the national care standards a much more focused, much less bureaucratic and much more patient-centred approach, which will be much more responsive to the needs of local communities. I am proud to speak in favour of it.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). I congratulate him on his important and interesting speech, and I wish to pick up his challenge. The choice is not between no reform and reform; it is between good reform and bad reform. I believe that the proposals in front of us represent not a curate’s egg, with some good reforms and some bad, but a set of poison pills for the NHS.
The first poison pill is the massive upheaval that the Bill proposes at the time of an unprecedented efficiency drive. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) said that it was precisely because of the efficiency drive that we should have massive upheaval, but he must know that all the evidence from reorganisations throughout the years is that projected savings are double the out-turn, and projected costs turn out to be half the actual level. When the Prime Minister says that there is a £300 million difference between the costs and the savings—£1.7 billion of savings and £1.4 billion of costs—he is actually treating us to a reorganisation that will end up costing money and causing redundancy costs at a time when hospitals and GPs are trying to get the job done.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
May I correct the right hon. Gentleman before he goes too far down that path? The impact assessment suggests that the one-off cost will be £1.4 billion, and that the savings from that investment over the life of this Parliament will be £5 billion. By the end of the decade, the saving will be £13.6 billion, which is £1.7 billion a year after 2013-14.
David Miliband
I am happy to wager the hon. Gentleman that the costs will turn out to be more like double those estimated and the savings more like half.
The Bill is myopic, or “deluded”, to use the word of the British Medical Journal, in three key areas, which I wish to mention. First, it assumes that all GPs are ready now to take on hard budgets in the commissioning framework. It took the previous Tory Government six years to get 56% to be GP fundholders. Secondly, it will deepen the divide between primary and secondary care. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich raised that matter, which is vital. We all know that in our constituencies, collaboration between primary and secondary care is key, especially for chronic conditions. The Bill will make the divide worse, because collaboration will be deemed anti-competitive.
Thirdly, the Bill has absolutely nothing to say about quality control of GPs. In fact, it will remove the local drivers for improvement that I have seen in my constituency. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) mentioned cancer survival rates, and the Appleby research shows that we in this country have made more progress over the past 30 years than any other country in Europe, and will overtake France in 2012. It also shows that the extent to which we are behind can be explained by late diagnosis in the first year of cancer, which is the responsibility of GPs. They should focus on improving their cancer treatment, not commissioning care.
David Miliband
No, I have given way once and I want to make some progress. If I have time, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
All the matters that I have mentioned are to service a vision of health care as a regulated industry. The Secretary of State has engaged in a ding-dong about which operating framework is more important—the 2009 or the 2010 one. Two points, though, have not been contested. The first is that in 2011-12, for the first time, there will be competition according to price—page 54 of the operating framework says that. The second is that the academic evidence is absolutely clear that price competition results in lower prices, yes, but also in lower quality.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) asked the Secretary of State, “What about my community hospitals?”, but of course the Secretary of State does not want to make decisions about community hospitals. His predecessor but six, eight or 10, Nye Bevan, said that he wanted a bedpan falling in Tredegar to be heard in the corridors of Whitehall. The Secretary of State does not want to hear bedpans falling; he wants to say that it is GPs who should be making decisions, or the commissioning board, or, in the ultimate irony that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) pointed out, the European Court of Justice under European competition law. He pointed out the irony of the Lisbon treaty being critical, but at this very time the House is passing a Europe Bill that calls for referendums when any power is transferred to the EU, including on matters as puny as the appointments system for the Court of Auditors, never mind on a vital part of NHS provision.
Frank Dobson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is perhaps being a little ungrateful? He might have mentioned that the NHS wanted to close all his community hospitals in Cornwall, and that the dreaded centralist top-down Dobson stopped it.
David Miliband
The benefits of memory are useful in politics, and perhaps my right hon. Friend’s intervention will help the hon. Member for St Ives to decide how to vote in the Lobby tonight.
Many people have asked why the Government are making these proposals at such breakneck speed. Surely it is not to solve a political problem on health. After all, the Conservative party spent the whole of the last Parliament doing everything possible to avoid any policy on health that might hint at radical change. That paid off, because in the last prime ministerial debates before the general election, not a single question on health was put to any of the party leaders. It would be massively in the interests of my party and all Labour Members if the next general election were dominated by debates on the health service. On that basis, we should be urging the Government to plough ahead and make the next general election a referendum on health. Frankly, however, the cost would be far too high, and the consequences would be far too great for the national health service.
The truth is that a radical Secretary of State would do something that too few of his predecessors have been willing to do—namely, to say, “On my watch, there will be no reorganisation of the national health service.” Such a Secretary of State would dedicate himself to implementing the reforms that are working today. It is not the case that the only choice is between no reform at all and the reforms now being offered. According to health experts, there is more reform going on in the English health service now than in other health system in Europe. Our Scottish and Welsh friends might benefit from some of the changes that are taking place in England, because those changes have made the English health service a fast-improving one in Europe.
There is always room for improvement in the national health service to strengthen commissioning, to link health authorities and local government, to get people out of hospitals and to align with social care. The Dilnot commission has just been appointed to review the funding of social care, but it will not report until July. At exactly the time when we are looking at the localisation of health provision, the Government have appointed someone to look at the nationalisation of social care provision and its funding. This is not a Health and Social Care Bill; it is a health without social care Bill.
“The real choice is not between stability and change, but between reforms that are well executed and deliver results for patients and reforms that are poorly planned and risk undermining the NHS”.
Those are not my words but those of the chief executive of the King’s Fund. The Hippocratic oath says that we should “Do no harm”. The Bill fails that test. It aims at irrevocable change and threatens real harm, and that is the reason to oppose it in the Lobby tonight.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Bill, because I believe that it responds to some of the issues that have been affecting my constituency for the past dozen or so years. I want to focus on two elements of it in the relatively limited time available to me.
The first concerns the influence of GPs. Like many hon. Members, I hold constituency surgeries, and barely a week goes by without one of my constituents coming to me with an issue about the national health service. Few of my constituents understand the inner machinations of the NHS, but the vast majority of their complaints are directed towards hospitals and treatments, and the way in which treatment is commissioned. For those with some knowledge of how the system works, it is clear that the problems lie with one of the three organisations that serve Worcestershire—the acute hospitals trust, the primary care trust and the mental health partnership—and the way in which they interface with each other. However, what my constituents never complain about is their GP—[Hon. Members: “What?”] Well, they do not. Most of the problems lie in the fact that the chain of delivery of services is too complicated. For a GP to commission services for their patient, their wishes must cross not one but two organisational interfaces, at the very least. That does not make any sense. Anyone designing a complex system tries to instil the highest possible level of simplicity so that opportunities for mistakes are kept at a minimum.
My local GPs, far from fearing change, have welcomed and embraced the new proposals set out in the White Paper. When I met them last September, they had already formed a shadow consortium serving my constituents. They are enthusiastic to take on the responsibilities of commissioning, and they were disappointed not to have been chosen as one of the initial pathfinder consortia. That has now been remedied with the second tranche, with the Wyre Forest consortium being chosen to act as pathfinder.
It is in the second aspect of the Bill that I have a specific interest. Hon. Members will be acutely aware of the issues surrounding Kidderminster hospital and the changes that affected it in the early years of the previous Government. What started as a removal of blue-light services from our hospital ended up as a downscaling from district general hospital to a mere treatment centre with a minor injuries unit, although I must say that the treatment centre is now well liked locally.
At the time, there was huge protest at this outrage. Public opinion was dead against the downscaling, with local residents marching in force against it, a human chain being formed around the hospital to protect it and finally, and most dramatically, an extraordinary result in the 2001 general election when the people of Wyre Forest demonstrated their anger in the strongest way possible by voting at the ballot box to save Kidderminster hospital. But still they were not listened to, and the hospital was downscaled.
Shortly after I was selected as the candidate in Wyre Forest in January 2004, I arranged the first of many visits from the then shadow Secretary of State for Health, now the Secretary of State. I wanted him to come to Kidderminster to hear at first hand how angry local residents were at not being listened to. He came on many occasions and listened to the staff, to patient groups, to doctors and to nurses. Indeed, he has come so often that he is now on first name terms with the two matrons at Kidderminster. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] He is a very popular fellow, I can tell you. He has also been to other hospitals facing closure and downscaling, and he seems to have listened to them as well, because the second key element in this Bill is the proposal for local health and wellbeing boards and the local democracy that they will bring.
Frank Dobson
At a press conference this morning, the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, Dr Richard Taylor, made it perfectly clear that he was utterly opposed to all these proposals.
Mark Garnier
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. If my predecessor were that upset about the proposals, it would have been good of him to get in touch with his Member of Parliament and voice his concerns to me directly. He has not done that. He is, however, a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, and his views are worth listening to, although I would not necessarily agree with him on this point.
When I look at the Bill, I ask myself a fundamental question. If these provisions had been in place after 1997, would Kidderminster hospital have been downscaled? I am confident that it would not.
These proposals clearly have the full and enthusiastic support of my local GPs, who are willing, ready and able to take on these new responsibilities. I and they believe that the Bill will result in a more responsive NHS that listens to local people in delivering local solutions to local problems. Finally, I can say to my constituents in Wyre Forest, who are still angry because they thought that they were ignored for a decade, that they are being listened to, that it was the Conservative Opposition who listened to their plight, and that it is their anger at being ignored and the response to that anger that lie at the heart of the Bill.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech in this debate today, Mr Speaker. I am deeply honoured to have been elected as the Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth in the recent by-election—the first woman MP for Oldham. The circumstances for the by-election were indeed unusual, and it is only right to mention that many constituents and colleagues from across the House have remarked on my predecessor Phil Woolas’s intellect, his incredible attention to detail and the kindness he showed to them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
My constituency is a beautiful place with a remarkable history. For example, it was not only where the Independent Labour party was born and where Winston Churchill started his political career, but where the suffragette Annie Kenney originated from. Oldham’s first parliamentary representatives were of course the radicals William Cobbett and John Fielden, and I intend to be equally radical in my own way.
As beautiful and as varied as my constituency is, what I care most about are the remarkable people. During the by-election, I met thousands of constituents from all walks of life, some of whom supported me and some of whom did not. Regardless of their political affiliation, however, they were invariably polite. Of course, there were one or two who chased me down their garden paths, but, fair dos, it was Christmas day! [Laughter.] Their tolerance and decency reflect something very special about our society: a social conscience that values fairness, treating people as they would like to be treated, while recognising that different people have different needs and merits. As we know, both intuitively and from research, fairer societies do better, and are better for everyone. Of course, all political parties have claimed that they are the party of fairness, but I think most people will agree that action speaks louder than words.
I promised the people of Oldham East and Saddleworth that I would stand up for them and fight against unfairness. I believe—there is increasing evidence to support this—that the Government’s policies are deeply unfair and, contrary to their assertions, unwarranted. As history has shown, Governments set the tone for the culture of a society. The tone being set by this Government threatens the country’s sense of fair play and social justice.
I asked to deliver my maiden speech on Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill because, as some people will know, my professional background is in health. I am passionate about the NHS. For me, it not only plans and provides our health services, but reflects the very values of our society.
In ’97, the NHS was on its knees. Staff were leaving in droves, and the level of spending on health was one of the lowest in Europe. Labour more than trebled investment in the NHS, enabling us to recruit more doctors and nurses and to improve access to care. Gone are the days when people waited two years or more for a hip replacement or to have their cataracts removed.
The shift to improving health, preventing illness and providing care closer to home has made real, positive differences to the nation’s health. The Bill threatens not just those developments, but the very future of the NHS. I have expressed my concerns in the past about the marketisation of our NHS, but the Bill is in another league—it is about the total privatisation of our NHS. Some fear that all that will be left will be the name.
Where is the mandate for that from the British people? We can all sign up to the Bill’s objectives, but there is no evidence to support the idea that the proposals will deliver better health outcomes. The reforms are based on the notion that increasing competition drives down costs and improves quality. However, the overwhelming evidence from the UK, the US and elsewhere, is that that is not how competition works in health care.
I have heard some Government Members ask, “What does it matter who provides our health care as long as it is free at the point of need?” I say to them that that does matter. I have seen how the decisions about which patients those providers treat are based on whether they are profitable or not; they are not based on clinical need.
The reforms will affect the choice of medicines prescribed, and what type of treatments are provided and what kind of patients are prioritised. Certainly, that will not mean those with complex conditions. Unprofitable patients can expect short shrift from this evolved NHS. At my surgery last week, one of my constituents, who is in remission from leukaemia, came to see me because she fears that the drugs that she has been prescribed will be unavailable under the new reforms. What am I going to tell her?
Abolishing primary care trusts as part of the costly NHS reorganisation is yet another broken promise from this Government. Putting £80 billion of the NHS budget into the hands of a few GPs who enjoy managing a business might sound liberating, but in my experience, the vast majority of GPs want only to care as well as they can for their patients. In reality, the commissioning of health services will also be done by private health care companies, and there are significant conflicts of interests when those companies are both commissioners and providers of care.
The impact on equitable access to health care is another real issue. The Bill does not require GP consortia to work together, which leaves the possibility of neighbouring consortia taking different decisions about services, giving rise to a new postcode lottery. By forcing those GP consortia to put all services out to competitive tender, the Bill encourages any willing provider to cherry-pick profitable slices of NHS services. The introduction of price competition for the first time is a disastrous step, with the potential to undermine the quality of patient care.
In public health, which is my field, I have little confidence that the move of the public health service to local authorities will lead to health gain. That depends on an independent and well-resourced public health work force. The Bill also fails to define what will be covered by the ring-fenced budget that is given to local authorities. Thank you again, Mr Speaker, for calling me.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Before I begin my remarks on the Bill, may I say how well the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) made her maiden speech? I suspect that we disagree quite fundamentally on the future of the NHS, but one thing that is true of her and of all right hon. and hon. Members is that we want the very best health care for our constituents; we just disagree on the path that we take to get there.
A fortnight ago, I was privileged to speak on Second Reading of the Localism Bill. The hon. Lady spoke of the desire to be radical, but the Localism Bill is a radical measure that proposes to give power over the future of communities back to the people. The Health and Social Care Bill is very much in concert with the Localism Bill—and legislation on policing that is yet to be introduced—in giving authority, choice and power over the important services that people receive back to them.
Right hon. and hon. Members know that when we engage our electorates, they always—rightly and understandably—express certain priorities such as the future of our communities and law and order. Consistently, people are concerned about the future of health care. Health care is one of those great levellers. It matters not what one’s background is: we are all equally adversely affected when we do not have the right sort of health care available locally. The measures outlined in the Bill go a long way to giving back to people control over that most important public service, on which all of us and our families without exception rely.
I have spoken on many occasions to local GPs in my constituency. They are enthusiastic about their GP consortium pathfinder status. Already, they are brimming with ideas on how they can improve the patient experience in my constituency, which is broadly to be welcomed. Indeed, I have been heartened by the fact that many of my local GPs are enthusiastic about the democratic accountability that the Bill allows. My local GP pathfinder consortium wishes to be a health and wellbeing partnership pilot, working with Crawley borough council—the immediate local authority—and West Sussex county council.
Dr Poulter
I had the pleasure of working at my hon. Friend’s local hospital at Crawley. When I was there, I saw the downgrading of that hospital by the PCT—it lost more and more services. What discussions has he had with his local GPs on how they will improve and enhance services at the local community hospital and generally?
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend is indeed legendary at Crawley hospital, and it is great to take part in this debate with him. Unlike him, I do not have a health background. My wife used to work in the NHS, but my background is as a local elected representative of my community and as a patient, and as someone whose family has had experience of the NHS.
I am afraid that I shared the bitter experience of many in Crawley during the 13 years in which the Labour party was in government. On 1 May 1997, when Labour took office, Crawley had an A and E department and a maternity unit. I am sorry to say that in 2001, Crawley hospital lost the maternity unit. At the time of a rather joyous occasion for my family, it was saddening that my children could not be born in our local hospital.
Hugh Bayley
The hon. Gentleman champions localism, but has he picked up that maternity services will be taken away from GP consortia under the Bill? Is that a good thing?
Henry Smith
I dispute that reading of the Bill. Maternity was taken away from my local community in 2001 and is now 10 miles up the road, in another county, and accessible only by single-carriageway roads, which is at best inconvenient, and at worst dangerous for patients.
The sorry tale goes on. In 2005, under Labour, Crawley hospital lost its A and E unit to East Surrey hospital—10 miles up the road, in another county—which has been seriously detrimental to my constituents, and something that they and I very much regret.
I was struck by many of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), because he mentioned things very similar to our experiences in Crawley—and listening to other right hon. and hon. Members, there seem to have been similar experiences across the country as well. I can speak only from my local experience, but there was an eerie resonance in the sort of downgrading of services under the Labour Government.
Geraint Davies
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what his community, like other communities, will face is a local monopoly—the GP consortia—that will focus on the most profitable lines of treatment, rather than on the best treatment? Surely this is not the right direction.
Henry Smith
I do not see how multiple providers is a definition of a monopoly. However, I must make progress in the short time left to me.
My constituents are pleased that for the first time in many years health decisions will be made in Crawley, rather than, as has happened up until now, on the south coast, in east Surrey or up in Whitehall, and that more decisions will be made by local people.
Henry Smith
I am sorry, but I have not got enough time.
I will support the measures in the Bill, as should all right hon. and hon. Members. However, I would like briefly to ask for clarification on two points from those on the Treasury Bench. First, hospices are greatly valued in our local area—on Friday, I was privileged to visit the Chestnut Tree House children’s hospital, which serves my constituency—so some clarity over future support for hospices would be greatly appreciated. Secondly, I would also like an assurance that the merry-go-round of failing managers in our acute sector will be addressed. I regret to say that on new year’s eve, at East Surrey hospital—the acute hospital for my constituency— 14 ambulances were queuing to get into accident and emergency. That is not good enough. It is another area of the sector that needs to be reformed.
Forgive me, Mr Speaker, because in the seven seconds I have left, I would like to report that there is well-being in Crawley today, because they are due to play at Old Trafford in about three weeks’ time.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
One thing is clear: from whatever perspective we consider the reforms in the Bill—whether from that of Charnwood or Holborn and St Pancras—there is a serious and worrying lack of evidence base for the Government’s proposals. These are proposals identified by the King’s Fund as without doubt
“the biggest shake up of the NHS since it was established”.
While the Health Secretary was the Conservative party’s shadow health spokesman—from June 2004 until he took office in May last year—he was coy about his real intentions towards the NHS, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband). When the Government published the Bill, six major health unions and professional bodies wrote in a letter to The Times:
“There is clear evidence that price competition in healthcare is damaging. Furthermore the sheer scale of the ambitious and costly reform programme, and the pace of change, while at the same time being expected to make £20 billion of savings, is extremely risky and potentially disastrous.”
Labour Members welcome greater clinical involvement in commissioning, but GPs are not the sole font of knowledge in best practice and other areas.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in any one year some GPs will deal only with one or two patients with, in particular, a neurological condition? GPs might not be in the best position, therefore, to be the providers and commissioners of such services.
Grahame M. Morris
I agree completely with my hon. Friend’s point. According to evidence given to the Select Committee on Health, specialists in secondary care and the nursing and other professions could add their expertise to the commissioning process.
The shake-up of the NHS goes far beyond simply involving clinicians in spending decisions. GP commissioning is a red herring. We were told by the Secretary of State that these reforms are needed because productivity has fallen since Labour’s increased investment. However, after 18 years of mismanagement and under-investment under the Conservative party, it was obvious that on a crude measurement of productivity—inputs versus outputs—there was going to be a decline in supposed productivity, because obviously money had to be directed towards clearing up the mess left by the previous Tory government, to building new hospitals, accident and emergency units and maternity units, and to reducing waiting lists, which in many areas of the country were 18 months and longer.
The Secretary of State raised the satisfaction survey. Indeed, in December 2010, the National Centre for Social Research released its most recent report on British social attitudes. It found that public satisfaction with the NHS was at an all-time high, whereas in 1997, when Labour came to power, only 34% of people surveyed were satisfied with the NHS—the lowest level since the survey began in 1983. By 2009, satisfaction had nearly doubled to two thirds—to 64%. Given that most health unions, professional bodies, think tanks and the public did not call for such reforms, where did the Secretary of State’s motivation come from? These are not patient-led reforms; they are private health care-led reforms.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that these plans will lead to high and low-tariff services, and cherry-picking, and that services such as child and adolescent mental health services, children’s health services and adult mental health services will lose out?
Grahame M. Morris
I agree with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. There are concerns about the removal of the tariff floor and the introduction of price competition into the service. That is radical and revolutionary; it is not evolutionary. Rather than open-market health care, the British Medical Association and others are calling for a
“cooperative and coordinated environment where patients are guaranteed the most clinically appropriate and cost-effective care. Price competition and a fully open market will make this impossible.”
Clause 63 allows the Secretary of State to impose requirements on consortia to promote competition between providers, and clause 64 makes it possible for Monitor to investigate any complaint of anti-competitive behaviour made against commissioners by any interested party. That might be a third party or an overseas private health care company, and would make it far more difficult for GPs to ensure that their patient services are integrated, inclusive and carried out in partnership. The Bill also forces trusts to achieve foundation status within three years and will lead to more important priorities, such as safe patient care, being compromised. Furthermore, the abolition of the private patient income cap set out in clause 150, removing the limit on the amount of income foundation trusts can earn from private operations and private health care, will create a two-tier health system. Foundation trusts forced into the market without protection will face financial pressures to turn a profit, and NHS patients will risk being pushed to the back of the queue.
To my mind, and according to evidence submitted to the Health Committee by the Royal College of Nursing in which it identified 27,000 nursing posts that will go, these reforms will result in tens of thousands of job losses and undermine national terms and conditions for NHS staff. The scrapping of targets has left the NHS open to a dangerous postcode lottery. The duty to tackle health inequalities is one of the few remaining powers to be held by the Secretary of State, but he will have nothing to back it up.
There is also no protection for the taxpayer from exorbitant and excessive behaviour by the consortia, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell). It is possible that we will see banker-style bonuses and the import of private sector pay into health care. [Interruption.] The Minister moans from a sedentary position, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening. The Bill will also leave us, as Members of Parliament, with no voice in the NHS. This Tory-led Government seem to be trying to de-risk this political hot potato, which the Conservatives have never been able to manage properly. However, if Ministers think that the British public will allow them to wash their hands of the NHS without any comeback at the next general election, they should prepare to be shocked.
I would like to say one more thing in the time left—now that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is back in his place and given what the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) said—about the combined impact assessment. I have received a letter from a GP saying that the practical significance of the Bill will be such that the many MPs who campaigned to save their local hospitals cannot vote for it in all honesty, knowing that in so doing they will be voting for a measure that is purposefully and expressly designed to prevent them from having any say and which will potentially lead to the very outcomes that they so vociferously campaigned against.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise to support a Bill that I believe is perhaps one of the most exciting, if controversial, Bills to have been put before Parliament in the 62 years since the NHS was established. It is a fact that a resident in this country today is twice as likely to die from a heart attack as a resident in France. In this country, we also fail to reach European averages for stroke care. In fact, 4,000 stroke victims a year lose their lives because our NHS is not up to European standards in stroke care. If we delivered trauma care slightly differently, we could also save 600 more lives a year, but we do not. Those figures alone show that it is now time, 62 years since it was established, for the NHS to be modernised.
In those 62 years, drug research and development have advanced hugely. Medical technologies have advanced in a way that could not even have been imagined 62 years ago. As a result of the internet and the information now available, patients expect and demand to have a say in how their condition is managed. They want more information and they want to discuss their care with their GPs. The Bill will put the patient right at the heart of the NHS, and that is why I so passionately support it. The central tenet of the Bill is: “No decision about me without me”. It will ensure that, for the first time, each and every patient can almost become their own lobbyist, sitting in front of their GP and discussing their condition and treatment in an open way, where they have information and the GP will have to engage with them. That does not happen today, and certainly not in hospitals.
I would like to give an example—something that I heard about this weekend from a patient—that clearly epitomises why the patient has become invisible in the NHS today. That patient was in hospital at the weekend when a doctor walked up to him, lifted his arm, took blood, put his arm back down and walked away without saying a single word to him.
Catherine McKinnell
It strikes me that despite what the hon. Lady is saying about the patient becoming the heart of the NHS, it will instead be the GP who becomes the heart of the NHS. Is she suggesting that the GP will be in the hospital with that patient to hold their hand at every stage of their treatment?
Nadine Dorries
I wish that that had been a more sensible question, because then I would have been delighted to give the hon. Lady an answer.
That patient was in hospital when the doctor walked up, took blood and put his arm back down without even a word of acknowledgment. A nurse then came and put his tray of food at the end of the bed. The patient was attached to a heart monitor and a drip, and could not reach the food. The patient was distressed, vulnerable and in pain, yet he was invisible to the health care professionals who were treating him. He was invisible because what is important in today’s NHS is the process—the management, not the patient. The humanity of the patient has almost been lost, and there is no way to put it back into the NHS other than to tip the understanding of who is important in the NHS on its head. The Bill does that in a way that has never been done before and which is now needed.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
One of the concerns that I have come across is from health professionals who would be delighted to see red tape removed. I have spoken to directors of nursing who spend more time on red tape than they do with their patients, and they are deeply frustrated. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Nadine Dorries
Absolutely, and the Bill will address that, in as much as care will be more easily accessed by the GP and the patient, in a much more streamlined process.
When nurses sat their medical exams 62 years ago, when the NHS was first established, the answer to each question had to begin and end with the words: “Reassure the patient”. It did not matter what someone said in the answer; if they did not emphasise the fact that the patient had to be reassured, they failed. That has gone. That demonstrates exactly how the patient has become invisible in today’s NHS.
I support the Bill because I support GPs working in consortia. A common myth—an urban myth—that we have heard in the few weeks leading up to this debate, and which has been thrown at us from the Opposition Benches, is that GPs are simply not up to the task of becoming business managers. The truth is that they already are business managers, because they all manage their own businesses. They will not be working as individuals or in individual practices; they will be working as part of a consortium, which is quite different from the impression given by the Opposition. Right now, 141 pathfinder consortia are demonstrating that they are ready and able to take on commissioning, and that they endorse patient involvement in the decision-making process. As a result of the “any willing provider” provisions, there will be a genuinely wider choice of care options available to the GP and the patient.
I would like to rebut the argument that the private sector will come in and undercut the NHS. That is complete nonsense. There will be no undercutting of the NHS whatever. Services will be—[Interruption.] I can only say that Opposition Members have not read the Bill, because there will be a tariff. Charities and the private sector will be able to provide services, but with a tariff. I shall give an example. If a patient requires a surgical procedure, which they discuss with their GP, and the local hospital has no bed available for six weeks, two months or however long, but if the local private hospital can provide a bed the next morning at the same price, are the Opposition really saying that an ideological obstruction should be put in the way of that patient being admitted to that private bed for that procedure the following day?
Nadine Dorries
I cannot, because I have given way twice and I have no more time.
If that patient were in pain, why should they not be admitted into that bed if it were available? That is how the market will be opened up by GPs, to the benefit of patients.
We recently heard from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about an extra £60 million that will be available to fund the latest bowel cancer screening technology, with wider deployment of the flexible sigmoidoscope. That does not need to be provided in secondary care in a hospital; it could be provided in the GP practice under the “any willing provider” provisions, perhaps via charities with specialised trained technicians. The Bill will ensure a new approach to providing services to the patient. “Any willing provider” will give patients the choice that they have not had for 62 years, empowering them to make decisions over that choice and opening up health care that patients in this country have not had, certainly for the past 15 years. With new technologies coming on stream and new ways of delivering care, both in the patient’s home and in the GP practice, that has to be welcomed. The Bill has to be welcomed, and Government Members will vote for it because the most important person in the Bill is the patient. That is why I support it wholeheartedly.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
The Government White Paper said some sensible things: it promised to increase NHS spending in real terms, to improve patient choice, to devolve decision making, to reduce management costs and to hold doctors to account for their clinical outcomes. Indeed, the objectives are very similar to many of those of the former Labour Government. The problem, however, is that the Bill will undermine many of those good aspirations.
Health spending is, as we know, falling because the amount by which the Government increased the NHS budget is lower than the rate of inflation. [Interruption.] For my health authority, it is 0.3% lower than the rate of inflation. Patient choice will remain limited to where GPs choose to commission services. Centralising many services under the NHS commissioning board—a new layer of bureaucracy—means that NHS dentistry, community pharmacy, optometry services, regional and sub-regional specialties and, indeed, some more complicated local services will be commissioned at national level by that board rather than at local level by a primary care trust, as in the past, or by a commissioning consortium in future.
I am sure that the Government will try to reduce NHS management costs. Every Government since the creation of the NHS have sought to do so, but this Government need to explain how creating 500 or 600 commissioning consortia—each with the skills to commission services—will cost less than the 150 PCTs that currently do the job. They are likely to lose economies of scale and the decisions taken could well lead to the fragmentation of some services such as dermatology or pathology. Such services are currently commissioned by a PCT for the whole PCT area, but in future could be commissioned in three or four different ways by different consortia. Small, less well resourced GP commissioning consortia will, I believe, be less effective than PCTs and strategic health authorities in controlling the costs of powerful hospital foundation trusts.
The Government are right to stress the importance of measuring clinical effectiveness and outcomes, but that makes it extraordinary that they have put primary care in the driving seat. We know a lot about the work of hospital doctors from the hospital episode statistics, but there are no national data on GP consultation rates or the thresholds they employ before they intervene with treatment or on GP outcomes, yet GPs are being put in charge of demanding this from everybody else.
Running through the Bill is the idea that transparency and accountability will drive up performance, so here are some questions to the Minister, which I hope he will address in his concluding speech. The Bill is designed to reduce health inequalities, yet there are enormous inequalities in GP services. Some GPs are very good; others less so. There are differences in their prescribing and referral rates, so how are the Government going to measure GPs’ clinical performance? How will a GP commissioning consortium hold erring GP practices to account? What sanctions will be employed?
How will patients hold their GPs to account for their commissioning decisions? We are, of course, familiar with GPs being sued for bad clinical decisions, which is why they take out medical insurance and have to pay increasingly more for it each year. Will patients sue their GPs for bad commissioning decisions? How will the consortia hold hospitals to account?
How much will the GP commissioning consortia receive in management allowance per patient, because the Government’s success in making administrative savings will depend on that? What sanctions will be imposed on a GP commissioning consortium to ensure that it commissions effectively and uses a good evidence base for its decisions?
The Government tell us that PCT deficits will be written off before the consortia take over, but what help will the commissioning consortia get in areas such as mine where there has been a difficult structural deficit—brought into balance by the previous Labour Government, but out of balance once again under the new Administration—to stop them falling into deficit? What will happen if they do go into deficit? Will their budgets and the services they provide to patients be cut as a result?
Mr Dorrell
The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and asking, if I may say so, some very good questions, with all of which I agree. There is an implication behind his speech, however, which is that if all those questions can be answered, as I hope and believe they can, he will support the Government’s policy. Is that implication correct?
Hugh Bayley
If I were convinced that they could be answered, I would indeed support the Government, but unfortunately I am far from convinced that it is the case.
Let us take another issue. The Government are providing a lesser increase in funding to the NHS this year, which amounts to a cut in real terms when the rate of inflation is taken into account. They think they will get away with this because the NHS staff wage bill is being frozen for a two-year period. What thought have they given to the wage bounce that will inevitably come in two years’ time? There will be enormous wage pressure on the NHS budget; are the Government intending to increase it significantly at that time?
Mr Dorrell
I am anxious to provide the hon. Gentleman with extra minutes so that he can tell us whether he approves, in principle, of the idea of practice-based commissioning, which was originally introduced by the previous Government?
Hugh Bayley
I certainly do not agree with the way in which it is being introduced. The right hon. Gentleman will probably know that before the last election, I made a proposal to strip out one level of NHS bureaucracy—the PCT level—and do commissioning where it was needed at the SHA level. That would have achieved administrative: savings. Instead of that, however, the Government have decided to replace 150 bureaucracies—PCTs as commissioning bodies—with some 500 or 600 bureaucracies: the GP commissioning consortia. I do not think that that will achieve administrative savings. With the NHS budget so tightly squeezed by the current Government, if more money is taken away to meet the costs of bureaucracy, less money will be available for treating patients. That is the crux of the issue.
I believe that those are some very serious questions, which the Government need to answer if they going to convince the public of their plans. There is an intellectual incoherence in many of their proposals. They have not looked either at how some of their goals—on patient choice, for instance—might conflict with other goals such as increasing efficiency. Will a doctor be able to insist that patients have the most efficient treatment even if they do not choose that option themselves? Would it not make sense to pilot these changes before imposing them, untried and untested, on the NHS?
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this most important debate. The scope of the Bill is far reaching and other Members have covered many aspects in their contributions, so I want to focus on one area—that of the future governance of the NHS.
The Secretary of State has identified a powerful and simple concept that resonates with people across the country—that “No decisions taken about me should be taken without me.” While this concept is usually applied to the individual relationship between the patient and clinician, I believe it is just as applicable to the communities that the NHS serves in any particular area.
As we have seen from campaigns across the country, people do not want decisions about the health and care services available to them in their community to be taken without the opportunity to get involved in the decision: “No decisions about us without us.” Over the last few years, I have seen the lack of openness, the lack of transparency, the lack of consultation and the consequent fear and suspicion that that brings.
I realise that not everyone will want to become involved in local decision-making and that many are happy to leave it to others, but I believe that we are right to enable more resilient and empowered communities to shape their own futures. Giving more power to the people is as important in the context of decisions about health and well-being as it is in the context of decisions about planning, homes and the environment.
The Bill is nothing short of a revolution in terms of the devolution of decision-making power to people in their communities, accountability, and the governance of health and care services. First, it links two crucial services. For too long the separation of those services, and the silo mentality governing the care delivered by local authorities and health services commissioned by primary care trusts, have prevented care pathways from being developed effectively in a way that works for the patient, which has often closed off the vital role played by families, carers and volunteers in supporting people. There cannot be a Member in the House who has not had personal experience of that, or shared the experiences of elderly constituents who have been bundled around the system, described as bed-blockers and made to feel a burden.
Of course, in some parts of the country health and care services have been integrated, but they are in the minority. The Bill, and the money that the Government are making available to help fund the integration, will enable all parts of the country to develop the high-quality, joined-up services that are currently available only to a few.
Stephen Lloyd
I agree with much that my hon. Friend is saying about integration and the need to work with the community, and I applaud many of the changes made by the Bill. For years we have all talked of using pharmacists in a smarter way. Does not the Bill provide an opportunity for much more integration of community pharmacy with the consortia, and for the Government to support the consortia in that endeavour?
Sarah Newton
As someone who represents a rural area of Cornwall where GPs’ delivery of pharmaceutical services is vital, I think that that is an extremely good idea.
Secondly, the new responsibilities of Monitor and the Care Quality Commission will make possible independent regulation of both quality and safety of care and value for money. I have observed the problems that have occurred in recent years when managers have evaluated their own compliance with standards. Good decisions can be made only with sound evidence. The powers of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the Information Centre will be enshrined in legislation for the first time, and their independence from Government will thus be guaranteed.
Thirdly, the Bill creates a new role for local authorities in public health. Directors of public health, jointly appointed by Public Health England and local authorities, will play a leading role in the discharging of authorities’ public health functions. Arguably, it was the initiatives of local authorities in past centuries—such as the introduction of fresh water, drains, sewage management and the controlling of vermin—that led to some of the most significant improvements in life expectancy.
Anne Marie Morris
Is not one of the real strengths of making public health part of the role of local government the fact that housing, which is a critical issue to public health, can be viewed in the round?
Sarah Newton
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has anticipated a point that I was about to make.
The returning of more responsibility to local authorities—along with the considerable social determinants of health for which they are already responsible, such as the availability of good-quality housing and the regulation of places of work, environmental health and leisure services—has the potential to improve health outcomes, and to close the ever-widening gaps in health equalities in this country.
The Bill will ensure that every upper-tier authority establishes a health and wellbeing board consisting of the director of public health, GP consortia, children’s services, adult services, care providers from all sectors, and local health watch organisations. Such boards should provide local leadership and a strategic framework for the co-ordination of health improvement and the addressing of health inequalities in their areas. The joint strategic needs assessment will be integral to the process, and will influence the commissioning of services. The local health and wellbeing boards will, in effect, hold the ring when it comes to the health and care services provided in their communities. Local authorities will maintain and extend their role as scrutineers of all services, whether they are commissioned locally or nationally and whether they involve health or social care. They will also be able to commission complaints and advocacy services from any provider, rather than just from the local or national health watch.
The Local Government Association has warmly welcomed the proposed changes. The best local authorities have good experience of working with public, private and not-for-profit organisations as well as the charity sector in delivering integrated care. They are used to planning person-centred and personalised care.
I believe that—along with the changes that the Secretary of State has already made to the operating framework of the NHS in relation to the reconfiguration of services—the Bill, when effectively implemented in communities across the country, will lead to greater openness, greater accountability, and greater confidence for all those working in health and care, as well as for the ordinary people up and down the land who have lost so much confidence in the way in which decisions are made. These changes will take time, but I am confident that within the next four years, when we ask the people of this country, “Do you feel that decisions are being taken about you and with you?”, many more people will say “Yes” than would do so if asked that question today. That is a result that I shall be proud to have played my part in achieving.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
As we have already heard today, the public love the NHS. and they are right to do so. Of course it is not universally perfect; of course there are times when it does need reform; but it is still something of which we are right to be proud, and we should not be proud of it just from a moral standpoint.
As economists of many different political persuasions have shown, a centrally funded NHS is a far more efficient way of providing a system of health care than the imperfect market of a system of health insurance. We need only look to America, where, until the recent reforms, more than half all personal bankruptcies were caused by people who were unable to meet their medical bills, to recognise how decent and effective our system of health care really is.
That brings me to the main point that I want to make. In my view, these proposals do not represent an evolution in the NHS reforms of the last Government. The principal goal of the Bill—to transfer commissioning from PCTs to GPs—is, in fact, a dangerous gamble with one of the country’s most-prized institutions. Bringing GPs closer to decision-making did not require the wholesale dissolution of PCTs and the transfer of their responsibility to GPs. When the Government promised no further top-down reorganisation, they should have meant it, because this reorganisation is ill judged and ill advised, as is spending the £3 billion that it will cost. However, now that they have embarked on this revolution, they should be aware of what has come about as a result of it.
Throughout the country, there is a pressure cooker of discontent in the primary care sector as PCTs struggle to balance their budgets and hand over what, on paper, will appear to be their stable financial footing. In order to do that, many have already implemented restrictions on procedures, described in the jargon as “procedures of limited clinical value”. I assure Ministers that they are not of limited value to people who are suffering and in need of care. In a number of areas, PCTs have asked GPs to suspend all but urgent referrals to secondary care. This prompts us to ask what kind of health service GPs will be inheriting. Patients are suffering now as a result of the actions of this Secretary of State.
I also fear that the commissioning of specialised services will create a real gap. For all the faults that some may ascribe to them, PCTs ensured equity for those who, if commissioning had been done on a smaller scale, would have struggled to have had their voices heard. There is a real question of scope here. Many GPs simply do not have sufficient sight of some types of work to commission effectively. The provision of mental health services is a particular concern. As ever with this Government, it seems that the most vulnerable will be most at risk.
If GPs really are better placed to commission services on behalf of patients, why were there shortages of flu vaccines this winter? GPs were responsible for ordering those vital supplies. They had the medical records of the people in their areas; they had the information that they needed in order to make effective provision. In my area it was the local PCT that remedied the situation, but who will be there to do that in future? GPs already have to balance financial and medical considerations. Have they really proved that they can do so effectively?
Finally, we must look at what exactly GPs will be expected to do and how they will go about doing it. In all the contracts they award, someone will have to monitor financial and clinical governance. That requires expertise, which GPs will have to buy in. Who will evaluate the tenders for services and deal with contractual issues? That will require yet more expertise to be brought in. Once we consider all that PCTs do across a wide geographical area, we see that GP consortia doing the same thing over a smaller area will result in an army of consultants, private companies and ex-PCT staff being contracted in by the consortia. We will, in effect, have the expense of PCTs as they work on the same things as now, but without the accountability and economies of scale currently enjoyed. Alternatively, GP consortia might achieve these economies of scale, but they will do so by ceasing to be the community-based practices with which we are all familiar. They will become faceless corporate entities, where doctors will be salaried members of staff with no connection to a specific practice or locality. That might be the Government’s intention, but it is not an evolutionary change to the NHS.
I do not wish to be entirely negative, because there are parts of the Bill—these do not deal with changes to commissioning—that I have to be more positive about. I welcome the ongoing commitment to patient choice, as I have never believed those who say that the public do not want to choose which NHS facilities they wish to use. As with other public services, the NHS must reflect the autonomy people now expect to be able to exercise over their own lives. I also welcome a stronger role for local government in scrutinising health outcomes in their area, provided that that is a real power, not a symbolic one, entailing the ability to force changes when outcomes are not good enough.
However, those are small consolations when we consider a Bill that risks the very future of the NHS as we know it. This is a poor Bill, which has been rushed out without scrutiny and which lacks a democratic mandate. It is not so much a hand grenade thrown into the national health service, as a commercial demolition designed to break the NHS as we know it in order to serve a set of interests which are—
Jonathan Reynolds
I am not going to give way. Other hon. Members wish to get involved in this debate and it is a disgrace that we have only one day to discuss this.
This Bill will break the NHS to serve a set of interests that are not those of NHS patients, not those of NHS staff and not those of my constituents. It is for those reasons that I shall vote against it today.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill, because I support the two big ideas behind it. The first of those is the increased focus on outcomes, which is long overdue and very welcome. For those who suggest that there is no need to improve the NHS or to worry about the issue of outcomes, I shall just highlight this country’s relatively poor cancer survival rates—as some hon. Members will know, I have a particular interest in cancer. Improvements have been made over the years, but those improvements go back over 30-odd years and other countries have improved, too. This country still flounders in the lower divisions of the international cancer league tables, and that situation has to be wrong.
The all-party group on cancer focused on that issue in 2009, finding that patients who reached the one-year survival mark in this country stand as much chance of getting to the five-year survival point as patients in other countries, but that our one-year survival rates are very poor indeed compared with those of other countries. That tends to suggest that the NHS is as good as others, if not better, at treating cancer once it is detected, but very poor at detecting cancer in the first place.
Part of the problem is in the area of early diagnosis, which is why we recommended focusing on one-year survival rates. We suggested introducing an outcomes benchmark that focuses the NHS on the one-year survival rate, because late diagnosis makes for poor one-year survival figures. If we can get the NHS focused on that, many patients will benefit. Therefore, we are delighted to see that both one-year and five-year benchmarks have been introduced in the outcomes framework for 2011-12. We very much welcome that, but I believe I am right in saying that the 2011-12 outcomes framework covers only colorectal, lung and breast cancer. We have lots of data for other cancers, such as prostate cancer, and I urge the Government to think seriously about extending the cancer types covered in the 2012-13 outcomes framework. The risk is that if we do not do so and we include just a narrow range at a national level, that will make for a lack of priority at the GP level.
As for GP commissioning, bringing commissioning decisions closer to the patient has to be a good idea; patients have got to benefit from that. Some people say, “GPs see only about eight new patients a year. What could they possibly know about commissioning cancer services?” I would turn that around by asking how many cancer patients the chief executives of primary care trusts see. They are commissioning cancer services at the moment. That point needs to be discussed.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Given the hon. Gentleman’s interest in cancer, I am sure that he will know that the point is that the cancer networks often aid commissioners at all levels in providing this care and they are dissolving before our eyes right now as a result of these changes. GPs will not have the experience to commission care in respect of rare tumour types.
Mr Baron
I agree with the general gist of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I would not say that the cancer networks are dissolving. I have raised this important point many times in the House—perhaps he was not in the House when I intervened on the Secretary of State—and what I would again ask my Front-Bench team about is the funding gap. I understand that the funding for the cancer networks ends in 2012 and there is a gap until the GP commissioning takes full effect. The answer given to me from the Dispatch Box today was that the national commissioning board will be up and running by 2012. The problem with that answer is that the national commissioning board will give guidance but the arrangements for the people who will actually make the commissioning decisions, the GPs at the front line, will not be truly effective until 2013 at the earliest—that will probably happen in 2014.
The worry is that in that gap a lot of expertise could be lost to the cancer community as a lot of expertise within those cancer networks decides to walk out of the door. I again ask the Government whether there is any way in which we could bridge that gap in order to ensure that GPs are better able to make informed decisions about the commissioning of cancer networks, because those networks contain an awful lot of expertise that we would not wish to lose.
I am fated to ask that question of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) again, as we are fated to discuss the issue. I appreciate that cancer is not his specialty, but I would like to get an answer on that point. There is a difference between the national commissioning board taking responsibility for guidance and the GP consortia actually taking responsibility for the commissioning. That point has to be addressed carefully, because various cancer charities have already reported that some 50% of the staff of cancer networks are thinking of leaving or have been told that they will be leaving within the next 12 to 18 months as part of a cost-cutting exercise. We need to address the point sooner rather than later.
In the remaining minute allowed me, may I quickly discuss eye health? I am wearing my hat as co-chair of the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment. I welcome the clauses that place primary ophthalmic services with the national commissioning board, which is likely to devolve enhanced optometry services to GP commissioners. That is the right decision and those working within the medical profession welcome it. However, I suggest two areas where we need to establish a national system. The first relates to glaucoma referrals under the NICE guidelines and the second relates to community-based acute services—in other words, those managing red eye and minor eye problems. The Secretary of State visited the school of optometry in Cardiff and, apparently, he liked what he saw. Can we ensure that those national guidelines are in touch, because otherwise we get a fragmented service and patients may suffer as a result?
In conclusion, I welcome this Bill, which could be transformational, particularly with its focus on outcomes. The Government will therefore have my support in the Chamber tonight.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
This is a very dark day for the future of our national health service, particularly for those who have spent most of their political lives campaigning for and supporting the NHS. Some of us remember what 18 years of Conservative government did—the hospital closures and continually increasing waiting times that patients had to endure. One of the first cases that came through my door when I was newly elected to Parliament was that of someone who had been waiting 18 months for open-heart surgery. His wife came on his behalf, pleading for something to be done. I am pleased to say that he was treated under a Labour Government and that he is still alive today.
In contrast, this is a good day for those who have always hated the national health service. I remember a former Tory MP, Matthew Parris, who became a journalist, going on TV at around the time of the 1997 election and being asked, “What is it about the Conservatives and the NHS?” He replied, “It is quite clear—they hate it.” They hate the idea that they pay taxes and that the “undeserving poor” get equal treatment in the NHS, and they do not accept that people should be treated according to clinical need. That is why they continually chip away at the NHS. I do not blame the Tories, because they are just doing what Tories always do to the NHS, but when people went to the ballot boxes and voted Liberal Democrat in the last general election, they did not vote for the destruction of the NHS.
Many Government Front Benchers have campaigned against hospital closures, but the impact assessment for the Bill clearly states that Members of Parliament and local councillors should not be allowed to influence any decisions about hospitals in future. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), looks surprised, but that is in the impact assessment. Did she not read it? No wonder the Government did not publish it until last Thursday. It says that anyone on the Government Benches who campaigned at the last general election to keep a hospital open will be prevented from influencing decisions in the future. In order to secure a market and prevent it from being unduly influenced by political interference—in order to create a fair marketplace—politicians will be denied the opportunity to influence what is going on. That is in the Bill and the impact assessment. Before any Liberal Democrat votes tonight, I urge them to check that impact assessment, because if they do not, they will be voting for something without appreciating what is coming down the road.
I fully support the idea that GPs will be champions on behalf of their patients, but I am sure that the measures will be a bit of a curate’s egg in that respect. Howard Stoate, a former colleague of ours, supports GP commissioning and I have no doubt that if I were his patient I would be very pleased to have him as my GP, but unfortunately not every GP is a Howard Stoate. The issue with what is going on and what is being changed here is that GPs will not perform in the same way across the board. We saw that with the Tomlinson review and GP commissioning before—a lot of them became property developers. They top-sliced capital money, developed their properties, sold them off at a profit and moved down the road. We have seen all this before.
Clive Efford
No, I am not going to give way.
What about the idea that there will be patient choice and that patients will have some idea of where to go? Are we going to get all the information about private sector providers? Are they going to publish their performance data in the private sector when patients are making up their minds whether to use them or not? I suspect that we will get what we got before with these sorts of changes—commercial confidentiality; we will be told, “We can’t possibly tell you that because that would harm our performance in the marketplace.” That is what we got before and I do not doubt that we will get it again.
Let me address the comparisons that we have heard from Ministers.
Clive Efford
Members can just sit there and listen. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] They put this ridiculous Bill up—they can sit there and listen.
The comparisons that we have had from the Government about performance on heart disease and cancer involve the selective use of statistics to try to prove their point. The Appleby review clearly states that on current trends, by 2012—[Interruption.] I am not reading my notes; I do not know whether the Minister has noticed. Appleby states that by 2012 this country’s performance in relation to a number of cancer treatments will exceed that of France, which in 2008 spent 28% more than us, as a proportion of gross domestic product, on health. We have only just reached the European average in terms of expenditure on the national health service and, as other hon. Members have said, it is time to let the NHS bed down. The time for change is not now. We should allow that expenditure to have the effect—
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I should like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), but I think that those watching the debate can make up their own mind about what they have just heard. I speak as a Conservative who loves the NHS; I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman in that regard. His comments were a great example of the knockabout that we hear in the House, which the public hate so much. I remind him that every day people die, work in and love the NHS, and they deserve better than what we have just heard.
As ever, time is short, so I will not detain the House. I want to focus on the fight against cancer and to share with right hon. and hon. Members the way I view these reforms. The Bill promises to take day-to-day power and responsibility out of the hands of Ministers and managers and to put it firmly into the hands of GPs. This means that decisions about NHS care will move closer to the patient and away from the remote organisations of which few people whom I and others represent have heard. Even fewer of those people would have the first idea what those organisations do, let alone how to contact them.
In an extremely tough financial climate, even for the NHS, we are talking about removing the bureaucracy of the primary care trusts and strategic health authorities and investing that money in patient care. As I have said in my constituency more times than I care to remember, I am concerned only about protecting the services that my constituents rely on. If they are threatened, I will dust down the placards, but I am not going to rummage around in the shed for one that reads, “Save the PCT”; I do not think that “Save NHS Hampshire” trips off the tongue.
The concept of reforming our NHS so that services and decisions come closer to patients is not one that I find disturbing, and I wish that we could at least start the process of debating this Bill by agreeing on that. However, nothing I have said thus far means that I and many others do not have questions about the next few years as we move to full GP consortia commissioning. Some Members will know that I co-chair the all-party group on breast cancer. We have worked hard since the publication of last year’s White Paper to produce a response. In October we held a health inquiry session at Breakthrough Breast Cancer’s “Westminster Fly-In”. Breakthrough’s CAN members and parliamentarians highlighted the breast cancer patient perspective and focused, as ever, on our vision of a future free from the fear of breast cancer.
The public health approach outlined in part 2 of the Bill will encourage people to be much more proactive about their health. I feel strongly that encouraging greater breast awareness is and must be an important part of that. Most breast cancers are found by women who notice a change, take the initiative and subsequently visit their GP. There is strong evidence that being breast aware—knowing the signs and symptoms of breast cancer and the importance of early treatment—and attending NHS breast screening appointments are two of the most important factors in breast cancer survival in the UK. The third is, of course, treatment. When it comes to screening, we have to do much better in this country. This change in public health must give a strong impetus to local authorities, many of which are big employers of women, as well as to GPs and local employers to come together and make sure that we do better. Women should be given time off work to attend breast screening appointments and providers must recognise that access to screening that works does not always mean nine-to-five, Monday to Friday. That is something we have discussed in our group many times.
Locally, GPs should be encouraging women to be much more breast aware and should make sure that no-shows for screening appointments, which are sometimes as high as 50% in my area, are followed up and that those women are given the support they need to get there. As I have said before, the move to pure GP-based commissioning will sharpen efforts in that regard through much more sophisticated data management and use of the lists that are currently poorly used.
Much has been said in the House and outside about the UK’s low placing in the cancer league tables, and it is often the Eurocare series, which the Secretary of State mentioned, that shows that survival for the four most common cancers in our country are lower than in the rest of Europe. As Cancer Research UK said to me and all hon. Members in its briefing ahead of today’s debate,
“commissioning of cancer services is not as good as it could or should be”,
and I know that Cancer Research UK welcomes, as do I, the recently published cancer strategy.
That superb organisation, Macmillan, tells us that more than 2 million people are living with or after cancer in this country, and by 2030 there will be 4 million. As we all know, cancer is a set of 200-plus different diseases, most of which have highly complex care pathways. I have concerns, as others have said, about the low level of GPs currently with a specialism or particular interest in cancer compared, for instance, with diabetes or mental health.
I urge Ministers, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) so eloquently a moment ago, to look again at the transition period from 2012 to 2014 to protect the cancer networks until GP consortia are in a position to make better decisions about the support and expertise they require. Solid action from the Government in this regard would reassure many cancer charities, patients and Members.
Finally, we are in danger of presenting the argument as “all that exists in the current NHS is bad or failing,” versus “all is sacrosanct and we cannot touch it.” Neither is true, in my opinion. Let us keep what works, protect it and strengthen it. That is what we are about, but let us remove what does not work and be brave enough to replace it. Do we want to give the Bill a Second Reading, find out more and examine it further, or do we want to turn against change and take the easy road? That would be the real risk. I will support the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
There is much disquiet and concern among health professionals about the speed and scale of the reforms outlined in the Bill, with various respected organisations warning that they are a “significant risk” and “could be disastrous”.
It is important to see the Government’s plans in the context of the progress and the health legacy that this Tory-led Government inherited from Labour—patient satisfaction in the NHS at record levels, a world-class public service transformed by Labour, record numbers of doctors and nurses, and new hospitals. Contrary to some of the claims from the Government Benches about the statistics, survival rates for the most serious conditions are improving, and we will have the lowest mortality rates of any European country for heart disease by next year. The Government would do well to recognise this progress.
One of the Government’s central arguments is that massive restructuring is necessary to drive efficiencies in the NHS. I beg to differ. By overhauling the system, the Government are putting at risk the very drive for efficiencies that we support. According to the Royal Society of Physicians,
“Achieving both efficiency savings and reorganisation simultaneously will be an unprecedented challenge for both commissioners and providers”.
In government we recognised the efficiency challenges that we faced in the NHS. That is why in the last Labour Budget the Department of Health committed to £4.35 billion of savings over two years, with a further commitment to save £20 billion in the next five years. We demanded that primary care trusts reduce their management costs by 30% over a three-year period. The choice between doing nothing or modernising the NHS is a false choice, as I think the Government know.
Evidence from the previous reorganisation suggests that the disruption will extend well beyond the period of the reform. Even one of the Government’s Back Benchers, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), a GP herself, has said:
“To my mind, it felt a bit like someone had tossed a grenade into the PCTs. These people have so much uncertainty about their position that they are haemorrhaging in a rather uncontrolled fashion.”
The transition process is not only disruptive, but will undermine efficiency and quality. This risk was recognised by the National Audit Office in its report, where it said that the previous government’s initiative, the so-called quality, innovation, productivity and prevention programme, is at risk because of the overhaul proposed by the present Government. What is more, their obsession with driving down costs using price competition carries a very real risk of decline in the quality of care, according to professional organisations such as the BMA, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives.
Mr Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is giving a powerful speech, making the case that every Government must look for efficiencies and suggesting that the previous Government did. One of the key failings under the previous Government, who did see improvements in the NHS with vast increases in expenditure, was on productivity. According to the National Audit Office, which the hon. Lady just mentioned, productivity, after improving in the 1990s before Labour came to power, fell during the Labour years, despite the massive investment of additional funds. Turning that around is the central challenge for this Government. What views does she have about how best that can be made to happen?
Emma Reynolds
I have already said that we on the Labour Benches recognise the need to drive efficiencies and, as part of that, we recognise the need to increase productivity. We made massive strides in the 13 years that we were in power, and Government Members would do well to remember that.
The allocation of resources in the NHS is all about economics and the tension created by infinite demands and finite resources. Difficult questions that are at the heart of commissioning need to be answered at a macro level—questions such as how do we value the improvement or lengthening of one person’s life compared with another’s; and what is the cost of investing in one drug compared with another or with an existing treatment? These are not easy questions to answer, and clinicians are making decisions at a micro level.
Faced with a limited budget, clinicians will call for more resources to be allocated to their field. Oncologists will argue for a greater share of the budget to be spent on cancer treatment. Paediatricians will argue for more money for paediatrics. As well as prioritising primary care, GPs might well bid for more resources for treatment or minor surgery that their practice offers—a potential conflict of interests against which the Bill does not safeguard sufficiently.
GPs are trained to be advocates of their patients, and rightly so, treating them as individuals, not as a particular percentage of the population. Their training does not equip them with the tools to make the tough, unpopular decisions about the allocation of limited resources. Perhaps in his winding-up speech the Minister will tell the House what percentage of GPs he thinks have had to grapple with the complexities of the modified Portsmouth scoreboard or the quality-adjusted life years measure. Those are the instruments used day in, day out by people who make commissioning decisions.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) said so eloquently, the choice is not between reform or no reform. We are not against reform or driving efficiencies, but we are against the ill-considered, costly, reckless reform contained in the Bill, which will undermine the drive for efficiency, jeopardise quality of care and fails to take into account the fact that GPs do not have the expertise or the training to make the macro-level decisions on the allocation of resources.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to the debate on a Bill that is essential to implementing the coalition Government’s policies. I had intended to say what an excellent debate we have had so far, with some thoughtful contributions from all parts of the House. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) made a thoughtful contribution, but I am afraid the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) let his side down completely with his offensive remarks about how Government Members view the national health services.
Although she is not in her seat, I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on her contribution to the debate. I did not agree with it, but she gave her speech extremely well.
I welcome the Bill. It is essential that more power is given to front-line doctors, who are best placed to understand patient needs. It is a tragedy that Opposition Members seem to think that GPs are not capable of stepping up to the mark and taking on those responsibilities. From the conversations that I have had with my GPs, I do not understand why the Opposition believe that; they will be proved wrong.
I support the focus on clinical outcomes. I think that GPs are interested in taking on commissioning and the proposed changes. Three consortia in Leicestershire and Rutland have stepped forward so far. My primary care trust is working extremely closely with them, particularly on transferring community services, and I welcome their close working relationships.
The GPs commissioning arrangements will mean that GPs listen to what patients want. GPs will be responsible for community services in Leicestershire and Rutland, including the walk-in centre in the middle of Loughborough and out-of-hours services, which have not been mentioned in the debate. One of the things that patients feel most passionately about is the fact that some GPs, particularly in the part of the country I represent—I cannot speak for everywhere—are not responsible for delivering out-of-hours services. What patients say to me more than anything else is that when they call someone in the middle of the night, they want their GP or someone who has access to their records to answer the telephone, not a call centre.
Anne Marie Morris
I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says. I have the very good example in my constituency of Devon Doctors, which is effectively a not-for-profit organisation that provides all the out-of-hours service and gives the people of Devon exactly what she has suggested.
Nicky Morgan
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It just shows that GPs, if they are given the responsibility, will step up to the plate and deliver what their patients need.
In the limited time available, I wish to focus on what the proposed changes will mean for mental health services. I speak as a member of the all-party group on mental health, and as someone with a family interest in mental health issues. The NHS in England spends more on mental health services than on any other disease category, including cancer and heart disease, and one in four people will experience mental ill health at some point in their lives. The public health strategy has so far not been mentioned in the debate. I entirely welcome the Government’s emphasis on public health and the emphasis on good mental health as well as good physical health. I recently spoke with Charnwood mental health forum, which is based in my constituency, whose members told me that prevention of mental health problems and supporting people who are perhaps heading down the road to depression and more serious conditions is incredibly important.
There are four keys areas that I want to mention in the time available. My first point, which has already been mentioned by the Opposition, is that we must ensure that GPs get proper support to commission effective mental health services and other specialised services. That support can come from the national commissioning board, third sector organisations and patients. That is why I think GPs will step up to the plate, because they will ask their patients and listen to them when designing and commissioning services.
A recent Rethink survey of GPs found that 31% of GPs did not feel equipped to commission mental health services, compared with 75% who felt that they could commission diabetes and asthma services. It also revealed that 42% of the GPs said that they had a lack of knowledge about specialist services for people with mental illness, and 23% said that they had a lack of knowledge about mental illness in the first place. I will cite a recent case study from my Loughborough constituency, in which I was told that one of my constituents was suffering from complex mental health conditions, but his GP appeared to have no knowledge of personality disorders and saw the problem as largely behavioural. The relationship between the constituent and the GP deteriorated and therefore the local Rethink carers group stepped in to help find another GP. With consortia, a GP in a different practice could have that specialisation, and the first GP, realising their limitations, could speak with that other practice and engage with carers groups, such as Charnwood mental health forum or Rethink to ensure that there are special services available for patients.
Emma Reynolds
Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am that a recent survey by Rethink showed that 95% of GPs did not feel that they had sufficient expertise to commission mental health services?
Nicky Morgan
I was just talking about that, but the point that has been made is that GPs do not feel that they necessarily have the specialist skills to commission mental health services. That says not that the underlying plan set out in the Bill is wrong, but that GPs recognise their limitations. From the conversations that I have had with GPs, I think that they will know where to go to commission those services and they will get the support from the national commissioning board.
Nicky Morgan
I am afraid that I must make some progress.
My second point relates to joined-up care, which carried on from my previous point. People with mental health problems have complex needs and need a clear pathway of care, which might involve the GP, psychiatric care at secondary care level, a social worker and community support services, such as drop-in services. That is essential, and that is what we want to see happen in the NHS.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I applaud the hon. Lady for making such an excellent case for mental health services, but I would like to pick up on a point about expertise. Under the new arrangements for consortia and the massive expansion in programmes, who will provide the funding? Will it be via town halls or local authorities for care at community centre level?
Nicky Morgan
There is already some excellent provision in Leicestershire. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, as, I am sure, does the Minister. I am sure that she and her colleagues will look at that in the debate and in future.
I support the “any willing provider” model, which was first introduced by the previous Government. It is often patients with mental health issues who benefit from care at different levels and with different therapies, but it does not all have to be at primary or secondary care level. As I have mentioned, there are organisations, such as Charnwood mental health forum and other drop-in centres, that offer excellent services, and they must be part of GP commissioning and the services that will be provided under the new arrangements set out in the Bill.
Finally, I wish to look at public health involvement through HealthWatch and the local health and wellbeing boards, which is critical. We must ensure that there is broad representation in those organisations. Research from Rethink has shown that stigma and discrimination affect nine out of every 10 people with mental health problems. The boards and those organisations must ensure that the most vulnerable patients are listened to. At a recent meeting of the all-party group, one of the contributors said:
“We all have mental health—it just depends how good ours is.”
Mental health has for too long been a Cinderella service. I am confident that that will not be the case under the new structure because GPs will do their best to understand it or, if they do not, will get in appropriate services. I support the Bill and look forward to hearing how the points I have mentioned will be addressed. I also look forward to the unveiling of the national mental health strategy, which I understand will happen later this week.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
The status quo in British health care is certainly no serious option. Improving the NHS is, of course, a continuing challenge, not least because of the ageing of our population, rising medical costs in many sectors and rising public expectations, which are sometimes fuelled by information on the internet. If one adds to that the new public health agenda and the need to bring health and social care into better alignment, one can see the scale of the challenge. However, that is not to say that a top-down reorganisation is the answer.
I want to ask Ministers some specific questions about how the Bill will impact on some of the values and underlying principles of the NHS. The first is the principle that the health service should be based on need, not income or wealth, which is perhaps the essence of the NHS. How do the proposals relating to private patients in hospitals relate to that ethical principle? The proposal is to remove any limit on the use of NHS beds and staff to treat privately paying patients. Unless the Government somehow envisage surplus hospital resources, spare staff and empty beds—a far-fetched proposition—will not more private patients create longer waiting times for NHS patients and/or poorer care? What is the Minister’s judgment on that?
My second question concerns the profit motive, which jars, at least for many of us, with the principle of patient care. Will Ministers confirm that private companies might in practice commission on behalf of GPs, possibly including US companies, while other companies will be awarded contracts? Have I understood that correctly? What is to stop companies competing on price for relatively straightforward procedures, perhaps initially cherry-picking as a loss-leader while leaving NHS hospitals with, frankly, the more difficult medical territories? What proportion of the NHS budget might effectively be in private hands? Of the £80 billion annual expenditure that we hear about, what sums might end up as profits for private shareholders? Ministers must have some idea of the answers to those questions, so I would be pleased to hear their answers or guesstimates.
Margaret Hodge
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is another issue with privatisation? If a private, BUPA-run, hospital that provides health care gets into financial difficulties and is forced to close, does it not behove the commissioning body—the publicly run commissioning body—to take over the failing private hospital to ensure that the designated services are available to local people? Is that not an outrageous way of using public money?
Malcolm Wicks
Certainly, I can see that the commissioners might feel that someone had to look after the patients, and the financial implications of that pose another question for Ministers.
Given that the Bill allows for the new commissioning board to make payments to a commissioning consortium if performance is good, what happens exactly to that payment? Who benefits from it? Does it go to improved patient care, which is fine, or to bonuses for those working in the consortiums—the GP practices?
My third set of questions concerns accountability and parliamentary oversight. In this brave new world of competition, profits and privatisation, with the fearsome economic regulator, where does the NHS buck stop? Is the Secretary of State still responsible? Is he or she still accountable to this Parliament? If not, who is? If my Croydon constituent has to wait too long for surgery, are Ministers accountable? Can I ask questions? Will I get answers? If constituents cannot access mental health services, can MPs still expect Ministers to intervene and to act? Are they accountable? Will Parliament and public still be able to access the information, the data, the monitoring and the evaluative statistics to comment on performance? Is the publication and integrity of health statistics guaranteed by the legislation?
A further question concerns the relationship between patients and GPs. The Secretary of State and his colleagues wax lyrical about how decisions will now be taken by GPs and patients, and I remember that refrain during the general election, but what exactly does that mean for patients? How will those decisions be taken by patients as well as by GPs? How will patients be involved in commissioning? Will they be part of the commissioning body?
Moreover, will GP commissioners meet in public, like primary care trusts? If not, why not? Where is the accountability? If a patient wishes to complain about services, to whom do they complain—to their own GP, who does the commissioning? Where is the patient’s complaint procedure in all that?
This Bill—[Interruption.] There is no point in the Minister just whispering at me. We have a winding-up procedure, whereby serious questions can be answered— I would hope—rather seriously by the Minister. [Interruption.] She has not wound me up so far.
The Bill is somewhere between a relapse into market ideology and an untried, untested leap in the dark. For the national health service, it is a fearful time. As we have heard, the Government wish to cut public expenditure, yet they are embarking on this top-down reorganisation that no responsible body seems to welcome.
The Bill will also be shown to be a fearful leap in the dark for the Conservative party, just when in recent years it has been making some headway in convincing the British public that the national health service might be safe with it. It is a fearful step for the Conservatives, and they will learn that in the coming years.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) and his encyclopaedic questions. I am sure that, from his many years as a Minister, he knows the kind of comprehensive answers that he would like to receive from Ministers. Indeed, I should be interested in some of those answers, so I congratulate him on asking those questions.
Perhaps I should inject a short note of levity into what has been a serious debate so far. I do not have the timing or skills of the late, great Tommy Cooper, but he once told a joke that goes roughly along these lines. A patient runs into a doctor’s surgery and says, “Doctor, doctor, I think I’ve broken my arm. Can you mend it?” The doctor looks at the arm and says, “Yes, I think I can mend it.” Then, the patient says, “Doctor, doctor, will I be able to play the piano?” And the doctor looks carefully at the arm again and says, “Yes, I’m sure that you will be able to play the piano.” To which the patient says, “That’s great. I’ve always wanted to play the piano.”
Doctors often use that joke to emphasise the unrealistic expectations that people have of them, and I have come to the conclusion that there are some unrealistic expectations in the Bill. It is well intentioned and not, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and others have argued, generated out of malice, dogma or—clearly—ineptitude, but Ministers have perhaps allowed their enthusiasm to get the better of them. There can be no disagreement with the principles that underpin the Bill, in particular greater clinical and patient involvement and driving the quality of innovation, albeit through a number of, admittedly, rather debatable measures. Those are pretty unarguable “motherhood and apple pie” principles that ought to underpin such legislation, but many people are concerned about its timing, when all parties agree that the NHS faces one of its biggest ever challenges: the biggest savings it has been asked to make in its 62-year history. At the same time, however, I see the measures as the biggest shake-up of the NHS in its 62-year history. The Bill is well intentioned, but for it to proceed and not damage the NHS it needs further major surgery in Committee before it returns to the Chamber for Report and Third Reading.
We need to look at reforming the reforms themselves as part of a constructive approach to engagement. It is not that PCTs are the be-all and end-all of future health service delivery; far from it. No one will die in a ditch to defend them, but, given the institutional architecture that they have provided, after many years of coalescing around and amalgamating the primary care groups that were their heritage, we should establish the default position of assuming that we stick to that coterminosity and structure and then graft on wider clinical involvement. Many GPs in my constituency clearly tell me that they are going ahead with the measures before us more out of resignation than enthusiasm for solely GP-led clinical involvement in commissioning. A lot of them are telling me clearly that they want wider clinical engagement. If there are already 141 pathfinders covering just half the population of this country, at the very least there will be somewhere in the region of 300—that is, 300 chief executives against 152. There is a risk that that will generate a great deal more bureaucracy than exists at present in the PCTs.
I am not persuaded by the level of democratic accountability of the wellbeing boards. Monitor will set a maximum tariff and then promote competition, which could easily put quality at risk for the sake of price. That view is shared by many authoritative bodies.
Many questions still need to be addressed—protecting the integration of services, ensuring the accountability of Monitor and looking at the power of the NHS commissioning board. For those reasons, and a number of others that I do not have time to explain, I cannot support the Government this evening.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow a fellow member of the Health Committee. I, too, am looking forward to the answers to the very many questions asked by the Select Committee that were not answered comprehensively. The issues have been elucidated today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), so I will not rehearse the arguments again.
I fear that today marks a watershed in the future of the NHS, and I say that as one who has proudly dedicated 30 years of my life to the service. Today is the day that the broken promises of the Tory-led Government will lead us down a path that, sadly, will end with a broken NHS. I characterise the Department of Health’s policy position on the most far-reaching reforms since the inception of the national health service as, “Don’t ask us about the detail; we haven’t made it up yet.” I am not sure what is more worrying—not having the detail or now seeing an outline of what the Tory-led Administration plan to do with the national health service.
I do not know why it took so long to bring the Bill to the House. It cannot be because of extensive consultation and discussion with professionals and advisers, because we cannot seem to find any body willing to own up to advising or having had discussions with the Secretary of State about the future direction of health services. If he had had such discussions, he would have heard the resounding message that his reform package is not what the NHS needs right now.
We should have built on the best in an evolutionary way. Instead, the Secretary of State has inflicted on the NHS a massive structural change while it has to cope with the Nicholson challenge, which we are led to believe are the 4% compound cost savings for the next four years. As David Nicholson acknowledged to the Health Committee, the scale of the productivity challenge is huge and has never been done on this scale either in the NHS or elsewhere in the world, and it is all taking place during a transition into the new NHS commissioning world.
It now transpires that the feat that the Health Secretary set for the NHS has been made even more improbable—some might say, impossible—to achieve because of decisions being taken below the radar. For example, there is the reduction in the market forces factor, which means a reduction in some NHS hospitals’ budgets. Instead of the 4% that the Government have talked about, the reality of the cuts to some hospital budgets is closer to 5%, and perhaps even 5.5% in some cases—mission impossible.
At the same time, we hear about wards having to be closed because of budget cuts. The NHS Confederation says that some hospitals might need to close under the reforms. Yet this weekend’s newspapers talked about the Department of Health having meetings with private sector providers who have 10,000 beds at their disposal.
When will the Secretary of State stop peddling myths and start dealing with the reality, before it is too late for the NHS? The Bill will deliver a service that is low on accountability and high on autonomy. I do not have time to go into this in detail, but I am certainly not persuaded by the accountability measures in the Bill. I am not convinced by the wellbeing boards, local healthwatch or national HealthWatch. We have no evidence that they will be able to deal with accountability or respond to patients themselves. The issue is very clear. If we as Members of Parliament want to ask questions, whom should we ask?
As far as I am concerned, the Secretary of State has a nice little soundbite that he often wheels out—“No decisions about me without me”. Government Members have stated that over and over, but have not demonstrated any evidence base for it. To me it is clear: the fundamental principles of the Bill are about taking decisions “about me without me”. I am really not persuaded by the democratic accountability provisions. A whole series of decisions have already been made about my health care, our health care and this nation’s health care—and they have been made without us.
It has taken until today for us to be able to debate these proposals properly, and in six minutes I am not able to deal with the points that I should like to cover. This Bill comes to us now after many of the fundamental decisions have already been taken and are being implemented. It is a set of short-term measures that will have long-term consequences for the future of the NHS, the quality of health care, and the accessibility of services available to people in communities across this country.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State deny breaking their promises, but like the emperor and his new clothes, they can fool themselves for as long as they like, but they are not going to fool the people. As people’s services disappear, as they wait longer for their operations, and as things get more difficult, they will know who to blame, and Government Members will really need to worry about it. Last time I spoke in this Chamber on health matters, I accused the Secretary of State of glibness; today, I accuse him of hubris.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and declare an interest in that my wife is a general practitioner.
It is an oft-stated fact that the NHS holds a special place in the hearts of British people. That is why it is so important that this vital institution is managed effectively and sustainably so that our children and grandchildren can continue to use and rely on it in the years to come. However, the problem with the cherished position that the NHS holds is that it makes it difficult to discuss and debate its future dispassionately. It is extremely important that we in this House are able to discuss NHS reform sensibly and without the hyperbole and hysteria shown by the shadow Secretary of State in his opening remarks and by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), whose frankly disgusting remarks were not worthy of this Chamber.
The previous Government, who undertook considerable, frequent and, dare I say it, well-intentioned reorganisations of the NHS, found that each reorganisation was opposed by a variety of interests for a variety of reasons. Although they spent too much time reorganising the bureaucracy of the NHS, and generally adding to it on each occasion, I welcomed some of their reforms and am happy to say so, with the notable examples of foundation trusts and the greater involvement of private and other providers. In too many cases, however, previous reforms took the form of shuffling the management deck chairs. Strategic health authorities and primary care trusts were reorganised and reorganised again, often before the ink at the top of the old letterheads had dried, while the number of bureaucrats soared relentlessly.
The challenges faced by the NHS are considerable, and to deny the need for further change is dangerous. Cost pressures within the NHS are rising. This has, in part, been driven by the blunt way in which the previous Government pushed up health spending without insisting on robustly improving outcomes alongside that increased spending. As a result, we have seen productivity fall—a trend that must be reversed if the NHS spending model is to be sustainable. That health care inflation has also been driven by outside factors. Costly new drugs and treatments, coupled with an ageing population, have created serious challenges and will continue to do so.
A hard-headed analysis of these demographic changes has led the coalition Government, rightly, to commit to ring-fencing the NHS from Government spending cuts and guaranteeing real-terms increases in NHS spending—a commitment, I might add, not matched by Labour. With the privilege of a ring-fenced budget comes a responsibility on the side of the NHS to maximise productivity and efficiency to ensure the best possible clinical outcomes for patients within that budget settlement.
Mr Anderson
If it is a ring-fenced budget, why does the Royal College of Nursing believe that there will be 27,000 fewer nurses in a year’s time?
Dan Byles
The NHS budget is going up in real terms every year, as the hon. Gentleman can see by looking at the books. We are all aware that the system we inherited had ongoing problems because of the high management costs and other structural problems within the NHS. There will be no shortage of nurses as a result of any underfunding by the current Government—I can assure him of that.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept the figures from the Royal College of Midwives showing that in 1997 there were more midwives than managers in the NHS, and in 2009 there were 18,000 more managers than midwives?
Dan Byles
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point exactly. The NHS cannot carry on with management levels and layers of bureaucracy of the kind that the previous Government put in place. With an ageing population, it is even more important that the largest possible slice of the NHS budget is spent on patient care, and as little as possible on management and administration. Reform of the commissioning process is central to that.
The Bill has been criticised by Opposition Members for doing something that Government Members have been critical of in the past: reorganising the management structures yet again. However, anyone who looks at the Bill honestly and dispassionately will see that it does not reorganise NHS management structures, but sweeps away a whole tier of NHS management structure. It is not another round of shuffling the management deck chairs, but a bonfire of some of those management deck chairs. I strongly welcome the fact that the Bill abolishes primary care trusts and puts general practitioners in charge of commissioning services on behalf of their patients. I criticise nobody who works within PCTs, but I freely criticise the structure that puts health care commissioning in a bureaucratic body that operates at arm’s length from patients and doctors.
I am conscious that many hon. Members still wish to speak, so I will draw my remarks to a close with one plea to the Minister. I understand that under the new GP commissioning process, GP consortia will, in effect, be given control of two budgets: the budget for clinical services and a small budget to cover the management costs of taking over the commissioning process. I also understand that they will not be permitted to transfer unspent funds from the management budget to the clinical budget. If my understanding is correct, I urge the Minister to reconsider that restriction. In giving the consortia a budget for management that cannot be transferred to the clinical budget, there is no incentive for them to drive down their back-office costs. For the process to work most efficiently, GP consortia must have an incentive to drive down their back-office costs in the knowledge that it will allow them to spend more on their patients. To do otherwise gives the incentive to use up the management budget regardless of need—to hire that extra secretary, not because there is a need, but because the budget is there to do so. Such unfortunate incentives from central Governments over the years have led to many productivity problems throughout the public sector and to a use-it-or-lose-it culture. I urge the Minister to look again at that restriction, which seems to go against the new culture of efficiency and responsibility for budgets that we are trying to instil across the public sector.
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I speak both as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and as the MP for Barking. As PAC Chair, my concerns have not been allayed by the evidence sessions that we have held on these issues. I do not want to be saying in three years’ time, “I told you so.” I urge the Government to think again before they introduce changes that have not been thought through properly, that are incredibly risky, and that could result in long-term damage.
There has been insufficient focus on the risks of the changes. The NHS chief executive said in evidence that
“the risk is higher. If you try and reorganise, the risk becomes higher. I think we’d be kidding you to say that it wasn’t”.
Making Monitor an economic regulator forces it to concentrate on competition, not quality. Its purpose will be to drive down costs, not drive up health outcomes. If the spotlight is on price, the risk is that patients will lose out. The NHS chief executive agreed in his evidence that lowering tariff prices could endanger patients. Opening the health market to any willing provider will undermine the viability of many NHS foundation hospital trusts, which face immovable fixed costs, such as their private finance initiative costs. Again, that risk has not been assessed properly.
The Government appear to be driven by an ideological mission. The NHS needs pragmatism, not dogma. I fear that there is no firm grip on the costs of reform. The NHS already faces the unprecedented challenge of finding £20 billion of savings and its record is poor. Over the past decade, despite assurances to the Treasury, NHS productivity declined, with hospital productivity declining by 1.4% annually. The NHS should therefore concentrate its efforts on the enormous financial challenge, and should not be diverted by an unprecedented organisational challenge. Quality and productivity, not reorganisation and privatisation, should be the priorities.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a good-quality speech, as usual. Surely in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, where the cost of laying people off in the PCT will be tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, the risks that she describes already exist.
Margaret Hodge
Indeed, and I was going to come to that point. As I understand it, Ministers have set aside £1.7 billion to finance their reforms, but as my hon. Friend says, if the costs of redundancy are higher than planned, or if people carry on attending A and E rather than seeing their GP, the costs of reform will spiral and front-line services will have to be cut. I am not convinced that Ministers have transition costs properly under control.
Nor has anybody sorted out to our satisfaction the issue of accountability for public money. For instance, foundation trusts are supposed to be directly accountable to Parliament. With 167 trusts accountable to the PAC and the House, if there is financial failure or poor quality of care, will that accountability be good enough? In the past, Monitor could sack the board of a trust, but under the Bill it will lose that power. How can we hold the permanent secretary to account when there is a plethora of new quangos or new responsibilities for quangos? We have to know where the buck stops. I seek Ministers’ reassurances tonight that there will be clear, practical accountability that enables Parliament to hold the Executive to account.
The Government do not have effective plans to deal with failures, and there will be failures—hospitals bankrupt, GP commissioning consortia overspending. Ministers must explain how they will deal with failure, so that local services will be maintained even when trusts and consortia collapse. So far, officials have been unable to provide us with the confidence that we need to feel that the Government have got a grip.
That matter is of particular importance to my constituents. For years, our NHS trust has been in terrible trouble, and last week it was named and shamed by the Audit Commission for systematic failure on its finances. It has failed to balance its books for years, and it has a projected deficit of £29 million this year. The quality of care has deteriorated, too. In the week of the general election, 99% of people at our King George A and E and 92% at Queen’s hospital were treated within four hours. By 2 January this year, that had dropped to 83% at King George and just over 61% at Queen’s. More than 1,000 people were forced to wait for more than four hours, ambulances were queuing around the block and all but the most urgent cases were turned away. In one case, a patient died because she was sent home.
That hospital trust is not fit to become a foundation trust. Despite a stream of new chairs and chief executives, the underlying problems persist. Now, the only answer that NHS London has is to try yet again to close the A and E at King George. That is health vandalism at its worst, with patients’ needs sacrificed at the altar of financial cuts.
What would happen to my constituents under the proposed NHS reforms? King George A and E would go, forcing my neediest and poorest constituents to spend hours on three buses to get to a hospital. Queen’s hospital would become unviable, and what then? Where is the local hospital ready to meet local needs? Who would want to consider merging with a hospital trust struggling with an impossible financial burden, and even if anyone did, would they ensure that our services remained local? The current health care reforms should put the patient at the heart of the NHS, but it does not feel like that is happening in Barking. I urge the Government to think again before they act to damage the health care of the people who need it most, the people I represent here in Parliament.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is easy to see why politicians continuously want to fix the NHS. The perspective from the green Benches is very different from the perspective one gets as a GP—I say that having worked in the health service for 24 years. My surgeries and postbag, and I am sure those of other Members, are full of stories of delays, frustrations and sometimes really poor practice. The trouble is that not enough people write to their MP to tell them how sensitively or compassionately they have been treated, or how the NHS saved their life. They do feel those things, however, and they do appreciate the NHS. That is why they are understandably wary of any changes, proposed by whatever Government.
Here are the things in the Bill that I welcome. I really welcome clinical leadership. We should be in no doubt about this: there is clear evidence that commissioning works best when there is clinical leadership backed up by excellent management. The Bill will go some way to pushing us towards true clinical leadership in all parts of the NHS.
The provisions will also result in an information revolution. That will involve information about not only whether someone’s treatment worked but what the experience was like—a kind of TripAdvisor for the NHS. We all know that, with information, daylight is the best disinfectant. If people know that their performance is going to be compared with that of others, that is likely to drive up performance in the NHS.
The provisions will allow for that early scan that can make all the difference in an early diagnosis of cancer. When GPs can commission very good early diagnostics much more quickly, we will see a difference. The changes will also give GPs much greater flexibility to respond to their own area. In Devon, for example, community hospitals are really important, but they might not be so important in inner cities. The provisions should also give better choice to services such as mental health, and bring in opportunities for the voluntary sector. I recently met a group of carers for patients suffering from mental health difficulties, and they told me that they wanted better access to talking therapies. Rather than the support that has traditionally been supplied to them, they want better access to other kinds of support. I also really welcome putting public health back where it belongs, with local authorities.
Our spending now matches the European average, and I genuinely congratulate the Labour party on that, but I am afraid that that has also been a wasted opportunity. It is unforgivable that so much of that money was squandered, and that we have seen flat-line productivity. For that level of spending, patients should be able to expect the kind of services that people receive in France or Germany. I am sure that we have all heard instances of people coming back from a holiday on the continent with a minor condition, having had a scan and treatment within a week. We should be able to deliver that here. Health care workers should not have to spend three weeks chasing down a patient’s results. I am sure that we have all heard instances of that, as well.
The challenge is to improve aspects of the NHS, to look at the detail, to listen to patients and professionals and to ensure that we get this right. In Torbay, they have been getting it right for some time. It has been part of a national pilot of integrated care. Baywide, a not-for-profit company of local GPs, commissions health and social care from a pooled budget.
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend mentions GPs working together on a not-for-profit basis. Does she share my huge disappointment at some of the terribly derogatory comments made by Opposition colleagues about GPs’ motivation, comparing them to the worst kind of bankers in the City? Is it not disappointing that they are so disrespectful to GPs?
Dr Wollaston
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have heard some terrible slurs about GPs profiteering and lining their own pockets. I am absolutely confident that that is not what we are going to see.
Torbay has been highly successful because it has pooled budgets and it can design integrated care. That saves lives and money. No one should be in any doubt that improving the quality of care, and thereby the quality of life, for those with complex, long-term conditions is the key to improving health care and cutting costs.
Andrew George
My hon. Friend talks about the role of GPs in cutting costs. I would be interested to hear whether, from her experience, she believes that the introduction of price competition—in which a maximum tariff would be set, below which there could be competition —will be helpful, or does she believe, as many authorities and other bodies do, that it is likely to put quality at risk?
Dr Wollaston
I am very confident, because I have discussed that question with the Secretary of State, who has assured me that the reforms are about competition not on price, but on quality. All doctors know that if they get it right the first time, they provide not only better care, but better value care.
GPs and PCTs throughout Devon are rolling up their sleeves and getting on with the job in hand, but to deliver the undoubted benefits of integrated care, they need to be able to work closely with colleagues in hospital, as well as with people in the community, to design those logical pathways. As I just mentioned, the Secretary of State has reassured me on the question of price versus quality competition, but it would help to spell out explicitly in the Bill that that will be protected. Professionals are understandably scared, and I hope the Minister will make the position absolutely clear in his winding-up speech.
Commissioners will not feel liberated if they are liberated from the Secretary of State but shackled to Monitor. Fundamental to the outcome of the reforms will be the powers of Monitor. I should like those powers to be carefully constrained in the Bill, so that it does not take on an unintended role. Focusing on quality and not on cost would help to bring all the professionals back into thinking that this is a positive step forward, because that remains a concern.
Mr Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend rightly emphasises quality ahead of cost, but surely both should be considered. In a time of constrained budgets, it is entirely right that commissioners use a service of comparable quality, which can deliver for patients at a lower cost, when they can find one, precisely so that they have additional funds available to look after other patients.
Dr Wollaston
I am confident that commissioners will consider the impact of those decisions across the health care spectrum, which is very important.
In the limited time I have left, I should like to ask the Secretary of State to consider how we will monitor the quality of primary care. Who will be responsible for performers’ lists, audit, and identifying poorly performing doctors? As I understand it, all GP contracts will be held with the NHS commissioning board. What powers will GPs within consortia have to deal with those whom they feel are underperforming if they have no control over their contracts? What will be done about the ongoing, disgraceful situation regarding doctors from the EU with poor English skills, over whom we have few powers to protect patients until there has been a problem?
Professionals are also concerned about the make-up of consortia. Will they have the flexibility to include consultants and other specialists—
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who speaks with a great deal of experience in such matters. The House will share her aspirations for the positive involvement of GPs in commissioning, for the improvement in the provision of secondary care by involving primary care, and for the organisation of primary care. Those aspirations may be shared, but the Government’s hopes, and the evidence on which they are based, of carrying out this huge reorganisation and achieving its alleged aims are flimsy indeed.
In the history of Government-led reorganisations—it little matters whether they are bottom-up or top-down—this reorganisation is massive. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), referred to the view of the NHS chief executive. He said that the Nicholson challenge is to carry out successfully such a huge, large-scale reorganisation in the time proposed—the two challenges that need to be pulled off. I think I quote Nicholson accurately when I say that the first challenge is to do in four years something so massive that it can be seen from the moon—together with the great wall of China—and that that would be unbelievable. The second challenge—the other inherent part of the two-part challenge—is that that has to be done while achieving a 4% reduction in costs over four successive years; and
“To pull off either of these challenges would therefore be breathtaking; to believe that you could manage both of them at once is deluded.”
I do not know why David Nicholson is still in his position. I do not know how the chief executive of the national health service can think that the Government must be deluded to put forward a proposal such as the one that the Secretary of State has proposed and remain in his place, but he clearly does not believe it. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the Secretary of State’s mental health, although I note that the editorial of the last edition of the British Medical Journal read:
“What do you call a government that embarks on the biggest upheaval of the NHS in its 63 year history, at breakneck speed, while simultaneously trying to make unprecedented financial savings? The politically correct answer has got to be: mad.”
Government collective responsibility obviously applies.
It is difficult to understand why the Secretary of State is going down this route, because there is no evidence that these sorts of reorganisations—top-down, bottom-up—in the health service or anywhere else bring the benefits, cost reductions and performance improvements expected of them. If any Government Members want to correct that, I will willingly give way, even in the limited time available. However, there simply is no evidence for it. Indeed, the National Audit Office, in looking at nine reorganisations carried out in the last five years of the Labour Government, found no evidence at all. They all cost far more, and the benefits, so far as they could be identified, were much less.
Similarly, it is pretty obvious that the something like 15 structural reorganisations, particularly in primary and secondary care in the health service, were not successful either. We only have to read through them. Kieran Walshe has described the bewildering array of forms and structures put in place to run primary care and commission secondary care—[Interruption.] I see that anybody who does not agree with the Secretary of State is dismissed automatically—that is a sign of hubris and is not a good approach. A similar approach was taken towards Professor Appleby, who was dismissed as someone of no importance. Yet these are people who are looking at the facts—Appleby looked at improvements in the health service. The conclusion is that
“there have been family practitioner committees, health authorities, GP fundholders, total purchasing consortiums, GP multifunds, primary care groups, primary care trusts, and external commissioning support agencies.”
I freely admit that a lot of those came from the Labour Government. However, I cannot imagine why the Government refuse to learn from our mistakes. That applies also to one of the most serious developments in this whole proposed reorganisation relating to the introduction of price competition. It is feeble of the Government Front-Bench team to say, “Well, your Government intended to do it, so we are going to do it.” They spend hours every day criticising everything the Labour Government did. This is one thing they did not do—apparently they intended to do it—but suddenly it is so welcome that the Government insist on doing it. The fact is, however, that it will happen.
We have a huge change but with no evidence that it will bring any good; we have the fact that the NHS has to make savings that nobody believes will be achieved; and we have the fact that we are opening it up to competition. The position of the consortia becomes very questionable, as does the position of the NHS commissioning board itself. Other Members have raised these points. What sanctions have been provided for? To whom will the consortia report? Is the Secretary of State abdicating any responsibility for their performance? It is not clear from the legislation, as far as I can see—there are 61,000 words of it—what the Government’s role will be in the control, functioning and performance of these new boards.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues on this landmark piece of legislation, which I welcome for fundamental reasons that are specific to my constituency. This legislation will put patients and medical practitioners at the centre of the NHS, putting an end to the era of bureaucracy and mismanagement seen under the previous Labour Government. As my hon. Friend and neighbour the Minister will be aware, patients in my constituency have suffered for a considerable period. They have had their care compromised by the excessive layers of NHS bureaucracy that, as far as I can tell, the Opposition seem determined to keep. I have endless examples of where such bureaucracy has had a devastating impact on the very patients whom the NHS is there to serve.
Late last year I raised with the Leader of the House a case involving a teenage girl in my constituency who had been experiencing unacceptable delays in receiving an MRI scan. She was unable to eat, and basically went from being a healthy teenager to being completely bedridden. Despite needing the scan to help to diagnose her condition, she had to wait for more than a month while her case was being handled—incompetently, I should say—by administrators and managers. The delays were exacerbated by what the local PCT described to me as a “broken pathway”. It was only after the matter had been raised directly with the Secretary of State in the Chamber that she received the scan and has since received medical treatment. However, the delays have compounded her illness. Three months later, that young lady is still in a critical condition. Cutting back on such bureaucracy, investing in the front line and giving patients and their doctors more power will prevent such incidents. Instead of managers hiding behind “broken pathways”, we can have doctors held to account by their patients.
I also support the Bill because it will help my constituents to receive the treatment and the drugs they need. As the Secretary of State will be aware, in recent months two constituents of mine who suffer from multiple sclerosis have contacted me because two PCTs—Mid Essex PCT in one case and North East Essex in the other—have refused to allow them the prescribed drug Sativex on the NHS, yet both have prescribed the drug to other residents. My constituents’ doctors have recommended the treatment, yet management and bureaucracy are again standing in their way, and in the way of common sense and the essential health care that my constituents need. Instead of receiving that treatment, they are now having to wade through a convoluted appeals process, which naturally makes them feel extremely despondent and disappointed, as the NHS, which they have supported through their taxes, is letting them down. They believed that they would get the care that they needed when they needed it, and never expected that the requests of their doctors could be ignored in that way.
I want the Government’s reforms to be introduced without delay. Indeed, it will not surprise the Minister or the Secretary of State to learn that, as far as I am concerned, the abolition of the PCTs in 2013 is still a bit too long to wait. I would like it to happen sooner rather than later. I would therefore like the Minister and Secretary of State to accelerate the process and remove that fundamental layer of bureaucracy, which is a barrier to delivering positive health outcomes to my constituents. I would also like the Minister to ensure that PCTs play their part in facilitating an orderly transition to GP consortia, as he will be aware that Mid, North East and West Essex PCTs have come together to form a cluster, with one chief executive. It is now a large organisation that is responsible for a lot of public money.
I have since discovered that between now and 2013, those three PCTs have a target to reduce management costs—that is completely welcome and long overdue—by £13.9 million; they currently stand at some £37 million. However, I should add that that figure is still significantly lower than the £20 million of combined savings that were previously agreed for each PCT by the strategic health authorities. I mention that because that money would naturally make a fundamental difference—a tremendous difference—to those patients being refused treatment on the grounds of cost. When we hear the Opposition questioning whether GPs will be able to handle NHS budgets, they need look no further than the resource-intensive PCTs, which not only need to go, but frankly need to go sooner rather than later.
Because of the shortness of time, I want to highlight one more thing. It is irresponsible of the Opposition to justify the ever-increasing layers of bureaucracy that have been associated with the NHS. I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. I want to see the patient’s voice put first, greater accountability for public money and proper commissioning of local services. For a new constituency like Witham, that is vital when we face a crisis of out-of-hours health care provision. Fundamentally, the Bill is important because it will put patients first, which, as I said, is long overdue.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak briefly about this Bill; I know that many Members on both sides of the House still want to contribute to the debate. It seemed to me that not to speak in this debate would somehow mean not being true to the important issues surrounding the NHS. I have listened to the debate and heard some good constructive comments, but I do not think we have gained a sense of what the NHS was like when I was first elected almost 25 years ago. At that time, people simply could not get treatment because of the underinvestment during the years of the Conservative Government. As for the point about organic change and building on what has been done, it seems to me that this Bill, lengthy as it is, is doing away with the step-by-step improvements that have been made.
Robert Flello
I look forward to hearing more of my hon. Friend’s speech, which I know will be to her usual high standard. Does she agree that, since 1997, Stoke-on-Trent has seen the building of the first new hospital for 140 years, a brand-new oncology unit, a brand-new maternity unit and health centres developing everywhere? Is that not real investment under a Labour Government, which never happened during the previous 18 years of the Conservative Government?
Joan Walley
What we have seen is the university college of North Staffordshire linked to the medical college at Keele. We have never before seen that kind of medical training going on outside London in areas like Stoke-on-Trent. Hayward hospital has been rebuilt and there has been investment in clinics and a huge increase in the number of staff. That does not mean just bureaucrats—like everyone else, I do not want to see unnecessary bureaucrats. I am talking about the number of health personnel trained to do their jobs and to treat people, which has been second to none—despite what the Minister says.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
In looking at NHS performance, should we not seek to compare ourselves with international equivalents today rather than with the past? If we look at coronary heart disease, for example, we find that we have twice the death rate of France, and we are also lagging behind the rest of Europe on cancer outcomes.
Joan Walley
I am coming on to public health, as it is the main issue on which I wish to concentrate.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
In response to the intervention on the recorded death rates from coronary heart disease in France, I want to observe that France makes much more frequent use of the “unknown” category in the recording of deaths. I have been led to understand that this goes some way towards explaining the apparent difference in death rates between the two countries.
Joan Walley
Statistics can be used in all kinds of ways. I remember the case of a young girl of six who could not get the heart surgery that she needed, even when we had invested in those facilities. The important role of public health is relevant to heart disease, and we need to focus on what can be done to prevent ill health. This Bill is very short on detail in that area, which is why I want to concentrate on it.
I want to stress that what we are seeing in this Bill is dogma. We are replacing the primary care trust layer with the GP layer, but the GPs will not be able of themselves to provide the clinical leadership of which we have heard. They will have to engage with equally bureaucratic agencies or companies to do that work for them. My fear is that the clinical leadership element will get lost when the new provisions come into force.
The provisions will not allow us to build on the work of the previous Government, which did so much to improve aspects of the NHS. I accept that the new Government have come into power and that they have a remit, but that means that they should get what they do right. I fear that what will happen as a result of the Bill will be destructive. I am afraid that it is also risky. We have already heard about the need for pilot projects. Why can we not wait for a proper evaluation of those projects before rushing ahead with a move that might cause us to throw out the baby with the bathwater? What safeguard will we have against that?
I fear that when the public realise that the Bill is not fit for purpose and will not achieve what is claimed for it, they will be not saddened but angered by the knowledge that they will no longer be able to raise issues for which the Secretary of State has previously had responsibility. The Bill will merely transfer responsibility, and it is easy to see who will have that overall leadership and where direct accountability will lie. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) will probably wish to raise issues relating to Stafford hospital. It is important that when things go wrong in hospitals, there is full transparency. When everything is done on a commercial basis, that transparency will not exist in the new health service that the Bill will introduce.
The Government say that the Bill will end inequalities. I am old enough to remember the resource allocation working party, and the “distance from target” money that was to help areas such as Stoke-on-Trent which had received the least investment in health and experienced the most illness. I am not convinced that the Bill will continue that work. Stoke-on-Trent primary care trust is currently £30 million short of its target, and it is difficult to see how the Bill will make amends for that.
Realising as I do that the devil is often in the detail, I want to raise two more points. The first relates to public health. Speaking as an honorary vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, I am well aware that the public health consultation that has invited responses later this year will not be co-ordinated with the legislative changes in the Bill. Will the Government take account of the need for the institute to look in detail at the way in which public health will be integrated with local authorities across the board? That is critical if we are to improve public health services at all levels.
My second point relates to a private Member’s Bill of mine. I have heard that, through the Government’s Bill, the Prime Minister will require hospitals to improve nutritional standards. We all know that poor food leads to ill health. I hope that Ministers will consider the proposals in my Bill, and think about ways in which hospitals could serve high-standard food rather than food that is often linked to ill health. That in itself could make a major difference to people’s health.
I have many other concerns which I have no time to mention, but let me say finally that it is not clear how the Bill will secure the investment in dentistry that is currently needed.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak, given the number of Members who wished to contribute. I will keep my comments brief.
We should all recognise that NHS staff do a great job in looking after our health and well-being, and are constantly striving to improve provision. I refer not just to front-line health workers, but to the office staff managers and professionals who are not always referred to so positively by either politicians or the media. However, we must also recognise that the NHS must continue to improve and do a better job in order to keep pace with rising health care needs. The question we must ask is whether the Bill will allow the health service to continue to improve.
Some positives have come out of the proposals. For too long, unelected officials have made decisions about local health care without listening to local communities, handing contracts for GP practices to private firms or even closing hospitals with local people locked out of decision making. In my constituency, under the previous Government, the PCT closed Burnage walk-in centre without any consultation. It said that this was to save money, despite the centre being more cost-effective than other walk-in centres in Manchester. This was part of the £20 billion efficiency savings demanded by the previous Labour Government. More recently, the PCT has temporarily closed Withington walk-in centre, again without consulting anybody who uses the service. So it is to be welcomed that the Government will not allow a service reconfiguration where the public have not been engaged and where it will reduce people’s health care options locally.
It is also to be welcomed that private sector providers will be expected to appear before local authority health scrutiny committees—that did not happen under Labour’s less democratic system. However, I urge the Secretary of State and Ministers that if private providers remain reluctant to participate, they should be mandated to appear before health scrutiny boards. Getting information on how providers are performing out into the open can only help to improve health outcomes and accountability.
The Lib Dem manifesto promised an end to the rigging of the market in favour of the private sector that we had seen emerge under the Labour Government. The Labour Government pushed for more NHS work to be given to private hospitals, regardless of local decisions on whether it was right for them. Much of the concern about the Bill centres on reforms being seen as being about the break-up of the NHS. Such a view is wide of the mark, because in many ways the proposals will level the playing field for the NHS, which was distorted under the previous Labour Government. They guaranteed that for-profit providers of elective surgical procedures running independent sector treatment centres would be paid a certain amount, regardless of how much work they did, and allowed PCTs to make supplementary payments to new private sector providers to make services more attractive to new entrants. Unfairly stacking the system in favour of the private sector and against public provision was wrong. We cannot allow certain providers to be handed work regardless of what patients want and regardless of the quality of the services provided. I hope that the Minister will confirm that preferential payments and guaranteed payments for new private sector providers will end. Can he also confirm that there will be no target for the proportion of work undertaken by private sector providers, unlike under the Labour Government?
However, there are still areas of concern and many questions remain unanswered. I would be grateful if the Minister explained what will happen to existing PCT-owned provision? Locally, in Manchester, the Labour party has claimed that the PCT-run Withington community hospital will close under these proposals. Of course that is simply not true, but questions do remain over who will own and run the community hospital. When I met the chief executive of Manchester PCT, she made it clear that the new proposals give real scope for widening and expanding provision through the community hospital, but she remained unclear on the model of ownership. I would be grateful if the Minster cleared that up.
Unlike Labour Members, I have no ideological opposition to the idea of allowing hospitals to extend their private provision. Private provision has been extended at the Christie hospital, in my constituency, which is providing millions of pounds extra each year to be reinvested in NHS provision, which surely is a good thing. However, I would be grateful if the Minister assured the House that where private provision is extended, it will not be at the expense of NHS provision. We should allow hospitals to extend private provision—in addition to existing services and certainly not instead of them—so that more money can be reinvested in the NHS.
Questions also remain about the cost of the implementation of change. Manchester used to have three PCTs, but they were merged into one to save money. The new consortia will go back to using the “three model”, and I am not convinced that that will save money. There is also a concern that intense competition for providing services that existing hospitals provide will take away resources and make it more difficult for NHS providers to maintain services or to invest in new technology and equipment. I have run out of time.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad to be called to speak at this hour, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is my joy to celebrate the achievements of the health service that was started by Nye Bevan from Wales and to celebrate the successes of the previous Government, such as the 2 million extra people a year who are now operated on, the 44,000 extra doctors and the 94,000 extra nurses. The question to ask is: why devastate and break a system that already works well?
The Bill risks stripping out the heart and mind of the NHS, in terms of equality and planning, and replacing it with a market of GP business consortia that will focus increasingly on profit maximisation through negotiation of the best prices, bulk purchasing and threatening to withdraw custom from hospitals that cannot survive without them. Huge health retailers will evolve with local monopolies over patient communities. It is all very well saying that patients will have choice, but there will be big consortia saying, “This is what is best for you—buy this”, focusing on the areas of highest profitability. Those consortia might prefer to deal in cataracts rather than, for argument’s sake, chronic conditions. They might choose to focus in certain demographic areas with different health trends. A business focus will be applied according to the returns that can be gained in different areas rather than simply focusing on what is right for each person.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Is it not possible that doctors’ consortia will simply make the right decisions for patients, focusing on giving proper value for money and decent care and on responding properly to local requirements and needs? Would not that apply across the piste in terms of community hospitals and acute hospitals?
Geraint Davies
The taxpayer invests in GPs to provide medical and clinical excellence so that they can diagnose people’s health problems. The taxpayer does not invest in them to become small business people who go around trying to maximise profit and work out rates of return on different sorts of health care. That is the problem with introducing privatisation and marketisation: the thought in the back of the business person’s head is how to make money, not simply what is the best diagnosis. The customers whom GPs are facing—patients—are to a large extent ignorant. It is not like buying electricity from npower: patients do not know what is wrong with them. They are in the hands of their GP and they do not know whether what they have been prescribed—perhaps a cheaper drug that makes a higher profit but is not as effective—is right: they just have to guess.
Mr Graham Stuart
Rationing is inevitable in any system, but who should best do it? Should remote managers do it away from patients’ needs, or should GPs do it in a way that involves managing and being aware of a budget but trying their best, within that budget, to deliver the best health outcomes for all their patients? Who is better—PCT managers or GPs?
Geraint Davies
A GP must always ask what the best treatment for the patient is rather than what the best treatment for their business’s profitability is. That is why this is fundamentally wrong.
Geraint Davies
I shall not give way.
The Bill is setting up an incentive system that will make GPs make the wrong choices. It will return the NHS to a sort of pre-Nye Bevan, atomised system of health, rather than a planned system that uses resources efficiently. The system will lend itself, in the new era, to duplication, profiteering, businesses going bust and waste. What is more, there is no political mandate for the Bill; it is a Trojan horse of privatisation that no one knew would come. The changes will probably cost £3 billion or £4 billion to administer and will clearly set us back a number of paces before we move forward—if we do move forward.
A few people have mentioned the excellent work of John Appleby, the chief economist of the King’s Fund, who wrote in the British Medical Journal that the rate of deaths from heart disease is falling much faster here than in any other European country. It is falling to such an extent that it will be lower than the rate in France by 2012 even though we are spending 28% less. In terms of relative efficiency, we are doing well. Breast cancer rates have fallen by 40%, compared to 10% in France. I am not complacent and I do not pretend that there should not be greater productivity. If I had to point to one area in which there should be greater productivity, it would be the fact that we pay GPs too much money. That is the fault of the previous Government for negotiating a situation in which GPs can make more and more money. Now, it seems, we are encouraging them along that track, as though making a load of money were the primary focus.
My basic point is that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Reform, yes: breaking the system, no. The Bill is not evidence-based. We are hurtling ahead, although people do not know the likely downside—the duplication, the amount of profit, the failures and possible hospital closures. The Bill is not economically sound or robust.
I have mentioned other difficulties one of which is that we make GPs subcontractors who want to maximise profit. In Wales, there is a move towards directly employing consultants and GPs, as opposed to giving them free rein on profit maximisation. Assuming that the Labour party wins in the Assembly election in May, we will see over the next five years the emergence of parallel systems, one of which will be a modernised version of the traditional health service and the other a marketised system. There is a conflict of interest between the profit motive and patient care, particularly in chronic conditions.
If aggregate supply is to be provided by a group of GPs, as opposed to a PCT, there is the risk of local shortages—of flu vaccines, for example. There might be local shortages in one area and excess supply and waste in other areas because of the absence of a strategic plan to deliver the right aggregate and match supply and demand.
In terms of customer and consumer watch, something called HealthWatch is to be introduced. Given the Government’s record in getting rid of Consumer Focus and bundling it in with Citizens Advice, I have little faith in the effectiveness of HealthWatch in looking after patients who, as I mentioned, are relatively ignorant of the product they are offered and face a local monopolist.
With reference to lifting the cap on private patients, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) said, there is a risk that BUPA, for example, might suddenly funnel a lot of its patients in one direction because of discounted purchases, crowding out patients in a certain area. That would lead to unpredictability in the system.
We are asked to believe that the abolition of 150 PCTs and 10 strategic health authorities will miraculously save us some 45% of current expenditure. The people of Wales will make the right decision in May.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
It is a privilege to be called to speak in today’s debate at such a late hour. I shall try and keep my comments as brief as possible to allow other Members to get in.
Alongside the economy, crime and employment, the performance of the NHS and the provision of local health care is of the utmost importance to most, if not all, people. Health care is rightly viewed as an indicator of a community’s well-being, prosperity and happiness. I know that some hon. Members may disagree, but I firmly believe that all elected Members, on both sides of the House, share a genuine desire to protect and enhance our NHS. Unfortunately, party politics too often comes into health debates. I fear that some Opposition Members have proved that again today.
We all want to improve our NHS services, cut waiting lists, increase cancer survival rates and improve patient experience. Those are certainly the desired outcomes that my constituents want to see.
I truly believe that doctors, nurses and paramedics carry out tremendous work, often in the most testing conditions. We must get away from the idea that a desire to reform the NHS radically equates to some sort of insult to the commitment, ability and performance of NHS staff, because it does not. I am interested in the Bill’s reforming potential because of the conversations that I have had with concerned, exhausted and demoralised NHS professionals.
The NHS is indeed a national treasure, and I can safely say that I will always support it having a place in our society. Such sentiments echo what has already been said by the coalition Government, who from day one pledged to increase spending on health services and shall now do so by no less than £10.7 billion over the course of this Parliament. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) noted, future demands on the NHS will be unprecedented. Despite the best efforts of NHS staff, our performance has fallen, compared with other countries in the OECD, on respiratory diseases, heart attacks and cancer survival rates. Too much top-down control, too little patient consultation and too many Government-driven targets have brought unsustainable pressures to those on the NHS front line.
Reform is necessary, and it is clear that this broad piece of legislation contains a host of reforming measures. One of the most discussed aspects of the debate is the abolition of the PCTs and the devolving of commissioning to GPs, which I wholeheartedly support. In North Yorkshire, the local primary care trust has been an issue of concern for some time, and in December I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the matter. Concerns from constituents, the voluntary sector and local practitioners were all raised. In essence, the local PCT has in part inherited and in part created a substantial budget deficit running into millions of pounds. As a result, local services such as the provision of back pain relief injections have been withdrawn, impacting severely on the lives of thousands of residents across the region. The local primary care trust’s bureaucratic approach highlights the overall failures of PCTs. I could go on, but time is pressing.
I will mention one further concern. Although I welcome the specific reform, I believe that what happens during the transitional period from PCTs to GP consortia is vital. Services, patients and performance levels cannot be allowed to slip during that important period. I urge Ministers to ensure that all the preparations are in place so that that does not happen.
In conclusion, I very much welcome this truly reforming Bill and pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the work he has done on it. I care passionately about the NHS and its future ability to provide world-class health services for the whole country. I do not believe that it would be morally right to allow the NHS to continue to suffer from top-down, bureaucratic, state-led management. We should and can put patients first, with a flexible health care service that is able to respond to local needs. The Bill will not endanger the NHS, as some Opposition Members might claim, but it will enhance it through the empowerment of patients and local health professionals.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I rise to speak not only as a former official of Unison, the biggest trade union in the health service, but as a former care worker. Like most other union officials who have been bad-mouthed as the voice of conservatism, I have actually worked in taking care of people. Perhaps once in a while the people who have delivered services to the vulnerable, the sick and those in need in this country might be listened to. The last time the Conservatives were in power, they did not listen to the voices of such people about the health service, which is why we saw the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, which led to hygiene-related diseases. We saw massive waiting lists and people waiting on trolleys in corridors.
I do not want to put my views tonight, but the views of the people who work in the health service, such as my GP, who asked me this morning how, if we are to go through all these changes, he will be able to take the time off to learn business administration and how to use a computer properly so that he will be able to challenge the people who will run his service. The King’s Fund says that it questions
“the need to embark on a fundamental reorganisation when evidence shows health outcomes and public satisfaction have improved.”
The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) says that
“it does look like somebody has tossed a hand grenade at the PCTs”
and, even more importantly:
“If the expertise isn’t there…inevitably they’re going to be having to turn more to the private sector.”
Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association, says:
“Ploughing ahead with these changes as they stand, at such speed, at a time of huge financial pressure…is a massive gamble.”
He also says:
“We will quickly see failed consortia bought up on the cheap by foreign companies and see bits of the NHS run from abroad.”
Sir Richard Thompson, president of the Royal College of Physicians, says:
“The fragmentation of services would have detrimental impacts on the various areas the reforms seek to improve”.
Dr Peter Carter from the Royal College of Nursing says:
“The RCN is also concerned that the fragmentation could result in unexplained variations in service, a reduction in collaboration and less sharing of good practice—all of which impact on quality care.”
He also says:
“We don’t think it’s been properly thought through… In May last year the average waiting time was nine weeks. Our concern at the moment is that short-sighted false economy will end up costing the public money and result in patient care going backwards.”
The head of Arthritis Care says that
“the Bill risks creating a ‘free-for-all’ situation where only those patients who shout the loudest will get the services they need.”
In a letter to The Times on 17 January, the leaders of six professional health service organisations said:
“The scale and ambitions of the cost-reform programme are extremely risky and potentially dangerous.”
Last Monday, in a letter to The Times, 190 nurses from one trust said that the
“figures from the Royal College of Nursing show 27,000 nursing posts are being cut. These proposed reforms will make matters much, much worse…The proposed reforms will be rapid, costly and staggering in scale: they presage nothing less than the complete reconstruction, if not privatisation, of the NHS”.
This morning, in the Newcastle Journal, 12 doctors representing people from Northumberland in the north to Yorkshire in the south said that
“enforced financial competition, creating a health ‘market’, risks damaging our health service. Forcing GP consortia to tender contracts out…runs the huge risk of seeing large commercial, profit-driven companies entering the market. They will pursue the most profitable contracts…and ignore aspects of healthcare which are not profitable, leaving behind ‘Cinderella’ services. There can be no doubt that the use of their size to undercut on price…could damage local services in the north-east.”
Those are not my words. They are the words of those we as a nation trust to take care of the people who send us here. To rubbish them, like Government Members have done tonight, as the voices of conservatism means just one thing: arrogance. It shows that they are not prepared to listen to those who take our people forward and look after them. [Interruption.] No, I am not going to sit down; other people want to speak. The truth is that the people of this country will never forget that, and they will not forget the human shields in the Liberal Democrats who are giving cover to that policy.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I am very grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is a great relief to note that we are now having a debate, having passed the stage where people, such as the previous Government, believed that pouring in more money improved outcomes. We are now debating reform, and we should welcome its scale, so that we can head towards what patients want—improved outcomes.
Whatever the good intentions of the previous Government, there is no question but that, unfortunately, their measures led to reduced productivity, a massive increase in bureaucracy and a distortion of clinical priorities, which meant that, on the outcomes that we seek, patients were not satisfied. I have been more concerned about health outcomes and the fact that patients were becoming remote from the thing that mattered to them most. That is what the NHS is about. Whom do patients trust? Do they trust a remote primary care trust or their local doctor? There really is no contest, so I welcome these reforms, because they will give commissioning powers to GPs and bring their patients closer to the decisions about their future.
I do not recognise the picture painted by Opposition Members who say that GPs do not welcome the proposals. Already more than half the country is working under the pathfinder shadow consortia, and in Enfield we are already rushing to sign up. We have agreed our consortium, which I warmly welcome. It is keen to seize the opportunity.
Let us turn to local accountability, which goes hand in hand with local commissioning-based services. In the past, it has proved impossible to have genuine local accountability as the NHS processes ultimately all led directly to Whitehall and the Secretary of State. I agree with the Nuffield Trust that the widening involvement of independent providers, the use of social enterprises and community services, and the increase in foundation trusts mean that local accountability mechanisms should indeed be robust.
The right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), who, sadly, is not in his place, and the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) expressed concerns that the mechanisms would not be robust, but I refer them to clause 170, on independent advocacy services, and to clause 175, which emphasises the scrutiny role of the local health authorities, not to mention the local representation of councillors. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) says, “One” from a sedentary position, but I shall not take lectures from a member of a party whose Government carried out no consultation as they tried to reconfigure services in Enfield against the wishes of the public. I shall turn to that now.
It makes no sense that the people who want to hold the health care community to account for their local services should have to go to an intransigent bureaucracy and ultimately up to the Secretary of State. That process is removed from where the local decision making takes place. As I said, in my constituency we are reaching a critical stage now in the future configuration of our acute hospital services. The decision prompted by the previous Government, to downgrade and rip out our vital A and E service and axe the consultant-led maternity services that see 3,000 births a year, is being relentlessly pursued by those same bureaucrats and officials from the health services, despite the fact that the decision will cost lives.
In ignoring the wishes of thousands who took to the streets and the view of the majority of Enfield GPs, those same PCT officials, even at this late hour, are effectively trying to bully the residents into accepting the changes without the consent or consultation of the people. No such arrogance would have been evident if this Bill had been in place. Local people would have been engaged in a genuine process of change because such a proposal would have had to have been agreed by the local health and wellbeing board. As the Secretary of State said yesterday morning, any possible future changes would have to be agreed in the health and wellbeing board of the local authority, which is publicly open and accountable. Gone is the “Whitehall knows best” attitude, to be replaced with local accountability, local engagement and local decision making.
Had the Bill been in place as law, I do not believe that we would have reached the 11th hour for this critical decision in Enfield. The four tests that the Secretary of State rightly requires would have kicked the issue into touch long ago because of genuine local accountability. The local authority, local GPs and, above all, local residents have spoken with one voice. I am grateful that we have a Secretary of State who believes in local accountability and decision making. In future, the voice that was ignored by the Labour party will be enshrined in this legislation. For years, we have suffered from a lack of local accountability in the health service.
Henry Smith
Had the Bill been law 10 years ago, Crawley hospital would not have lost accident and emergency and maternity services. It seems that my hon. Friend thinks the same about hospital services in his constituency.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) is being generous in giving way, but I remind him that the Front-Bench winding-up speeches begin at 9.39 pm.
Nick de Bois
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
For years, we have suffered from a lack of local accountability in the health service. The Bill delivers that accountability. For the health service, the Bill is evolutionary, building on the successes and correcting the failures of the past, and leading to improved outcomes. This revolutionary Bill decentralises power to local people.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
This has been a fascinating debate with some interesting and excellent speeches. Some 17 Labour Members and a similar number on the Government Benches have given a variety of speeches, some showing great knowledge and some not so much. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on her excellent maiden speech, in which she demonstrated her great knowledge of the health service and her background in it. I am sure that she will make many more such speeches and be a great success in this House.
I would like to thank the NHS staff for all the work they do every day in our health service. That includes those at PCTs; one might sometimes think that they were ogres, given how PCTs are described by some Government Members. They work very hard, and they, too, have to deliver the changes that will take place as a result of this Bill.
The Secretary of State is pushing ahead with the Bill despite criticism from all sides. Patient groups, professional bodies and health experts have attacked the plans as high cost, high risk, a danger to the commissioning of key health services, and a distraction from the need to find efficiencies. The heads of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, as well as union leaders, have described the reforms as extremely risky and potentially disastrous. The more they see, the more they become concerned. The clear message that we have been getting is that the proposals have come at the wrong time, they are ill conceived, and a lack of attention has been paid to stakeholders’ concerns.
The Secretary of State has ignored the massive improvements that took place under the Labour Government. One would think that he was talking about a different health service, because we had record numbers of doctors and nurses and record low waiting times. I wonder whether the Minister will confirm, as the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have not done so, that there will be no increase in waiting times during the life of this Parliament. There have been record levels of patient satisfaction, with 71% agreeing that Britain’s national health service is one of the best in the world—the highest figure on record. That is also evidenced by the satisfaction levels recently recorded across user groups, with, for instance, 91% of GPs and 90% of out-patients satisfied. The argument that the NHS is in crisis and is not dealing with patients’ concerns does not stand up. It is important to look at some of the other improvements that have taken place. In June 2010, 90% of admitted patients and 98% of non-admitted patients were being seen within 18 weeks. The coalition has scrapped the targets that delivered those improvements to patient care.
Several Members referred to international comparisons. Let me take the example of the Commonwealth Fund, which ranked the UK first for efficiency and effective care in a study of seven top health care systems. In its 2010 international survey, it found that 92% of people were confident that they would receive the most effective treatment when sick—the No. 1 figure among comparable nations.
A lot has been said about cancer mortality. From 1997 to 2008, cancer mortality rates in all regions of England decreased by between 17.5% and 23%. Even more pronounced improvements have been observed in mortality from circulatory diseases: between 1995-97 and 2006-08, the mortality rate for England fell by 47%.
There are many uncertainties and unanswered questions about the Bill. There are concerns about who will be involved in commissioning and whether it will include other clinicians such as hospital doctors, physios and, importantly, nurses. How do nurses fit into the structural regime? In an article in today’s edition of The Times, the Prime Minister says:
“Nurses too will continue to play a vital role. GP consortia will have a statutory duty to work with nurses and other healthcare professionals, ensuring they have a real voice in shaping better care for patients”.
The Royal College of Nursing says that it was interested to see this, because it does not believe that the Bill goes far enough for it to be possible to claim that that is a statutory duty. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that, too. The only provision that the RCN believes relates to that matter is new section 14O in clause 22, which states that commissioning consortia must obtain appropriate advice. It does not believe that the Bill goes far enough in ensuring that commissioning consortia have relevant multi-disciplinary expertise to commission appropriate care.
I should like to turn to Monitor and competition—an aspect that has not been much mentioned. An ideological commitment to competition on price and to a massively increased role for the private sector is at the heart of the Conservatives’ proposals, despite their attempts to hide it. On 17 January, in a 700-word article in The Times, the Secretary of State did not mention the word “competition” once, but the Government have had to reveal where the true thrust of this legislation lies. Of course, he did not mention it much in his speech today, either. The Prime Minister told the House that
“what we want is a level playing field for other organisations to come into the NHS.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 831.]
When we appeared together on “Newsnight” a couple of weeks ago, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said:
“It is going to be a genuine market. It is going to be genuine competition.”
The Government have hidden the great bulk of the ideological market and competition changes from public view. There is the introduction of competition on price. Monitor will have the power to direct consortia to put the provision of services out to tender, irrespective of what the GP consortia say. The Minister wants to deny that, but it is what we read in the Bill. Monitor will be driving this, not the GP consortia. Government Members should be reading that part very carefully. NHS resources, such as beds and staff, will be used without limit to treat private patients as the cap on private patients in hospitals is lifted. That means that private patients may jump the queue while NHS patients are waiting for treatment. Services or whole hospitals may be forced to close as the most profitable patients are cherry-picked by private providers.
Robert Flello
Does my hon. Friend recognise the effect when a local MP sets up a big campaign? In my constituency, I may well be doing that with the Sutherland centre, which is under threat. The local MP will have no influence or power at all because of Monitor’s role.
Derek Twigg
The issue of accountability for this House—what we can and cannot do—is important and I will come on to it if I have time.
I turn to the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Members for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) suggested that the Bill will protect hospitals and wards from closure. I am afraid that it will not. They need to read the Bill again. Monitor will be driving a lot of this, and they need to be clear about what the Bill actually does. They should join the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is taking the interesting stance of not voting for the Bill tonight. He understands it better than other Government Members.
Concerns over fragmentation and obstacles to integrated working have been raised by numerous bodies in the health service and by those who work in the health service. The Commonwealth Fund states that the UK has the best co-ordination between health care providers and professionals, with the lowest percentage of patients having experienced co-ordination problems in their care. Only 10% of patients have received conflicting information. The more privatised, competition-driven systems in Australia and the US experience greater co-ordination problems.
The King’s Fund brief for this debate states:
“The Bill signals a significant shift towards a more competitive market for health care. While we support increased competition in areas where it demonstrates benefits to patients, the Bill appears to move towards promoting competition at the expense of collaboration and integration.”
That is from one of the most respected think-tanks.
One cannot underestimate the huge powers that will be given to Monitor. It will expose the NHS to a rigorous competition regime, with services going out to tender. The explanatory notes state that Monitor will become the
“economic regulator for all NHS-funded health services”,
with the power to
“do anything it needs to in order to exercise its functions.”
In other words, the NHS will become like a utility.
Of course, the Government are full of broken promises. The Prime Minister said that there would be real-terms increases in NHS spending, but there are not. He said that there would be no cuts, but there are. He said that there would be no top-down reorganisations, but we have a top-down reorganisation. David Nicholson said that
“no one could come up with a scale of change like the one we are embarking on at the moment. Someone said to me ‘it is the only change management system you can actually see from space’—it is that large.”
This is a massive change. There are other issues, such as the cuts in staff that are taking place and the vacancies that are not being filled. We are being told about that by people who work in the health service. That is the true nature of the health service under the Conservatives and the coalition.
We are in favour of improving the quality of care, driving up standards, greater clinical involvement and giving a greater say to patients. We are therefore not anti-reform, but we are against this reckless, top-down reorganisation with a cost of £3 billion, which was hidden away during the general election campaign. It is reckless, it is not in our best interests and many believe that it will be the end of the NHS as we know it.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
When NHS funding has reached the European average, but the outcomes for care have not; when doctors are seeking to improve the quality of care but are hindered by politically imposed targets; and when the defence of bureaucracy is put above front-line services, we know that something has gone very wrong. That is why the coalition Government will act, act now and act with determination to improve and modernise our national health service. The Bill will create an NHS that puts patients first, that frees clinicians to deliver the best and most innovative care they can, and that focuses on what matters most to patients—health outcomes.
This has been an interesting debate, although at times, sadly, not a well informed one. I begin, however, by congratulating the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on her fluent debut speech in the Chamber. I wish her every success in her future contributions, although I warn her that she will not get such a quiet ride next time around. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) on an interesting and incisive speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). The latter has great experience, having worked in the NHS.
I wish also to congratulate a number of my other hon. Friends on interesting contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)—we will certainly write to him with answers to his questions—for Winchester (Mr Brine) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).
It is always a delight to listen to the Member who, I suspect, is probably best described as the old Labour dinosaur, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). I also enjoyed the elegant contribution of the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). Having listened to his fluent speech, all that I can say is, what a difference opposition makes. It is interesting that what he supported as part of a Labour Government in power he now seems to have abandoned in opposition. The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) asked a number of intricate questions, and given the time that I have, I promise that I will write to him with answers to all of them.
Hon. Members might find it helpful if I debunk a few of the myths that have sprung up about our plans to modernise the NHS. The first, and perhaps the most insidious, is that they were kept secret and hidden from the electorate. Quite frankly, that is palpable nonsense. In June 2007, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, when in opposition, published the Conservative party’s white paper, “NHS Autonomy and Accountability”. It laid out our clear intentions, which we reiterated on pages 45 and 46 of our election manifesto. We said, as a commitment to the British people, that we would
“give every patient the power to choose any healthcare provider that meets NHS standards, within NHS prices. This includes independent, voluntary and community sector providers.”
We stated that we would
“strengthen the power of GPs...by...putting them in charge of commissioning local health services”
and
“set NHS providers free to innovate by ensuring that they become autonomous Foundation Trusts”.
We also stated that we would create an independent NHS board. It is quite ludicrous to suggest that we did not tell the British people our plans both before and during the election campaign.
A second myth is that our plans to modernise the NHS are revolutionary. In fact they are evolutionary and an extension of the policies of previous Administrations, notably the Blair and Brown Governments. That is particularly true of the move towards the “any willing provider” principle and patient choice. In 2003, when the Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn moved to introduce a plurality of providers and patient choice, he argued that
“the NHS cannot be run forever like a 1940s-style nationalised industry”.
He was right. The NHS needs the constant drive of improvements to raise standards and improve outcomes.
More recently—perhaps Opposition Members would like to listen to this—in 2007, the Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), gave evidence to the Liaison Committee. He stated:
“We have been asking in people from the private sector to review what we can do to give them a better chance to compete for contracts...so the independent sector increases its role, will continue to increase its role and, in a wider and broader range of areas, will have a bigger role in the years to come.”
He said:
“The test at the end of the day is not private versus public, it is value for money, and it is not dogmatic to support one against the other.”
In 2008, he said:
“We will continue to open up acute care with…choice of hospitals trusts across private and public sectors in England…including more than 150 private sector hospitals working as part of the NHS and at NHS cost and standards of quality. We will use all mechanisms available to us to improve our NHS—public, private and voluntary providers can all play their part”.
This Government have also been falsely accused of wanting somehow to privatise the NHS. Privatisation is defined as making people pay for their health care. That is not going to happen under this Government. This Government are totally committed to the values of the NHS: paid for through general taxation; free at the point of need; and always based on clinical need and never on a person’s ability to pay.
Others have erroneously claimed that any involvement of the private sector will undermine the public sector ethos. That is a rather surprising view, considering that it was the last Labour Government who embraced the private sector. I shall quote Dr Howard Stoate, who was recently elected chair of Bexley’s shadow GP consortium. Opposition Members will remember that, until the last election, he was the Labour Member of Parliament for Dartford. In a recent article in The Guardian, he said:
“We have found the idea that services can be offered by any willing provider can actually strengthen the ethos of the NHS rather than weaken it.”
Dr Stoate went on to say that, in his experience, GPs
“reveal overwhelming enthusiasm for the chance to help shape services for the patients they see daily…Far from miring GPs in bureaucracy...GP commissioning can free them to operate more effectively.”
This Government have one simple objective for the NHS: that it should give patients health outcomes that are consistently among the very best in the world, including higher survival rates, greater clinical effectiveness and safer care for patients. Excellence cannot be delivered by having Ministers bark orders down the chain of command. It is done by encouraging innovation and creativity, and by putting the interests of patients ahead of the system and of tomorrow’s headlines.
We will free local clinicians to use their expertise to shape local services. We will free patients to choose the best possible care for their specific needs. We will bring a culture of openness and transparency to the health service, and we will allow any willing provider to compete to provide the best patient care. These plans are consistent, coherent and comprehensive, and they will deliver care that is free at the point of use for all. They will build on the best of what has gone before.
Some say that the reorganisation of the national health service will cost £3 billion, but that is factually incorrect. The impact assessment shows that there will be a one-off cost of £1.4 billion. It also demonstrates how the changes will pay for themselves by 2012-13, saving £5.2 billion by the end of this Parliament. They will continue to save £1.7 billion in every year after that, up to the end of the decade. Every penny of those savings—the equivalent of 40,000 extra nurses, or 17,000 extra doctors or 11,000 extra consultants every year—will be completely and totally reinvested in front-line services, not wasted on back-office costs.
As society evolves, so too must the NHS. The Bill will deliver a modern NHS fit for the 21st century. It is the natural progression of the original vision to deliver the finest health care for all our citizens, remaining true to the founding principles set out by Nye Bevan.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Business without Debate
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
petition
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) presents his petition, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, extending the same courtesy to the petitioner that they would want to be extended to them.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The petitioners of the residents of Wycombe declare that they are
concerned and unhappy about the continuing loss of control in the hospital services that are in the constituency.
The 1,547 petitioners
therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to take steps to ensure that the constituents of Wycombe are given the freedom to use the latest health reforms to work towards fair funding, make the hospital subject to greater local control, and that clinical staff have freedom from centralised planning and targets.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Wycombe,
Declares that the petitioners are concerned and unhappy about the continuing loss of control in the hospital services that are in the constituency; and notes that, in recent years, the petitioners have witnessed the closure of Accident and Emergency, the temporary closure of the maternity unit, and the potential loss of urology services at Wycombe Hospital.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to take steps to ensure that the constituents of Wycombe are given the freedom to use the latest health reforms to work towards fair funding, make the hospital subject to greater local control, and that clinical staff have freedom from centralised planning and targets.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000881]
Umbilical Cord Blood
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this vital debate. At first sight, a debate about umbilical cord blood might seem highly specialised and marginal in terms of its interest and application, but I hope that the debate that I have initiated will highlight the importance of the issue, and its wide application to the saving of lives and money. We have just completed the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill, and this debate chimes with the Government’s policy of creating a modern health service that is open to innovation and excellence, providing life-saving treatments.
I described this as a vital debate. “Vital” is a word used commonly in the Chamber. In fact, a quick search of Hansard will reveal that it was used 2,997 times in 2010—that is, an average of about 20 times each sitting day. It has been used in connection with banking reform, the G20, libraries and ladybirds. While all those are no doubt crucial subjects and worthy of parliamentary attention, my use of the word “vital” in this debate relates to the number of people who, sadly, die each year from blood disorders and cancers without the vital resource of umbilical cord blood.
I introduced the issue of umbilical cord blood to the House on 8 January 2008 through a private Member’s Bill on the subject. A number of hon. Members approached me afterwards, in a state of ignorance to which they openly confessed, to ask what it was all about. Since then the issue has been raised on a number of occasions—notably the debates on the Bill that became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008—and great progress has been made in raising parliamentary awareness of the benefits that these life-saving cords can provide for people suffering from tragic illnesses. In 2008 an all-party parliamentary group was established, and I see that its chair, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), is present. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the work of organisations such as the Anthony Nolan Trust, whose efforts have helped to keep the importance of cord blood at the forefront of the minds of many hon. Members, including Ministers.
I hope that tonight’s debate will remind Members of the value of this vital resource. Blood cancers are killers. According to Cancer Research UK, 4,000 new myeloma cases are diagnosed each year in Britain, and 2,500 myeloma sufferers die. There are 11,000 lymphoma diagnoses each year and 4,000 deaths; there are 7,000 leukaemia diagnoses each year and 4,000 deaths. For many sufferers, the only hope is a blood stem cell transplant. It may result from a bone marrow match, or from the taking of blood cells from the bloodstream of an adult donor or an umbilical cord donated by a mother after childbirth.
The procedure is complex, and there can be a range of complications that pose a threat to the patient. However, although it may seem awful that only 50% of blood transplant patients survive the treatment, almost none would survive without it. Blood stem cell transplants really are the last chance for people to whom no other treatment is available. For some of those people, a transplant is not just a treatment that saves their lives for a while, but an outright cure. At any given time, about 1,600 people in Britain are waiting for a matched donor for a transplant, hoping to survive long enough to get that chance.
Five-year-old Sorrel Mason was one such person. Three years ago Sorrel’s father noticed that she was looking pale, and she was eventually diagnosed with a rare strain of acute myeloid leukaemia. Her mother Samantha recalled the terrible fear and sense of helplessness that they felt at the time. She said:
“I remember the first time I saw her hooked up to all those machines. It broke my heart.”
After two doses of chemotherapy Sorrel was able to have a transplant, and received suitable stem cells from a mother’s umbilical cord from Tokyo—albeit an expensive imported cord; that is a point to which I shall return later. Thankfully, the procedure was a great success. In Samantha’s own words:
“Every day we waited for the daily blood counts. It was a miracle when eventually they came up okay.”
We are on relatively new ground here, because the first time a stem cell transplant took place using cells retrieved from a donated umbilical cord was in 1988. Since then, scientists have been discovering many advantages to the use of cord blood. You, Mr Speaker, will be relieved to know that I will refrain from reciting numerous tracts from the many academic papers on this subject. However, one especially noteworthy example of the great research work being carried out is the Cancer Research UK-funded trial being led by Dr Rachel Hough into the use of umbilical cord blood from unrelated donors for people who have cancer of the bone marrow or lymphatic system. Her team aims to investigate whether a transplant using cord blood cells can help cancer patients who cannot be matched to a bone marrow donor. This is an exciting and promising development that highlights the great potential for uncovering further benefits of cord blood.
The immediate benefit of a transplant from cord blood is that it achieves the same level of success for the patient at a significantly lesser degree of tissue matching. When I first raised this subject three years ago, we relied on speculation about the number of cord blood units needed for this country’s health needs. Now we know from evidence and with authority that a cord blood bank would have to maintain only 50,000 units to provide for the bulk of Britain’s unmet need for stem cells beyond the 770,000 registered adult donors. A great advantage of umbilical cords is the availability of the stem cells retrieved. They are collected, tissue-typed and frozen after the birth of the child, and then made available as soon as a patient requires them. That radically reduces the waiting time before a patient can access a transplant. Currently, the average time it takes for a patient to receive their transplant after the search for a match is started is some 160 days, during which time many patients become progressively weaker and the likely success of the transplant can thus be reduced.
Cord blood transplants save lives that other methods cannot, so it is no surprise that, globally, the proportion of transplants undertaken using cord blood is increasing every year. Great Ormond Street hospital, a leading transplant centre, will now use only cord blood where it is available. The pace of advance in this arena is excellent. Each year, the prognosis for patients treated is better than for those treated the year before, and that is because of the research taking place in the UK and around the world. Not only are blood cancers and similar disorders subject to increasingly effective treatments, but an active investigation is taking place into the use of cord blood in the treatment of sickle cell anaemia and HIV.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that minority ethnic patients make up almost 20% of the unmet need for stem cell transplants, which is disproportionate to our 10% representation in the population. Does he agree that one of the important uses of this blood is in enabling ethnic minority patients, who find it more difficult to get a match, to have some hope?
Mr Burrowes
I am very grateful for that intervention. The hon. Lady and I share an interest in both sickle cell anaemia and the thalassaemia issue. The UK Thalassaemia Society, whose headquarters are in my constituency, has great interest in this area and, in particular, in the black and minority ethnic communities, who are not able to get matches through the bone marrow register and are acutely in need. That is particularly the case for mixed-race families, who struggle to find any match and are sometimes wholly reliant on a cord blood solution. That is why it is welcome that over the years the previous Government and this Government have increased the number of collection centres to make more of those units available.
However, more needs to be done because, sadly, where Britain once led, it is now falling behind the United States, France, Germany and Spain. All those countries now outstrip our cord blood collection, inhibiting our research capacity. There are 700,000 births each year in the UK and in almost every single instance the cord blood is discarded as medical waste. I am not proposing routine collection, but we must question the health and economic value of throwing all these potentially life-saving cords away. I welcome the fact that the Government are nudging people to agree voluntarily to donate their organs upon death, and I would encourage a similar nudge in encouraging mothers to consider donating umbilical cord blood.
Progress has been made, but more needs to be done. There are 1,600 people waiting for a stem cell transplant, but the unmet need in annual terms is only 440 transplants per year. A bank of just 50,000 umbilical cords would provide the bulk of that need. Sadly, simply increasing the size of the adult register is not an alternative to having cord blood. We already have access to more than 16 million donors on registers worldwide. The work of the Anthony Nolan Trust and others helps us to access that adult register, but we would need a UK adult register of a similar size to approach the effectiveness of a 50,000-unit cord blood bank.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his earlier comments. It is difficult to talk in financial terms about such issues, but with patients who do not get a transplant, there is a huge ongoing medical cost for their treatment, whereas a transplant could save that money, which could then be reinvested in the health service.
Mr Burrowes
We often talk about investing to save, but this is an area in which investment would save both money and lives. I shall go into that in more detail.
A report on transplantation by the UK Stem Cell Strategic Forum, ably chaired by Professor Charles Craddock, was published in December 2010 by NHS Blood and Transplant. The Minister discussed the report, which makes important recommendations, with the all-party group on the day of its publication. The report recommended, first, investing in expanding Britain’s cord blood bank capacity to 50,000 units. Those proposals have been properly costed and the costs have been balanced against effectiveness by NHS Blood and Transplant. For an investment of £50 million, spread over five years, Britain could have that 50,000-unit cord blood bank.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I want to congratulate him on the work that he has consistently put into this issue over the past three years, which is to be commended. Would he endorse the proposal that certain hospitals or regions could be piloted or allocated as regions to collect and donate the necessary 50,000 units? Rather than having routine testing across the country, it could be just in specific regions or units.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There has been some progress on the areas that could retrieve unit cords, particularly from members of BME communities who lack those matches, but we also need to look further at matching that up with regional centres of excellence. I shall return to that point.
First, let me deal with the money issue, which we cannot ignore in this area of health. For an investment of £50 million over five years, we could get that 50,000-unit blood bank. Although it would be difficult to find £10 million a year for five years in these austere times, the financial benefits make sense. The blood bank would provide economies of scale that would reduce the cost to the NHS of every treatment and would radically reduce the need to import expensive stem cell units from abroad, which is, sadly, too common a practice today. The saving that would bring to the NHS has been calculated at £6 million a year in perpetuity. Within 10 years, the entire investment would have been repaid and the programme would save the NHS money for the foreseeable future—and then there are the 200 lives we can choose to save each year by taking that step. So, it would save £6 million and 200 lives a year, and those figures are with currently available treatments at success rates that are currently being achieved.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has mentioned money several times. Is he aware of the work of the Round Table around Britain and Ireland, of which I am a member? It has consistently raised large sums for the Anthony Nolan Trust. Will he place on record his thanks to the Round Table movement for its support for the trust and this matter?
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful to that movement and other groups and charities that support this important work.
We need to ensure that we do well what we can do well by adopting the report’s second recommendation to establish regional centres of excellence in cord blood transplants. That would reduce the number of UK centres from 30 to 12, leading to a £12 million saving over 10 years. The report makes the point that that would, crucially, ensure that we had specialised, life-saving therapies in safe, publicly accountable environments. That is fully in line with the Government’s commissioning policy for specialised procedures and would provide great benefit.
The third, really exciting recommendation is about providing an opportunity to build on Britain’s unique strategic advantages, encouraging world-class research and private and voluntary sector growth that will provide new jobs and save further lives. The proposal to create a national trial programme in stem cell transplantation would take advantage of world-class centres of scientific research and the easy and sustained access to patients that the NHS provides. The proposal offers the potential for inward investment, private sector job creation and third sector involvement, as is well demonstrated by the success of the Centre for Clinical Haematology at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. To quote Professor Craddock:
“The unique international trials network will be highly attractive to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies who wish to rapidly evaluate new drug therapies and can be anticipated to make a major contribution to the growth of private sector jobs in this sector.”
The Government, as we know, are encouraging growth. Where better than in the field of cord blood stem cell transplantation? The Minister has been kind enough to keep me informed of the progress that her Department is making in the development of a response to the proposals in the report. I hope the time is nearing when she will be able to make a statement on her plans in this area. I trust that in the complexities and scientific details of that report, her Department will be clear about the central message that 200 lives and £6 million can be saved each year.
In conclusion, I draw upon the story of Sorrel Mason. Prior to her life-saving procedure, her parents had never heard of the importance of cord blood donation and its benefits for stem cell transplant patients. No one could put it better than they did when they said:
“It’s quite hard in this country to donate your umbilical cord. Hopefully as time goes by there’ll be more places that offer this lifesaving opportunity.”
In a Parliament that will be characterised by the difficult decisions that it makes, this is one decision that we cannot afford not to take, and yes, I will say it again: it is vital to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for securing this debate on a topic that is vital. He is right to state that this is yet another opportunity to highlight the issue. All opportunities are useful to raise it in the minds not only of those in the House this evening, but of the public and of those in a position to influence what goes on.
The Department recognised the importance of this issue when it asked the NHS Blood and Transplant Authority to review the UK’s collection, supply and use of stem cells from both bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. The general consensus was that the UK Stem Cell Strategic Forum did a superb job on the review. Its report, which was published in December last year, involved a well thought through, strategic and costed analysis. It provided us, probably for the first time, with an honest appraisal of the use of stem cell units in the UK in the public and charitable sectors. Unfortunately, as is often the case if such reports are honest and frank, some of it made uncomfortable reading.
The review found that the delivery of stem cell units for transplant in the UK is not as efficient or effective as it should be. As my hon. Friend stated, we lag behind many other comparative countries, including Germany and the United States. Some 400 patients each year fail to find suitable donors. Then delays in the system mean that those who find a donor are sometimes, sadly, much too ill to receive a transplant. For these patients the prognosis is very poor.
As the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out, for patients from a black or minority ethnic background, the problem is compounded by the lack of donors or suitable stem cell units available in the first place. Disadvantaged from the outset, their chances drop drastically. On average, about 90% of Caucasians can find a suitably matched donor, compared with only 30% to 40% of those from other ethnic backgrounds. That is unacceptable and pretty shocking. As I said when I announced the report’s publication at a meeting of the all-party group on stem cell transplantation, I am determined to do all that I can to see services improve. I want service providers to develop plans for providing the most effective and efficient service possible in the interests of both the patient and the taxpayer.
My hon. Friend has highlighted a rapidly developing area. Some progress has been made, but it is going at an extraordinary pace. The report not only highlighted what needs to be done, but contained 20 recommendations for the improvement and development of services for the benefit of patients. They include comprehensive changes to the way services are delivered, with a view to establishing the UK once again as a world leader; a more streamlined collection, processing and delivery service, with much more of a focus on results, rather than process; and a radical reconfiguration of transplant services.
The greatest improvements and the quickest gains will be delivered by better bone marrow and umbilical cord blood stem cell services. By making services more efficient, we will see a marked improvement in the treatment, care and support received by patients. We will be able to reduce the time it takes to find a matching donor, address any inequalities in the current system and provide a better service with fewer resources. That will lead to better quality, better management, better planning, better delivery, better outcomes and, crucially, more lives saved. We want those principles to be diligently and consistently applied across the board. The objective is clear: to improve the life chances of those in need of a stem cell transplant.
A considerable amount of work has been done behind the scenes since the publication of the report to see that vision implemented. I have asked officials to work with the forum, NHS Blood and Transplant and Anthony Nolan to develop ways to get a single bone marrow register and cord blood inventory for the NHS in England. We will explore what can be achieved by collective effort, using what is already available and planning for the provision of future services.
Thomas Docherty
Further to that point, has the Minister had any discussions with the Scottish Government on their plans for ScotBlood, which is the equivalent service in Scotland? Does she agree that the solution is to have a single register for the whole UK?
Anne Milton
There is no doubt that close discussions with all the devolved Administrations are critical. We have a patchy and disjointed service, but as the hon. Gentleman rightly says we need a single register. I am pleased to say that some work is already bearing fruit. At the last meeting of the forum, well-advanced plans were put forward on how NHSBT and Anthony Nolan can work together in future, with targets for reducing the average search time by six weeks and the establishment, for the first time in England, of a single bone marrow register and cord blood inventory. However, we must go further. I cannot praise enough that type of innovative and professional approach. It is collaboration like that that means real improvement for patients. We must have notable improvements on the wards, not just on the spreadsheets.
The UK Stem Cell Strategic Forum review was a Department initiative, and the work was paid for by the Department. We have heard of the efforts of organisations such as Round Table. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Lynda Hamlyn, the chief executive of NHSBT, Henny Braund, her counterpart at Anthony Nolan, and their dedicated, hard-working staff for the work they have done so far. I have no doubt that there is more work to be done and that it will continue in the future.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for securing this incredibly important debate. I confess that this is something about which I knew nothing. He mentioned the importance of education and the need for a programme that is similar to that for organ donations so that mothers are informed about the value of umbilical blood and blood products before giving birth. Certainly, that is something that I was never informed about. Is the Department considering any sort of education programme so that people can opt in to the system as donors?
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It would be terribly simplistic to think that it is just a matter of donors coming forward. We know from organ donation—it is also the case for umbilical cord blood—that it is important to streamline the processes, because there are unacceptable delays. The report’s recommendations cover the whole process from beginning to end. I do not underestimate the need to raise the importance of this issue. Many hon. Members can play a critical role in their local areas and with their local media by highlighting the importance of organ donation.
Anne Milton
I am conscious of the time but happy to give way, because the hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work on this issue.
Mark Tami
Does the Minister agree that Anthony Nolan has done an awful lot—particularly with the introduction of spit and swab tests—to help people to take that first step on the ladder? Before, when it was a case of just giving blood, that put a lot of people off, particularly males, such as myself, who are rather squeamish about these things, but it is very important to get the maximum number of people to take that first step forward.
Anne Milton
Yes, absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight yet again the work of Anthony Nolan, which is crucial, but I urge him and all male Members to remember that they have nothing to fear from needles and no need to be squeamish about those things; it is about potentially saving lives.
It is a challenging time financially, and we cannot put that behind us. It is important that we get the UK back on a secure financial footing, and that means funding will be tight, but I want to reach out further to our partners in charities to see how we can work together. We are not short of offers in that field. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate will know that I am shortly meeting Cord Blood Charity to see what part it can play, and Anthony Nolan is making every effort to provide additional funding for the important work that I have spoken about.
On Government funding, the Department of Health will provide some £4 million in additional funding to help with service development, but, more than that, we will continue to help in other ways, bringing together key stakeholders to ensure that all opportunities to bring about those further improvements and to implement those recommendations are taken. We are also working towards increasing the size of the cord blood bank by funding NHS Blood and Transplant to increase the bank to 20,000 units by 2013—an increase in stored units of almost 100% since 2008. I know that my hon. Friend would like to me go on, and as part of future strategic planning I shall ask NHS Blood and Transplant to consider the options for developing the bank even further, with the final goal of reaching a stock of 50,000 stored cord blood units, accessible to all NHS patients.
In the development of that new commissioning structure within the NHS, we will listen closely to the recommendations of the forum report, with respect to improving NHS practices and commissioning. The forum has met since the report’s publication, and I hope that it will continue to meet to advise the sector on best practice and to provide innovative solutions to implement those recommendations. I shall keep closely in touch with all those who have shown such a close interest.
Improving the health care pathway for stem cell transplantation to treat life-threatening diseases is a vital part of that work. I use those words cautiously, but I want to see NHS patients having access to the best possible services. We are meeting my hon. Friend soon to discuss the issues raised in the report and some that have come out of this debate. As always, his contributions to the debate are welcomed, highly respected and, like those of many Members, motivated by the best possible intention, which is to save lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Free Schools
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy
To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will put in place mechanisms for public scrutiny of the financial backing of individuals and organisations who are involved in setting up free schools.
[Official Report, 13 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 567W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Nick Gibb:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on 13 December 2010.
Unfortunately, we incorrectly believed that Academy Trust annual accounts were published on the Charity Commission's website, when in fact they are published on the Trust's website and the Companies House website.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Gibb
Once a Free School proposal is approved to progress to business case and plan stage, the main elements of the proposal forms will be put on the Department's website. We will redact personal information to comply with obligations under the Data Protection Act, and other information where we have judged that commercial interests would be prejudiced should we publish the proposal in full.
The Department will conduct due diligence checks, including financial checks, on companies and individuals associated with a proposed Free School. The vast majority of proposers to date are not associated with or supported by third party organisations.
Once a Free School is established, the Academy Trust will be required to publish annual accounts in accordance with the Companies Act 2006. These accounts will be available on the Charity Commission website.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Gibb
Once a Free School proposal is approved to progress to business case and plan stage, the main elements of the proposal forms will be put on the Department's website. We will redact personal information to comply with obligations under the Data Protection Act, and other information where we have judged that commercial interests would be prejudiced should we publish the proposal in full.
The Department will conduct due diligence checks, including financial checks, on companies and individuals associated with a proposed Free School. The vast majority of proposers to date are not associated with or supported by third party organisations.
Once a Free School is established, the Academy Trust will be required to file their annual accounts with the registrar at Companies House (under sections 441-447 of the Companies Act 2006) and to publish them on the Academy Trust's website.
Petition
Feed-In Tariffs
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Crown Prosecution Service Restructure
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
: This statement sets out the forthcoming changes to the current Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) structure, which the CPS is introducing from 1 April 2011.
Under the current CPS structure there are 42 areas aligned to individual police force boundaries. These areas are presently organised as 13 regional groups. In the new structure the 13 groups will become 13 new larger areas, with a chief Crown prosecutor (CCP) supported by a number of deputy chief Crown prosecutors to provide leadership across the new areas.
This change builds on the experience and success that the CPS group structure has provided over recent years. It establishes a solid foundation for the future and provides the CPS with greater capacity, capability and flexibility to respond to the challenges that lie ahead.
The CPS has carefully considered the changes taking place in the criminal justice system (CJS) and believes that the new structure will provide a better strategic fit with its partners and places the CPS in the best possible position to deal with the modernisation of the CJS including digital working. The new structure will also provide an improved service for serious and sensitive casework, especially work received from regional intelligence units and regional asset recovery teams.
Under these new arrangements there will continue to be a strong presence in each police force area with dedicated teams working with local police forces and senior CPS leaders to provide a strong focus on local liaison, partnership and accountability.
The CCPs for the new CPS areas are set out below.
North East | Wendy Williams |
Yorkshire & Humberside | Neil Franklin |
North West | Robert Marshall |
Merseyside & Cheshire | Paul Whittaker |
Wales/Cymru | Jim Brisbane (Acting) |
West Midlands | Harry Ireland |
East Midlands | Judith Walker |
Eastern | Ken Caley |
South East | Roger Coe-Salazar |
Thames Chiltern | Baljit Ubhey |
Wessex | Nick Hawkins |
South West | Barry Hughes |
London | Alison Saunders |
These CCPs will be writing to their MPs locally prior to 1 April 2011 to confirm the details of these changes and how the arrangements will operate in practice in the new areas.
Northern Ireland Gas Supplies
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
The Government have today announced the climate change levy [CCL] exemption for supplies of gas in Northern Ireland will be replaced with a lower rate from 1 April 2011.
Following discussion and agreement with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland, legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill 2011 to remove the exemption and replace it with a lower rate for a transitional period of 1 April 2011 to 31 October 2013, after which the main CCL rate for gas will apply in Northern Ireland. During the transitional period such supplies will become subject to the levy at a rate of £0.00059 per kilowatt hour, which is 65% lower than the full rate of CCL on gas for business and public sector consumers. Domestic consumers do not pay CCL.
Following consultation with the European Commission, the Government consider it is unlikely that they would be able to secure re-approval for the exemption. The measure is therefore necessary to ensure compliance with European tax law and state-aid rules.
To give gas suppliers and business gas consumers certainty over their tax affairs, this announcement is being made early to allow energy suppliers and businesses in Northern Ireland time to start to prepare for the introduction of the lower rate on 1 April 2011.
Copies of the draft legislation and tax information and impact note have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Treasury website at
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.
Local Government Finance Settlement 2011-12
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I have today laid before the House the “Local Government Finance Report (England) 2011-12 (HC 748)”. This report establishes the amounts of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates to be paid to local authorities in 2011-12, and the basis of their distribution. A draft of this report was issued for consultation on 13 December 2010.
We received a total of 330 written responses from 283 individual authorities, formal and informal groupings of authorities and others during the consultation, and Ministers met delegations from the Local Government Association, London Councils and a large number of individual local authorities.
Having considered the views of all those who have commented on the provisional settlement, I have decided to broadly confirm the proposals for the distribution of formula grant for 2011-12 as announced in December, after correcting a number of minor errors and inconsistencies that came to our attention during consultation.
We received many representations on concessionary travel. This is a prime example of how the last Government introduced a policy with no idea of how it would be funded fairly. It has left us with a challenging legacy. I have decided to help compensate shire district councils for the loss of what they used to spend on concessionary travel. To address this, a further £10 million has been added to formula grant—for 2011-12 only—in order to mitigate the impact of the transfer on shire districts.
We have also improved the minimum guarantee so that now no council will receive a “revenue spending power” reduction of more than 8.8% in either 2011-12 or 2012-13. Details on “spending power” are set out in an explanatory note which is being placed in the Library of the House. In finalising our methodology, we have accepted a number of representations including the exclusion of parish precepts from our spending power calculations.
The need to reduce public spending means that this is a unique settlement—we are looking for councils to show how efficient they can be, and to root out the wasteful spending that still exists while ensuring that money goes to the front-line public services.
Despite the huge pressures on public finances, the coalition Government have taken unprecedented steps to protect councils most reliant on central Government funding and freeze council tax.
We have taken a progressive and fair approach to calculating how the £29 billion of central taxpayer funding for local government grants this year will be allocated. More money is being channelled to those areas of the country that have the highest levels of need.
We are also helping to protect the public from excessive council tax rises with our £650 million fund so town halls can freeze council tax this April. This will offer real help to families and pensioners. We will provide each authority that does not increase its basic level of council tax with a grant equivalent to the revenue it would have generated had it increased it by 2.5%. I would like to impress upon authorities that under the terms of the scheme they will not receive any grant if they increase their council tax at all.
The Government anticipate that authorities will choose to take up the freeze. However, where authorities opt to increase their council tax instead the Government are prepared to take capping action against excessive increases. The Secretary of State will set out the capping principles that he intends to use to compare authorities’ budgets in the next few days, leaving ample time for authorities to consider their budgeting before the deadlines for setting their council tax.
I have also today laid before the House the “Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Alternative Notional Amounts) Report (England) 2011-12 (HC 774)”. This report takes account of changes to authorities’ functions and grants during 2010-11, and contains details of the figures that will be used to compare authorities’ budgets between years, should capping be necessary.
I shall be sending copies of the Local Government Finance Report to all local authorities in England, and making available full supporting information on the Communities and Local Government website at: http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/1112/grant.htm.
Copies of the report and related tables showing each authority’s allocation of formula grant and other supporting material, and the “Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Alternative Notional Amounts) Report (England) 2011-12”, have been placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses.
The Tote
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
The Government announced in a written ministerial statement, 15 September 2010, Official Report, column 39WS that preparations were under way to launch an open market process to resolve the future of the Tote. This followed the announcement in the Budget of 22 June 2010 that the future of the Tote would be resolved within 12 months in a way that secures value for the taxpayer and which recognises the support the Tote currently provides to the racing industry.
The Government can now inform the House that the first stage of that open market process has been successful. The Government are pleased with the level of interest shown in the process. Eighteen indicative proposals were received, each of which has been assessed against the Government’s objectives.
Following this review, a selected number of parties have now been invited to advance to the next stage of the process where they will receive more detailed information. The Government expect to be in a position to provide the House with a further update in the spring.
Given the commercially sensitive nature of the process the Government will not be making public the details of the individual proposals received as part of the open market process nor the identity of those parties that have been invited to participate in the next stage.
The Government can also confirm that in the event that the Tote is sold on the open market it will honour the commitment of the previous Government to share 50% of the net cash proceeds of sale with racing. The proceeds will be made available over the spending review period (or longer if the sale proceeds are particularly high) because of the broader fiscal position and the need to spend the funds consistent with EU state aid rules, but the Government will pay interest on the outstanding balance in the normal way. The Government look forward to working closely with racing in the event of an open market sale to design appropriate arrangements.
Afghanistan: Monthly Progress Report December 2010
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the second progress report on developments in Afghanistan. It follows the first report covering November published on 14 December 2010.
The report focuses on key developments during the month of December.
ISAF operations continue to put pressure on the insurgency. More areas have been cleared of insurgent influence and, importantly, those areas are now being held. Increased ISAF and Afghan national security force operations are restricting the insurgents’ ability to launch complex attacks. These gains are an important sign of progress, but they are not irreversible.
The Afghan national security forces continue to grow. By late December the Afghan national army had reached a total size of 146,000, and the Afghan national police 116,000. Further work is necessary on reducing attrition rates and increasing leadership quality. Training, mentoring and coaching programmes continue to improve overall Afghan national security force capability.
British forces, partnered by forces from the Afghan national army, have temporarily extended their operations to secure greater freedom of movement along highway one. This is to link the economic and population hubs of Helmand and Kandahar. Improved freedom of movement will enable ISAF and the Afghan national security forces to increase security in both provinces.
The Afghan high peace council convened further road shows to publicise the Afghan peace and reintegration programme and to give guidance to provincial governors in Kandahar, Herat and Jalalabad. These followed an earlier road show held in Mazar-e-Sharif
The Afghan Government have continued to make progress on their national priority programmes, in particular on financial and economic reform and health and education.
Elders and community representatives for the Marjah district in Helmand have agreed that elections for a district community council should be held in February 2011. This is an important reflection of growing confidence in Marjah.
The Helmand police training centre, opened in December 2009 with UK support, is now enrolling 150 new recruits every three weeks for eight-week courses. In the last week of December, the 2000th recruit since its inauguration graduated from the centre. Two UK-funded buildings were opened in December: a new detention centre and a temporary facility for juvenile prisoners. The UK supported training for Helmand’s statutory justice officials on criminal law and on judicial ethics. The UK-funded Helmand legal aid office hired the province’s first female paralegal.
Regional economic cooperation was strengthened further with the 11 December signing of an agreement for the construction of the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (TAPI) gas pipeline. The Presidents of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey met in Istanbul on 24 December 2010 to discuss security, infrastructure, trade and culture. We welcome this continued commitment to promoting peace and stability in the region.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk) and the HMG UK and Afghanistan website (http://afghanistan.hmg.gov.uk/).
Commissioning and Public Expenditure
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I have today laid before Parliament the Government’s responses (Cm 8007 and Cm 8009) to the House of Commons Health Select Committee reports “Public Expenditure: Second Report of Session 2010-11”, which was published on 14 December 2010 and “Commissioning: Third Report of Session 2010-11”, which was published on 18 January 2011.
We accept the level of challenge presented in our modernisation of health and social care but we are clear that these changes are necessary and that the funding announced during the 2010 spending review, coupled with more efficient delivery systems, will allow the required change to take place across the health and social care sectors. These changes will bring about closer working across the sectors creating services that will be more responsive, more personalised and more preventative with better outcomes for those who use them.
The starting point for the Committee’s inquiry into commissioning has been the previous Committee’s findings on the significant shortcomings of the current arrangements for commissioning in the NHS. We welcome the Committee’s conclusion that more effective commissioning is the key to delivery of efficiency gains. The White Paper, “Liberating the NHS”, sets out a new direction for the future of commissioning, intending to put commissioning decisions in the hands of those who are closest to patients themselves—GPs.
The Health and Social Care Bill introduced into Parliament on 19 January takes forward the changes to the NHS set out in the White Paper and further developed in December’s “Legislative framework and next steps”.
The programme of modernisation we have set out is essential both to drive efficiency in the short-term, and help ensure that the NHS meets the ambition to achieve outcomes for patients that are among the best in the world.
Today’s publications are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
Police Grant Report England and Wales (2011-12)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has today laid before the House the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2011/12 (HC 771)”. The report sets out my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary’s, determination for 2011-12 of the aggregate amount of grant that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to the Greater London Authority for the Metropolitan Police Authority.
This statement also includes amounts that the Home Office, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Assembly Government intend to provide in 2012-13. Indicative overall amounts of Home Office grant are also provided for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
Police Authority | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HO Core | NPF | Welsh Top up | WAG | CLG | HO Core | NPF | Welsh Top up | WAG | CLG | |
£m | £m | |||||||||
Avon & Somerset | 120.9 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 64.3 | 112.7 | 7.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.2 |
Bedfordshire | 43.9 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.3 | 40.8 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.4 |
Cambridgeshire | 53.7 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.7 | 50.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.8 |
Cheshire | 69.5 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 53.2 | 64.3 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.2 |
City of London | 31.6 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.9 | 30.2 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3 |
Cleveland | 51.4 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 46.3 | 47.5 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 43.6 |
Cumbria | 33.1 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.1 | 30.5 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.0 |
Derbyshire | 70.2 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.8 | 65.0 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 43.2 |
Devon & Cornwall | 118.9 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 72.3 | 110.5 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 67.9 |
Dorset | 45.9 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.0 | 42.4 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 |
Durham | 47.8 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.4 | 44.3 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 41.7 |
Dyfed-Powys | 34.3 | 1.6 | 6.5 | 17.1 | 0.0 | 32.1 | 1.6 | 6.3 | 15.7 | 0.0 |
Essex | 117.6 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 65.7 | 109.5 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 61.5 |
Gloucestershire | 39.1 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 22.4 | 36.2 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.1 |
Greater London Authority | 1127.7 | 101.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 897.8 | 1051.6 | 101.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 838.2 |
Greater Manchester | 248.5 | 17.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 220.0 | 230.2 | 17.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 206.9 |
Gwent | 48.2 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 35.1 | 0.0 | 44.7 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 33.0 | 0.0 |
Hampshire | 138.0 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 74.3 | 128.1 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 69.9 |
Hertfordshire | 79.5 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.5 | 73.9 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 41.8 |
Humberside | 74.8 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 55.5 | 69.5 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 52.1 |
Kent | 117.9 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 81.6 | 109.5 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 76.6 |
Lancashire | 114.3 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 92.7 | 105.7 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 87.5 |
Leicestershire | 72.4 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 48.0 | 67.3 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.0 |
Lincolnshire | 42.9 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.6 | 39.8 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.1 |
Merseyside | 137.8 | 9.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 133.5 | 127.0 | 9.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 126.1 |
Norfolk | 57.7 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.1 | 53.7 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.0 |
North Wales | 49.6 | 3.3 | 6.5 | 27.0 | 0.0 | 46.2 | 3.3 | 6.5 | 24.8 | 0.0 |
North Yorkshire | 47.2 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.7 | 43.9 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.8 |
Northamptonshire | 48.6 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.8 | 45.2 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.0 |
Northumbria | 124.3 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 126.7 | 115.0 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 119.2 |
Nottinghamshire | 86.8 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 57.0 | 80.7 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 53.5 |
South Wales | 100.6 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 81.9 | 0.0 | 92.7 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 77.6 | 0.0 |
South Yorkshire | 110.8 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 94.5 | 102.7 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 88.8 |
Staffordshire | 74.2 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 48.9 | 68.6 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 46.2 |
Suffolk | 45.9 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 42.8 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.5 |
Surrey | 70.0 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.3 | 65.0 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.2 |
Sussex | 109.0 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 65.9 | 101.1 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 62.0 |
Thames Valley | 158.2 | 9.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 89.4 | 147.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 84.0 |
Warwickshire | 35.2 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.1 | 32.7 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.9 |
West Mercia | 74.1 | 5.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 52.1 | 68.6 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 49.1 |
West Midlands | 272.9 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 224.9 | 252.9 | 15.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 211.5 |
West Yorkshire | 192.7 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.9 | 179.3 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 141.2 |
Wiltshire | 41.6 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.3 | 38.7 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.8 |
Total England & Wales | 4779.1 | 340.0 | 13.0 | 161.0 | 3345.0 | 4440.1 | 338.0 | 12.8 | 151.0 | 3138.0 |
Police Authority | 2013-14 HO* £m | 2014-15 HO* £m |
|---|---|---|
Avon & Somerset | 120.1 | 118.3 |
Bedfordshire | 43.4 | 42.7 |
Cambridgeshire | 53.3 | 52.4 |
Cheshire | 68.0 | 66.5 |
City of London | 32.9 | 33.0 |
Cleveland | 50.2 | 49.1 |
Cumbria | 32.3 | 31.5 |
Derbyshire | 69.0 | 67.6 |
Devon & Cornwall | 117.4 | 115.2 |
Dorset | 44.9 | 43.9 |
Durham | 46.9 | 45.9 |
Dyfed-Powys | 31.1 | 30.5 |
Essex | 116.7 | 114.9 |
Gloucestershire | 38.4 | 37.7 |
Greater London Authority | 1102.3 | 1084.1 |
Greater Manchester | 244.1 | 239.0 |
Gwent | 46.0 | 44.9 |
Hampshire | 136.1 | 133.6 |
Hertfordshire | 78.5 | 77.1 |
Humberside | 73.8 | 72.4 |
Kent | 116.4 | 114.2 |
Lancashire | 111.8 | 109.2 |
Leicestershire | 71.6 | 70.3 |
Lincolnshire | 42.3 | 41.5 |
Merseyside | 133.9 | 130.5 |
Norfolk | 57.2 | 56.2 |
North Wales | 44.7 | 43.7 |
North Yorkshire | 46.6 | 45.7 |
Northamptonshire | 48.2 | 47.5 |
Northumbria | 121.7 | 119.0 |
Nottinghamshire | 85.7 | 84.2 |
South Wales | 106.9 | 105.0 |
South Yorkshire | 109.0 | 106.9 |
Staffordshire | 72.6 | 71.0 |
Suffolk | 45.6 | 44.9 |
Surrey | 69.1 | 67.8 |
Sussex | 107.4 | 105.3 |
Thames Valley | 156.2 | 153.4 |
Warwickshire | 34.7 | 34.1 |
West Mercia | 72.6 | 71.0 |
West Midlands | 268.1 | 262.6 |
West Yorkshire | 190.9 | 187.8 |
Wiltshire | 41.1 | 40.4 |
Total England & Wales | 4699.7 | 4612.3 |
Victim and Witness Voluntary Sector Funding
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The Government are committed to ensuring that assistance is available for those victims and witnesses of crime most in need of support. I have now announced grant funding of up to £9.8 million per year, for three years, for voluntary sector groups providing specialist support to many of the most serious, most vulnerable and persistently targeted victims and witnesses of crime.
This grants scheme includes a dedicated funding stream of up to £3.5 million annually to meet the Government’s commitment to provide rape crisis centres with stable, long-term funding.
The remainder of the fund will be open to a wider range of voluntary sector organisations that provide support better targeted on the most vulnerable victims and witnesses of crime, including groups that offer specialist support to those bereaved by murder and manslaughter.
Final funding decisions will be announced in April 2011.
Service Personnel Inquests (Operations and Exercises Overseas)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House with details of the inquests of service personnel who have died overseas. We remain deeply grateful to all of our service personnel who are serving, or who have served, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our most sincere condolences go, as ever, to the families of those service personnel who have lost their lives in the service of their country, and in particular to the nine who have died since our last statement. All of the families whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, or who have otherwise lost their lives in connection with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, remain very much in our thoughts.
Today we are announcing the current status of inquests conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 25 January.
I have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses, which outline the status of all cases and the date of death in each case. These tables include information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held.
Our Departments remain committed to working closely together to improve our processes and to continue the Government’s support for coroners conducting inquests into operational deaths. As a result of these improvements, the dedication of coroners and the support from both Departments, 130 inquests were completed in 2010, compared with 58 inquests being completed in 2009. There are no outstanding inquests into deaths prior to 4 December 2008.
We would again like to thank all of the coroners who are involved in conducting these inquests, as well as those people who provide support and information before, during and after the inquest process.
Since October 2007 additional resources have been provided by both Departments for operational inquests. These resources have been provided to the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, Mr David Ridley, due to the repatriation of service personnel at RAF Lyneham and the formation of the MOD Defence Inquests Unit in 2008. These measures have been provided to ensure that there is not a backlog of operational inquests.
Current status of inquests
Since the last statement 20 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There have been a total of 435 inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 11 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. In two further cases, no formal inquest was held, but the deaths were taken into consideration during inquest proceedings for those who died in the same incident.
Open inquests
Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan
At present there are 80 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, (25 involving deaths in the last six months). Of the remaining open inquests, the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained 33, while 47 are being conducted by coroners closer to the next of kin. Hearing dates have been set in five cases. One recent fatality awaits repatriation and inquest opening
There are two remaining open inquests into deaths from operations in Iraq.
Inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
There remain 11 inquests to be held of service personnel who returned home injured and subsequently died of their injuries. These will be listed for hearing when the continuing investigations are completed.
We shall continue to keep the House informed about progress with the remaining inquests.
Robert Hamill Inquiry
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
The House will be aware of the announcement made by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) on 21 December 2010. In that statement, the PPS confirmed that, following a review of all the available evidence including that given to the Hamill tribunal, it concluded that the test for prosecution is met in respect of two persons for an offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and one person for an offence of doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice.
As I informed the House in my written statement of 16 December 2010, Official Report, 131WS, the Hamill inquiry intends to complete its report by the end of February. It remains my intention to publish the report as soon as practicable, but in light of the legal proceedings against these three individuals, I have decided not to publish the inquiry’s report until the legal proceedings have concluded; to do so would certainly jeopardise these individuals’ right to a fair trial. I understand from the inquiry that it is also the family’s wish that the legal proceedings are not prejudiced by the publication of the report. In the meantime, I am exploring ways of ensuring that the report is safely and securely stored between its completion and its publication.
Once the legal proceedings have concluded and the inquiry’s report is delivered to me, I am responsible for its publication. In anticipation of this, I have asked a small team of officials to commence the checking of the inquiry’s report in relation to human rights and national security matters, as outlined below. I intend to adopt the same approach as was used for the checking of the reports of the Bloody Sunday inquiry and the Billy Wright inquiry.
I am advised that I have a duty, as a public authority under the Human Rights Act, to act in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights (ECHR). To fulfil this duty, I need to take steps to satisfy myself that publication of the report will not breach article 2 of the convention by putting lives or safety of individuals at risk. I am advised that these obligations must be met by me personally, in my capacity as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Although the inquiry is also a public authority under the Human Rights Act, I am not entitled to rely on the inquiry to satisfy my article 2 obligations and I have a duty to assess this myself. I also have a duty to satisfy myself that publication will not put national security at risk, for example by disclosing details of sources of protected information.
I have established a small team to assist me in carrying out this necessary exercise. The team will be formed of the Northern Ireland Office’s principal legal adviser and an adviser from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. This team will be granted access to the report under strict terms of confidentiality and for the sole purpose of carrying out the necessary checks, and they will report directly to me alone. Sir Edwin Jowitt has agreed that this team can carry out the checks on the inquiry’s premises while the report remains in the custody of the inquiry. I understand that the report will be made available for checking today.
I want to publish the report in its entirety. Should any concerns about the safety of any individual arise, my first course of action would be to consider whether these can be addressed through alternative means. Were I to reach the conclusion, on advice, that a redaction to the text might be necessary, I would consult Sir Edwin Jowitt. In the very unlikely event that any redaction was deemed necessary, my intention would be to make this clear on the face of the report.
It is not possible to estimate how long the legal proceedings against the three individuals will take. I assure the House that once they have concluded, I intend to publish the report as soon as possible. Once a timetable for publication becomes clear, I will update the House accordingly.
Call for Evidence - Pensions
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Today the Government will publish their call for evidence on regulatory differences between trust-based occupational pension schemes and contract-based workplace personal pension schemes. We want to hear about areas where the existing rules or requirements appear to be at odds with our aim of getting people saving in a workplace pension. We do not want to see instances of regulatory differences being exploited.
In particular we are interested in views and evidence concerning the use of short service refunds and disclosure of information, which provide a valuable administrative easement for many occupational schemes but need to be considered carefully against the potential risk to the success of the workplace pension reforms.
Automatic enrolment will play a major part in reinvigorating the pensions landscape, bringing millions of individuals into pension saving. We need to make sure that the legislative framework for workplace pension schemes is straightforward and supports our goals of increasing individuals’ retirement savings.
The Government will respond to the call for evidence in the autumn, outlining the actions we intend to take in response to the evidence presented.
A copy of the call for evidence document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and is available on the Department’s website at: www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Bill [HL]
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)
We continue the Grand Committee on the Energy Bill. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells have rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 66 : Power of Secretary of State to require information: carbon emissions reduction targets and home-heating cost reduction targets
Amendment 30ZA
“( ) to assess whether the person’s obligations under section 41B of the Electricity Act 1989 or section 33BC of the Gas Act 1986 are, in particular, being discharged transparently, cost-effectively and consistently throughout the duration of the obligations and achieving value for money; and( ) to assess whether these obligations are consistently targeting priority groups and properties”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this is a fairly brief and self-explanatory amendment, which gives us the opportunity to have an assessment of the obligations to ensure that they are,
“discharged transparently, cost-effectively and consistently”,
throughout the time period and to ensure that we have those areas covered so that we can make a full assessment of the effectiveness of the obligations. It is very straightforward and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. We have all learnt from past examples when the programmes in place may have been extremely valuable but we have also learnt lessons about how much more valuable they could have been if there had been such transparency in place. This is about getting the best approach. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, I welcome everyone back to the Committee and thank all noble Lords for their great contributions to date. May it continue. As I have said repeatedly, this is only one stage in the passage of our Bill, and there will be opportunities between now and Report for further advice to be given and listened to, further discussions to be had and further detail to be discussed.
Before I begin, I should say that in the debate on 26 January, I referred to a target of reducing carbon emissions by 10 per cent. I should clarify that this target refers to emissions from central government. I did not want any uncertainty there. We are keen for local authorities to play their part in reducing emissions. This will help the UK meet its legally binding carbon budgets, but local authorities are not formally covered by the 10 per cent central government target.
Amendment 30ZA would amend Clause 66 to provide further information-gathering powers. This is entirely consistent with the Government’s intention for greater transparency under future energy company obligations. The powers in Clause 66 allow us to gather such information as is necessary to help the Government to decide what provisions to make in future secondary legislation, powers which also enable the Government to review the operation and effect of policies that are under way. The matters that the noble Baroness seeks to cover are all, I believe, potentially germane to these issues, and are therefore covered in principle by the existing powers. Information could include, for example, exactly which measures the companies are delivering where, and how much those measures are costing the energy companies to acquire and install.
I hope that this has provided satisfactory reassurance and ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, on the basis that the issues are covered, I would be happy to withdraw.
Baroness Maddock
“Promotion of reduction of home heating costs: reduced VAT rate
(1) For the purpose of enabling consumers to purchase energy efficient products in order to reduce home heating costs and carbon emissions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must within 12 months of the coming into force of this section lay before Parliament an order to reduce the rate of VAT to 5% on—
(a) passive flue gas heat recovery systems; and(b) energy efficient windows in specified premises.(2) An order pursuant to this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure.
(3) In this section—
“passive flue gas heat recovery systems” means technology that can use the waste heat from condensing boilers in order to heat water;
“low emissivity glass” has the same meaning as in Part L of the Building Regulations.”
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, this is a new clause concerning proposed reductions in VAT rates and adds to the new clause I moved at the last sitting of this Committee. Members will be aware that most energy-saving materials enjoy the reduced VAT rate of 5 per cent; it makes no sense taxing energy saving more than energy use. There are some exceptions, however, and there are new technologies, as I mentioned last time.
I apologise for the wording in this amendment. As originally worded, subsection (1)(b) referred to “special glass” and not “energy efficient windows”, and when I changed the amendment I regret I did not change the explanatory paragraph below, which talks about the glass. I anticipate the amendment in this form is unlikely to be accepted by the Committee but if the Minister was minded I am sure he could change it.
It is important that we try to encourage people, as we are in this Bill, to spend their money on energy efficiency measures, but we have some that carry rather a high rate of VAT. The supply and installation of this equipment can be charged at a 5 per cent rate and I hope the Minister will look at this favourably. I suspect the Minister will say that this is something he must talk to the Treasury about, and I appreciate that point; but if we are serious about this we need to be consistent across the board on how we apply VAT to energy efficiency measures, products and installation. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I was a member of the Treasury team when VAT was first introduced in 1972. It was one of the principles of the then Government that it should be as simple a tax as possible. There were of course some major exclusions from VAT, for instance all food and children’s clothes, but I well remember my noble friend Lord Higgins, who was dealing with the Finance Bill, saying that it was a simple uniform tax to be extended across the range of products and services, apart from those that were specifically excluded.
Since then Governments, no doubt of all persuasions, have found themselves led down a path of adding more complications to VAT. I have sympathy with what my noble friend has suggested, because these are clearly energy-saving and carbon-saving measures, which one would wish to encourage. However, to use VAT and the tax system to do that seems to me to go against the principle of keeping VAT as simple a tax as possible.
VAT is now substantially higher than it was when it was first introduced, for reasons that we can all understand, although that is not within the competence of the Committee. Wisely, my noble friend’s amendment places this firmly in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although it could not be with anybody else, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor is the Minister in charge of the tax system. However, I sound a note of caution on beginning to extend lower rates of VAT to other services and products, notwithstanding that one might have some sympathy with what is being sought. Having said that, I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is right to remind us that exempting certain goods from the normal rate of VAT is a matter for the Treasury. We are all too well aware that the Treasury looks at these issues with a sharp eye and intensive scrutiny at any time, but in this age of austerity that position is likely to be intensified. As the noble Lord indicated, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is seeking to build on the 5 per cent reduced rate of VAT that already applies to a number of installations that relate to energy conservation, both to encourage householders to install energy-saving facilities and as a clear earnest of the Government’s intent that these issues are significant enough for us to look at them in this regard, albeit not quite as we do food and children’s clothes, which attract no VAT. Nevertheless, the 5 per cent rate relates to a clear priority area; it is an exclusive area. In her amendment, the noble Baroness wants to extend that area.
I am not in the slightest doubt about the merits of doing that and I think that, in the framework of the Bill, we should indicate that we think that this will give substance to the Bill’s principles. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I acknowledge—no doubt the Minister will also indicate this to the Committee—that it is difficult to write Budgets in the framework of energy legislation when that is the preserve of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. I would not be at all surprised if we had a somewhat guarded response to the amendment. However, we already have provision of the reduced rate in this area and the amendment would not add a great deal, although the Treasury might argue that the cost would be significant. Nevertheless, the amendment fits in with the pattern of reduced rates of VAT in this area and I hope that the Minister will indicate that, at the very least, the Government have an open mind on the issue.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 32 is a perfectly understandable aim. However, we have been advised that this proposal would not fall within the scope of the Energy Bill, since taxation can only be amended in a Finance Bill. Therefore, as my noble friend Lady Maddock anticipated, I can confirm that taxes are indeed a matter for the Treasury and that the Chancellor keeps all taxes under review and announces any changes as part of the Budget process. We understand the thrust of what she is arguing, but I hope that on the basis of what I have said, my noble friends will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for jumping the gun and moving my amendment before it had actually been called. I thank my noble friend for her reply. It was anticipated that that might be the case, but I think that it is important to flag up that we are not consistent in this area. A Bill of this nature seems to provide a good opportunity to raise the inconsistency. May I ask the Minister if he will have a conversation with his Treasury colleagues about this to see if we cannot be a bit more consistent? After all, a lot of time and energy is being spent on the green deal and other things. This was particularly aimed at how we might help community buildings and so on. So the message is: please could somebody try to bring a bit more consistency in this area, and could we have conversations about it? In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“( ) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a), insert—
“(aa) requiring the holder of a licence to—(i) abstain from any sales activities while they provide or install, or facilitate the provision, installation or operation of, meters of a particular kind;(ii) only supply marketing material in written form while they provide or install, or facilitate the provision, installation or operation of, meters of a particular kind;(iii) supply independently written information outlining how to use the smart meter while they provide or install, or facilitate the provision, installation or operation of, meters of a particular kind”.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, we are now moving on to Chapter 5 of the Bill and the issue of smart meters. We have touched on it from time to time at earlier stages, and I have said that some of the issues that arise in relation to the Green Deal also arise in relation to smart meters. The Government will need to consider the implications of the two programmes. I should probably make it clear at the outset that I am in favour of a roll-out of smart meters, but there are a significant number of consumer issues which arise in relation to the installation of such meters which, if wrongly handled, will lead to some resistance and backlash against them.
Smart meter installation is different from the Green Deal because the Green Deal is ultimately a voluntary scheme that the householder or landlord can take on board, and then he can decide whether it had been a good deal for his premises. With smart meters, the obligation is on the supply companies to install them. They are already beginning that installation, and some of them, particularly British Gas, already have a substantial programme under way. However, we should look at the implication for consumers. As colleagues will know, one of the problems in the energy market has been the ease with which people can switch and the potential cost of switching in terms of both the supply company and the method of payment.
If we have a wholesale introduction of smart meters—which make it more difficult, more costly or more of a hassle for the consumer to be able to say, “I’m fed up with the way this company is dealing with me; I want to switch to the next company”, or “I’m fed up with paying by pre-payment meter; I want to go on to direct debit” or whatever the choice is—and if the meter itself, the system under which the meter operates or the terms on which it is supplied make that more difficult, then we have significant consumer detriment. We must remember that the energy market is not one that is characterised by deep trust of consumers in their suppliers. Nor is it the case that the regulator has substantial powers over the peripherals: it has substantial powers over the supplier, but there is no real protection in relation to energy products or services in the same way. Installation of smart meters could lock people in to their current system unless we provide that the meters are reasonably interchangeable, compatible and available in a way that allows people to switch both method of payment and supply.
We have to bear in mind that the introduction of smart meters is not so universally supported as it probably is in this Room. Research by Consumer Focus a couple of years ago, as well as evidence from Which?, showed fairly deep resistance to it, and some misunderstanding. So there is some mistrust at the consumer end, to put it at it mildest. We also know that in other countries where similar programmes have been adopted there has been some resistance—for example in some states of America and, on broader human rights grounds, in the Netherlands. So it is a delicate area. If we are to achieve introduction with minimum consumer resistance and minimum delay and challenge, we need to be able to reassure the householder that the meter that they are installing will not stop them switching should they wish to change tariff, company or the method by which they pay.
So, Amendment 32C deals with the degree of compatibility. This is not just an issue of standards, because we have been talking about standards for smart meters for at least 10 years before we have introduced a single one, and we are still at a position where we do not have a common standard. It would obviously help if at this point we already had a standard, but the issue here is compatibility, which need not necessarily mean a single standard or specification. It is important that we can reassure consumers that installing a meter will not inhibit their choice.
Amendment 32B deals with a slightly more ticklish issue. When the supply company or their agent is required to go into households and install a smart meter, how will it deal with trying at the same time to sell other products that are related to the smart meter, or that could be made to be related to it? Protecting consumers during the installation process is essential if we are not to meet with some resistance. On the one hand, there is the possibility of mis-selling in these circumstances; on the other, some devices are coming on to the market that would make it much easier for consumers, on the basis of the smart meter, to know what was causing their energy consumption to increase and how they could control it. The basic smart meter primarily gives the supply company that information, although it also tells the consumer at any given time what their level of consumption is and the cost of it.
The amendment would allow information to be given to householders about other products that could help them to make sense of and use smart meters, but in a way which does not amount to hassle or to a situation where their mandatory presence inside the consumer’s house can be misused to sell particular products. The amendment effectively requires the marketing material to be in a written form so as to protect the householder from being misled or mis-sold a related product.
I have no doubt that the Minister and his officials will have comments to make on the exact wording, as will the supply companies; but unless we recognise this as a potential problem, we could find ourselves in some difficulty. In one sense we are ahead of the game in that some installation programmes are going on and we know that there will be no standard design or specification before 2014 at the earliest. We could therefore already be locking people in. We need to ensure that, as the programme rolls out, we minimise the degree to which that can happen in future.
I hope the Government can at least take on board these concerns and look at the best way of dealing with them in terms of the legislation and reassuring householders that smart meters will not inhibit their choice or lead to their being ripped off in some other way when the installation takes place. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with many of whose remarks I entirely agree, I, too, have been trying to keep in touch with what has been going on—indeed, ever since I was offered the chance of installing a smart meter by one of my suppliers, only to be told that I could not possibly have it because it was in a porch and, therefore, accessible to anyone passing the house. It seems to me that these are the kind of things that must be dealt with.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has not fully taken account of the extent of the discussions, which have been going on now for some time, between the Government, the industry, Ofgem and consumer groups. These discussions have been extremely positive and seem to me to have been exactly the right way forward. We now have the Government’s prospectus—issued in July, I think—and a draft code put out by the Energy Retailers Association, which works with Energy UK, that sets out how a code might deal with precisely the points to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, drew our attention.
I am told that this has attracted comments from the consumer organisations, which are clearly interested in seeing how it will develop. In terms of securing a system that is both clear and at the same time offers flexibility—and flexibility is something that the industry has tried to build into the system; there must be some flexibility in how this will be done—a code which can be more easily amended in the light of experience may be better than trying to establish firm statutory rules, such as those in the amendments which the noble Lord has moved.
One of the points right at the heart of these discussions is that the right of changing your supplier has to be built into the system. I have had a letter from my noble friend’s department only this morning in response to a representation that I made to him a couple of weeks ago. It states:
“Common specifications will also be the means for achieving ‘inter-operability’, which means that suppliers can use smart meters installed by other suppliers, allowing easy switching.”
It seems to me that that is the kind of standard which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was looking for, and I think it is now firmly taken on board by both the industry and the department. Indeed, I have been told that the question of maintaining the right to switch suppliers has been regarded as a sine qua non. It has to happen with the installation of smart meters, and nothing in the system should prevent it, given that it is the way in which competition can be made to produce benefits for the consumer. A voluntary code that balances flexibility to provide the customer with information, while at the same time guaranteeing their rights, would be a very desirable way forward. I do not know what my noble friend will say but, against that background, the amendments might be regarded as being overprescriptive.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, we agree in large measure with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Whitty. We thank him for introducing the subject of smart meters so that we may discuss certain aspects of their operation. On his first amendment, on marketability, we understand that a balance must be struck between information provided to the consumer and possible salesmanship at the time of installation. He is quite right to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that only 20 per cent of consumers view their energy supplier as “most trustworthy”, which is a huge gap to bridge in getting to a degree of confidence for the consumer.
On the question of smart meters and interoperability, as we know, at present consumers cannot change supplier without changing meters. We understand that there could already be something approaching 2 million smart meters in the marketplace, although the exact number is not known. It would be very interesting if the Minister could provide us with any figures. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Smith raised the question of interoperability. The Minister has since written to us to say that he has had discussions and will do his utmost to make sure that, as far as possible, interoperability will be maintained. What exchanges has the Minister had with the energy companies in this regard? I draw to his attention that this is a vital area for consumer confidence, and ask whether there are indeed ongoing conversations with the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, drew to our attention the fact that the Energy Retail Association has produced a draft code of conduct for consultation, building on suppliers’ current work on a draft voluntary code of practice on vulnerable consumers and accurate billing. Our understanding is that, when the code of practice comes into place, this interoperability should be a standard requirement. Perhaps the Minister can comment on whether, by the time the regulations are drawn up, smart meters will be not only entirely interchangeable between credit and pre-pay systems but completely interoperable between energy companies.
That leads me to ask the Minister a few general questions that are afforded by this opportunity. Does he have in mind perhaps undertaking a review of consumer protection in this field? It is a huge area and could benefit from such a constructive operation. Furthermore, does he have in mind a strategy to deliver consumer benefits? These smart meters are not simply a new device that will allow the “market to provide”, as he said. Perhaps we cannot simply install them and hope that they will work. There will have to be a strategy to ensure that the consumer benefits are realised and, indeed, a constant interactive review of the rollout strategy to ensure that all the opportunities are not missed. At the moment there does not seem to be any monitoring framework in mind. There are also no minimum standards to encourage not only general acceptance among consumers but some knowledge of what they are looking at when they see a smart meter. The whole consumer field could be greatly augmented by undertaking a constant interactive review. Lastly, has the Minister thought about an independent smart-metering delivery campaigns body to monitor these situations and perhaps to give him guidance on extra help to low-income and vulnerable consumers?
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I welcome this amendment. It is important that we have a code that is as robust as possible, not least because this process will be carried out without a clearly identifiable body responsible for consumer protection. We have previously had gas and electricity consumers councils. After that, we had the combined one and Energywatch, which was folded into Consumer Focus, which, of course, will disappear. Many people have grave doubts about whether the citizens advice bureaux as presently constituted have the resources. They certainly have sufficient locations, but the question remains whether within these locations they will have people with the expertise to take on the protection of consumers when matters such as smart metering arise.
As has been pointed out, there is a great lack of public confidence in the energy suppliers in this country. That is quite a sizeable achievement, because for many years we were able to point to British Gas, the Post Office and one or two other companies as being the kind of companies that people could depend on and trust. Now, in large measure, either through commercial incompetence or greed—in the case of the Post Office it is not really greed, but I certainly would not acquit the others of a charge of greed—the public lack confidence in these companies.
The rolling-out of meters will go on for some time. We will have something like 18.5 million households with gas and another 24 million with gas and electricity, and then there are small businesses, shops and the like. So we could be talking about somewhere in the region of 45 million-plus meters being installed over a relatively short period.
One of the hallmarks of this process at present is that it is shrouded in secrecy. The lack of transparency about the discussions taking place between the Government and the companies is, in many respects, quite astounding. There is not that much that we need to concern ourselves with in terms of commercial secrecy, but we need to know a great deal more. If we are not going to have what many of us would regard as appropriate bodies for consumer protection, if we are likely to have a lengthy period in which this rollout will take place and if we have a conspicuous absence of transparency in the planning and the bringing down, even intermittently, of tablets from the mountain, it is important that we have as robust a code as possible.
While we may get the usual claptrap from the Minister about the words in the amendment not being the exact words, we want reassurance. The public deserve reassurance. We as consumers will be paying for the installation of these meters even though they will be owned by some electricity or gas supplier. It must be made clear that we will have these meters for a long time. I remember that one of the past arguments against smart metering, at a time when there was not quite the environmental edge to the debate that there is now, was that these meters were robust enough to last for 40 years. It was the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” kind of argument. We are going to be saddled with these damn things for a long time, so we should ensure that they are the right ones, that they are sufficiently flexible, that we begin to get clear indications of the intentions of the companies and that there is to be a sufficiently strong and robust process of consumer protection throughout that period.
To each of those requests, I would expect some kind of lukewarm response from the Minister, such as, “We’ll do our best. We’re all trying very hard, chaps”. Until such time as we can get something more robust than that, the least that we can hope for is a decent code of practice. My noble friend Lord Whitty has made a reasonable stab at that. The words may not be exactly what are required but, if the message can be got through and if at Report we can get something to reassure and protect consumers, we will not have made too bad a fist of this part of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, when the Minister does indeed bring the tablets down the mountain at the end of this short debate, I wonder if he could put on record what the Government anticipate will be the average capital and installation cost, which will be an additional burden on the energy consumer.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, perhaps I may make a short comment on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill. Of all the things that the Minister has or has not done, the one thing that he has not done is to come back on amendments and say that they are not exactly right and will not therefore work. I have never heard him make that particular response, to put the record straight.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
It is usually the Whip who gets the dirty job of saying, especially to his noble friends, that they have a nice amendment but it is not quite good enough and they will have to come back. The noble Baroness has already done it several times, but perhaps the noble Lord was not in the Room at the time.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am grateful to my colleague the Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, for coming down with his tablets from the other place to listen to the quality of this debate and indeed, according to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, the “claptrap” that I am about to tell him. I am sure that he did not mean that.
Lord Marland
We will wait and see. I am disappointed to hear that from a man who was on the government Benches for 13 years. We all know that smart meters started before we got into government and that consumer protection was not high on the noble Lord’s list then. Maybe he was internally debating with his own party; I hope so.
I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the opposition Front Bench, who telegraphed to us their message on these important issues before this event. It is a fundamental subject for us to address. At its heart, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would say, is unwelcome sales activity on the one hand and interoperability between companies on the other. Those are the two salient points of his amendments.
I begin with a couple of factual issues to set the scene. We estimate that there will be 46 million smart meters. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, was right on that, which is excellent. We know that British Gas has rolled out around 250,000 so far; it told me so this morning. We also know that the average cost to British Gas is around £300 over a lifespan of 20 years. I hope that that deals with the comments of the right reverend Prelate.
On the thrust of this argument, it is absolutely fundamental that customers are protected from unwarranted and unwelcome sales activity. However, we must not ignore the fact that at times sales activity may be welcome, which we must bear in mind in legislating on this matter. Thanks to the previous Government, we already have powers available to us for consumer protection in the Energy Act 2008, which stands at the moment. It is fundamental that Ofgem is carrying out what I could not believe was called a “spring package” and will issue recommendations on how interoperability and the various issues that are absolutely fundamental to smart meters will be rolled out this summer. As I said, the Energy Act gives us powers to act on this. I do not believe that, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, suggests, companies go into smoke-filled rooms for clandestine meetings with Ministers to discuss these things. These matters have been discussed and aired openly because it is to companies’ advantage to work with the customer. After all, it is the customer who will be taking these on board.
As I said earlier, I am so concerned about these two issues that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has raised that I had a meeting with the chief executive of Centrica this morning. We went through it line by line. I must say that I was impressed by the way in which that company is determined to roll this out. I am also impressed that it is co-operating in a very difficult technical area with Scottish Power and E.ON and has relationships with RWE and EDF. Understandably, they are looking at how the technology develops, particularly in the use of telephones. British Gas is currently working with Vodafone and we hear now that British Telecom has come in with a product. It is a complicated product that is evolving. As Ministers, we will monitor and make sure that this has the consumer confidence that all of us in this Committee want to see. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Oxburgh
On cost, does the Minister agree that the purpose of rolling out smart meters is to save money and to make our electricity generating system more robust and less expensive? It is unlikely to offer the prospect of reduced prices, but it could offer electricity prices that rise a little less rapidly than they would have done otherwise. It should be a double win. The companies will avoid the inconvenience and cost of having people come round to read meters. They will also get a much better understanding of the power requirements of different parts of the community at different times, which will allow them to manage the electricity system better. From the consumer’s point of view, they avoid the inconvenience of inaccurate and late bills, with which we are all familiar. They also get the opportunity, if they so wish, to manage their consumption in a way that will lower their costs. This should be a win-win proposition. The Government and the companies—if they believe this, as I hope they do—have a responsibility to spread the word abroad.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, provokes me to ask a further question, either of him or of the Minister. On the basis of the figures that have just been given, the cost will be about £14 billion over 20 years. What hard estimates have been made of the savings when set against £14 billion, which is not an insignificant amount for consumers to have to bear?
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I asked the Minister whether he had anything in mind regarding consumer protection in the field. Perhaps I could press him again on that, because I understand that some consumer protection provisions are contained in the Energy Act 2008. Does he think that they are sufficient, or will they be repealed? As we all appreciate, energy companies are working on behalf of their shareholders rather than consumers. What discussions has the Minister had with consumer groups in addition to those with energy companies?
Lord Marland
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for his commentary on this issue, which partly answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. It is mutually beneficial to both parties that smart meters are introduced. As I mentioned, Ofgem has consulted all groups closely to find a way forward. It is for it to report and to determine whether there should be a tightening of existing powers under the Energy Act following its spring package.
The total financial benefits of introduction are as yet unknown. There are a number of ways in which one could look at them. An executive of British Gas told me this morning that, when she was young, her father used to sit her down in front of the electricity meter to see it going round and round and to show the cost that was being incurred in the household. As I have said, I have sat my own children down and said, “Look, this is what’s going on”—I have one of those little boxes, which I commend to your Lordships. They are horrified that, at one point, it shows 298 an hour and then, at another, 130 an hour. There will obviously be a lifestyle change, which we cannot begin to assess, as people seek to reduce the cost of their electricity. I discussed with Centrica this morning the likely impact on bills. We estimate that there will be a saving of £14 to £15 on an electricity bill net of the cost of installation.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Minister said that provisions exist in the 2008 Act and it is clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, that some progress on a voluntary code of practice has been made. However, this section of the Bill is intended to move that forward in a way that meets anxieties that interoperability and householders’ freedom of choice are protected.
I should probably have declared a past interest: until last month, I was the chair of Consumer Focus. There has been some engagement, but not all our points have been met, in particular the issue that, from the word go of the rollout, consumers should not be subject to cost when they switch. The Minister has already consulted with British Gas and Centrica. There are about 250,000 smart meters out there. The estimate is that, by 2014, there will be 4 million, most of which will be British Gas. This is before the standards on interoperability have risen. My understanding is that, at the moment, if British Gas customers who have one of these smart meters want to switch, they will effectively be in dumb mode if they switch to another supplier whose meters are not compatible. Likewise, if they are on pre-payment but wish to switch, the smart-meter systems for pre-payment and for direct debit, for example, are not compatible.
In many ways, I am pleased that British Gas has taken the initiative in starting to roll these things out for all the reasons that people have given—we want them out there as soon as possible. However, the fact of the matter is that we are going to have a whole number of them that are not compatible and, unless we lay down principles in this Bill, that will continue. Those principles need to apply to the ongoing rollout and they need to apply to the standardisation that is introduced beyond 2014.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that the manner of meeting those requirements can be flexible. I am in favour of a strong voluntary code of practice covering this area, but the principles that lie behind my amendments should surely be in primary legislation. I accept that these amendments are probably too complicated and that ongoing discussions and outcomes need to be taken into account when we reach the final draft, but I would be concerned if we were to pass the Bill without the principles of, in particular, no detriment in terms of choice and no mis-selling being written into the primary legislation.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Is my noble friend not concerned that, from what the Minister has said, the ongoing discussions will probably be completed by the summer, by which time this Bill will have become an Act? Therefore, it will not be possible for us to deal with the outcome of these discussions in relation to this legislation. It will require a subsequent electricity/gas Act to accommodate it, unless we are going to have some kind of magic SI brought in at a later stage to take account of the discussions. Has my noble friend thought of this point?
Lord Whitty
My Lords, we get energy Acts rather frequently and one would hope that this would not provoke an even speedier reversion to new primary legislation in this field. As I understand what the Minister was referring to, he was speaking about the discussions involving the regulations that Ofgem is going to bring forward as part of its spring package, which—confusingly, as he says—will emerge in the summer. That is not necessarily the end of the line. I hope that, by the time the discussions are finalised in, shall we say, the late spring, the outline of this part of the Bill will be clear to Ofgem and those with whom Ofgem is consulting. If it is not, the situation to which my noble friend Lord O’Neill refers arises.
Lord Marland
I thought that I had explained this but, for clarification, Ofgem is dealing with this short-term interoperability under its existing licensing and code. We have the primary powers, which the previous Labour Government created under the Energy Act 2008, to enact the necessary changes that are thrown up as a result of this. Indeed, we will use them if we need to.
Lord Whitty
I am glad to hear that, but my recollection of the 2008 Act is that it does not deal specifically with this point.
Lord Whitty
It deals with interoperability, but it does not deal with the cost to the consumers of not having interoperability, which is what lies behind this point. It may be that the Government can interpret that sufficiently widely to intervene, but I am not necessarily convinced of that. This is effectively the last piece of legislation before the main part of the rollout is going to occur and, unless we have those principles embedded in primary legislation, the Minister’s leverage with Ofgem and the supply companies will be more limited as we go down the line.
I shall return to this amendment in perhaps simplified form at a later stage in this process. Some of us who sit through energy Bills are pretty convinced of moving in this direction. As the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Oxburgh, said, the aim is to reduce the cost of electricity, both in terms of supplying it and in terms of the cost to the consumer. That will work only if the consumer is in a position to interpret the information that a smart meter gives effectively and proactively and if the smart meter installed at the beginning of the process is still relevant to a changed supply tariff or method of payment for the householder at any given point. The principles need to be laid down here. This is not a matter that we should avoid as we go on through the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Energy tariffsEnergy tariffs
(1) After consultation with electricity and gas retail sellers, and consumer groups, the Secretary of State shall introduce regulations that make it mandatory for electricity and gas through pipeline supply companies supplying to domestic properties to configure their tariffs so that the initial units of energy supplied are at a lower cost to the consumer than remaining units.
(2) The principles of the scheme shall be—
(a) that the number of lower priced initial units shall represent the average amount of energy required for a household of that size to keep warm, clean and fed to a modest but acceptable standard; (b) the tariff price for the initial units shall be equal to the medium term marginal cost of the production of that energy;(c) overall, the new combined tariff should be revenue neutral to the energy supply companies.(3) The scheme and its tariffs will be assessed and audited by the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets, who will also be responsible for the capture, analysis, and reporting of all information to the Secretary of State regarding the implementation and management of the scheme.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, there are many strange things about electricity bills. This amendment caused me to look at mine more carefully. There are four pages of information, which normally I fail to look at—and most of the time when I need to look at it I find it too complex and I understand it less after I have read it than I did before I read it. On tariffs, the first tranche of units used by a normal consumer is at a significantly higher level of charge than the ensuing tranche. Some consumers may have even more divisions, but I have two and, as it is for most people, the first units used are far more expensive. On 23 December 2010, my first units were 20.1p each and the next units after I had finished those were a quarter less at 14.55p. I do not know whether that completely replicates what other people have, but it seems fairly representative.
We have two issues affected by tariffs generally. When I learnt economics as a corporate economist, we learnt that on the whole when prices were high you demanded less and that when they were less you demanded more. That was a demand curve, in which I am sure all noble Lords are well versed.
We are really trying to do two things in the Bill. One is to reduce the amount of electricity and energy used in the nation, thereby reducing carbon emissions. The other is to reduce fuel poverty by investment in making houses, dwellings and business premises more energy efficient. Yet these types of tariff—higher at the beginning and less at the end—mean that the market signals that we are trying to do exactly the opposite. That is why I have tabled my amendment in this way. I will be interested to know whether the Minister criticises the way in which it is written, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, seems to think he might.
I would like to probe this area particularly. There should be a better way of doing this, which is what my amendment attempts. First, it says that things should be the other way round, so that there is an incentive to keep energy consumption relatively low and that those normal consumers who suffer fuel poverty are charged less. Having tried to table a suitable amendment, I absolutely agree that it is difficult to encapsulate exactly how that should happen, which is why it suggests a general scheme of what we are trying to achieve. At the end of the day, the arbiter would probably have to be Ofgem. We want the electricity units used by an average household for essentials to be at the lower rate, with a higher rate after that. Overall, the outcome should be revenue neutral. I say, maybe from my work as an economist, that the existing dual-pricing function is probably an indication of a monopolistic marketplace. You certainly do not have perfect pricing here. At another time, maybe we will want to address that.
Unfortunately, the amendment does not state that pre-payment meters should not charge significantly more than ordinary electricity tariffs, thus heavily and severely working against the poor and the fuel poor. We might consider that another time; perhaps it goes back to the smart meter issue. However, that is not what the amendment is about. It is about trying to bring a much more just tariff into the industry. The only way in which that can happen is through legislation. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I certainly support the thrust of the amendment, as I devoted almost my entire Second Reading speech to the subject. When I looked at my own electricity bill, I noticed that I was being charged nearly 30p for the first 900 units, after which the price dropped to about 13p; I obviously must have a word with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to see where he gets his from. I argued that that way of charging seemed cack-handed. As my noble friend said, it seems to defy the laws of supply and demand and their relation to price. The greater the demand, the greater should be the price. When I asked other customers and neighbours, they confirmed that they, too, were charged nearly double for the initial units that they consumed.
I further argued that the first few thousand units should be relatively cheap—near the break-even point of the supplier—and that the more you consume, the more expensive the units should become. Therefore, the more you use, the more you pay per unit. I am afraid that I have no idea what the break-even point for energy suppliers is but, if they are able to charge some customers below 10p a unit for daytime use, it must be somewhere below that—around 6p or 7p per unit. I presume that Ofgem would know exactly what the break-even points are for each supplier and, if not, it could find out. It begs the question whether energy companies should be required to disclose the break-even points and the changes throughout the year, which could then be verified either by auditors or by Ofgem.
I like the wording in the new clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Teverson. Subsection (2)(a) says that,
“the number of lower priced initial units shall represent the average amount of energy required for a household of that size to keep warm, clean and fed to a modest but acceptable standard”.
I suggested at Second Reading that it would not be too difficult for energy companies to obtain the council tax banding of each property, so that they could differentiate between, say, band A and band D properties. Obviously, a single person living in a bedsit would not require the same amount of energy as a couple with 2.4 children living in a three-bedroom or four-bedroom house. As things stand at the moment, there is little or no difference in the tariffs for living in a bedsit or a six-bedroom house. That is wrong. The person in the bedsit is paying a much higher proportion of their energy bill at the higher initial rate that is currently charged. Perhaps the electoral roll could help in determining how many adults live in each property.
If we are going to try to do something about fuel poverty, I believe that the way in which we charge customers must be changed, which is the whole thrust of my argument. In 2008, there were 4.5 million households in fuel poverty. I believe that, after the recent cold snap of November and December, this figure jumped dramatically, perhaps to 6.5 million households, 50 per cent of whom are pensioners. Those in badly heated homes are more prone to illness, which just pushes the problem and the cost on to the NHS. It was not surprising to read in the papers recently that energy companies have been cashing in on the cold snap and increasing their profit margins by 50 per cent. I am glad that Ofgem is investigating; it will report its findings on excessive profit margins in March. Consumers feel hard done by. Some whom I have asked feel that they are being ripped off.
Can Ofgem make energy companies change their tariff structure? I realise that energy companies are profit-making public companies, some of which are foreign owned. Can, as the amendment provides, the Government introduce regulations to force companies to change their tariff system so that the initial units supplied are at a lower cost to the consumer than the remaining units? Subsection (2)(c) of the amendment provides that,
“overall, the new combined tariff should be revenue neutral to the energy supply companies”.
I hope that the energy companies are willing to discuss this.
The thrust of my argument is to get as many of the 6.5 million households currently in fuel poverty—that is 26 per cent of total households—out of fuel poverty. I believe that progressive charging may be one way of achieving this. It would act as a real incentive for all households to reduce their consumption and to take up the Green Deal.
I received a useful letter this week from my noble friend Lord Marland, saying that the Committee on Climate Change looked into introducing rising block tariffs two years ago, before the recent hike in energy prices. It said that rising block tariffs would have an adverse impact on fuel-poor households, as they generally require more energy to heat their homes to an acceptable level. This is because the fuel poor tend to live in less energy efficient homes. Many of them, including pensioners, tend to spend more time in their homes. This suggests that a rising block tariff would make it more expensive for them to heat their homes to an adequate standard and make it more difficult to remove them from fuel poverty. The Committee on Climate Change concluded that rising block tariffs,
“should not be introduced until fuel poverty has been addressed through targeted energy efficiency improvement and other fuel poverty measures”.
Quite so; I cannot argue with that. But is this not exactly where the Green Deal comes in? If the tariff system was changed and these households took up the Green Deal, they should be much better off.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I find this a confusing debate. First, we have an elegant contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, explaining how there is a failure in the structure of the market and the present pricing arrangements. We then get an endorsement of this from the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, who, with the greatest respect, is riding one of his hobby-horses. We are all entitled to do that, but half way through the business he changes horses and is not very sure whether he is going one way or the other.
One of the factors in making the Green Deal successful for consumers will be rising gas and electricity prices, because the Green Deal will make the savings that much greater. It will make the savings that much greater that much earlier if the initial block of electricity or gas units consumed is as high as possible; it is then the second tranche from which you may make some savings. That appears to be a recognition of the fact that we anticipate that, certainly for the rest of this decade, energy prices will continue to rise for a variety or reasons—changes in generation, shortage of supply or volatility of supply because of Middle Eastern uncertainties. All these things will, in varying degrees, result in a steady increase. That is one of the attractions—perhaps not the most compelling one—of the Green Deal. The amendment would in many respects undermine the attractive features of the Green Deal.
Equally, the climate change committee has argued that the majority of fuel-poor households have structural deficiencies which require more electricity to be used in keeping the rooms warm. Therefore, the priority must be to get people’s homes improved. The apparent attraction of making the price of the initial tranche lower is complicated by the fact that these people are always going to be the ones who will go into the second tranche to keep their houses warm. There are elements of contradiction in both arguments.
We have mentioned the role of Ofgem as a potential arbiter—a body that could hold the ring. Although Ofgem’s function is in part to protect the consumer, it is also to promote competition. The argument advanced by the proponents of privatisation and subsequent liberalisation was that, after liberalisation, you would have a competitive market in which the players would change the manner in which the old state monopoly had dealt with pricing issues. In fact, as we have seen, while it was apparently in the interests of the state monopoly to behave in a particular way, it is in the interests of these private oligopolies to behave in much the same way, in that they have not radically changed the nature of pricing.
Some of us have sought to introduce arguments about the injustice of the pre-payment meter to many households, although not all, as pre-payment meters suit consumers in a number of households, perhaps because people are there only part-time—the house may be a second home in a rural area, for example. The point that I am getting at is that it was only through the threat of intervention on the part of the last Government that we began to move on this issue. I think that only one company—Scottish and Southern—was prepared to change its pricing structure in relation to pre-payment meters. There may have been others, but that is the one that I remember from the big five or six in this area.
I do not think that Ofgem has the power to do this at the moment and I am not sure that it would want to do it. The argument advanced by the climate change committee is somewhat tentative, but it has some weight. If we are going to try to deal with the question of consumption and price, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, provided an elegant solution. I respect him for that, but I am not sure whether it is the ideal solution. We have had a reasonable excuse to have a good debate, but I am not sure whether at this stage this is really the best way in which to deal with the problem. It would be preferable if we gave the regulator powers that it ceased to have some time ago to go in and explore this, if not independently to change it. I know that its powers are being reviewed; it certainly does not have the powers to interfere at this stage, as I understand it. But if it was to be given those powers following the government review, that might be a way in which to deal with the matter.
I am not certain that this amendment will achieve what it is trying to do in respect of the poorer households that spend a fair amount of money heating their homes. It is unlikely that we could get a tariff structure to enable all the heating of the poorest people’s homes in the country to be done on the lowest tariff. If we could get that, we would go some way towards alleviating the problems faced by the disadvantaged. Equally, we might well put ourselves in the position of having disproportionately higher prices for the second tranche, which might reach a level that brings additional people into fuel poverty. So we seem to be damned if we do and damned if we do not.
I am a bit confused and I am sure that other noble Lords are as well. It may be that listening to me has made matters worse. If we are to deal with this issue, we really need to deal with it on the basis of far stronger and more comprehensive evidence than we have at the moment. The present system does not work, but I am not sure whether something as flip as this amendment will necessarily come up with the answers that quickly.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I support my noble friend in raising an important issue, which has led to rather a long debate. In reply to my noble friend, could the Minister tell us where we are in getting the utility companies to simplify their bills and make them clearer? If the Green Deal is going to work and people are going to understand where their energy savings are, the bills need to be better. In the past, you might try to work out the payback on new technology. We had a condensing boiler and it was really complicated to look back over a year—we had changed suppliers at the time—to work out what we were saving. I think that in the end I did work it out and we had saved at least a quarter of the gas in a year with the condensing boiler, but it was no mean feat. Given that the Green Deal depends on people understanding such things and that we know that we will not all have smart meters in the near future, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us a little about that.
I support my noble friend Lord Cathcart on what we need to do to help those in fuel poverty, but I cannot agree with him on trying to do it on council tax bands. The banding of your house does not relate to your ability to pay the council tax or any other bill. That is why I have been so against it for so many years. However, I support him in his aim to do something about fuel poverty. I have probably declared my interest before but, like the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, I am involved with National Energy Action, which is a charity trying to do something about the fuel poor. We have been doing it for over 25 years now.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, the step tariff to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has drawn attention clearly has its origin in the old concept of the standing charge—a charge that companies levied to cover people coming round to read the meters, preparing paper bills and all that sort of thing. The smart meter arrangements, which we have just been describing, will remove nearly all the justification for that concept. It would be useful if the Minister considered how he might ensure that the benefits of introducing the meters can be passed on to the consumer; it will obviously be some time before the whole system is drawn out. If any step is needed, it really should be a very small one. Smart meters should certainly make the handling of pre-payment meters identical to conventional ones; there need be no difference in charge. I presume that pre-payment meters will be managed the same way as top-up phone cards, so the whole thing should be straightforward.
Inverted tariffs can work. They have been used for water in Sydney, Australia—you get your first so-many cubic metres of water at a particular price and, as your water use goes up, so does your price. That is not quite the same, because a lot of subsequent use of water would be for watering large lawns and things of that kind, which is not quite what we are talking of here. Also, in my Shell days, we used something like this in Nigeria, where the company gave away a certain amount of electricity—enough to run a refrigerator, a number of light bulbs and a television—and charged consumers only when they went above a particular level. Those things have worked and have been used to alleviate poverty. Whether this is quite the way to do it, I am not sure; I am with the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill. However, there is an important idea here.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is to be congratulated: he has really put his finger on what is utterly wrong with the whole structure of tariffs in the energy market. It is an object of public policy to reduce fuel poverty, and it is an object of public policy to reduce consumption of energy, yet we have a structure of hugely complicated tariffs for households—2,500 tariffs, or whatever it is—the net result of which is that the poor pay more, and that the more you use the less you pay. That is an absurdity arising from a combination of an oligopolistic market, a history of the standing charge, and a sort-of ideology behind the Ofgem intervention about cost reflectivity. If you were really trying to achieve the outcomes that successive Governments have declared, you would restructure and regulate the market in the direction proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
Obviously, there are complications. There will be winners and losers. I disagree with the climate change committee and, to some extent, with my noble friend Lord O’Neill—the bulk of the fuel poor are fuel poor because of the price that they pay for electricity, not because they have to use more of it, even though it is true that a programme of improving the energy efficiency of buildings would ideally predate any change in the tariff structure. A sub-group of the fuel poor have to spend to use an enormous amount of energy to meet minimum comfort levels, but the majority are hit because of the prices that they have to pay within the properties that they occupy.
There would have to be some sophistication of the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The crude definition is a rising block tariff, but it is not necessarily the only way in which to act. The Government would be well advised to ask Ofgem, the energy companies and everybody else in the field to look at the whole concept. Until we effectively reverse the structure of tariffs, we will not achieve those two objectives and—via the objective of using less energy—the energy-security objective of energy policy. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has a big idea here. I suspect that the noble Earl is correct that the Minister will not leap overboard and grab this amendment, but we need to think radically here and ensure a proper analysis of how the restructuring could be done effectively with minimum collateral damage.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am going to offer a word of solace to the Minister: I recommend that he suggests that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, not that the Government should accept it. I doubt whether the Government will accept it, not least because although this has been an interesting and informed debate, the cross-currents have been very sharp and very obvious. In seeking the objectives that we all seek, the question of strategy is difficult. I doubt whether this Bill can stand the strain of carrying an amendment which indicates that the whole of the tariff position should be restructured as far as the electricity companies are concerned, particularly given that we are short of information.
First of all, the companies are short of information about which households ought to have preferential treatment. I very much enjoyed the thoughtful and considered speech of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. He took us with him in terms of the objectives, but council tax will not do as a measure of the relative strength or weakness of household economies. We are in the historic position—as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, identified—that this initial tariff is the old standing charge written into a new pricing framework. Now there are elements of a standing charge which companies have to meet.
However, our consideration with this Bill is, how do we make the Green Deal effective? I listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord O’Neill, who indicated the difficulties of both ends of the spectrum in this argument. In terms of making the Green Deal effective, it would complicate matters enormously if we were also saying that in a short period of time, we would be changing the nature of the pricing policy. There is enough of a problem with pricing anyway. We all know that we have a terrifying situation at the moment with world energy prices and the issues faced by consumers. None of us knows what lies ahead, but it is unlikely that energy will become significantly cheaper in the foreseeable future. Therefore households treat energy bills with great seriousness.
Can this be solved along the lines of this amendment? In due course, I think it would probably need to be. We have to get away from the issue of why the pricing policy is as it is. The Bill has to deliver the drive towards the Green Deal. The priority has to be to emphasise to households that they must pursue strategies to reduce the consumption of electricity. It is consumption that we have got to reduce or, more accurately in many cases, we have got to reduce waste, given that our houses are so ill-equipped for the circumstances.
We have to deliver the Bill’s objectives before we move, and expect the industry to move, to that dimension identified by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This has been a very useful debate, but I fear that if the concept in that amendment was put into the Bill, we would complicate matters enormously in terms of the impact on households. We would therefore fail with the main strategy to which we are all committed under the Bill. I hope the Minister will take a similar view.
Earl Cathcart
The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said that there were inconsistencies in my argument. What I was doing was reporting from the letter that my noble friend had sent to me, where there may have been inconsistencies. I said in my remarks that putting rising block tariffs in this Bill would be like putting the cart before the horse. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies; I am not expecting to have an amendment to get rising block tariffs into the Bill. I am asking the Minister to assure us that this will be looked at, so that the Green Deal can take effect first, and then the whole issue will be considered after the Bill is done and dusted.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for summing up so well—he has done most of my job for me, which is extremely kind. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, drew this matter to my attention several months ago, as did the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I am extremely sympathetic to it, but this debate has thrown up the different and slightly schizophrenic aspect of this tariff system. On the one hand we have the inequality of it, and on the other we have to take into consideration things like the fuel poor, inefficient houses, time tariffs, colder parts of the UK and so on.
There are two fundamental things that I can suggest to the Committee. The first, as I said earlier, is that we are going to carry out a full-scale review of fuel poverty and its implications. We will be announcing that review in the very near future, and it will look into the various aspects that noble Lords have brought up here. Secondly, I recognise that this is a complicated issue, not a simple matter which the Committee can debate now and then present a conclusion on. I can therefore suggest—and we have already started work on it—that officials within the department should look very closely at this in order to determine its operability without reference to the climate change committee, and between Committee and Report stage we will have the opportunity to explore it further with noble Lords who may wish, with officials, to see whether there is merit in this amendment. That is a genuine offer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that this is not a matter for this Bill as it is a complicated issue that needs considerable thought. Therefore, despite the merits of the amendment, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to withdraw it.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I suppose that I ought to feel very comforted by having both the opposition and the government spokesmen speak against me. That ought to feel like old times and add a feeling of warmth—which is obviously lacking among the fuel poor—but it does not. I thank noble Lords for their discussion of this. As I said in my opening remarks, as you try to write this sort of amendment, you find all the difficulties about applying it. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, summed it up in many ways.
Again, the quantum of fuel poverty concerns not so much the amount of energy used but the cost of that energy. That is what we have seen in the huge increase in the number of fuel poor, which has risen primarily in response to the very substantial increases in energy prices. This debate has exposed the problem that the current tariff structures are just not right They are not right in terms of a competitive market, in terms of serving consumers, or in terms of justice within our society. For that reason, I welcome the Minister’s remarks that this area is to be looked at further and that, although this might not be exactly the right solution, it is something that will be pursued. I look forward to hearing the outcome of that.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, that I do not see the conflict between this and the Green Deal, which is not about reducing emissions or energy consumption in a household to zero but about making energy efficiency within our stock of dwellings much better—as I know that he knows, and which I know he supports. So I do not see them in conflict at all.
With that undertaking from the Minister that this area will continue to be looked at in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to take its customary short break. I suggest that it recommences at 5.25 pm.
Lord Grantchester
“( ) requiring the disclosure of sufficient information to enable green deal participants, improvers and bill payers to decide what measures may be appropriate for a property”
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the Bill contains welcome changes to the energy performance certificates, but reform may need to go further to inform householders better on the energy efficiency of their homes and provide sufficient information so that householders are enabled in their decision-making when considering the Green Deal. We have also added our names to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about introducing a 12-week delay to energy tariff changes, which I shall leave to my noble friend to speak to.
Clause 70 concerns access to the register of energy performance certificates, and the Government have suggested through subsection (1) that access to these documents or data on the register should be determined through regulations. Subsection (2) contains a list of such issues that may be included in the regulations. As we raised in our amendment earlier, it would be helpful if the Government could clarify whether the regulations and list of areas in subsection (2) are intended to be discretionary and what other areas the Government have in mind. Can the Minister confirm whether the legislative approach adds more or less certainty to the process?
In Amendment 33ZA, we aim to clarify what should be included in the regulations relating to the disclosure of energy performance certificates. We consider that in this area it would be helpful to make linkages with other aspects in the Bill such as the Green Deal. The information contained on an energy performance certificate provides a helpful baseline for understanding the energy efficiency of a property and helps Green Deal improvers and bill payers to track how efficient a particular improvement has been. The regulations made under the clause should include provision to disclose such information to enable Green Deal participants, improvers and bill payers to make informed decisions about what Green Deal and energy efficiency measures may be appropriate for their property. This amendment is based on a belief that consumers and their advisers should have the best information to decide what measures may be appropriate for a property. Baseline information through these energy performance certificates is vital for the decision-making process. If the Government agree with the sentiment and are as concerned as we are that the Green Deal scheme should work, we would hope to see them come forward with an amendment of that nature at Report.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I have Amendments 33B and 33C in this group, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin has Amendment 33A. Having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said in introducing his amendments, I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with the rather different issues raised by our amendments by degrouping them. I shall therefore not speak to them now.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I should like to start by countering comments made by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, during a previous discussion. Far from feeling that I have drawn the short straw as the Whip, the opposite is the case. Not only is my noble friend Lord Marland taking the particularly complicated areas but—far more importantly—this is such an easy Bill. It is a Bill on which we are agreed across the Committee, so it is a great delight. Our purpose here is to refine how best to achieve the Bill’s objectives. That may not have been the noble Lord’s experience in the past, but if he watches me through these proceedings, he will notice how happy I am.
Amendment 33ZA provides that sufficient information must be disclosed to enable those involved in the Green Deal to decide what measures are appropriate for a property. However, Clause 70 is not intended to make data available for this purpose. If someone was considering how to improve a building’s energy efficiency, they would commission an EPC, which would include recommended measures to improve the energy efficiency of the building and form the basis of advice by a qualified Green Deal adviser on the most appropriate measures for the property.
The Green Deal adviser would calculate exactly how much money would need to be borrowed and the number and amount of repayments et cetera. This is all part of the discussion that a householder will need to have with the Green Deal adviser as part of the potential transaction. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to stipulate this level of detail in legislation.
Amendment 33CA provides that, where a property is to be sold or rented out, the seller, prospective landlord or their agent must provide an EPC free of charge to a prospective buyer or tenant, the EPC should be no more than a year old and the person providing it must not believe that it is inaccurate. It has been a statutory requirement under existing regulations since October 2008 that an EPC is made available free of charge to a prospective buyer or tenant when a property is put on the market by the seller or prospective landlord. In the case of domestic sales, there is a duty on the agent to be satisfied that an EPC has been commissioned before marketing a property. A similar duty will be extended to agents in respect of domestic rentals and non-domestic transactions later this year.
As for the accuracy of EPCs, which is what the noble Lord is flagging up, I assure noble Lords that, under existing regulations, a duty of care is placed on the energy assessor to carry out energy assessments with reasonable skill and care. The only change that this amendment would introduce would be to provide that EPCs must be less than a year old. At present, an EPC can be up to 10 years old. In deciding on an appropriate validity period, we need to strike a balance between ensuring that an EPC contains up-to-date information and not requiring sellers or prospective landlords to incur unnecessary costs. In future, where improvement works are funded through the Green Deal, there will be an obligation to produce an updated EPC to capture the impact of the work on the energy efficiency of the property. While there will not be such an obligation where Green Deal finance was not used, it would be sensible for them to obtain an updated EPC that reflected the impact of any other work, because it will benefit them when seeking to sell or rent out the property. However, it is unnecessary to introduce a statutory obligation in such circumstances. I hope that noble Lords have found my explanation reassuring and will withdraw their amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the noble Baroness for her understanding and for clarifying the situation regarding our two amendments. However, I may puzzle her for one second further—although she has been very clear in explaining the situation. If the information were to be inaccurate, would the costs then be passed on to the new owner or tenant? How would that situation be challenged?
Baroness Northover
As I mentioned, under existing regulations the duty of care placed on people in terms of producing the EPC could be relevant in this kind of circumstance. I will seek further clarification. Clearly, if somebody has already done work, that should assist. It is also the case that the energy assessor would be liable if the EPC was inaccurate.
Lord Grantchester
The noble Baroness is entirely correct. I thank her for bringing further light to the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, we are still dealing with Clause 70, which deals with energy performance certificates. My Amendments 33B and 33C do not concern the substance of the regulations that will be produced but the parliamentary procedure to be applied to them. At present, by virtue of Clause 70(6), only the negative procedure applies to any regulations made under Clause 70. That includes regulations made under subsection (2)(e), which allows sanctions for non-compliance. Here we return to the eighth report of the 2010-11 Session by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which pointed out that where sanctions could include financial penalties, the Bill should provide—as a minimum—for the affirmative procedure. That is what my amendments would provide. The committee went on to say that the Bill should also provide for a maximum, which my amendment does not provide. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me on how the Government intend to respond to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it will not surprise the Minister to hear that I agree entirely with the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The sanctions are a different and important dimension, which is why the Merits Committee referred to the issue. The Minister will know only too well that regard for the Merits Committee is such that, when it recommends the affirmative procedure rather than the existing negative procedure, Ministers normally agree, as I hope the noble Baroness will.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the Bill does not intend to create any new criminal offences or impose financial penalties. However, we hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says and we are indeed happy to look at this again on Report.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, it is a handsome offer definitely to come back on Report. How could I possibly refuse? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“( ) The information to be provided about a tariff by virtue of subsection (2) with regards to the amount of the tariff must be guaranteed not to change for a period of 12 weeks.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, this amendment was originally in a group, but it has been disentangled, as it may be more logical for it to stand alone. It deals with the requirement in Clause 72(2) that a supplier must provide its domestic customers with information regarding one or more of its lowest domestic tariffs. In other words, it is an obligation on the supplier to ensure that the consumer knows what the lowest tariff is so that they can move to that tariff. This was so central to the coalition’s programme that it was referred to in the programme itself, which said:
“We will increase households’ control over their energy costs by ensuring that energy bills provide information on how to move to the cheapest tariff offered by their supplier”.
I therefore welcome the clause and its fulfilment of that commitment.
Of course, it is also true that there is a history of people moving to heavily advertised tariffs only for that tariff to change after a reasonably short time, often without notice during the period of the switch. This is a relatively modest attempt to ensure that this does not happen. If the householder switches on the basis of the supplier’s advertised lowest tariff, there should be no change to that tariff until after a period of 12 weeks. This seems a reasonable protection for the householder and would make a reality of Clause 72(2), which in itself is an important principle and one that I welcome. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. He makes a good point: it would not help consumers if information on lowest tariffs was often quickly out of date. The amendment would require the Government to guarantee that a supplier’s lowest tariff was available to customers for 12 weeks after information about that tariff had been provided to them on their bill, thereby allowing them sufficient time to consider the information on their bill and to act on it before their supplier could move the goalposts and change the price.
The powers that we are seeking in the Bill would allow the Government to require suppliers to inform customers about their lowest tariff and how to switch to it. It is a feature of our competitive market that energy suppliers are able to react to changes in the market through dynamic pricing. The amendment would effectively prevent suppliers from making changes to the price of a tariff for a period of 12 weeks, which is not the intention of these proposals. Such a requirement would limit suppliers’ ability to react to changes in the market and may lead to a more conservative pricing strategy, risking higher prices for customers across the board—in other words, the law of unintended consequences, which we have been looking at in other areas.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Could the Minister give us any evidence that this has taken place with any degree of consistency? We normally find that upward changes in prices as a consequence of market conditions are introduced almost immediately but that, when there are downward movements as a result of the same market circumstances, it takes rather longer. It seems that the customer in the middle is left having to pay more for longer and getting the benefits of lower prices for a shorter period.
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord might be reassured if I could conclude. We are sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, intends. We have to give careful consideration to the amendment to make sure that the unintended consequences that I have just mentioned are not brought to bear. I therefore propose to him that we take away the amendment for further consideration, because we understand the principles behind it. On that basis, I wonder whether he might be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her recognition of the issue. Given her assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the Bill is concerned with energy efficiency and reduction of carbon emissions. In that regard, we found it curious that it made no mention of renewables and low-carbon generation. The Minister may say, “Well, please understand that all that is included by what we mean by the generation of electricity and the storage of electricity”. Nevertheless, we thought the omission most curious and that we should perhaps underline our encouragement and enthusiasm for low-carbon generation and renewable energy by including reference to them in the Bill.
In light of our debates at the start of the year on energy market reform and on the mix of energy sources that will be needed for the foreseeable future—including new nuclear—we thought it important to draw renewable and low-carbon generation into our debate today so that the Minister might underline those aspects of it that he sees as being important within the framework of the Bill. It is important to encourage the Government to deliver on their promises, most notably that they demonstrate how new nuclear will be up and running by 2017-18, despite the proposals for operators to take on much more of the cost and liability. We also think it important that the Government deliver on the further stages of CCS and provide clarity on the future of fossil fuels as part of the energy mix and their relationships with the Green Deal. The Government should also provide clarity on the future of ROCs and FITs—the feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. We think that it is important for the Minister to explain this, because it will be important for consumers, both businesses and households. The price element of this is the subject of the next amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I would just like to ask the noble Lord why he thinks that these are not already included in the words “generation of electricity”. That is exactly what they do, so in what way are they not covered? I see his reasons for wanting to put them in explicitly, but it seems to me that that would not actually add anything.
Lord Grantchester
I thought that I had explained in my opening remarks that we could well understand that they could be thought to have been included in the Bill already. However, for the reasons that I outlined, we wished to make sure that the words “renewables and low-carbon generation” are included to underline their importance in the energy mix of the future.
Lord Marland
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, puts it rather succinctly. Obviously, at the moment, we are carrying out a serious consultation on electricity market reform, and these vital subjects are part of that consultation process. Whereas I completely support the thrust of these amendments and the importance of these sources in the general electricity market, I think that the noble Lord will agree that this is a matter for the electricity market reform consultation, where we are grateful for any views or comments in this area. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister; I quite well anticipated his reply and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) the impact of supply on consumer prices”
Lord Davies of Oldham
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, if he is not careful, is going to have to rise again and make exactly the same speech, although he made it in such a convincing fashion that he convinced me. It will be seen by the Committee that we were interested in making sure that these issues were very much to the fore. Following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, we got the assurance from the Minister that the consultation that is going on includes these issues. That is all that I have to say.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Does the noble Lord wish to move his amendment?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I think that we will regard that as not moved.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“36D Strengthening the Authority’s powers with regard to Public Service Obligations on suppliers
The Authority may modify the arrangements contained in Gas Licence Agreements to impose further obligations in the PSO requirements, as follows—
(a) the Authority may modify the gas storage Public Service Obligation for gas suppliers in the United Kingdom;(b) the Authority may set new industrial and commercial PSOs on suppliers requiring suppliers to meet the mandated levels of gas storage as set by the Authority;(c) the Authority shall publish gas storage targets annually and may monitor supply licence holders’ compliance with such obligations.”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, noble Lords will remember that at Second Reading I raised the whole question of gas storage and its contribution to a greater certainty of supply in the event of something untoward happening. I have tabled this amendment to strengthen the incentive to invest in more gas storage. I took account of what my noble friend said in response to the amendment, but I have now made it my business to gain a better understanding of the considerable complexities of this sector of the energy market. How to ensure security of gas supply has become increasingly important, particularly in the light of the anticipated running down of the UK’s own indigenous supplies from offshore sources. It is for this reason, no doubt, that the industry, successive Governments and the regulator have all rightly been very concerned to make as sure as they can that gas consumers will be assured of a continuous supply.
Since Second Reading, Ofgem has published—on 11 January—a consultation paper headed Gas Security of Supply Significant Code Review. I will come back to that. However, several other important reports were published in earlier years. In May 2007 a long report was published by the consultant Oxera, headed An Assessment of the Potential Measures to Improve Gas Security of Supply. Three years later the previous Government commissioned a report, this time by the consultant Pöyry, headed GB Gas Security of Supply and Options for Improvement. In April the previous Government published a policy statement headed Gas Security of Supply. Last November there was a joint DECC and Ofgem report, Statutory Security of Supply Report. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I do not intend to quote more than a tiny portion of those reports. It would have been quite an effort even to bring them to the Moses Room.
The reports, which I hope I am summarising accurately, come down to this: although the risk of what one might describe as a “black swan” event—one of low probability but high impact—hitting the supply of gas to the UK market is very low, it is acknowledged by all that it is not impossible. It could be a combination of adverse events, such as pipeline accidents, import interruption or the withholding of supplies by overseas suppliers. The previous Government’s provisional conclusion, therefore, was that some additional measures are needed to deal with that remote possibility.
The various reports examined and evaluated several options in great detail. The DECC policy statement of last April concentrated on five options. I will read the relevant two paragraphs from that April 2010 report to the Committee. On page 7, paragraph E.30 of the executive summary says, under the heading “Enhanced financial incentives to balance demand and supply”:
“The Government supports Ofgem’s work with industry to examine the case for greater use of market prices with enhanced incentives in the balancing regime”—
one needs to hang on to those words—
“in particular by … unfreezing cash-out prices in an emergency; and … further finessing the cash-out regime in market conditions (outside an emergency)”.
The next paragraph, under the heading “Supplier obligations”, says:
“The Government is considering the case for strengthening shipper/supplier obligations, such as through Public Service Obligations”,
or PSOs, as they are widely known in the business. Those are the two preferred options that have been considered.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
My Lords, I support this amendment and compliment the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on covering pretty well the whole of the case. Like him, I was approached by a company called Gateway, which is in the business of constructing storage facilities—or would like to be in the business of constructing storage facilities. My understanding, which the Minister will perhaps confirm, is that at the moment we have around 5.9 billion cubic metres of gas storage facility in the UK, and that we could need in extremis to double that or—instead of storing the four or five days’ worth of gas that we have at the moment—go up to 20 days’ worth. The consumption of this additional gas is not on a pro rata basis; it tapers because other things would happen.
My point is that the balancing mechanism is essentially the market mechanism, which assumes that this will be fine if we have a gas storage facility that blows up, as happened a few years ago. World market conditions were not affected to any great extent by that but we still had to buy in additional supplies. If something happened in the United Kingdom that in some way interrupted or interfered with our present indigenous supplies, we would not be affected by world prices. On the other hand, there could be a world crisis and an interruption to supply because we may well be the last in line for Russian gas supplies. There are reasons why we would be last in line in a world crisis, not least because for a long time we were self-sufficient and exported gas. There were periods in the 1990s when we changed the nature of our gas contracting and, as a consequence, we have tended more towards short-term contracts than long-term ones. Therefore, we have less of a claim on access to the world market.
The point I want to make is that it is fine to use the market-balancing mechanism when there is, in effect, a UK problem, but when there is a world problem, it becomes exceedingly expensive. If we are to be prudent, it is necessary for us to look at what would be regarded as getting the balance right between the two options. Neither of them is exclusive. In the case of the PSO, we would give a signal to the market that our very low level of storage ought to be increased.
When we touched on this subject at Second Reading, the Minister told us, “I have just signed the document offering planning permission”, and said that this may well go ahead. Something like 15 projects at present enjoy planning permission but nobody sees the need to act on them because there is no clear indication that the Government are prepared to give them active support by way of a PSO. We need additional supply if what I have been told by Gateway is true. I have no reason to doubt that, although I accept that Gateway is in this business and will want to enhance its case, which is not unreasonable. The same could be said for the gas traders who have been successful in tipping the balance the other way. It is necessary for us to have a clearer indication.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I too would like to say a few words in support of the amendment, which is designed to strengthen the powers of the authority with regard to public service obligations on gas suppliers, like the obligations that already exist on oil suppliers. The debate has so far shown that UK gas storage capacity is too low in terms of the crucial insurance policy that it represents for this country either against a direct cut-off of gas supplies; or against sharply rising prices of such supplies, perhaps due to a cut-off somewhere else when we find ourselves at the end of the supply line. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that UK gas storage capacity is much lower than that of other EU member states—not just the ones cited, but quite a few more. Is our vulnerability really also not lower than theirs? Now that North Sea gas is running down, I believe that our vulnerability is every bit as high as theirs.
Gas storage has to be an important element of both our and the European Union’s long-term energy security policy, along with other elements such as the diversification of supplies, the diversification of pipelines, more interconnectors between member states and more competition in the single market. The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister is going to Brussels at the end of this week to discuss all those issues, because that is the topic of the European Council this week. I hope that it will make progress on all those issues. We need to put ourselves in a better position than we are now, so far as gas storage capacity is concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, the simple way to achieve that is through the PSO. That is the thrust of the amendment and why I support it.
I ask the Committee’s forgiveness for straying slightly outside this piece of legislation when I ask the Government whether they are considering a minimum requirement for gas storage in the European Union on each member state. That is highly desirable, as it has proved for oil. If it were to be introduced, it would likely be helpful for this country. There was a great deal of opposition from the suppliers when the oil requirement was introduced in the 1970s, but you do not hear anything about it now. It is taken as the most natural thing in the world that we and every European Union country hold—I think—40 days’ supply of oil. Working now for an EU minimum that would apply to all member states would be worth while. If we were to move down that road, the amendment would put us in a position to meet any obligations. It would therefore make our position in the negotiations for a minimum requirement in the EU much stronger. We would be showing other member states that we were serious about working for this, even though we were merely introducing a potential power to do it.
I see no particularly good arguments for resisting the amendment. After all, it does not impose an actual obligation on anyone; it merely makes it possible to do so without further legislation if it can be shown objectively to be both necessary and desirable. I therefore hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to it in his reply.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I briefly add my support to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, is right that our dependence on gas will undoubtedly increase over the coming decades; as renewables and other sources of low-carbon energy come in, gas will be very important. It is equally true that the amount of storage that we could get away with when we had the North Sea producing at full rate could be relatively small, but it is also clear that the storage that we have today is inadequate. I will not go into the details, but something like 10 to 20 days’ supply is what we should be thinking of today. This will not happen without regulation of some kind. The supply companies have no incentive to do it, and what both industry and the consumer need is gas, not compensation.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, all that needs to be said about this amendment has been said by informed Members of the Committee. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on his amendment, which was supported so strongly by my noble friend Lord O’Neill, who also knows energy issues so well. It reinforces the case.
I am always worried when this issue of days crops up. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated that France and Germany are different from the United Kingdom. They have been massively different historically because we have had our own indigenous resources. Our needs for storage are therefore very different from the needs of those and other countries in Europe. When I was charged with responding on energy matters for the previous Government, I always used to shudder when the “Today” programme would say, “The French have 90 days’ security of supply and we have four”. One felt the shudder go round the nation because of a colossal risk that we were all taking with energy. That is not so, and we must not spread alarm, but we must make provision for the future in a significantly changing situation, and we need to adjust to it. As the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord O’Neill, indicated, we are talking about a significant increase over present storage capacity. However, we are different from those other countries.
There were one or two occasions in the past when the United Kingdom’s position at the end of that supply line cost us and we paid higher prices for gas in some circumstances. One remembers that enormous row with the Germans, who had to go to the European Community over the extent to which German companies seemed rather better at availing themselves of the available gas from Russia than we were. So this is an immensely serious issue, and there is no doubt that storage is the key issue. We have a range of suppliers, but a range of suppliers is no good if we do not have the storage capacity to deal with potential interruptions. There will always be limited supplies as far as gas is concerned, and it is obviously the case that we have issues regarding our own supplies.
I hope the Minister will accept the crucial point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his amendment—that this is in addition to what is in place at the moment. It is an empowerment that we might need. We might not need it, but if we do not, then it will not be utilised. However, it would be remiss of us if we did not guarantee that this power was in this Energy Bill. I therefore hope the Minister, who I know has to wrestle with all sorts of difficulties in responding to even the most constructive of amendments, will appreciate that the Committee expects a positive response.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for raising this issue and, in particular, for this canter through the gas situation as it is today. When I was shadowing my current role during the Labour Government and spoke on a number of occasions about gas storage, they reassured me that we had enough storage and that we were in very good shape. Indeed, now that I have got to the position that I am now in, I largely agree with them. That does not mean that we should be complacent or should not press hard for greater gas storage. But the facts are as follows: we have 16 days of storage available and we have under construction another 25 per cent. Maths is not my strongest suit, but as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, can tell us—because maths is his strongest suit, along with running and jumping and other things—that gives us just over 20 days’ storage.
Lord Marland
The noble Lord has such talent in one body. So we have 20 days’ storage. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said quite reasonably that we should compare ourselves to other countries. Obviously, Germany and France have more than that, but they do not have their own gas supply. They are entirely reliant on what used to be called the old Iron Curtain countries for their supply. I would be concerned about the security of supply in the light of some of the endeavours that they have been through. We in this country still produce 50 per cent of our own gas and we are still finding more gas, which will not, admittedly, stop the supply being eroded, but will decelerate the erosion. We have a secure contract. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, suggested that we must have good long-term contracts; we probably have as good a long-term contract as any country in the world with Norway, from whom we receive 20 per cent of our supply, managed by Shell, the former company of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh—and a marvellous job it does as well. My own view is that we have a very significant secure supply.
Let us look at the matter of storage. Yes, we have given planning permission to various endeavours, but at the moment the cost of storing gas is significantly higher than the price of storing oil, so not unsurprisingly people are giving due consideration to the commercial viability of this project. Of course, part of the thing that we must do in government is to weigh up the pros and cons and absolutely ensure that the nation has security of supply, which is fundamental to all Governments, and to be able to gauge that. We have not had a greater opportunity to gauge that than the unfortunate months of November and December last year, which were beyond record for bad weather, when we came through with flying colours. There were certain countries—and we shall not mention the names—that did not do so. Given the tests that we have had, we have come through with flying colours.
We should not be complacent, of course. That is why we have acted swiftly to engage in planning permission and to make it much easier for big infrastructure projects to be authorised quickly. But we cannot sit in government and insist that certain things are going to be carried out unless they have gone through proper consultation. In many ways, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, gave me the answer to the question posed by his excellent amendment. Ofgem is already considering our requirements and carrying out a significant code review consultation, which will be produced at the end of February, on the resilience of our gas energy supply. It would be right for us to take on board what Ofgem has to say, to review it and then carry out what powers are necessary to ensure that, if there are areas that need to be dealt, the Government deal with them.
I hope that that sets the scene for the current gas supply situation. I hope that it answers a number of the excellent questions that noble Lords have asked and allows my noble friend Lord Jenkin to withdraw his amendment.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Perhaps the Minister could answer two questions. First, could he give us the number of billion cubic metres we have in storage at present? Secondly, am I right in saying that the effect of the amendment would be permissive rather than prescriptive? If it is only permissive, why not include it?
Lord Marland
I thought that I answered the question on the storage available. I do not know precisely what amount is in storage as of today, but we have capacity for 4.6 billion cubic metres with another billion cubic metres of capacity in construction.
As for enablement, it is not for the Government to be too prescriptive. Already, in months, 25 per cent of gas storage is under construction. Already, we have tested that against difficult winter conditions. Already, we have found that it is satisfactory. As I mentioned, Ofgem is carrying out the review, so it would be wrong at this point in proceedings to pronounce on findings that might be different from those of the Government or us in this Room. We should listen to what it has to say, take it on board, and perhaps use powers available to us.
Let us not underestimate the difficulties. The noble Lord referred to Gateway, a company with which I am familiar. Its issue has been one of planning. The problem has been in Lancashire, if my memory serves me right. There is nothing that we in government can do about that if the local authority does not determine that it is the right thing to have.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Could I just follow up the Minister’s point about the work that Ofgem is doing? I thought I understood him to say—perhaps he did not—that if it came to the conclusion that the UK needed more gas storage as part of its studies, action would be taken. Does that mean to say that its findings could come in time to make an amendment to the Bill? That could be important. My second question about the Ofgem inquiry is: is he willing to make sure that Ofgem is brought quickly up to date with this debate, so that it can take it into account in its study?
Lord Marland
The noble Lord makes a point. Of course Ofgem will be brought up to speed with what we are doing. I do not think that its review will have drawn the conclusions that we want by the time we have finished the Bill. There is some presupposing that people are sitting in knowledge. I have heard many different suggestions in this Room already today about how much we have or do not have in storage, and about what we should or should not have. It is up to the Government to look carefully at the facts and accelerate procedures where we think that should be done, as we have already done by 25 per cent—and we have been in government for only nine months; maybe a bit longer now. We have a level of comfort that is correct—not just in our own judgment; a whole range of sources tell us that we have it correct. The previous Government felt that it was the correct figure. If the information that results from the review shows us that we need to enact, we will. Ofgem itself has existing powers to modify licences and introduce new licence requirements, and may well do it itself. Of course this is very much a subject for debate, evaluation and continuing process, and I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, few movers of an amendment such as this could have had such powerful supporters as the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill, Lord Hannay and Lord Oxburgh. I feel greatly reinforced by the strength of the case which they have made. It would not be wholly unfair if I said that I was a little disappointed by the Minister’s reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked whether it would be open to Ofgem in its consultation to come forward with a proposal which said, “Yes, all right, we will strengthen the balancing mechanism but we also think that there is a case for increasing the amount of storage and that this will require some further measures”. That was a critical question, and I am not sure that I understood the answer.
We are talking about future demand and supply over a number of years. I have been provided with a chart, compiled by a consultant, which draws on all the various forecasts of demand for gas. If one looks ahead up to 2025, which is after all only 15 years ahead, one sees that the forecasts vary from a reduction in demand to three-quarters of the present level to an increase of a quarter. Those are huge variations, reflecting the uncertainty with which we are confronted when dealing with supply. We have tended to talk about supply, but the balancing mechanism is essentially a balance between supply and demand. If there is such a wide variation in the estimates made by experts—people who know what they are talking about—we should take that into consideration.
Yes, it is true that we have an indigenous supply, which is why our figure would, for the moment, be lower than that in our neighbouring countries—as I indicated in my opening speech. There may also be another Buzzard-type discovery in the North Sea. A recent discovery of gas quite close offshore certainly helped supply here. However, we must be cautious about what we say after the past two winters. Everybody has recognised that the electricity supply has been quite seriously affected by the recession and that the point at which we reach concern has therefore moved three or four years further forward. Why is that not the same for gas? We got through these last winters because there was a considerable measure of operating below capacity, which I hope will not continue. So here is another element of uncertainty.
We need to give more consideration to these matters. I shall certainly discuss what the Minister has said with those who have advised me. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right and that we will get the Ofgem report before we reach the Report stage of this Bill—it looks a little less likely than it did before the weekend, but it is a possibility. We have another energy Bill coming up, which will affect among other things energy prices and the powers of Ofgem, so we may have another opportunity. I shall reflect; I hope that the Minister will do so, too. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Accidental petroleum releases: verification of financial costs
After section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998 insert—
“3A Accidental petroleum releases: verification of financial costs
(1) At the time of applying for a licence under section 3, the applicant must provide the Secretary of State with information showing that the applicant has sufficient funds to compensate any damage caused, or loss suffered, as a result of petroleum being accidentally released during the operation of that licence.
(2) The information provided in subsection (1) must be approved as a true and accurate record of the financial affairs of that person by an independent and qualified auditor and must meet any other standards specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations, in particular, to provide for the type of financial and supporting information to be provided under subsection (1).
(4) Before issuing a licence under section 3, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—
(a) the applicant has provided a complete and accurate record of information required by this Act and any regulations made under this Act; and (b) on reviewing that information, the applicant has sufficient funds to compensate for any damage caused, or loss suffered, as a result of petroleum being accidentally released during the operation of the licence.””
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I put this forward as a probing amendment to clarify the issue of liability in the event of an oil spill. There are two triggers for the amendment. The first is the group of clauses that we are coming on to discuss and the second is the debate that we had thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, towards the end of last year on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It was while researching for that debate that I thought more about the issues of liability if we had a spill in this country. I understand that with the Deepwater Horizon spill the costs are huge—around $20 billion and still counting. I am not clear on the issues of liability in this country, which is an area of concern. This seems an opportune moment to raise it during our proceedings on the Bill.
There is a two-pronged approach to this. First, there are technical ways in which to do everything that we can to avoid such a spill. Secondly, we could have an insurance policy in case a spill was to occur. That is the reason for proposing this amendment. At the moment, should there be a significant oil spill, the costs would fall on the taxpayer. Would that be at a national or a local authority level? This amendment seeks increased liability cover to be required before drilling in the UK. The recent report from the Energy and Climate Change Committee in the other place dealt with this issue and highlighted liability as an area that needed significant improvement to protect the taxpayer. The financial requirements currently placed on the industry are under the offshore pollution liability agreement, but my understanding is that they are quite weak. A significant oil spill would leave taxpayers disadvantaged, because they would face potentially huge costs in order to clear a major spill from the ocean off our shores.
In proposing this amendment, we want the Government to ensure that any new offshore drilling licence is granted only when the licensee has proved its ability to meet the full costs to address the direct and indirect consequences of an accidental release of oil that occurred as a result of any operations on the UK continental shelf. The Government should also ensure that compulsory third-party insurance cover is obtained for all small exploration and production involved in drilling operations in the UKCS. When we discussed this issue before, the Minister was content that the current arrangements for monitoring in the UK were perfectly adequate. Indeed, we have some of the toughest regulations and inspections in the world, but the HSE has warned about the increase in the number of serious accidents and spills. It has said that the industry’s performance is not good enough and has urged it to up its game.
The monitoring and regulations that we have in place are significantly better than those that existed in the US at the time of Deepwater Horizon. However, I was concerned that the department’s evidence to the committee confirmed that just one inspection of a deepwater rig will take place in 2010-11. I appreciate that the Government will be vigilant, but we need some clarification on the costs and who would be responsible.
There are technical improvements that the Government could undertake. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the issues surrounding blow-out preventers and how they could be improved. Obligations might be placed on companies installing such rigs to have significantly improved blow-out preventers, doing everything that they could to prevent a blow-out and an oil spill. However, in case there was an oil spill, it would be helpful for some clarification as to where responsibility lies and whether measures could be taken via insurance on the licensees, as indicated in my amendment. Could the Minister consider that?
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, raises some interesting points with her amendment but I wonder if its terms are quite right. She is asking for an ascertainment of financial capability at the time of the granting of a licence. However, if a requirement is to be imposed, it needs to be a continuous obligation—that is, something that is tested at regular intervals. A licence is granted at one point in time but a spill may occur many years later, when the financial position of a company is quite different.
Secondly, it is not so much a question of whether the applicant has sufficient funds, but of whether it has access to funds via insurance. It is probably much easier to demonstrate that there is adequate insurance to cover what might reasonably be expected to follow than to look at a company’s balance sheet. I also say to the noble Baroness, wearing my accountant’s anorak, that auditors do not certify things as being “true and accurate”. Doubtless if this amendment found favour with the Minister the correct wording could be formulated.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness; her contribution was extremely helpful. Certainly, it was not the intention that the time of applying for a licence should be the only time when financial capability was assessed. The insertion somewhere in the wording of “continuous” would be extremely helpful, as is her point about access to funds via insurance. The contrast I was trying to draw was with the Government’s policy on the nuclear industry. Currently it is the Government’s policy that a nuclear power company would have to be responsible for all the costs of decommissioning for some time—indeed, for the foreseeable future. In our previous debate we talked about 100 years or so. It seemed that equal responsibility should be taken by oil companies. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestions.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, I was not going to intervene on this, but I have just watched, at some length, the follow-up proceedings in Congress on the first presidential commission report on the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, which was published several weeks ago. Most of the cross-examination on this issue highlighted the fact that caution should be the order of the day in assessing the level of cover that an operator would require. Caution is needed because there is a massive difference between the majors and the independents. The representatives of the commission, when cross-examined in the last few days, highlighted the fact that they had not had the opportunity to discuss this issue, which is a valid and important one to raise. I welcome the fact that an amendment has been tabled so that we can consider it. However, the representatives had not had an opportunity to sit down with the insurance industry to look in detail at the exposure—the level of cover required—and the impact on the industry as a whole.
We in this country have a proud and, in my view, wise policy of encouraging independents to come on to licences alongside the majors to add further expertise and bring additional value to the table on safety, drilling expertise and well knowledge. I would be cautious about taking too much of a blanket approach to this at the moment—one which did not take into account the exposure that was being sought by the noble Baroness for different licence-holders and different companies on the same licence. The direction of travel in which she is heading is one that the industry will need to follow. This will inevitably be a major issue as the industry moves forward, both in the United States and elsewhere. It is a subject that will require detailed consideration between government, the industry and the insurers to come up with the best possible method of moving forward to ensure that, on the one hand, there is cover but, on the other, we do not end up with just a handful of majors and lose the independent sector. It has contributed so much to the development of the North Sea and has a commitment to safety that is as great as that of anybody else operating there. That is my only word of caution.
This is a highly complex area, which needs a good deal of further reflection, but I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness has brought this to the Committee. It is an important issue and she knows my interest in the subject. I hope the Minister responds equally positively about the importance of this issue and of continuing discussions between the Government, the insurance industry and the operators—and not just the operators but the drillers—to make sure that there is appropriate cover, but that cover is not required to the point at which we lose a significant section of the industry, which so far has contributed greatly to the development of the North Sea.
Lord Marland
My Lords, this is an excellent amendment and the Government are entirely in agreement with its broad principles. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his comment as a practitioner in this field. I should preface any remarks that I make with a reminder that, in my former life, I spent most of my time trying to sell insurance to oil companies and to make myself even richer, so I was all in favour of them buying as much insurance as possible. However, in my current role, I see that a balance has to be struck and that I was wrong at the time—or only partly right. My shareholders thought that I was right.
The Government are in full agreement on this. We have seen the Select Committee’s recommendations and we are evaluating them at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, makes the point that we must not rush into this or have knee-jerk reactions. Of course, when the Government issue licences, a fundamental part of that is that the company awarded the licence becomes a member of the Offshore Pollution Liability Association; it has to purchase £250 million of cover and it then goes into a pool that offers greater cover. This pooling arrangement is fairly unique and it gives us a number of solid assurances. There are two imponderables that need evaluation. One is the quality of insurance cover. Obviously, if the insurance provider is not of A-graded quality, particularly with a longer-term liability situation, that would be a concern. That needs looking at rigorously. Then there is the matter of the quantum.
Two things are going on, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. The first is the inquiry that is happening in the United States. We would not want to prejudge what is happening in that inquiry, which we want to evaluate. Also, we want to evaluate the Select Committee’s comments, which are valid. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the Government take this matter seriously. She has been persuasive in taking an important line. It is very much in the country’s interest that the subject of pollution should be managed very carefully indeed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his expression of support and agreement with the intention of my amendment. I am not quite sure what he means by knee-jerk reaction and rushing into this. As new licences are being issued for drilling, probably as we speak, this is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed with some urgency, although I take on board entirely the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I understand from the Minister’s comments that the Government are looking at this matter and that we will return to it. With that information, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, to be helpful to the Minister, I was able to give him advance notice of the kind of questions that I wanted to ask about this clause. I am grateful that, earlier today, someone from his department e-mailed me, although I have not had a chance to look through those responses in detail. It would be helpful to raise some of these issues in Committee and to hear his responses.
I feel that there is a lack of clarity about why this chapter is coming forward at this time. It is entirely appropriate—indeed desirable—that the Government move to consolidate the four pieces of legislation that currently exist in this area. That is helpful to the industry and to government. In consolidating, these clauses go a little further than the existing legislation. That is the area on which I seek clarification.
I understand that in the future, where there is a dispute about a third-party operator seeking access to upstream petroleum infrastructure, the Government will seek commercial agreement. These clauses provide for the Government to seek to resolve the issue. Their role almost seems to be that of an arbiter, though it seems stronger than that.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this chapter is designed to replace the current legislation on third-party access to upstream petroleum infrastructure. Perhaps I can further clarify what information the noble Baroness has already received; she obviously has a good grasp of what this section seeks to do. It relates to access to offshore pipelines, platforms and processing facilities and to the onshore terminals and pipelines to which they connect. The existing provision, which in part dates back to 1975, has grown piecemeal. As the noble Baroness said, it is scattered over four Acts of Parliament. The procedures are not fully consistent; the definitions are not well aligned and some kinds of facilities are not explicitly covered, which is why the provision needed to be updated.
The need for third-party access is increasingly important. This is the significant point. Even after four decades of exploitation, there are 20 billion barrels or more that might still be produced from the UK continental shelf. The remaining pockets of oil and gas are typically individually small. Many are not large enough to justify dedicated pipelines or processing facilities. Economic development of these discoveries will increasingly depend on getting timely access to existing pipelines—where these have spare capacity—and on getting reasonable terms for that access. This is the kind of shift that helps to explain why this has been brought about. The time is therefore right to overhaul the existing legislation and to make sure that it is fit for purpose in this situation.
Of course, dispute resolution should not be a routine process. Third-party access can be and in the overwhelming majority of cases has been, as the noble Baroness acknowledges, agreed amicably between the parties involved. We have every intention that this should remain the case. We are fully engaged in and fully support the industry’s work to develop its own voluntary code of practice for infrastructure access. Disputes will nevertheless happen and negotiations will from time to time break down, so it is necessary that the Government should have the means of resolving an impasse where it occurs. This chapter therefore re-enacts the existing legislation, but as a unified process that has full coverage of all relevant pipelines, platforms and terminals.
Clause 78 sets out the basic procedure for resolution of disputes about access. It specifies the scope of the procedure—that is, the pipelines and other facilities to which it applies; the right of a person seeking such access to apply to the Secretary of State for the rights if unable to secure them by negotiation; the procedure that is to be followed; certain matters that are to be taken into account; and appropriate safeguards for the interests of the owners and others with existing rights. Finally, subject to that procedure and the safeguards, it sets out the powers of the Secretary of State to issue a notice granting appropriate rights to the applicant.
These provisions make two key changes. First, the current legislation provides a safeguard for the reasonable requirements of the owners for transport or processing of oil and gas and for the entitlements of other users who already have rights to the infrastructure for transport or processing. The Secretary of State must be satisfied, before making an access notice, that doing so will not prejudice these requirements or rights. In general principle, this is clearly right but, on reflection, we think that an unqualified requirement on this point will prove unduly restrictive. There will be circumstances in which introducing a third party into an existing facility will reduce, at least temporarily, the capacity available to others. If nothing else, the making of a physical connection is required, which entails a risk of interruption to operations.
We think it desirable that the Secretary of State should have a similar flexibility in determining terms for access. Accordingly, we have qualified the safeguard provision for existing capacity requirements or rights so that such rights and requirements can be effected, provided that suitable compensation is available to the affected users. The other innovation is that the access notice has effect only if accepted by the applicant within a defined time. This meets a concern that has been raised in discussion with the industry. We think that it will provide a helpful degree of clarity for all involved.
The noble Baroness made reference to this being left to the market. I emphasise that the market model applies to the Green Deal, and we are moving on to another part of the Bill here. I hope that she can see the case that is being made for why, in these circumstances, these measures need to be taken forward.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving a detailed explanation, although I am not really sure that she understood fully the points that I made. I apologise if there was not enough clarity in what I said. I have asked that a copy of the brief that was e-mailed to me today by her department should be given to her as well. I shall make sure that she receives that.
We have heard so many times about what the market mechanism will provide under the Green Deal. Previously, in this area of policy, it has been more about the commercial arrangement than market mechanisms, but the Government seek to alter that—as I understand it, on the basis of one case in which the Secretary of State has been asked to intervene. Is this an appropriate way in which to progress? Although the Secretary of State has been asked to intervene, the new clause gives the Secretary of State powers to seek information on how negotiations are going and then to issue a notice granting rights. I am concerned that the Government feel that they could be acting on behalf of one of the participants in a commercial arrangement. I am not sure that that is prevented from happening in the clauses we are discussing.
I am happy for the noble Baroness to take this away and come back to me on this matter. There was another point that she did not address. Some companies have put it to me that such a clause, whereby there can be direct intervention by the Secretary of State in what was a commercial arrangement, could impact on the investments of those companies in the industry. That is quite a serious matter, and I asked whether there had been any discussions with the industry on investment. I appreciate that she does not have the information to hand, but if she could let me know it would be very helpful.
Lord Teverson
I like this part of the Bill. Good questions have come from the noble Baroness, which we would not have dealt with in Committee otherwise. First, as the Minister says, these provisions give the opportunity for small oilfields to be exploited when the infrastructure and investment in that would not otherwise allow that at all. Secondly, to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—although he is not in his place—it must make it possible for smaller, independent oil companies to exploit those opportunities, which would not otherwise be there if there was no sharing. The pipelines that are already there are in a certain way a ransom strip. They are a monopoly of a facility that has been invested in, rightly, by those organisations, but they give undue leverage to those organisations. Also, the fact that this legislation is here means that commercial deals will almost certainly be done, whereas they might not be if it was not here. So this is a good clause in the Bill.
Baroness Northover
I welcome what my noble friend Lord Teverson has said. I note several things in relation to what the noble Baroness said. I point out that the briefing, which I hope she received all of, says that, while there are understandable differences of view—infrastructure owners are wary of change, but potential users are often strongly in favour—the industry is broadly speaking supportive of the case for change. On the point of whether the Government should be involved in something like this or whether it should simply be left to commercial negotiations, EU law requires the provision of a dispute resolution procedure for access to upstream gas pipelines.
My noble friend Lord Teverson pointed out that we have a responsibility as the UK Government to ensure that these resources are accessible. The fact that they are, as I have mentioned, in smaller pockets and may need that kind of sharing of infrastructure makes it even more important now that this is addressed. That is why that is being done: it is in the national interest that it is done and not simply left to market forces to resolve in these circumstances. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will feel that I have adequately addressed the issues that she has raised. If she remains concerned, we can have further discussions. In the mean time, I hope she is happy for this clause to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who has sought to address my concerns. I have had a note from the officials to say that there are many legal complexities around this. On that basis, I am happy to discuss further—that would be helpful for my peace of mind and in understanding why certain provisions have come forward in the way that they have. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that offer.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“( ) In the application of section 157(2), insert “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and omit paragraph (b).”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am conscious that we are nearing the usual time for the Committee to adjourn so I will try to be brief. I just make a point by way of introduction. Nobody reading this amendment could have a clue what it was about. The reason for that is that it is a striking example of the Bill adopting the process of legislation by reference to earlier Bills. I am sorry my noble friend Lord Marland is not here. I have raised this matter with the Law Commission because the gas and electricity Acts are now virtually indecipherable; it is impossible to find one’s way around them. It is high time that there was a consolidation. Having said that, I will move on.
The real problem that the amendment addresses is that one of the provisions of the Energy Act 2004 that is being applied to this Bill is Section 157. Section 157(2) established three grounds on which an energy supply company can be put into administration. One is that the company is unable to pay its debts. Another is that it would be just and equitable, under Section 124A of the Insolvency Act, to wind up the company in the public interest—for instance to stop fraud or criminal activity. The third ground—this is what the amendment is about—is that the court must be satisfied that the company is likely to be unable to pay its debts. The 2004 Act applied to network companies; this Bill would apply it to supply companies. My amendment would delete that third ground—of a company being likely to be unable to pay its debts—for administration as it would apply to supply companies.
To put it in layman’s terms, this means that the petitioner for a special administration order must be able to convince the court that, while the company in question is currently quite solvent, it is at risk of becoming insolvent, perhaps because the scale of liabilities that it faces looks excessive in relation to the foreseeable value of its assets. How far ahead? It is a very uncertain test. The reason for the third test was that it enabled a company’s directors, who after all should have the best view of the likely future circumstances, to apply for insolvency administration. That cannot possibly apply here because the only people who can apply for administration under this Bill are the Minister or Ofgem. The directors cannot do so.
There is another reason why the test should not apply here. Those who followed closely the tangled affairs of Railtrack in 2001 can recognise that it is open to political abuse. I do not propose to go into the long and tangled story, which was reported the other day in the Times, but it was the very looseness of test, which was in reality just a call by an accountant, that enabled the Government of the day to put Railtrack into special administration, even though the company was at the time solvent. It was only on the basis of cash flow projections over a lengthy future period that the Government could proceed.
A test that requires that kind of assessment to be made is quite different from the other two tests. It is inherently inappropriate, particularly here where we are dealing with energy supply companies which are operating in volatile, competitive markets. It is made doubly inappropriate by the fact that the tests can be abused for political purposes.
My amendment would simply remove that test altogether as it would apply to energy suppliers. My noble friend may have better ways of doing this, but I do not think that that test is appropriate in such a case as we have here, where only Ofgem or the Secretary of State—not the directors of a company—are able to use it and where it would be inherently very difficult to apply. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I served on the Committee that produced the 2004 Act. It went on at least twice as long as we are destined to do. The noble Lord indicated that he has found a slight impediment in that Act. All I can say is that I did not see it at the time and I do not understand it now, so good luck to the Minister.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I must say that I am incredibly impressed at the thoroughness with which my noble friend Lord Jenkin has read this Bill and that I hope that he very much liked Clause 78, which indeed consolidated and hopefully improved existing provisions.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I had intended to say just that, because I was checking the Bill and saw that, indeed, the earlier clauses had been repealed.
Baroness Northover
The clauses on special administration in the Bill largely follow the tests and procedures for ordinary administration laid down in the Insolvency Act 1986. If a party applies to the court for an ordinary administration order, the court may grant it if it is satisfied that a company is unable to pay its debts or is unlikely to be able to pay them. Administration under the Insolvency Act 1986 is a business rescue procedure with the survival of the company as its primary objective. If entry to administration were available only to a company that could not pay its debts at the date of commencement, the rescue of viable businesses might be jeopardised. For this reason, administration can be entered also when a company is likely to become unable to pay its debts. The provisions in the Bill apply these same principles to energy supply company administration. They follow the same tests for insolvency as the Insolvency Act. My noble friend’s amendment would require the court to apply a stricter test for insolvency when considering applications for energy supply company administration than it does for applications for ordinary administration.
I make it clear that the Secretary of State would apply for an energy supply company administration order only as a last resort and to prevent the risk of financial failure spreading to other companies. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that we are seeking simply to keep the procedure in line with that which applies elsewhere for other companies. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s explanation, but I have to say that I do not think that she has taken account of what I said. Under the Insolvency Act, which introduces this third test, the directors of a company can apply to put the company into administration. After all, they are the ones who are best able to decide whether the company is likely to be unable to pay its debts in the future. In this case, that does not apply. The directors are forbidden to do it; only the Secretary of State or Ofgem can make the call. I see that my noble friend has been given an explanation. It would nice if the Committee could hear it, too.
Baroness Northover
It is amazing what enlightenments can come when one listens to one’s noble friends. Funnily enough, I have come to this conclusion: the Secretary of State will no doubt wish to discuss any application for an energy supply company administration order with company directors in advance. Directors will be able to contest the application in court. However, enshrining a duty to consult directors in the legislation could lead to delay. The Secretary of State needs the flexibility to act quickly if the company’s position is posing a threat to the rest of the market. When we see what has happened recently in other areas, we realise why this is extremely important. I hope that that helps to elucidate why this is in this provision.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My noble friend has made a persuasive case and I am grateful to her. This has caused anxiety, particularly in the light of the Railtrack case. However, having heard her, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday 8 February.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness King of Bow
Introduction: Baroness Randerson
Introduction: Lord Noon
Airports: Heathrow
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gavron
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the impact on the economy of delays and cancellations at London Heathrow Airport in December 2010.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the department is considering the economic impact of the delays and cancellations at London Heathrow Airport in December. The number of terminal passengers travelling through Heathrow in December 2010 was down by around 10 per cent compared with 2009, mainly due to severe weather disruption. As a result some UK firms might have lost revenue, although there is currently no basis for quantifying this. In some cases firms might have mitigated impacts, for example through video conferencing.
Lord Gavron
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The Spanish owners of Heathrow borrowed the money to buy it, thus leaving themselves too impoverished to invest in the infrastructure necessary for a reliable service to passengers in difficult weather conditions. This is confirmed by the Financial Times of 21 December. Do the Government think that so many of our key national institutions should be available to anyone, from anywhere, who can borrow the money to buy them?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point about the importance of transport infrastructure to our economy. That is why we are continuing to invest in our infrastructure despite the economic situation. As for the ownership of BAA, there was an agreement with airlines about the level of residence to be provided this winter. However, 16 centimetres of snow in one hour far exceeded the agreed provision. I am not sure that ownership is relevant.
I have to apologise to the House, as last week I said that Heathrow had 24 aircraft stands with snowbound aircraft on them. I should have said that there were 200 such stands.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, given the economic and social importance of Heathrow, and indeed of Gatwick, after further consideration will my noble friend invite the Government to commission an independent inquiry into the resources and processes at Heathrow and Gatwick for handling snow and ice compared with those at New York and Boston, and then agree to publish the result?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord said today and last week. The Civil Aviation Authority is taking forward work to understand more fully the impact of disruption on passengers to help to inform a decision on whether regulatory change is needed to balance the cost of disruption to passengers and business against the cost of dealing with severe weather.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, if the owners have no money, surely ownership is very relevant.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is not relevant. Heathrow experienced 16 centimetres of snow in one hour. It does not matter who owns it; the airport will come to a stop in those circumstances.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that Heathrow was actually purchased by the Spanish company under the previous Government, so the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gavron, should really focus on lessons to be learnt rather than on encouraging people to think that we were responsible?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last Government also placed 51 per cent of the shares of National Air Traffic Services in the hands of the public through the Government? The Government are contemplating privatising NATS. Would he assure the British public that it will not fall into foreign ownership?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I look forward to answering a Question about NATS in due course.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a bad situation last year was made infinitely worse by the seeming inability of the airport operator and the airlines to give passengers adequate information that was not contradictory? Have the Government looked at the matter and at who should be giving information?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right; we touched on this last week as well. There are two reviews. One was commissioned by BAA. The other will come from the South East Airports taskforce. No doubt both reviews will consider that very important point and come back with suggestions on how we can avoid the problems in future.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, last week the noble Lord indicated that these reviews were taking place, but did not indicate the degree of urgency. It is 31 January and there is still plenty of winter to come. When will these reports be published and when will any action based on them be taken?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the reports will come in due course. However, if there are any lessons to be taken on board immediately, we will listen and take action on those points.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, is it not rather ridiculous to try to turn this into an argument about public versus private? The motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh was closed for two days, yet as far as I know has not been privatised. Is not the real issue whether we will have winters like this on a regular basis, and whether we need to invest in our infrastructure—our roads, our airports and the rest—to prevent our country from looking ridiculous in the eyes of the rest of the world?
Earl Attlee
My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked Sir John Beddington to give us some scientific data on how likely it is that we will experience such severe winters in future.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I declare an interest as the president of BALPA. Is it not obvious, without any inquiry, that there are serious disadvantages in on-stand de-icing, including leaving parking stands awash with fluid overspray that could lead to serious health and safety risks? Is there not a real lack of de-icing rigs? Will the Government make a statement about that?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is important to understand that there are two areas of responsibility. BAA is responsible for keeping the runways and taxiways clear, but the airlines are responsible for de-icing the aircraft. I asked about the environmental impact of the de-icing fluid, which is a glycol-based chemical. I was advised that the de-icers are intercepted and the effluent is reprocessed.
Employment Law
Baroness Turner of Camden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to revise employment law; and, if so, what consultations have been undertaken, and with which organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is leading a review of employment laws to ensure that we maximise flexibility for employers while protecting fairness for employees and provide the competitive environment required for enterprise to thrive. This is a rolling programme over the length of the Parliament, and individual departments are engaging with representatives of employer and employee groups. As part of this, last Thursday we announced a consultation on reforming the employment tribunal system, which followed discussion with a range of stakeholders including the CBI, the TUC and the British Chambers of Commerce. This consultation will last until 20 April 2011.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response, but the Business Secretary last week announced a revision of employment law to make it easier for employers to dismiss people and more difficult for employees to allege unfair dismissal and to refer cases to a tribunal. Indeed, it will be impossible to seek redress unless the employment has lasted for two years or more. In other words, that will apply to a large section of the workforce. This is at a time when many working people are already concerned about employment and their future prospects. What does the Business Secretary think he is doing? Surely he should be doing everything possible to keep people in employment rather than on benefits.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, we have announced that we are considering increasing from one year to two years’ service the qualifying period before an employee can claim for unfair dismissal. This change, if implemented, would return the law to as it was until 1999. We believe that this is fair to employees and employers. It is fair to employers, because it gives businesses the confidence to take on staff that they may not have employed otherwise, particularly in small and medium-sized companies. It will also encourage employees to have a longer time to prove that they are the right person for the job and a longer time to prove their skills, and we hope that fewer and fewer cases will finish up in the courts. We feel that this is a good move and we hope that the Opposition will help us to develop it through the consultation period, which will last until 20 April.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, is the Minister aware that someone is trying to set up an all-party micro-business group? Is it not a fact that in order for this economy to recover, lots of little businesses need to be set up and to develop? They, above all, need to have these extra consultations—I speak after 20 years of sitting on an employment tribunal—and to be able more easily to establish themselves and provide the jobs that we all think are so necessary.
Baroness Wilcox
I thank my noble friend for that encouraging question. We are hoping to achieve earlier resolutions to workplace disputes so that both parties can resolve their problems in a way that is fair and equitable for both sides without having to go to an employment tribunal. We want to ensure, when parties need to come to an employment tribunal, that the process is as swift, user friendly and effective as possible. We hope very much indeed that we will be able to use ACAS more and more, and we are consulting with it at the moment.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that extending from one year to two the period for which one must be in employment in order to claim for unfair dismissal in the industrial employment tribunals would represent a serious reduction in employee rights, which have been developed over the years? As she rightly said, the legislation has been there since 1999, due of course to the efforts of the Labour Government at that time to ensure that where there is inequity between the power of the employee and the power of the employer, fairness should be achieved through the work of the employment tribunals.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, we really feel that this will be a better way of going forward for both sides. What we are looking for here is flexibility for businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, to give them confidence, and fairness for employees. We hope and we know that the so-called “day one rights” will stay in place. The proposals will not affect the existing “day one rights” of people when they start to bring a case for unfair dismissal; for example, when they believe that gender, race or some other form of discrimination has taken place, or where someone is dismissed for exercising their legal rights, such as asking for a written statement or to be paid the national minimum wage. The proposals relate to the areas where we do not wish people to rush first to a tribunal. If the qualifying period is only one year, it means that everything starts to happen too quickly. I know through my business experience people who have come to work with no experience. It takes them a while to get used to the job, and extending the time will make the employer and employees take a better look at each other and see whether they can keep themselves together, rather than rushing to tribunals and not going to ACAS first.
Lord Newby
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proportion of employment tribunal claims involving employees who have been working for between one and two years is very small indeed—well under 5 per cent—whereas the impact of the Government’s changes will, at this particularly crucial point, encourage employers across the country, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, to take on additional staff?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I believe that not to be so. We hope to put in place all sorts of measures to ensure that employers behave as they should. The consultation period should be open to as many people as possible. We hope that many will take the opportunity to help us to ensure that we get this legislation correct.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, is the Minister really saying that it will take more than a year for an employer to assess whether an employee is suitable in their employment?
Baroness Wilcox
I heard a voice from behind me. I apologise. Would the noble Lord mind repeating his question?
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, is the Minister really saying that it takes more than a year for an employer to assess whether an employee is suitable in their employment? Does she agree that part of the problem, and the reason why there are so many employment tribunals, is the lack of knowledge and application of current employment laws?
Baroness Wilcox
I shall be careful how I answer the noble Lord because, just a little while ago, he was standing where I am standing. I think we are on the right track with this. We have so much evidence that small businesses in particular are not employing people. They are not growing as they should and they are afraid of taking on people and having to go to tribunals. All in all, I think this is the right way to go forward.
Monetary Policy Committee
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Monetary Policy Committee missing its monthly inflation target repeatedly over the last 10 years.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the UK’s monetary policy framework gives operational responsibility for maintaining price stability to the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. Although the rate of inflation has increased over the past months, the committee’s view is that inflation is likely to fall back to target during 2012, as the impact of temporary factors wanes, but the timing and extent of that decline in inflation are uncertain due to the margin of spare capacity in the economy.
Lord Myners
My Lords, in the final quarter of last year, we saw a reduction in GDP of 0.5 per cent, which is the thickening of a trend back towards recession, a trend that the UK alone is experiencing. Economic output is now at the same level as in the first quarter of 2008, and output is running 8 per cent below trend growth rates. Real incomes are being squeezed. The Governor of the Bank of England has forecast that they will be back to the level of 2005. House prices are falling and unemployment is rising. I put it to the Minister—
Lord Myners
Members on the other side do not like these economic facts and it is not surprising that they react as they do. I put it to the Minister that the Bank of England is having to take risks on inflation because of the severe cuts in economic activity consequent upon the Government’s reckless fiscal policy.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, that was a nice long lecture. I think there was a question at the end of it. It is precisely because the Government took resolute and early action to restore the fiscal position to one that pulls us back from the brink of the disaster which the previous Government left us with that the Bank of England can conduct monetary policy on a prudent basis and, as I said in my earlier Answer, all forecasters that I know of are forecasting that inflation is likely to come back towards the target range.
Lord Barnett
As the Minister appears to agree with the Chancellor on almost everything, does he agree with the Governor and the majority of the members of the MPC that the interest rate should be kept at its present level?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I will not fall into the trap of second-guessing the MPC. As I have said, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England runs monetary policy on an independent basis. That was an establishment of the previous Government to which I pay tribute. I am certainly not going to do anything other than restate the critical importance of the independence of the Monetary Policy Committee. It is up to the committee to decide how to hit the inflation target, which it is doing with the full confidence of the Government.
Lord Newby
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the principal reason for having an inflation target was to bear down on domestic demand inflation, particularly wage inflation? Would he further agree that at the moment such pressure does not exist—wages are flat—and therefore it would be a mistake to put interest rates up primarily in response to external factors?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because, while again I will resist the temptation to second-guess the Bank of England, it has indeed attributed the recent rise in inflation, which has been significantly to the depreciation of sterling, to the increase in VAT which the last Government put in place and to the rise in energy prices. These are external factors.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, the noble Lord in his Answer earlier referred to temporary factors accelerating inflation and reducing the living standards of the British people. Is not one of the most important temporary factors that are accelerating inflation through the rest of this year the increase in VAT to 20 per cent?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I absolutely did not refer to the reduction in anyone’s living standards. Absolutely at the heart of the Government’s response to the situation that we inherited is the need to get growth back into the economy, and we need fairness as we do it. That is why the Government are taking steps to take almost 900,000 people out of the tax net this April; that is why, under the coalition Government’s plans, 23 million taxpayers will be up to £170 better off next year than they would otherwise be; that is why we are reducing corporation tax from 28 to 24 per cent with other measures to make sure that we get the economy growing again.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government are nevertheless concerned about inflation? Does he recall the very wise words of the former Prime Minister the late Lord Callaghan, who reminded us in the 1970s that inflation is the father and mother of unemployment?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the Government are concerned about inflation. It eats into the savings of people who did all the right and prudent things through the last decade. We are concerned and are taking actions to make sure that the hard working and lower-income families in this country are protected in the current difficult economic circumstances.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the City correspondents seem to be briefed that the inflation increase is attributable significantly to employment incomes rising? In fact they are not rising because, according to the ONS, the statistics now include, for the first time, three public sector banks, which pay out about £25 billion to people. That has given the impression, incorrectly, that average workers in the public sector are getting an increase.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, forgive me but I did not quite follow the logic of all of that. All I can say is that, if we are talking about the City, the Treasury’s latest comparison of independent inflation forecasts from City and other commentators in mid-December shows that the City is forecasting inflation to come down to 1.8 per cent in 2012 and then to be steady at 2 per cent thereafter.
Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Crosby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements they have made for temporary exceptions to the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, this Government have made no arrangements for temporary exceptions to the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010. Section 8 of the Act permits the Secretary of State to grant authorisation for visiting forces of states not party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to possess cluster munitions on or transfer them through UK territory.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I thank my noble friend very much for that Answer and congratulate him on the fact that the UK was able to say that all cluster munitions had been removed from United Kingdom territory well within the deadline of December 2010. May I press just a moment further? Is the Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia part of the areas under British control? Will there be a removal of stockpiles from Diego Garcia by the target date of 2013?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am grateful to my noble friend for the good wishes. The whole House took an active part in seeing this cluster munitions legislation on to the statute book and I think we are all very proud that it has been adhered to very closely. The United States is actually ahead of schedule and has cleared all stockpiles of cluster munitions from all UK territories, including Diego Garcia. There is no problem there. The matter has already been completed. The deadline was 2013, but we are well ahead of schedule on that operation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, what progress are the Government making in getting other countries to sign up to the cluster munitions convention and the Dublin convention? Also, are they making progress in working out with industry a voluntary code; and, if not, in making it mandatory to prevent any British companies helping companies outside our jurisdiction to manufacture cluster munitions?
Lord Howell of Guildford
On the second point, a working group has been set up to work out the problem of remote financing to which the noble Lord rightly refers. Would he repeat his first point?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I asked what progress the Government are making in getting additional countries to sign up to the Dublin convention.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am so sorry; the noble Lord is quite right. Of course, a number of major countries have not signed, including the US, Russia, India, China and Pakistan. We are in regular touch with them at official level and are raising the matter with them all the time. Frankly, progress is not swift, but we have not relaxed our efforts to push for a complete, global ban on those horrific weapons, and we will continue to work very hard at all levels.
Lord Boateng
My Lords, the Minister will be well aware of the menace that unexploded cluster munitions present, not least to people going about their ordinary business, trying to farm their land and live life, often in extremely difficult circumstances. Will he join many of us in the House in commending the work of the HALO Trust, which does so much to remove mines and unexploded ordnance and therefore promote not just humanitarian relief but sustainable economic development? Will he ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development why that department, which has to date funded the work of the trust in both Angola and Somaliland, has now decided that those two countries are no longer priorities for mine clearance, when clearly they are?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I will certainly check out what the noble Lord says. My understanding is that considerable funds are still used to promote the excellent and incredibly valuable work of removing those horrible weapons from various areas where they lie around. I will look at the two items raised by the noble Lord and write to him about them.
Lord Chidgey
I thank my noble friend for the Answers that he gave me in December to Written Questions that I put to him on this very issue. Can he absolutely assure your Lordships that there will be no question ever again of cluster munitions being kept in British territories—offshore British territories, within coastal waters, or whatever? It may well benefit your Lordships if the records of the discussions that must have taken place to provide for the exceptions for the United States are placed in the Library so that we can see exactly what happened.
Lord Howell of Guildford
As my noble friend knows, the one exception was made very properly by the previous Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Mr Miliband, allowing the US a temporary extension of its right to keep cluster munitions while it went through the process of getting rid of them as part of the running down of cluster munitions stores in UK territory and in the United Kingdom. That is the only exception that has ever been made. For the future, we will consider bringing to Parliament and recording any decisions that may be proposed for temporary extension, and we will do that on a case-by-case basis. I have to say that in a number of instances it could be governed and limited by security considerations.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, do we retain some cluster munitions for the right purposes of training personnel in the detection and destruction of such appalling weapons? Do we export any weapons to foreign Governments for the purposes of training their personnel in detection and destruction of those weapons; and, if so, which countries do we export to for those purposes?
Lord Howell of Guildford
In this country we have destroyed 48 per cent of all cluster munitions weapons and intend to destroy the remaining 52 per cent well within the schedule—by 2013. As for the training and technology associated with their destruction and the necessary designs of equipment to destroy them, that continues. I cannot answer the noble Baroness precisely on whether there are export clients for this technology but if there are this would be a positive area where the more information we have in the rapid destruction of these weapons and the better the training we can press round the world for their destruction, the better off we all are.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, immediately after proceedings on the first group of amendments later today to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill—Amendments 94 and 94A—my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford will repeat a Statement on the situation in Egypt.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
“( ) The members appointed under paragraph 1(1)(c) constitute a committee of the Office to be known as the Non-executive Committee.”
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, we usefully teased out a number of issues on this Bill in Grand Committee, so I am pleased to be able to come back to the House with a number of amendments, of which this group is the first. Our amendments very much reflect a number of critical points that we discussed in Grand Committee.
Perhaps I should start with Amendment 4, on which Amendments 1 and 2 are essentially consequential. We are talking here about the independence of the OBR. Amendment 4 will formalise the role of the non-executive directors in reporting on the extent to which the OBR’s duty has been performed, in accordance with Clauses 5(1) and 5(2) of the Bill. To ensure the OBR’s credibility, it is important that the OBR is able to operate with the complete discretion provided for at Clause 5(1) and in line with the principles of Clause 5(2). Amendment 4 provides a mechanism for the non-executive directors to report on anything that they believe has prevented the OBR from carrying out its duty with complete discretion and “objectively, transparently and impartially”. Such a report will feature as part of the OBR’s annual report, which is to be laid before Parliament. For example, the non-execs might report on any interference with the preparation and publication of the OBR’s reports or any attempt to control the OBR through manipulating its budget.
Amendment 12 will remove the provision that states that the charter may include guidance on Clauses 5(2) and 5(3). That will address the particular concern raised in Grand Committee that the charter could be used to redefine the commonly used terms “objectively, transparently and impartially”. It is not the Government’s intention to subvert what these terms mean through the charter. The amendment will therefore remove the marker that strongly indicates that the charter will define what these terms mean.
Amendment 13 will change the process for amending the guidance in the charter. Concerns were raised in Committee that such modifications could be done too easily, which would again undermine the independence of the OBR. Amendment 13 requires the Treasury to publish any revisions to the guidance at least 28 days before the modified charter is laid before Parliament for approval in another place. This period of 28 days, which is consistent with the period used in other secondary legislation, will provide further opportunity for scrutiny of and comment on the guidance before it is voted on. If appropriate, the Government could respond to, or make changes in the light of, this scrutiny before the formal version is laid for approval.
Other safeguards remain in place. The charter is limited to considering the functions conferred on the OBR in the Bill and cannot add or distort them. The charter must also be approved by an affirmative resolution in another place before it comes into force.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, this is a rather heterogeneous group of amendments. In fact, the only common theme that I can see running through the amendments is that most of the ideas in them were proposed by the Opposition in Grand Committee. We are delighted that the Government have accepted many of the arguments made by this side concerning important failings in the Bill as originally introduced.
An essential difficulty with the structure of the OBR is that the OBR is to be both outside government and yet of government. The goal of the Bill is to make the OBR independent—a goal that we on this side fully support—yet, as the provider of the official forecast, the OBR is an essential part of policy-making and must be closely involved with the development and costing of government programmes. As the draft charter states,
“The Government will have full and timely access to information and assistance from the OBR”.
A very obvious manifestation of the resultant ambiguities is that the Treasury is planning to retain forecasting skills in order that Ministers may make informed judgments on the impact of various policies. As the noble Lord made clear in Committee, this may lead to the extraordinary situation in which the Treasury could reject the official forecast. Such paradoxes are the inevitable outcome of the peculiar, ambiguous status of the OBR.
Given this peculiar status, it has been the objective of this side of the House to reinforce the independence of the OBR wherever we might. After all, if there is not widespread confidence in that independence, the legislation will have failed. To that end, I am pleased that the Government have—in the form of Amendments 1, 2 and 4—accepted our argument that the non-executive members of the OBR should be given clear roles, including, most importantly, that of guardians of the independence of the OBR and, as we shall see in later amendments to be considered by the House, that of securing third-party monitoring of the OBR’s performance. We are pleased to support Amendments 1, 2 and 4.
There are two other important amendments in this heterogeneous group—I am sure that, listening to the Minister introducing the amendments, noble Lords might have been rather puzzled about why they are in a single group. Following suggestions made by this side and by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, Amendment 11 clarifies the previously obscurantist Clause 5(3). Will the Minister confirm that Clause 5(3) as amended will ensure that the evaluation of the relevant government policies will essentially be part and parcel of all the OBR’s work, including the work outlined and defined in the charter?
Amendment 12 is an acceptance of our argument that it is preposterous that the Treasury should, via the charter, be able to qualify the meaning of the requirement for the OBR to perform its duties “objectively, transparently and impartially”. I am delighted that the amendment will remove that nonsense. Will the Minister make it clear that the remaining requirement—which is, so to speak, all that is left—in Clause 6, which provides that the charter
“may include guidance to the Office about how it should perform its duty under section 4, including (in particular) guidance about … the time at which it is to prepare any forecast, assessment or analysis”,
can now refer only to the time at which the OBR should perform its duties under Clause 4? Do any wider, unspecified powers of direction remain? It would helpful if the Minister could clarify that, since Clause 6 will now have been changed to such an extent that it is not entirely clear what subsection (3) now refers to when it refers back to subsection (1).
Finally, in Amendment 13 the Government have responded to our criticism about the lack of adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the charter by requiring that a draft of any modification be published 28 days before the charter is laid before Parliament to be approved by resolution of the House of Commons. This is an important improvement on what went before, but even so—as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said in Committee—the charter is subject only to vestigial parliamentary scrutiny. The important word in this context is “vestigial”.
That raises an important issue mentioned in the notes distributed with the amendments for the Report stage. Noble Lords will recall that several elements of the charter came in for stiff criticism in Grand Committee, yet the notes that accompany this stage declare that the revised charter will be published only after the Bill has received Royal Assent. That cannot be right. The failure to provide a revised charter deprives Members of another place of the opportunity to relate the charter in the Government’s preferred form to their substantive discussion of the Bill. In effect, this is the Government stifling debate on the charter. Will the Minister give me an assurance that this underhand way of going about things will be rescinded and that the revised charter will be published in good time for its consideration by another place?
Lord Newby
These government amendments are welcome because they recognise the discussions held in Committee. The Minister has a gone a long way towards responding to the concerns that were expressed.
I am particularly pleased with Amendment 11 because we spent a lot of time on this issue. Clearly, the original drafting was inadequate. Pride of authorship means that I am unhappy that the words that I suggested in Committee are not being used, but the wording in Amendment 11 will do exactly the same job, so I welcome that.
I also welcome Amendment 13 for the reasons suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I have some sympathy with his last point. I cannot see why the charter cannot be presented in its final form before the Bill goes through another place. I cannot believe that there will be much to change—the charter is not a very long document—so, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, that would be an improvement on what is currently proposed.
I want to make a final comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said about the Treasury retaining its own forecasting ability and what would happen if there was a dispute with the OBR. We discussed at some length in Committee why it was essential that the Treasury should retain it own forecasting abilities While it would clearly be a major source of embarrassment if the Treasury disagreed with the OBR forecast, the one good thing about the new system is that, presumably, any such disagreement would be transparent because the Treasury would have to explain that it has disagreed with the OBR and give reasons why, and there would no doubt be a huge row about it. Although that might be uncomfortable for the Government, that will at least expose all the issues that are in dispute. In the interests of transparency, surely that is a good thing.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I intervene briefly to express appreciation to my noble friend for the way in which he has kept us in touch during the period between Grand Committee and now with the way in which his thoughts have been developing. Certainly this is a non-controversial Bill, but the House is succeeding in improving it still further and that is a good thing.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, for his amendments. He referred again to the independence of the OBR but, as he knows, I have all along been concerned with both its relevance and independence.
On relevance, there are dozens of truly independent forecasting bodies all over the country, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which used to be chaired by the present chairman of the OBR. The issue concerns itself with the expense of a body such as this when we have not only the forecasts of the independent outside bodies but the Treasury forecasts, the Bank of England forecasts and the OBR forecasts, most of which probably will be broadly in line with the current situation.
We will never know—I have tried to find out on many different occasions—the Government’s view on what should happen when they have the forecasts. The Minister has found all kinds of different ways of not answering my questions about what the Government’s policy is and whether they agree with the Bank of England on keeping interest rates at 0.5 per cent, given the growing pressure—wrongly in many quarters—on the need to increase interest rates. He will not say whether he disagrees—I appreciate that he cannot disagree with or say anything different to what the Chancellor has said—but it would be nice if, at some time or another, he could answer the question of what the Government’s policy is, as opposed to accepting the forecasts, which he has done on numerous occasions.
On the question of independence, I am worried by the constant references in the media to “the Government’s in-house forecasting body, the OBR”. This does not lend itself very well to the independence that we would all like to see in the OBR. I am sure Robert Chote will do his best to ensure that it is truly independent but, if it is no more independent than the dozens of existing bodies, why do we need the OBR at all? That is the question I put to the noble Lord while thanking him for the amendments he has brought forward.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I add my support for the amendments. It is to the great credit of the Minister that he took away the good discussions we had in Committee and has produced this and the other amendments today.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred to the OBR being regarded as the Government’s in-house forecasting body. I have never heard it referred to in those terms, although I know that noble Lords on the Benches opposite have tried to make that accusation stick. I believe it is already regarded as a properly independent body under its chairman, Mr Robert Chote, and we should rejoice in that.
Lord Burns
I also welcome these amendments. We spent a great deal of time in Grand Committee trying to bring greater clarity to the remit of the OBR and protecting its independence. We also tried to clarify the governance of the OBR and, particularly, the role of its non-executive members. The Government have responded positively to those discussions. The amendments deal very well with the bulk of the issues that were raised, particularly in clarifying those areas of the remit where there was ambiguity and the role of the non-executive members in relation to their oversight of the forecasting process and as the protectors of the external review process. That has been a success.
I fear that there will always be a certain amount of tension between observers when it comes to the relationship between the forecasts of the OBR and the activities that take place within the Treasury. I pointed out at Second Reading that whatever arrangements are put in place for the OBR, you cannot strip the Treasury of its own skill set and the resources it needs to monitor the progress of the economy and to make judgments on whether the economy is following the track that was intended at the time that measures were taken. This is an arrangement that we have to live with. I am sure that as time goes on, we will see much more clearly the way in which those are worked out and how the OBR relates to the internal activities of the Treasury. I hope that noble Lords will not get too exercised about this. That is a natural tension that exists in this type of arrangement and I would be surprised if it cannot be made to work.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am grateful for the general support around the House which this group of amendments seems to command. I am very happy for noble Lords to take credit for the ideas in there, if they wish to do so. Although the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, may not quite understand or want to appreciate why we have grouped these amendments together, they all touch critically on the independence of the OBR.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for pointing out that in the OBR’s short existence—even before it is within a statutory framework—Robert Chote and his colleagues have done a remarkable job through the quality and extent of their work to carve out an unchallenged reputation for quality of thinking and independence. Of course, we need to make sure that the Bill underpins that. In that context, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who speaks from a position of great authority as a former Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, for pointing out that for all the OBR’s independence, HM Treasury will need to retain a separate capability to monitor and assess the progression of the economy. I thought that his admirable summary was the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.
I had a sense of déjà vu, because I thought we were going back to Oral Questions with the first part of the noble Lord’s intervention. We will pass over our regular sparring about the Monetary Policy Committee, but his questions on why the OBR is needed and its independence were partly answered by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Fundamentally, over the past few years, as the previous Government redefined the cycle, there was not an appropriate degree of transparency around the forecasts, which is why we believe the OBR is necessary. I do not want to dwell on that because we spent a lot of time on that at Second Reading and in Committee.
The job now is to get that independence properly enshrined in the Bill, which takes me to the suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. Also, on the comment from my noble friend Lord Newby, I am sorry that the parliamentary draftsmen did not precisely agree with his wording but grateful for confirmation that we got to the same result. On the couple of questions from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on Clause 5(3), indeed the OBR now has a clear and explicit duty to consider government policies in its work. That is what the OBR is essentially all about: assessing the impact of government policies and, on the back of that, whether the fiscal mandate will be met. Clause 5(3) is indeed now quite clear on that.
Clause 6(1) is quite explicit that the charter may still give guidance on other topics but there is a particular signal that the charter may give particular guidance on timing. When the noble Lord comes on to press me on the draft charter, I think that we will all agree on how important the transparency of the remit is. The critical point, as I hope noble Lords would agree, is that we published the draft charter early on in our discussions, to enable that to be fully considered in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Newby said, any consequential redrafting of the charter as a result of our discussions will be small.
The essential point is that we issued a draft charter in very good time for discussion now. There is no overwhelming need to issue a new draft, simply because not a lot will have changed. We have been clear on the issues that we have looked at again. While I hear what has been said, I do not want to prejudice how the charter and the Bill might be looked at as they go through the stages in another place, as and when we send the Bill there. I hope that answers the various points that have come up on this group of amendments.
Lord Sassoon
Lord Sassoon
“Review by Non-executive Committee12A The Non-executive Committee must keep under review the way in which the Office’s duty under section 4 is performed.”
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, producing high-quality work requires the OBR to have access to all relevant information and expertise. The Bill provides for this through a right of access to information, a Budget Responsibility Committee of experts and a duty to act transparently. In response to the discussion in Grand Committee, these arrangements are intended to be bolstered by the two amendments that we are bringing forward.
Amendment 3 gives the non-executives a duty to keep under review the processes that the OBR uses to assure that it is producing the best possible work. These are likely to be management processes that the non-executives will be well placed to consider. Examples might include: whether the OBR is consulting with a wide and appropriate range of experts, including academics and internationally; whether it is working effectively with the rest of government to produce analysis; and, to make sure that it follows up lessons from internal reviews.
Amendment 5 requires the non-executives committee periodically to commission independent expert reviews of the OBR’s work. In detail, it needs to consider frequency: these reviews could be carried out at times considered appropriate by the non-executives, but “at least” every five years. In scope, the review will consider work published in the relevant period. The non-executives will determine which of the OBR’s reports are to be considered. That could be all the OBR’s work or a particular theme could be focused upon. This flexibility is important to ensure that maximum value is always gained from the reviews. There is then the question of the reviewer. The non-executives would appoint a person or body with the appropriate knowledge or experience to carry out each review. Although we expect the reviews to have minimal costs, there is provision in the Bill for the OBR to make payments to the reviewers—for example, for their expenses. Each review will be published and a copy laid before Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I think that everyone who took part in Grand Committee will feel that these amendments should be dedicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—who I am afraid is not in her place to hear this—as it was she who, at Second Reading, raised the issue of writing one’s own school report and the necessity of having an independent assessment of the OBR’s performance. Amendments 3 and 5 therefore establish the responsibility of the non-executives to keep under review the activities of the OBR, relative to its main duty. An important component of this monitoring will be the commission of the third-party reviews of the OBR’s performance, as described by the Minister.
We are entirely supportive of the Government’s amendments in this respect, other than in one crucial aspect. Amendment 5 proposes that an assessment by an independent person or body should be carried out,
“at least once in every relevant 5-year period”.
The final part of the amendment, proposed in new sub-paragraph (7), says,
“the period of 5 years beginning with 1 October 2010”.
However, as will be evident from Amendment 6, which I shall be moving, we on this side think that five years is too long a period. First, as a professional economist, I feel that five years is much too long for an organisation to be running before its activities are assessed independently. After all, the OBR will be producing more than one report a year—in fact, there will be three or four reports—so within three years there will be a substantial body of material for an independent assessor to consider. The independent review will also have value for the OBR. It will provide informed third-party input into its techniques and procedures, and postponing that for five years will unnecessarily weaken the expertise that feeds into the OBR’s work. Of course, expert appraisal of the OBR’s activity will also be an important input into parliamentary scrutiny, and I think that in parliamentary terms we should want more regular consideration than is provided by this amendment.
That parliamentary element leads me to the second reason why five years is too long. Setting a five-year appraisal period politicises a process that should be entirely apolitical. If the Government secure the constitutional reforms that they have proposed, five years will be the length of a fixed-term Parliament; hence the OBR review will become part of a five-year political cycle. Indeed, as I emphasised to noble Lords just now with regard to proposed new sub-paragraph (7) in the amendment, the timing has been set carefully so that a review takes place just after the next election. Review of the work of the OBR should be divorced from the political cycle and not linked to it in any way. That is why my Amendment 6 sets the review period at three years. This will achieve the dual objective of allowing timely consideration of the work of the OBR, giving Mr Chote and his colleagues the benefit of that professional input and stimulus, but most important of all, establishing a cycle of review which is divorced from the political cycle. That is a crucial aspect in maintaining independence and cross-party respect for the work of the OBR.
Lord Burns
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, describes his proposed change from at least five years to at least three years as “crucial”, but his whole argument as set out implies that, on all occasions, the non-executive committee would choose to have this review at the very end of the period during which it is allowed to have the review. I cannot for one moment imagine that that is what it would do. If we are to have confidence in the non-executive committee that is being set up in the Bill, it seems to me that we have to give it quite a lot of discretion about the timing of when it thinks it is appropriate to have a review. That will be governed in part by the extent to which the outcome of the work of the OBR comes under criticism, the extent to which we think there are lessons to be learnt. I am content with the five years not because I think the review should take place every five years, but because I think that the onus should be upon the non-executive members to take the decision about the timing—one should not box them in too much.
By bringing this forward and suggesting that it should be every three years, we are setting a clear timetable as to when those reviews will take place, rather than leaving it in the hands of the committee that is being set up in the Bill to make that decision. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, will reflect on the emphasis that he has given to this five-year period and his interpretation that the committee will always let it run the full length. I would rather show more confidence in the role of the non-executive body and give it discretion as to when is thinks is an appropriate time to have that review in the light of circumstance and events and how the work of the OBR is seen.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I support Amendment 6 to Amendment 5. I was not in the House for the beginning of Report, but I add my congratulations to those that I understand were expressed to the Minister on rejecting the advice that Ministers so often receive to resist and instead listening carefully to what was said by all sides in Committee, taking that into consideration and bringing forward a set of very constructive and welcome amendments. That shows the House performing its correct and proper function of revision, being professional and efficient, enhancing the quality of the Government’s intention and not unduly delaying the House in so doing.
I repeat my support for the concept of the Office for Budget Responsibility. I hope that, just as the Minister reminded us during Oral Questions that the previous Government established the Monetary Policy Committee which is now an important part of our financial and economic infrastructure, the OBR will be a similar testament to this Government’s contribution to building a sustainable and effective architecture. However, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Eatwell because it seems to me that the symmetry between the electoral cycle and five years is simply inappropriate for something which should be established to stand well apart from day-to-day politics and the electoral cycle.
It is particularly important that the work of the OBR should be subject to independent review in a shorter period than five years at commencement. It is new, and it is going to be establishing a lot of new ways of working and new formats for reporting that no doubt will evolve over time. It would be unfortunate if we did not have a chance to stand back and look at how it was performing and how its contribution could perhaps be further enhanced before five years had elapsed—before we got to 2016.
There is a strong reason for having these reviews in periods of not more than three years, rather than in periods of not more than five years, as proposed. However, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is right to remind us, as I am sure the Minister will in his closing speech, that the current draft says that, as it should not be more than five years, it could well be that the committee, the membership of which has not yet been selected or identified, could choose to make the reports earlier. For the purpose of good order and good process and, frankly, to strengthen further the integrity of the OBR and the confidence that it will be able to sustain from the broader public, these reviews should take place more frequently than once every five years. Once every three years would be a better outcome. It is for that reason that I support Amendment 6.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I support the government amendments to introduce an external review. The debate in Committee and, to an extent, at Second Reading demonstrated why that was a good idea.
As for whether three years or five makes better sense, I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said about the benefits of five years. The amendment is very flexible. It does not say that the review will be commenced on 1 October five years hence. It says that at any point a review can be undertaken; as soon as the non-execs were appointed, they could cause a review to be undertaken if they were worried ab initio that the office was not performing well. If they then felt that it carried on causing them concern, they could have another review relatively quickly. The draft gives the non-execs a lot of flexibility.
What we are doing here is a belt-and-braces job. On the assumption that the office is doing a reasonable job, and bearing in mind that it will be subject to a huge amount of external scrutiny—this body is not operating in the closet with no one looking at what it is doing; every time it produces a report, 50 economists mark it—to do that roughly once a Parliament sounds about right.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, as from time to time I disagree with my noble friend Lord Eatwell, I make it clear that on Amendment 6 I strongly agree with him. It makes sense to separate the review from the political cycle. I will disagree with him at a later stage, but on this I thought that he made a very good point.
I am never surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Burns, speaking as if he is on the Treasury Front Bench. We should not be surprised; he has been doing it all his life. He did a marvellous job in the Treasury, particularly for the five years that I was there.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Eatwell made a good point about the cycle, as did my noble friend Lord Myners, and I hope that on reflection the Minister will accept the amendment. It makes a lot of sense and he might, on this occasion, accept it.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Myners, back to the Chamber. I am not sure that he had quite got his script co-ordinated with the Front Bench, but I accept his congratulations. I will put aside their slightly backhanded nature. Next time I think he should speak to his Front Bench, which seemed to be taking sole credit for the government amendments that have come forward. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him.
Lord Myners
My Lords, the Minister will recognise that, speaking as I do from the Back Benches, I speak independently. I reach my own conclusions and express my own views. My congratulations to the Minister are in no way fettered by what those on my Front Bench might have said.
Lord Sassoon
I heard the noble Lord say that he wanted to add to the congratulations, but there were none before. Anyway, I am grateful to him. Perish the thought that he might have been out of the Chamber briefing the press on his mildly diverting, if somewhat predictable, contribution to Oral Questions, but let us move on. Noble Lords have focused on only one point in responding to this group of amendments, which is whether the backstop date, because I regard it as a backstop date—the noble Lord is obviously distracted by something in the corner of the Chamber. I want to address the point about the five-year backstop dates.
Lord Sassoon
I thought that I heard support from across the Chamber on this point. As I say, the issue is one of a backstop date. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is seeing chimera where none is to be seen in trying to link the political cycle with this five-year backstop date. We think that it is appropriate to have a date in there to ensure that the independent review happens at some stage, but it is most likely that the non-executive directors will indeed choose to have reviews on some other cycle or whenever they think it is appropriate. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that we have to allow—it is proper to allow this—the non-executive committee the freedom to make up its own mind on this. A shorter period may well be decided on, particularly in the initial period of operation, just as, in the context of the Monetary Policy Committee, a review was carried out a couple of years into the new arrangements. Therefore, we should leave this to the committee’s judgment and not impose a rigid pattern on it.
It might be relevant to consider read-across or precedents from other comparable bodies. However, I have been able to tease out only one comparable read-across involving the Dutch Central Planning Bureau, which has a provision for external reviews every five years and has stuck to that model since 1945. That continues to work for that body.
Lord Eatwell
Does that body hold the review every five years or over a lesser period?
Lord Sassoon
I believe that it has the review every five years, but I think it would be wrong to have a fixed provision of five years. One of the dangers of having a shorter time such as three years is that it might become a regular feature. What we need here is flexibility but with a sensible and appropriate backstop date. It is also important to remember in this context that these external reviews are far from the only means through which the OBR is being and will be scrutinised. I remind noble Lords that the package of scrutiny goes much wider. First, there is the duty on the OBR to act transparently, which means that all its work is open to ongoing challenge and review—this is proving to be the case already—from any of the well regarded and distinguished think tanks and academics looking at its work. The OBR is required to produce an annual assessment of the accuracy of its fiscal and economic forecasts.
There is also the fact that the OBR intends to establish an advisory panel of experts to support and challenge its work on an ongoing basis, which not only is an important additional element of external challenge and review but brings the OBR into line with the best practice, drawn in this case from the United States’ CBO. I see the noble Lord nodding on that point.
On the basis of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and backed up by my noble friend Lord Newby, and considering the other elements of scrutiny that are ongoing and challenged externally, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sassoon
“( ) The report must include, in particular, an assessment by the Non-executive Committee of the extent to which the Office’s duty under section 4 has been performed in accordance with section 5(1) and (2).”
Lord Sassoon
“External review14A (1) The Non-executive Committee must, at least once in every relevant 4 5-year period, appoint a person or body to review and report on such of the Office’s reports as the Committee determines.(2) In sub-paragraph (1) “the Office’s reports” means the reports which— (a) have been made in pursuance of the Office’s duty under section 4, and(b) have been published since the relevant date.(3) The “relevant date” is—
(a) in the case of the first review carried out under this paragraph, 1 October 2010;(b) in the case of subsequent reviews, the date of the last review carried out under this paragraph.(4) A person or body may be appointed under this paragraph only if the person or body has knowledge or experience likely to be relevant to the performance of the Office’s duty under section 4.
(5) The Office may, with the approval of the Treasury, make payments to the person or body in respect of the performance of the person’s or body’s functions under this paragraph.
(6) The Office must—
(a) publish each report prepared under this paragraph,(b) lay it before Parliament, and(c) send a copy of it to the Treasury.(7) In this paragraph “relevant 5-year period” means—
(a) the period of 5 years beginning with 1 October 2010;(b) each successive period of 5 years.”
Lord Eatwell
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I will not speak to this amendment again except to say that I think that it would be very unfortunate if there were to be a delay of more than about three years to an external assessment of the work of the OBR. While one wants confidence in one’s non-execs, one also wants some framework within which to work, as my noble friend Lord Myners said.
I welcome the news that an advisory group will be established. I think that that is an excellent idea and I am delighted that it is going to happen. It is regrettable that the Government have not accepted this amendment but, in the context, I will not move it.
Lord Eatwell
“( ) The budget for the annual operations of the Office of Budget Responsibility shall be published, and be available for scrutiny by the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons.”
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I first moved this amendment in Grand Committee in which, of course, there are no votes, and the matter was simply left on the table. I regret that the Government have not seen fit to bring forward some proposals whereby the OBR’s budget would be formally exposed to independent scrutiny. My argument then was the same as my argument now. Given that our fundamental objective is to ensure the OBR’s independence to the greatest degree possible, one of the key means of controlling any independent organisation that is limiting its budget relative to its responsibilities must be constrained. In this amendment we have proposed that it be constrained by the requirement to publish the annual budget and make it available for scrutiny and assessment by the Treasury Committee in another place.
When we discussed this in Grand Committee, the Minister made the following points. First, he argued that the Treasury was incentivised to fund the OBR adequately, since the OBR performed important tasks for the Treasury. What worries me is that this argument is indicative of a failure by the Government to understand fully the need to ensure the independence of the OBR. Of course the Treasury is incentivised to fund what it wants done, but it is not incentivised to fund what it does not want done. Truly independent studies by the OBR that ruffle Treasury feathers will not attract enthusiastic funding from the Treasury. Therefore the incentivised argument really does not carry any weight.
Secondly, the Minister argued that the current funding agreement, outlined in a letter from Sir Nicholas Macpherson to Robert Chote, provided adequate funds to the OBR through to 2014, but what about after 2014? The creation of the OBR is not just for the next three or four years. We on this side of the House hope that it will become and remain for many years a valuable instrument in UK economic policy-making—valuable because it is independent—just as the Monetary Policy Committee has become a valuable instrument in UK economic policy-making. To argue simply that things are okay now is a quite inadequate way of providing confidence for the future. Therefore, the second argument does not stack up.
Thirdly, the Minister argued that there were other means of informing the Treasury Committee of another place of the OBR’s budgetary position, for example via the OBR annual report. Once again, he fails to grasp the substance of independence. It is not for the OBR to fight its budgetary corner, which is what it is being asked to do. It is for Parliament to ensure that its independence is protected. That is what we on this side seek to do in this amendment.
Finally, the Minister suggested—extraordinarily—that paragraph 15 to Schedule 1 provided protection for the OBR’s budget, whereas in fact it does exactly theopposite, leaving power with the Treasury to keep the OBR on as tight a budgetary leash as it wishes. Therefore, the arguments deployed in Grand Committee did not answer the case that was made. They were not simply unconvincing but disturbing, in that they betrayed a lack of understanding of, and commitment to, the concept of the independence of the OBR.
I have been working on this issue and my concerns deepened when I investigated what had happened to similar organisations in comparable jurisdictions. In Canada, the incoming Conservative Government established the Parliamentary Budget Office in 2008. Toronto’s Globe and Mail reported that a year later, after the Parliamentary Budget Office had produced two reports that were critical of the Government, the office’s annual budget was frozen despite earlier promises to boost it by a third. This was Canada's Macpherson moment, when the letter and the promise were withdrawn.
In Sweden, the Fiscal Policy Council was set up in 2007, once again by an incoming Conservative Government—there is a pattern here. On 18 November last year, the council wrote an open letter to the Government pointing to the discrepancy between its remit and its resources. What was the reaction? The Swedish Minister of Finance is reported to have reacted negatively to the letter and suggested—you guessed it—that the council's budget should be cut in response. Thus in Canada and Sweden—two jurisdictions for which we have great respect—critical reports have resulted in budgets being frozen or cut.
On 6 December last year, a letter appeared in the Financial Times in support of the independence of the Hungarian Fiscal Council—the Hungarian version of the OBR. One author of that letter was Mr Robert Chote, the chairman of our OBR. As well as making the case for the independence of the Hungarian organisation, Mr Chote and his fellow signatories argued that:
“Developments in Hungary are also of a more general interest for the viability of independent fiscal monitoring. It is easy for a government to be in favour of this in principle. It is more difficult to stand criticism when it is actually delivered”.
How true that is—and how important, therefore, is the amendment before us, the purpose of which is to support the independence and the financial integrity of the OBR.
If the OBR behaved in a manner that did not suit the Government, for example by undertaking extra studies that cast government policies in an unfortunate light, the easiest way to discipline those independent-minded souls would be to cut their budget, forcing them back to their core function and thereby diminishing their independence. Control of the budget is an important means of controlling any organisation, as the Swedish Minister of Finance made clear.
The amendment seeks to provide the OBR with the protection of independent scrutiny of its budget. The budget must be published and made available for scrutiny by the Treasury Committee of another place. The OBR would not have to fight its corner; Parliament would fight its corner for it. This would give the Treasury Committee the opportunity to have its say on whether any inappropriate limitations were being placed on the OBR’s operations by budgetary means. If you like, the amendment provides scope for the Treasury Committee to act as the financial champion and protector of the independence of the OBR.
The Minister should mark the words of Mr Chote in his letter in the Financial Times, and accept the amendment to ensure that the OBR’s budget is protected, even when it speaks unwelcome truth to those in power. I hope the Minister can give me some reassurance that this issue will be taken seriously and will be considered for government amendment at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, given that I was chairman of the Treasury Committee in another place for something like 14 years, I am naturally rather sympathetic to the amendment. However, it does not seem to do what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said it does. It does not enable the Treasury Committee to control the budget, but enables it to ensure that the budget is scrutinised after being published. This is something which my noble friend should readily accept, because it would be very surprising if the annual operations budget were not to be published. I should have thought that that was consistent with the whole argument for transparency which we have heard from the Government throughout the debates on this Bill, and that it should be virtually automatic. It is equally likely that the Treasury Committee would wish to scrutinise the budget, once published. My noble friend might of course argue that it is unnecessary for the amendment to be made, but, if it were, some reassurance would be given to those expressing the kind of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It would certainly be right for the budget to be published and for the appropriate body to look at it to be the Treasury Select Committee in another place.
Lord Burns
My Lords, I will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, by agreeing with the amendment, or rather with its spirit, because it is important that the funding of the OBR is as transparent as possible. We need an arrangement that will last. We all know that the Treasury has great power and I accept the argument that the OBR needs the protection of a transparent process. Of course, nothing would in the end prevent the OBR from suffering in respect of its budget if the Government wished that to happen and could get the support of Parliament, but it is important that that process should be transparent. I recognise the argument that it is already evident from the public expenditure process that there is nothing to stop the Treasury Committee being involved, but I support the principle of making a specific provision for the funding of the OBR that should be as transparent as possible.
The detail in the amendment that I am not happy with is the suggestion that the committee should investigate the annual budget. It is important that if you are to have a successful operation such as the OBR, it should know what the prospects for its finances are, stretching beyond one year. Subjecting it to an annual budget process might not do the job. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, already referred to Sir Nicholas Macpherson’s existing letter talking about a financing process that stretches some way ahead.
I therefore support the principle of the amendment and hope that it is possible to find a way of expressing its intentions that provides reassurance that a transparent process will be in place and will stretch for somewhat longer than the annual budget round.
Lord Barnett
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, never disappoints me. I am delighted to see that he agrees with the principle of the amendment. I agree with the principle but I disagree with the amendment. Once again, my noble friend Lord Eatwell ignores this House. He would like to see the scrutiny undertaken just by the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons. I have no objection to that and, indeed, I would be delighted if the Minister accepted it, because the Treasury Select Committee of the House of Commons, under different chairmanships, has usually done a great job and continues to do a very good job now under a Conservative chairman. Why does my noble friend not wish to have this scrutinised, as my noble friend Lord Peston and I proposed in Grand Committee, by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords? As a former chairman, I am prejudiced and my noble friend Lord Peston was a longer-term chairman of the committee. It has always done an excellent and very independent job in this House.
If the Minister is minded to accept an amendment occasionally, and can ignore the word “resist” in his brief, perhaps he might be willing to add to the amendment the words “the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee should also carry out scrutiny”. We now have a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury chairing the committee and doing an excellent job. On this occasion, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, will accept the amendment as amended by my suggestion. I beg formally not to move.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, perhaps I may just get my head round the formal non-moving of an amendment that has not been put down. I shall try to give the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, the reassurance that he seeks in this area. The Government support the spirit of the amendment. Transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of the OBR’s budget are absolutely central to safeguarding its independence. I do not think that there is any difference between us on that point.
The next issue is getting a proportional arrangement which achieves the objective. The effect of the proposed amendment has already been achieved. In line with the Treasury Select Committee's recommendation, the annual budget of the OBR will be identified separately in the Treasury's estimate and it will be available for the Treasury Committee to scrutinise in another place. Nevertheless, we have gone further than the Treasury Committee asked for in order to enhance the transparency of the OBR’s budget and critically to protect it from any suggestion of politically motivated cuts. Again, in line with the Treasury Select Committee’s recommendation, the OBR will also be able to submit to the Treasury Select Committee an additional estimates memorandum alongside that of the Treasury in which it can explain for itself the reasons for changes in the available budget for the year ahead. I think that will go beyond what is proposed, in effect, in this amendment because the OBR will be free to explain in full what any changes in the budget mean.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that if we need to be concerned about anything here it is the multi-year aspects of it, which the proposed amendment does not address. The OBR has already been provided with an agreed and publicly documented multi-year budget, so that an annual budget exercise cannot be used to exert hidden pressure on the OBR. This specific element has been welcomed by the IMF.
I will divert for a moment to address one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on some of the international experience in this area. While I am sure that the Toronto Globe and Mail is a fine source of reporting, I think it is relevant to remember that the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer is really not in any comparable position to the OBR. Its budget is not separately identified anywhere within the estimates of expenditure presented to the Canadian Parliament. It is a very different office from the one we are looking at. The Parliamentary Budget Officer in Canada was not given an agreed and published multi-year budget. I think we are in very different territory from Canada.
Hungary was mentioned. It is interesting to note that Hungary’s Fiscal Council chairman pointed out—I do not know whether this is correct—in the context of saying it was very, very rare to introduce substantial changes or abolish fiscal councils that the only example he could point to was Venezuela under Hugo Chavez abolishing its fiscal council. So there are one or two examples but they are not comparable examples. It is precisely to guard against any suggestion of such interference that we have put in place the measures that we have.
In trying to give the noble Lord the reassurance he seeks, we have discussed already the responsibility of the OBR’s non-executives. Critical to that is their duty to report on anything that appears to them to constrain the OBR’s discretion. Of course, that would include any attempt to control the OBR through manipulating its budget. To quote the chair of the Treasury Select Committee:
“It is vital that the OBR has the resources it needs. The Committee will monitor this carefully: the terms of reference suggest that the Treasury accepts the importance of transparency and separate disclosure, and we will have the information we need”—
we, the Treasury Select Committee—
“to do our work”.
The package of measures we propose for the OBR in the Bill follows the recommendations of the Select Committee and in the judgment of the Treasury fully reflects that intention. The chair of the OBR has already made clear that he has adequate resources and that he will promptly raise any issues on funding with the Select Committee—a very public forum in which to raise any concerns.
Finally, I will quote Robert Chote at his pre-appointment hearing in front of the Select Committee. He said:
“If you accede to my appointment and I find myself being squeezed in that way, this committee will be hearing about it very promptly. That’s how we make that public and ensure that those sorts of pressures do not go unremarked”.
I suggest that there are a considerable number of safeguards in place. Indeed, we go further than the noble Lord’s amendment because we believe that the multi-year dimension is as important as, if not more important than, the single year dimension to which his amendment refers. In view of the reassurance that I have been able to give him, in particular pointing to the role that we have just now confirmed for the non-executives, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, not least because there seems to be a unanimity of purpose around the House. Perhaps I may address a couple of the points that were made. The first is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, about the word “annual” in my amendment. I think they are absolutely right. It should refer to the budget; the word annual should be taken out, then everything would flow quite nicely. However, the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, still does not quite grasp the idea that the OBR should not have to fight its own corner but should be given parliamentary protection in the budgetary field for the long term, not simply for the period for which Sir Nicholas Macpherson’s letter is relevant. We are looking beyond that provision.
The one element from which I derived some comfort in the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, was the issue of a separate line in the Estimates, which will provide the Treasury Select Committee with the opportunity separately to identify the budget of the OBR. My amendment would require that to be brought for scrutiny, rather than it simply being available, but I am willing to accept that that is a small point.
I suppose that I should accept being chided by my noble friend Lord Barnett for leaving the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee out of the amendment. I felt that since this was particularly an expenditure matter, it should be handled by the committee in another place. I am willing to stand corrected on that point.
However, I feel that there is general unanimity around the House that this issue is important in sustaining the independence of the OBR. I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins
“( ) a comparison of the fiscal and economic forecasts previously prepared by it with the corresponding forecast prepared by the Bank of England together with an analysis of the difference between the two,”
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 8 in my name, with which it will be convenient to discuss Amendment 9, in the name of the Minister, and Amendment 10, which is my amendment to the Minister’s amendment. In some ways, this grouping is rather too extensive, but several important points are enshrined in the amendments.
I will start with the Minister's amendment, which states:
“Any Report which the Office makes in pursuance of its duty under this section must include … the main assumptions made by the Office, and … the main risks which the Office considered to be relevant”.
We debated both those points at considerable length in Grand Committee, so I certainly welcome the fact that the Minister has tabled the amendment. If we are to be able to appraise the forecasts made by the OBR, it is crucial that we should know on which assumptions they have been made, so I am glad that we shall now be able to do that. Secondly, we should also know the OBR’s assessment of what risks it considered to be relevant—with some indication, I hope, of the probability of this or that risk being realised—so I am strongly in favour of Amendment 9. I believe that the House as a whole will share that view.
I turn to my Amendment 8, which suggests that the OBR should not only assess the accuracy of its reports in a post-mortem assessment, as is already required in the Bill, but make,
“a comparison of the fiscal and economic forecasts previously prepared by it with the corresponding forecast prepared by the Bank of England together with an analysis of the difference between the two”.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I should perhaps speak briefly to Amendment 9 at this stage. I will respond later if other noble Lords speak to Amendments 8 and 10.
On Amendment 9, the risks and assumptions of the OBR in producing its reports are critically necessary for a full understanding of its analysis. Provision to require the OBR to set those out was originally included in the draft charter. However, we recognise that a key purpose of the Bill is to provide appropriate assurances that the good practice already adopted by the OBR will continue. For that reason, Amendment 9 will elevate the provision from the draft charter to the face of the Bill and broaden the requirement to apply to all reports produced under the OBR’s main duty.
Lord Eatwell
On Amendments 8 and 10, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will have to suffer the possibility of inconsistent forecasts because that is, in a way, embodied in the independence and separation of the Bank of England. The whole point of an independent Bank of England, and the way the Labour Government set up the independent status of the Monetary Policy Committee and the Bank of England, is that it should be allowed to take an independent view. That independent view will be informed by its own research. This can lead not just to forecasting inconsistency but to policy inconsistency, but that is the price we are going to pay if we think this is an appropriate policy mix. The very distinguished late economist Sir James Meade pointed out many times that this separation could lead to serious policy inconsistency, and he was entirely opposed to its, none the less, that is the way we have constructed policy-making in this country, and that separation will bring with it the possibility—indeed, the probability—of some forecast inconsistency. However, we should note that recently the Governor of the Bank of England has been making many statements about fiscal policy, which is not his territory. That is very unfortunate. He seems to have encouraged the Prime Minister to make comments on interest rates, which are not his territory either. If this separation is deemed to be a good thing by our Parliament and policy-makers, I hope that the governor and the Prime Minister will respect it.
The problem I have with Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is that I do not think the output gap is a precise notion which can be believed if you say it is 2.5 per cent or something like that. In the Budget debate and in the debate on the comprehensive spending review, I argued that it is a statistical construct. It has embedded within it a series of statistical assumptions. It was quite striking that in the first OBR report, the definition of the structural deficit was changed, to the benefit, I might add, of the Government’s arguments. Therefore, I do not want too much credibility to be put on what is a useful indicative statistic. The weight put on it can be taken too far.
I strongly support the Government’s amendments both on transparency of assumptions and consideration of the risks to which the economy might be exposed. The latter issue, with the OBR now being required to talk about the risks to which the economy is exposed, is very important. For example, let us suppose that we had had an OBR of 2006 vintage. That OBR could have expressed concerns about the fiscal risk the economy was subject to by being dependent on such a high proportion of tax revenues coming from just one sector of the economy, that of financial services. It would have had the opportunity to say, in facing that risk, that some diversification of revenue sources might be desirable. Similarly, in defining the sustainability of the public accounts, the OBR should take into account the risk to sustainability generated by the foreign balance and by the savings and spending behaviour of the private sector, and their interactions with the public balances. Providing these insights into the risks of public sector financial management would extend the debate about the public finances in a very useful way and would ensure that the debate is far better informed than it has been in the past. So I would like particularly to add the support of this side for government Amendment 9.
Lord Newby
I would like to echo the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in two respects; first, in his comments on Amendment 9, which I will not repeat, and secondly, in his comments on Amendment 10. I am dubious about the value of giving enhanced status to an assessment of the output gap or when the economic cycle is likely to end for reasons largely already given by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. The output gap is not an absolutely firm context and figure that is easily grasped and measured. As we saw with the previous Government, a lot of weight was put on the economic cycle because the golden rule about government expenditure and borrowing depended on it. The problem was that whenever a difficulty arose, lo and behold, the definition of the cycle changed to push the difficulty back. It proved to be a far more elastic concept than we thought, and the old Ricardian economic cycle that depended on grain crops just does not obtain in quite the same way today. So while I am sure that the Office for Budget Responsibility may well wish to opine on these matters, and it will be quite interesting to know what it thinks, it is of secondary importance in setting government policy. Indeed, because of its somewhat nebulous nature, I would not want us to put too much weight on it again.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for his support for government Amendment 9, but let me say a few things in respect of Amendments 8 and 10 because my noble friend Lord Higgins has raised important issues. I agree with the spirit of the amendments in both cases, and I shall try to do justice to the points he has raised by explaining how I think the matters are or should be dealt with.
Amendment 8 concerns the question of economic and fiscal forecasts. On fiscal forecasts, a comparison is actually not possible because the Bank does not produce such a forecast. Rather, it incorporates the official fiscal forecast now produced by the OBR into its own economic forecasts, which reflects the expertise within the OBR and the information that the office as opposed to the Bank has access to. So that is dealt with because there is no comparison to be made.
Lord Higgins
I am grateful to my noble friend for his interesting comments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 8 withdrawn.
Amendment 9
Lord Sassoon
“( ) Any report which the Office makes in pursuance of its duty under this section must include an explanation of the factors which the Office took into account when preparing the report, including (in particular)—
(a) the main assumptions made by the Office, and(b) the main risks which the Office considered to be relevant.”
Lord Sassoon
(a) must have regard to those policies, but(b) ”
Lord Sassoon
Lord Sassoon
“( ) If the Treasury proposes to modify the guidance included in the Charter by virtue of this section, a draft of the modified guidance must be published at least 28 days before the modified Charter is laid before Parliament under section 1(6).”
Lord Touhig
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for very long because this is exactly the same amendment that we debated in Grand Committee on 9 December. I did not press the amendment or the argument at that time because I was greatly encouraged by the debate, and in particular by the response of the Minister who certainly seemed to be in listening mode on that occasion.
I was a little disappointed to receive a letter from the Minister dated 21 December, listing the amendment that he has tabled this afternoon. I refer to the Government’s Amendment 15. This says that the Public Accounts Commission will have a role in specifying who should be consulted by former Comptrollers and Auditors-General on possible future appointments that they might wish to take up. My amendment says that this advice should be given by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
As I said, I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I point out that the amendment is based on the 15th report of the Public Accounts Commission. My noble friend Lord McFall was a member of that commission when it reported in March 2008. It referred to the subsequent employment of former Comptrollers and Auditors-General and said that a,
“C&AG should be required under the terms of his or her contract to consult the Advisory Committee on Public Appointments”—
it should have been “on Business Appointments”—
“(currently chaired by Lord Mayhew) before accepting any employment whatever after leaving the post of C&AG and to abide by the decisions of that Committee”.
The advisory committee is now chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, and its remit is simple:
“The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is an independent body which provides advice to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, or other Ministers if requested, on applications from the most senior Crown servants who wish to take up outside appointments within 2 years of leaving Crown service”.
That body has the experience and background to provide the proper advice for any senior civil servant who wishes to take up an appointment after leaving public service. It would in my view be the appropriate body to give advice to former Comptrollers and Auditors-General. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government have not accepted this. Perhaps the Minister might say why it is that the Government now want to involve the Public Accounts Commission—another layer in between the time when a former Comptroller and Auditor-General would have to consult before he can consider taking up some other appointment. It may well be that the Public Accounts Commission will say to that former Comptroller and Auditor-General, “You must seek advice from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments”. I do not know why we do not go straight to that point in the first place. I had hoped that the Minister would have put that in his amendment. He has not done so and I should be grateful to hear his response.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I see the Chamber filling up. This amendment is clearly attracting a lot of interest but, just in case noble Lords have come for some other business, let me deal briefly at this stage with Amendment 15, together with Amendment 14 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. Having reflected on the points made on this issue in Grand Committee, I agree that clarification is indeed merited on this question of the C&AG taking up future offices or appointments. That is why the Government’s Amendment 15 makes it clear that the Public Accounts Commission would specify the person or body, such as the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, that a former Comptroller and Auditor-General should consult before he or she takes up another office or position having left the office of C&AG. We have come forward with that important clarification.
Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, seeks to name the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments as the body that former C&AGs must consult. However, there is a difficulty in naming a particular body in legislation because names and responsibilities may change over time. The fact that the body recommended in the original report from the Public Accounts Commission is different from that in the amendment makes that very point. While we need to have a degree of clarification which was not in the original Bill, writing in a particular body that exists now but may not exist in time—and was not that recommended only a short time ago by the Public Accounts Commission—means that we need to have the balance of flexibility but the certainty that the Public Accounts Commission will nominate a body up front.
The Treasury has carried out a search to see whether we could find any similar requirement elsewhere in legislation. The only mention at all of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is in relation to the obligation placed on it under the Freedom of Information Act, so there is no equivalent hard-wiring in legislation of its other responsibilities to deal, for example, with appointments for former Ministers. We absolutely share the noble Lord’s desire that former C&AGs should not just listen to but take to heart the advice of the nominated adviser, just as Ministers and civil servants do. Perhaps it is relevant to say that my understanding of the position of the serving C&AG is that he would be willing to consult any independent authority that the commission nominates about any employment that he proposed to take up after leaving office. This was written into the letter of appointment that he signed before taking up office. What was not written into the letter was a requirement for the C&AG to abide by the decision of the independent authority. It was expected that the decision of that authority would be made public and that that would be sufficient to ensure compliance.
In respect of future C&AGs, I think it is fair that they should know which person they needed to consult at the start, before they take on the office. It is expected that the person to be consulted should be specified in the appointment letters of all future C&AGs, which would parallel the arrangements for Ministers and senior civil servants. The terms of the C&AG’s appointment are agreed between the chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury, on behalf of the Prime Minister, and would have to be signed off by the prospective C&AG before he or she takes up office. I believe that with the government amendment we are bringing forward, along with how I have described that it will work in reality, we have sufficiently covered all the bases intended by the noble Lord’s amendment without getting into a position where we might nominate a body that could be inappropriate in a number of years’ time. On the basis of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Touhig
I am grateful to the Minister because he is a man of his word: he has sought to clarify the matters that we discussed in Committee. He made a fair point in saying that, if we specify a body in legislation, that body could disappear or change with future legislation. The Public Accounts Commission referred to the Advisory Committee on Public Appointments, but I do not think that it even existed. I think that the commission was mistaken and that it should have referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. I suspect that ultimately we will reach the point that I have been arguing for and that it will in fact be the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, although the Minister is going to take us on a bit of a route, going through the Public Accounts Commission, to get there. It is a bit like me travelling to Wales via Scotland but I am sure that we will get there in the end. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sassoon
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, from time to time I keep the House informed about progress on this Bill, and this is one of those occasions. As we start this, the 15th, day in Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, I am delighted to be able to inform the Committee that there is now agreement among the usual channels on a timetable for completing Committee. As a result of a series of productive discussions, the usual channels agree that Committee should be completed by the end of business on Wednesday this week. This is within the time that has already been scheduled and indicated on the Order Paper. I am sure that all noble Lords who have followed proceedings on the Bill, and perhaps a few who have not, will welcome a return to the effective functioning of the usual channels on the Bill, and I sincerely hope that this means that there is no longer any need for me to ask the Committee collectively to come to a resolution on how proceedings on the Bill should be regulated.
During Committee so far, the Government have held meaningful discussions with the Opposition and with a number of other Members of the House, in addition to debate on the Bill in the Chamber. As a result, the Government will bring forward a package of concessions on Report, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome that. Therefore, we are in the welcome position of having agreement to complete Committee by the end of Wednesday this week. Equally, I am sure I have no need to remind the Committee that we need to return this Bill to the other place by the end of Monday, 14 February—that is, two weeks today—if the referendum is to be held on 5 May. From the soundings that I have taken, I feel confident that the majority of Members from all parts of the Chamber share this aim.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I am obliged to the Leader of the House. As he has said, we have agreed through the usual channels that Committee on the Bill should be completed at the close of business this Wednesday. This is the product of good discussions on the substance of the Bill over the weekend and today. Focusing only on the key issues on Report and employing the economy and focus which your Lordships will expect on Report and at Third Reading, the timetable will depend on further agreement between the parties on substantive issues. The Cross-Benchers have played a critical part in getting us to the good point that we have reached, and we now commit ourselves to work hard to try to reach the necessary further agreement.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, on behalf of a number of us who have been here for long hours into the night, I congratulate and thank those who have been involved in these discussions, not least the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers. I hope that this spirit of compromise will extend into the planning of Report, on which we might otherwise find ourselves in a repetition. I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that he and his colleagues endorsed the working group of Labour Peers, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which recommended that a reasonable time limit be set for all Bills to complete their passage in the Lords. I also remind the noble and learned Lord that in endorsing that recommendation, in a speech to the Labour Party conference on 29 September 2004, he said very wisely:
“The Second Chamber should have the powers to revise, to amend, to scrutinise, but not finally to frustrate the programme of a legitimately-elected government”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“(2) A Boundary Commission may cause a local inquiry to be held for the purposes of a report under this Act where, on publication of a recommendation of a Boundary Commission for the alteration of any constituency, the Commission receive any representation objecting to the proposed recommendation from an interested authority or from a body of electors numbering one thousand or more.
(3) In subsection (2) above, “elector” means a parliamentary elector for any constituencies affected by the recommendation.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I note that there is an amendment to my amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Williamson of Horton. I think that the Committee wants to debate that amendment. To facilitate this, I wish to move my amendment formally so we can move on and have the debate that we all want to have.
Amendment 94A (to Amendment 94)
Baroness D'Souza
“hundred or more.(3) A Boundary Commission is not obliged to cause a local inquiry to be held under subsection (2). They may only do so if—
(a) the objection raises substantive issues that might benefit from further comment or representation from other interested parties or individuals; and(b) any counter proposals it makes are prima facie within the stipulations of the Rules for the distribution of seats contained in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act.(4) A local inquiry held under subsection (2) must be completed within six months of the close of the consultation period referred to in subsection (1) above.
(5) Once a local inquiry has been held under the terms of subsection (2) above in any given locality, no further inquiries shall be held in that locality under the terms of this Act into the same objection.
(6) In subsection (2) above, “interested authority” and “elector” respectively mean, in relation to any recommendation, a local authority whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the constituencies affected by the recommendation, and a parliamentary elector for any of those constituencies.””
Baroness D'Souza
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, very much indeed. Before I talk briefly about the amendment, it is unusual for a Cross-Bencher to intervene at this late stage in a Bill, particularly one that has become so politicised. As noble Lords know, Cross-Benchers are independent and not politically aligned. We are very mindful of that and I do not want to lead us in any way on one side or another. However, as many of your Lordships will know, something of an impasse had been reached towards the end of last week and I was encouraged by one or two people to see whether there was any useful role that we might play. I did so in great humility and, given that there seems to be very welcome movement, it is our wish to sink back into the background and again fulfil our role as occasional experts rather than being in the political fray. I say that with some feeling and certainly with some meaning.
The other thing that has moved me and a number of Cross-Benchers to see whether we could do something useful was the shadow, or the threat, of anything approaching a closure Motion in this House, which would have been historic. It has never happened before, and as many noble Lords have said it would undoubtedly impair the role that we play in revising and scrutinising legislation. Many of us felt that it was important to try to avert this threat. That is why I am here.
Last week, Amendment 93, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was discussed in the Chamber. The amendment seeks to reinstate the right to public inquiry on boundary changes, with many limitations, as set out in the 1986 Act. The outright ban in Clause 12 was felt to be unreasonable and possibly even not sustainable. Nevertheless, there was also a very general acknowledgement that a long drawn-out inquiry would necessarily delay the boundary changes that the Bill seeks to enact. The initial discussion on this amendment took place late on the evening of 26 January, and consequently was not brought to a vote. There is a feeling that if it had, it might have had wide support.
Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, makes it clear that there would be a reinstated right to oral public inquiry only if the Boundary Commission itself thought it necessary, and that the commission would undertake to limit any inquiries in order to ensure that any changes would be finalised by 31 October 2013, thus not affecting the proposed boundary changes for the election in 2015.
The question of oral public inquiry remains pivotal. On it hung the negotiation between the two sides of the House and the further progress of the Bill. Amendment 94A, in my name and those of distinguished noble Lords from the Cross Benches, builds on the original amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and on that moved today by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in that it caps the time allowed for such public consultation to six months by disallowing a second local inquiry. This makes clear the commitment to complete any inquiries well in time for boundary changes to be undertaken.
I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, agreed to take Amendment 93A away and come back on Report, an offer that was greatly welcomed by all sides of the House. We are still at such a delicate juncture in trying to move forward on the Bill. My own feeling—my instinct, even—is that we need further clarification at this stage from the Minister on whether the Government can accept oral public inquiry in the Bill.
In doing so, I am trying again to underline the need to obviate the shadow of any kind of closure Motion. Additionally, although the amendment points to a rocky path ahead, that is nevertheless a pathway down which perhaps we could all go if there is the political will to do so. I believe that this is what we all actually want. I beg to move.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, it is not necessary for me to say anything but a few words more than what the Convenor of the Cross Benches has already said. I agree with everything that she said. Perhaps I could add something about judicial review, a subject with which, in a previous incarnation, I have had a certain amount to deal.
It is important to note that the amendment as drafted would reduce judicial review to its proper place in the context that we are discussing. The courts should rarely, if ever, become involved in the activities of this House. That is an approach that the courts always wish to adhere to, although sometimes it is impossible because the law as it is developed requires them to consider applications for judicial review. However, the amendment makes clear that the Boundary Commission is not obliged to cause a local inquiry to be held but gives it a circumscribed power to require a local inquiry. With the amendment worded in that way, I suggest to the House that it would be very unlikely that judicial review would be a problem in future.
If the Boundary Commission did not require a local inquiry, I cannot conceive that its decision could be reviewed. If there is a local inquiry, again I cannot conceive of circumstances in which it would be possible for there to be judicial review, because, under the clear language of the amendment, the situation into which the Boundary Commission could seek a local inquiry is obviously the sort of issue on which it should properly require the help of such an inquiry.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 94A. I agree with everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I thank the Minister and Mr Mark Harper in the other place for the courtesy they have shown in spending time with me discussing possible amendments to crucial aspects of the Bill. I take the view—I know that I am not the only noble Lord who does so—that the Government are certainly entitled to get their business through this House. However, the Bill would benefit considerably from improvements to Part 2. I am delighted to hear from the Leader of the House that concessions will be brought forward. The Clause 11 formula of a 5 per cent band either way for an electoral quota is simply too rigid to allow for proper consideration of geographical considerations and local ties. It is wrong in principle for Clause 12(2), which we are now debating, to abolish the power of the Boundary Commission to hold a public inquiry.
The Boundary Commission process, including public inquiries, has served this country very well. It has maintained public confidence by a transparent process which has avoided even the suspicion of gerrymandering which blights so many other democratic countries. The Boundary Commission needs to retain some form of discretion to call for an inquiry, at least in those cases where it considers that it is necessary, with appropriate safeguards. I am sure that improvements can be made to the statutory scheme to promote efficiency and reduce delays but there really is no case for abolition. I very much hope, and expect, that the Minister will tell the Committee that this is one of those matters on which the Government intend to bring forward concessions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we welcome the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The amendment to reinstate public inquiries into Boundary Commission proposals provides your Lordships’ House with an opportunity to start edging back from the precipice. It builds on an amendment moved by the opposition Front Bench which your Lordships debated last Wednesday. Although the Cross-Bench amendment that we are debating is more restrictive than ours, we willingly support it in the interests of breaking the deadlock on Part 2. It is a sensible and practical proposal for which we are grateful.
Clause 12 will, if enacted, abolish completely—indeed, it would go further than that and ban—the right to hold a local public inquiry into the recommendation of a Boundary Commission. The Government have chosen to put in the place of a public inquiry an extended consultation period by written submission of eight weeks. It is our submission that this is not an adequate replacement. Part of the function of a local inquiry is to provide people with a fair hearing and an explanation of why a proposal has been turned down. That is essential to the legitimacy of the process and we believe that it improves the decision-making process as well. Perhaps one of the most telling facts is that in every single case where the Boundary Commission was proposing significant changes, such as an increase or a decrease in the number of constituencies in a particular locality, its initial proposals were in every case amended following a public inquiry, so public inquiries are at their most valuable when the recommendations under consideration are the most dramatic. That fact is particularly salient in the context of this Bill which provides for a boundary review based on a reduction of 50 constituencies and the new set of rules dominated by a rigid electoral parity rule.
As the heads of the four Boundary Commissions have made clear, those factors mean it is inevitable that the next review will result in considerable changes to the electoral landscape, so considerable in fact that the Bill states in Rule 9(2), in Clause 11, that the Boundary Commissions are not permitted to take into account Rule 5(1)(d),
“inconveniences attendant on such changes”,
when conducting the forthcoming review.
They can take account of inconvenience in future reviews, but not in this first one.
As we debated in your Lordships’ House last week—I recommend that your Lordships read Hansard to see the relevant quotes—even psephologists who are sceptical about the value of public inquiries have said that on this occasion, in this context, they should be retained. Indeed, they have made the point that, while political parties have tended to be the major participants in inquiries, the scale of change that will be brought about by the next review is likely to provoke a much greater level of involvement by individuals and groups of local people. That is one of the reasons why we on this side of the House have not been willing to drop this matter.
I accept that there is a case for amending the current provisions in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 so that boundary commissions have some discretion about whether to go ahead with an inquiry, even where the basic threshold is met. However, the amendment proposed by the Cross Benches addresses that issue. The amendment that we moved last week provided that element of discretion. The variation on our amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has tweaked the drafting on that point and made the position clear. We are grateful for that.
There is also the point about judicial review, made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the dead of night last week, which he makes again today. I will not repeat what he said, because he said it a lot better than I ever could. His intervention on Wednesday was a powerful one and I very much hope that the Government will listen to it.
The Cross-Bench amendment keeps our initial six-month limit on a local inquiry but states that no secondary inquiry should be allowed. Given that these are very rare in practice, we have no objection to that change in the proposal.
I hope that the Minister, in responding to this debate, will be able unequivocally to accept this amendment. It has nothing to do with partisan advantage. It is a practical proposal concerned with the legitimacy of the process for drawing constituency boundaries. Helpfully and constructively, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, confirmed last week:
“It is not a fundamental principle of the Bill that there should be no oral inquiries.”.—[Official Report, 26/1/11; col. 1070.]
We have high hopes that the noble and learned Lord will enable us to progress in this matter by broadly accepting the proposal in the Cross-Bench amendment. I support the amendment.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, in the spirit of the Chamber, I want to make two simple and quick points. I make a comment about the thought of a local inquiry not only from the experience of twice having my constituency rejigged through the process, but also from my experience as the chairman of our party a number of years ago.
Local inquiries can occasionally develop a life of their own. I wonder about the six-month limit because I can fairly easily foresee a legal argument arising out of a consultation that had not been satisfactorily concluded in this six-month period. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I have some concern about the concept of a public inquiry in this context. Having said that, I add something that they may not welcome quite so much. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, when he said that the Boundary Commission needed some “discretion”—I use his word. I hope—indeed, I think the whole House hopes—that the Government will find it possible to meet the spirit reflected in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has said and what I am saying in sympathy with what has already been said: that whether it is a local inquiry or not—and I have concerns about the concept of a local inquiry—there needs to be some element of discretion for the Boundary Commission.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I will raise one point. The Leader of the House made a very welcome statement. The amendment that we are discussing is in the spirit of the statement. However, I do not see or hear anything about the conventions on Report. As the Leader of the House will be aware—although I stand to be corrected—the rule of thumb is that Report shall be allocated half the number of days of Committee. That is the convention of the House. This is what this side and that side have insisted upon in opposition. My simple question is: has there been any discussion or agreement on the number of days allocated to Report?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, perhaps it would help if I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has enormous experience of this from being opposition Chief Whip for some time some years ago. The answer is that we have not yet agreed the number of days on Report. However, as I pointed out in my statement, we will need to complete Third Reading on the evening of 14 February in order to get the Bill back to another place in time for Royal Assent. Various conclusions can be reached from that.
As far as concerns conventions, almost from day one the Bill has been a scenario of broken agreements and conventions. I very much hope that we can all agree that it would be sensible to move forward on the basis of how the House traditionally handles Report, within the rules. I am hopeful that we will be able to deliver the Bill on time.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I will not go into technicalities, but I wish to express strong support from the Bishops’ Bench for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and fellow noble Lords, as a reconciling way forward at an impasse.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for the way in which he introduced his amendment, which facilitated the debate on the very important amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the Convener of the Cross Benches. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and for the helpful spirit in which she moved it, and all noble Lords for the general tenor of the Committee debate. As was indicated in some contributions, we have already had debates on the shape of the consultation process, most notably last Wednesday evening, when opposition Amendment 93 was debated. It was similar to Amendment 94 in a number of respects, but not identical in one crucial respect. My colleagues and I have listened with care to the arguments and strong opinions of both sides, expressed last week, today and, it is fair to say, in a number of other debates in Committee when the issue of public inquiries was raised.
I thank the noble Baroness for the valuable contribution that she is making, not only with this amendment but in the process of discussion and negotiation on the Bill. I hope that she knows that I am as keen as she is to find a satisfactory resolution to these matters. A week ago, she made clear during a short debate the desire of the Cross Benches that both Government and Opposition should engage in discussions in order that progress could be made on the Bill “with dignity and resolve”—I think those were her words. We welcome that sentiment. As we have made clear, the Government are open to considering reasonable improvements to the Bill provided that they do not compromise its fundamental principles. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, quoted me saying last week that there was no objection in principle to the idea of oral hearings.
The Bill establishes a consultation process that the Government consider is already an improvement on the process set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. That Act allows one month for written representations followed by a local inquiry if objections are received from an interested local authority or from 100 or more electors. A further month for written representations follows where a commission revises its recommendations, with the discretion to hold a second public inquiry. The Bill extends the period for written representations from one month to 12 weeks, with a second period of 12 weeks where recommendations are revised.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, I very much thank the Minister for his words and for the spirit in which he expressed them. Before I perhaps comment on the detail, I also thank all noble Lords who supported my amendment. One of the major features was the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, when he said that there should undoubtedly be in the Bill some discretion for the Boundary Commission to do what it has to do, because it has a long history of doing some quite useful work.
What the Minister said about ensuring that there will be public hearings for political parties and the public is extremely important and very welcome. Indeed, that was what my amendment was aimed at. The facility and opportunity to express views is something that we should always cherish, and any opportunity to do so should be supported in any way possible.
I am particularly glad that the Minister feels that it is important that this process should kick in right at the start when the initial report is published by the Boundary Commission. That is also welcome. The words from the Minister, taking into account the long hours of discussion and negotiations—pleasant as many of them have been on all sides of the House— suggest that the Government have gone very far in meeting our requirements. I thank Members for their support and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, having heard the debate and the Minister’s response on the amendment to my amendment, and to enable the Committee to consider other important amendments on the Order Paper, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Egypt
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat as a Statement the Answer given by the Minister for Europe to an Urgent Question in the other place this afternoon. The Statement is as follows.
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the situation in Egypt. First, may I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State for his absence today? The House may be aware that he is attending a Foreign Affairs Council meeting today in Brussels, where this issue is at the top of the agenda.
While the calls for political reform have been peaceful, general unrest has become increasingly dangerous, with elements of violence leading to lawlessness in some areas of major cities such as Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. Severe restrictions on freedom of expression, including closure of both internet access and mobile phone services, have only fuelled the anger of demonstrators. We have called on the Egyptian authorities to lift those restrictions urgently.
I am sure that the House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to all those affected by the unrest in Egypt, including the families and friends of those who have been killed and injured. Casualty figures remain unclear, but it is estimated that at least 100 people have died. On Saturday, the army took over responsibility for security in Cairo, and its role has so far been welcomed by protestors. Our aim throughout these events has been to ensure the safety of British nationals in Egypt and to support Egypt in making a stable transition to a more open, democratic society.
I turn first to consular issues. There are estimated to be 20,000 British tourists in Egypt, the majority of whom are in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, where, according to our latest information, the situation remains calm. We estimate that there are a further 10,000 British nationals in the rest of Egypt.
On Friday 28 January we changed our travel advice to advise against “all but essential travel” to the cities of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and Luxor, due to the severity of demonstrations there. On Saturday 29 January, we heightened our travel advice further to recommend that those without a pressing need to be in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez leave by commercial means where it was safe to do so. Those in Luxor are advised to stay indoors wherever possible. A daily curfew remains in place throughout Egypt from 3 pm to 8 am.
Cairo airport is open but has been operating under considerable difficulties. The situation was particularly difficult yesterday, but our ambassador in Cairo reports that it has eased a little today. Flights are operating but are subject to delays or cancellation. The majority of British nationals have been able to leave Cairo airport today. We estimate that around 50 British nationals will remain at the airport overnight, to depart on scheduled flights tomorrow. The situation also appears to be improving in Alexandria, with road access to the airport now secure. We have staff at Cairo airport working around the clock to provide assistance to any British nationals who require it. We also have staff in Alexandria, Luxor and Sharm el-Sheikh, who are providing very regular updates about the situation on the ground in these parts of Egypt and staying in close touch with tour operators and British companies on the ground.
Additional staff reinforcements from London and the region have been sent to Egypt to help embassy staff to maintain essential services in these difficult circumstances. A 24-hour hotline is available for British nationals to call if they need assistance or advice. I am sure that the House will join me in recognising the hard work and dedication shown by all our staff, both in Egypt and in London, in responding quickly and professionally to the unfolding events.
I turn to the political situation in Egypt. The United Kingdom has major interests at stake in Egypt, which has played an important role as a regional leader, including in the Middle East peace process. We are also the biggest foreign investor, with a cumulative investment of more than £13 billion. The scale of these protests is unprecedented in Egypt over the past 30 years. We have called on President Mubarak to avoid at all costs the use of violence against unarmed civilians and we have called on the demonstrators to exercise their rights peacefully.
In response to the growing protests, President Mubarak announced on 28 January that he had asked the Government to resign. On 29 January, he appointed the head of the Egyptian intelligence services, Omar Suleiman, as his vice-president and Ahmed Shafiq, most recently Minister for Civil Aviation, as Prime Minister. Further Cabinet appointments have been made today. However, demonstrations have continued and are now focused on a demand for President Mubarak to resign.
It is not for us to decide who governs Egypt. However, we believe that the pathway to stability in Egypt is through political change that reflects the wishes of the Egyptian people. This should include an orderly transition to a more democratic system, including through holding free and fair elections and the introduction of measures to safeguard human rights. This kind of reform is essential to show to people in Egypt that their concerns and their aspirations are being listened to.
We continue to urge President Mubarak to appoint a broad-based Government who include opposition figures and to embark on an urgent programme of peaceful political reform. We are also working with our international partners to ensure that these messages are given consistently and that technical and financial support for reform is available. The Prime Minister has spoken to President Mubarak and President Obama. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and EU High Representative Baroness Ashton over the weekend. He will also be discussing the situation in Egypt with EU colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting today.
The situation in Egypt is still very uncertain. We are putting in place contingency plans to ensure that we are prepared for all eventualities”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to the House today. I declare an interest as chairman of the British Egyptian Society and a member of the British Egyptian Business Council.
The Statement makes it clear that the unrest that we have witnessed in Egypt has developed very rapidly over the past few days, particularly in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez, as the Minister mentioned. The casualty figures, at more than 100 dead and many more injured, are very high. They seem to be a high proportion of those who were demonstrating. The numbers have been estimated variously as 10,000 at the beginning of the demonstrations and 20,000 most recently and, given those numbers, the casualty figures seem very high. I wish to associate these Benches with the expression of sympathy given by the noble Lord to all those who have been affected, in particular the families and friends of those who have been killed or injured.
Can the Minister tell the House whether there were fewer deaths after the army was brought in to replace the police? From the reports that we have all read and certainly from the Statement that the Minister has made, it seems that the army was more acceptable on the streets as a regulating force and that possibly it did not use some of the lethal force that the riot police seem to have deployed originally. Can the Minister confirm that there were many more people demonstrating yesterday than had been the case the day before and that, as a result, the curfew hours have now been extended? I think he mentioned the time of three o’clock in the afternoon, but originally it was four o’clock. I wondered whether that was as a result of those increasing numbers on the street.
I hope that the Minister will be able to convey the good wishes and the thanks of the whole House to our embassy staff in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt, particularly the consular staff who have been working so hard. On that point, the FCO’s business plan has a commitment to deliver a smaller consular staff in future. Is the Minister satisfied that our embassy has sufficient consular staff to undertake the very heavy burden that has fallen on them, given the large number of British people currently holidaying in or visiting Egypt? He mentioned a number who have been deployed in recent days. Is that the rapid reaction force from the Foreign Office and can he tell us how many consular staff are on the ground in Egypt at present? I trust that the travel advice which he was kind enough to detail will be updated regularly and that we shall be able to see that on the FCO website.
On the Egyptian Government’s reaction to demonstrators, can the Minister tell us whether the UK Government or the EU has reacted to the reported use of low-flying F16s by the Egyptian air force? Have they asked about why those aircraft were deployed? Clearly, the street demonstrations today and tomorrow will give us a clearer insight into what is going on, but that seemed to be a quite extraordinary use of F16s.
I have two more specific questions. First, can the Minister tell the House anything about what is happening to the financial markets in relation to what is going on in Egypt? There has been some reporting on that. I make it clear that I do not ask that because of the great British investment in Egypt—as the Minister said, some £13 billion—but because of the impact that further financial pressure will have on the Egyptian Government’s ability to look after its own people. Secondly, can he say anything about the widespread reports of looting, not particularly from houses but—as we have heard from Professor Zahi Hawass, who today I believe has been appointed as a government Minister—from museums? Egypt’s artefacts are a glory not only to Egypt but to the whole world and it is important that we keep track of what is happening in that regard.
Many of your Lordships will be very concerned about what will happen over the next few days in Egypt and in the wider region. Egypt has a huge and growing population and, as has been discussed at the UN and elsewhere, for the past 10 years there has been a desperate and growing shortage of jobs in the area, particularly for the fast growing youthful population. Unemployment and rising commodity prices over the past few months have been a real problem throughout the whole region.
I visited Jordan last weekend and Libya the weekend before and the impact of both unemployment and rising prices is evident, particularly in those countries where there are few natural resources to combat them, especially where there is a rising problem of debt and no ability to subsidise prices. In some areas there has been very heavy subsidising of essential commodities. Money has been put into the system to try to create more jobs and in some countries there have been direct subsidies into citizens’ bank accounts in order to keep these problems under control. However, these safety valves simply are not available where there are energy shortages and job shortages as there are in Egypt. Do the Government recognise that this is not just an Egyptian problem, but a regional one? We have seen what has happened in Tunisia and we have seen the unrest, albeit in a more limited version, in Libya, Jordan and Lebanon and elsewhere.
I think all human beings want a say in how they are governed—at least the overwhelming majority do. They want better functioning institutions; they want to see the growth of civil society and non-governmental organisations. However, the Minister may recall, as I do, the ill fated American initiative on this issue—which was spearheaded by President Bush and I think Vice-President Cheney—which tried to impose a view of Arab reform in the Middle East. That was rejected completely by the countries of the Middle East at the time and I hope the British Government will do everything they can to resist that sort of imposition. I have no reason to think they will be looking for that sort of imposition. It is enormously important that the solutions to these problems are found within the countries themselves. We have to recognise that there is an inevitable dilemma between the benefits of stability and security on the one hand and the benefits of freedom on the other.
The Egyptians did begin a reform programme. There were a number of constitutional amendments, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. There was a move towards facilitating opposition parties and indeed the setting up of a human rights commission in Egypt. This is not nearly enough and we have to look forward to what can be achieved by the new Government to whom the noble Lord has referred, including, most importantly, free and fair elections and a programme of peaceful political reform. We wish that not only for peace and justice in the Middle East’s most populous state but for the wider Middle East and, in particular, the Middle East peace process. We should not forget that Egypt has been a real force for moderation and engagement in the Middle East peace process when other states in the region perhaps have taken a rather less constructive attitude.
In supporting the main thrust of the Statement which the Minister has repeated, can I ask him to assure the House that we will be kept up to date? Tomorrow there is a call for 1 million people to turn out on to the streets of the Egyptian cities we have been discussing. That will be a crucial day. I trust that the Minister will do everything he can to make sure that the House is kept informed of developments.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. Of course she knows the region very well and I am particularly grateful for her expressions of good will on behalf of all of us to the consular staff who are carrying out their duties, often in very challenging and even very dangerous conditions. Those good wishes mean a lot and I am very glad to ensure that they are conveyed to those concerned. The rapid reaction force of staff, to which she referred, is involved in the process. She asked whether we are satisfied that in normal times, if one can use that phrase, we have the right kind of consular support for the substantial number of British tourists and for the still relatively small but growing trade, industrial and investment links with Egypt. The answer is yes, we do. We have examined the staffing very carefully and think it is the right amount, but we are in a highly abnormal situation and we must obviously reinforce the consular numbers as quickly and as effectively as we can. I am not sure of the precise number of consular staff now in Egypt but, as I mentioned earlier, 20 more have been added over the past few days.
I will deal now with the noble Baroness’s other points, which seem to me extremely apposite. I agree that the number of deaths seems high but we are dealing not just with what is going on in Cairo—an enormous city of, I think, about 20 million people, so twice the size of London—but with the many other areas and towns across the whole of this country of 80 million people as well. It is regrettable but not totally surprising that when real violence and anger break out on the streets the deaths are high. She asked whether there were signs that the army has been doing better in its relations with the demonstrators than the police, whose first wave of response was violent and insensitive. It seems it is. Again, there are variations across the country but there are all sorts of anecdotes indicating that the army personnel and the crowds are in some sort of rapport on occasions. That is a very healthy development, which one hopes provides the foundations for an orderly transition to some degree of stability.
The noble Baroness is right about the curfew. It was extended yesterday by another hour from 3 pm to 4 pm. She also asked about the low flying aircraft. I am afraid we are talking about internal decisions of the existing or recently renewed Egyptian Government regarding how they dispose of their security forces. I cannot add anything to that as to why those they chose to fly the aircraft or what the psychological impression was intended to be. On the whole, I am not sure it was terribly helpful in terms of reassurance because hands pointed skywards and said that they were American aircraft and so on, so it probably did not help the general atmosphere.
Regarding financial markets, the Egyptian stock exchange I think is closed again today; it may have opened for a short while. It was closed yesterday, obviously, and the ratings of stocks and shares are sharply down. The crude oil price in the region has hit $100 a barrel and seems to be moving upwards—that affects us all, as we well know when we go to the garage petrol pump. The region has 66 per cent of the world’s oil reserves—not so much in Egypt, although it does have oil and gas.
The noble Baroness asked about looting, and again I do not have details, but we have seen evidence of quite widespread looting and she asked particularly about how this might endanger the antiquities and museums which contain some of the most precious items, familiar to us all, marking the ancient glories of Egypt. Our understanding is that the Egyptian Government are well aware of their responsibilities and have posted special guards round the museums. As this is an internal matter, I cannot guarantee that is going to be totally effective. There were some demonstrations rather close to the museums, but there are guards round them and people are aware, and we have offered some reminders of the importance of preserving these precious objects at a time of violence on the streets.
The noble Baroness made some extremely penetrating and wise remarks about the causes of this remarkable transition that seems to going on first in Tunis and now in Egypt, and there have been riots in other countries in the region as well and protests on the streets. Many causes have been analysed by all sorts of experts on these occasions. These are countries with a very large youthful population who are very short of jobs. Youth unemployment is always a danger. It is an era in which protest becomes e-enabled, with the ability to mobilise through the internet vast organisations of protest with the click of a button. With mobile phones and the support of an endless cascade of television media the whole speed at which protests can spring up, as has happened in Egypt, is vastly accelerated. Add to that a toxic mixture of rising food prices, rising fuel prices and the longing which is always there—and is one we salute—for liberty and greater freedom, particularly of press and media expression, and you have the kind of mixture which simply requires a match to light it, and up it goes. That is what has happened.
I give a firm assurance to the noble Baroness and your Lordships that I and my colleagues will seek to keep the House fully informed as the situation unfolds but, for the moment, speculation as to how it will unfold is difficult. One wants to be optimistic and see moderate, balanced regimes emerge, aware of their international and regional responsibilities. That is possible, but it is also possible that the whole event could take a much darker turn.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, can my noble friend reassure the House about the transportation of British nationals? I assume that his figure of 10,000 includes dual nationals. Can other European carriers bring out British nationals, should British carriers be unable to accommodate the number who might need airlifting out of Cairo?
On a broader point, the United Kingdom does not have a good history in the Middle East. This situation, grave as it is, provides us with an opportunity to be on the right side of history. Does my noble friend agree that comments by senior British statesmen in the Middle East that stability is perhaps to be traded for pluralism and democracy are unhelpful, and that, although stability is deeply important in that volatile part of the world, pluralism is equally so? It does not behove our Government to take a position whereby we do not seek to uphold the wishes of the people and instead somehow trade off a peace process that is going nowhere with a desire for a false state of stability?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I know what my noble friend is getting at, but I think that that is a false polarity. Something that I have learnt—in particular, in my dealings with the Commonwealth, which does not really come into this issue—is that democracy, the rule of law and good governance are the foundations of stability, investment, jobs and trade expansion. Where those things are not adhered to, or at least there is no trend towards them, problems arise that lead to challenges—not in every country; we can think of exceptions to that generalisation, but that is the scene. I do not think that the pattern of differentiation hinted at in my noble friend's remarks is entirely justified.
The certain and central truth is in my noble friend’s other observation that the UK has a long history in the area, not all of it bad. I am always interested in the way in which many countries with which we might have had bad relations in the past are extremely pro this country—I am thinking of countries slightly further to the east in the Gulf—and are constantly asking for stronger renewed links with the United Kingdom. Some of them have recently been saying to me, “Where is the United Kingdom? Please will you come back?”, so not all the history has been bad, although some of it has been very awkward indeed. The history of our relations with Egypt has had its good moments and its terrible moments over the past century, and certainly for the past 40 or 50 years, as we all vividly remember.
As to the practical matter of routes to the airport and getting nationals out, we are watching that carefully. If it were necessary to think in terms of special charters and so on, we would move immediately, but so far we are finding that the commercial airlines, including British and some non-British airlines, have capacity. The airport is operating again today better than it was and, most importantly, the routes to Cairo airport are clear and properly guarded in a way that it was feared they were not the day before yesterday and yesterday. The situation can change at any time, but at the moment it looks a little better. I hope that that is helpful to my noble friend.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, we should all devoutly hope that there will be a peaceful transition to democracy, notwithstanding the demographic explosion in Egypt, which leads to the lack of jobs and the water shortage, but there is another option. The spectre of the Iranian revolution still haunts the Middle East. The Minister will recall that at that time our embassy was rather dazzled by the Peacock Throne and that the revolution went downhill from Mr Bakhtiar, a liberal democrat, to end with the mullahs and Ayatollah Khomeini. How serious is the danger of such a decline? We must recognise not only how Egypt, the most populous Arab country, would be affected but, because of the linkage of the Muslim Brotherhood and other less moderate forces to the rejectionist forces in the Middle East, the blow that would result to the Middle East peace process.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Of course, the dangers are there. Revolutions and massive street protests can take unpredictable paths. I think that the analogy with the Peacock Throne and the fall of the Shah is not strong. There has been deep recognition for some time that the pattern of rule in Egypt and the far from fair and free elections conducted last year were paving stones on the route to trouble and that, although one cannot always assess the exact moment of conflagration, there were dangers. I said earlier that the power of electronic media, including the internet, in mobilising people and protests at lightning speed should not be underestimated. Some people have mentioned the machinery of Twitter, Facebook and all those other things. They can convey and gather information and organise people at fantastic speed.
The dangers were seen. Now the task, not for any individual country but for all responsible states men and women around the world, is to see that the pattern unfurls in a moderate way and that the more extreme elements—the younger hotheads in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, the jihadists, and so on—do not hold sway. My view is that there are many sensible, wise and talented people in Egypt and a strong middle class who, although they might be frustrated by past events, have a strong enough voice to give us some hope that moderation will prevail.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I ask the Minister to get his crystal ball out on what might be one of the more certain and important consequences of what is happening in Egypt. Exactly a year ago, I was with the Foreign Minister of Egypt and a party of parliamentarians from 15 European countries. We were en route to Gaza and could get in only via Egypt. It strikes me in particular that Egypt's alliance with Israel in effect to keep the lid on Gaza cannot possibly prevail in the aftermath of what is happening. Whatever Government come in, they seem almost certain to want to review that rather loveless alliance. Is the Foreign Office having due regard to the possible consequences of what seems to me to be almost inevitable? I think, for example, of the border between Gaza and Egypt. As the Minister will know, the Egyptians built the wall along that border only a year or two back, and it has been tunnelled under relentlessly.
One would hope that whatever the immediate consequences in that dimension, there might be the prospect—one hopes and prays—of a balance of voices within Israel itself shifting more to that part of Israeli opinion, political and non-political, that desperately wants to break out of the box that Israeli policy is currently in. That is in the hope that in due time—I realise that these are hugely complicated matters and that it takes all sides to tango—one could move away from the continued colonisation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and into a positive mode that could in the end see a general resolution of this ghastly combination of factors. I ask the Minister whether the Foreign Office is alive to all this—I am sure it is—and whether it will be able to exert some constructive influence and pressure to reach a positive outcome.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I thank my noble friend. Foreign Office Ministers, particularly junior ones, have to be quite careful when it comes to taking out a crystal ball and making bold forecasts, because this is a particularly fluid situation. My noble friend has done a pretty good job himself in raising certain crystal-ball issues, and these are very much in my mind and that of my noble and honourable friends and their advisers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is absolutely right that we now have to look at implications and try to be one step ahead of the unfolding scene. Gaza and the Israel-Palestine situation, oil and energy supplies throughout the region, and the now increasingly unfashionable pattern of nepotism—which seemed to cause so much anger in Tunis and was clearly a feature in the riots in Cairo, and which was a feature in other contexts as well—all need to be looked at, together with the position of other countries all around the region.
Even in Lebanon we have a fragile situation, with a new Prime Minister who will we hope command sufficient support all round to achieve a delicate balance there. There are issues of potential turbulence in many other regions as well. This means not only that we are already in a new international landscape but that we now, as a result of what has been happening for the last few weeks, have to have a further reassessment. I can therefore assure my noble friend that every effort will be made to peer into the future—it sometimes seems very dark indeed—and to make proper provision for the interests of this country in a new and changing world.
Lord Jay of Ewelme
I thank the Minister for his Statement and join others in expressing sympathy for British citizens caught up in unrest and our admiration for the consular staff, both in Egypt and sent from London, who are helping.
I understand the pressure on the Foreign Office budget at the moment, including the consular budget, but will the Minister say whether the Foreign Office is considering developing the concept of rapid reaction forces to provide greater flexibility in the management of consular staff and increasing the chances of having the right number of people available in the alas increasing number of emergencies for which British citizens will quite rightly expect and deserve support from our consular services?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am sure this is in the mind of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, about which the noble Lord knows a great deal. He probably knows a great deal more than I do; he has spent more time there than I have. This is an age that requires agility, adaptability and rapid deployment as never before in handling international affairs, securing stability and peace, and protecting and promoting our interests, so this kind of design will be increasingly required alongside the stable institutions of Whitehall and the hierarchies of government that have prevailed in the past. We have to have some new thoughts on how to deal with the instant conflagrations and instant fires that can spring up in this globalised total communication, totally informational world.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Will the Minister confirm that it is not always helpful to talk about countries in the region of North Africa and the Middle East as if they were the same, and agree that in Egypt there are some very active opposition parties—not just Mohammed El Baradei’s group and the Muslim Brotherhood but other parties who have MPs, some of whom have links with United Kingdom political parties. There is a vibrant civil society, and there are some free media, and we have in Dominic Asquith, as we had with Derek Plumbly, and their staff, people who know this situation very well. I found this out when I visited on a number of occasions with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to try to promote democracy in Egypt. Will he agree that our top priority must now be to do everything that we can through all the international organisations of which we are members to make sure that there are free and fair elections for the President and the Parliament?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I agree, and I regard those as extremely helpful and constructive comments. They underlie a point that is often worth making: that international affairs is not just about Governments to Governments but a vast substructure of informal, non-governmental, voluntary and professional links that make up the whole fabric of relations between two countries. What the noble Lord has said reinforces that very strongly.
Lord Hylton
What is the current state of health of General Suleiman, who had been invited to become Prime Minister in Egypt? Did he accept, and more generally will the Foreign Office be revising and reviewing its whole approach to the Middle East and to North Africa, bearing in mind what the Minister has already said about transition from one kind of regime to another?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I cannot add much on General Suleiman. He is known to a number of people in this country and to a number of people working in and for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I cannot comment on the precise circumstances in which he came to be appointed, as they are internal to the Egyptian Government. That is the position, and I am sorry if I have not been helpful on that.
As to revising our approach, revision of approach has become the pattern of the age. We are in an era of constant evolution in our institutions and our arrangements, driven by the global information revolution and the globalisation of events and processes, so new approaches are having to be considered at all times in this transformed international landscape, and we will do our best, in close dialogue with the experts and think tanks and international experts and partners, to make sense of this fast-changing jigsaw world.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, the Statement says that the Government are urging,
“President Mubarak to appoint a broad-based Government who include opposition figures”.
Is this not part of the problem? The massive movement of people on the ground who are demonstrating in Egypt see Mubarak as the problem, and for the Government to be calling on him to be doing anything at this time is not helpful. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has said, what is really needed is a strong cross-coalition Opposition that will include different parties that have been kept down and kept weak by Mubarak over the last three decades. They will inevitably include the Muslim Brotherhood in a minority. An alternative is needed, which people can look to, that can step forward and help that transition.
I follow Twitter, and there are hundreds and hundreds of voices on it saying, “We do not want Mubarak. He is the problem; he is the one who has repressed everyone”. The present generation of young people who have seen high unemployment and have no hope for the future see him as the problem. Is it wise of the Government to be calling on Mubarak to take a lead in a transitional time? I wonder about that and the fact that we keep hearing about the Muslim Brotherhood when it is in fact a minority. It does not enjoy widespread support but inevitably has some support and will be part of any coalition in any transitional period.
Lord Howell of Guildford
One should not overestimate the powers of the outside world nor underestimate the fact that the future of this nation and its pattern of government will be determined internally by the people of Egypt. We have to take the situation as it is and, at the moment, the leadership and the power remain in the hands of Mr Mubarak. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend says, that tens of thousands of people are calling for his removal, but others are equally determined that he should not be removed. We will have to see how this works out. In the mean time, it seems reasonable to suggest to those who are in the Government of Egypt, with its new personnel, that the right path is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, rightly referred. They must press towards democracy if they want the stability and better life for the people of Egypt that many in the streets are shouting for.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, Clause 12 is headed “Boundary Commission proposals: publicity and consultation”. I am interested in a number of questions in relation to whether there will be a change in the notification process as a result of Clause 12. The new Section 5 that Clause 12 inserts into the 1986 Act provides:
“Where a Boundary Commission have provisionally determined to make recommendations affecting any constituency, they shall take such steps as they see fit to inform people in the constituency … (a) of the effect of the proposed recommendations and … (b) that representations with respect to the proposed recommendations may be made to the Commission during a specified period of 12 weeks”.
First, can the noble and learned Lord give us some indication of what timetable the Government envisage for the first boundary review under the Bill, which has to conclude by 1 October 2013? When do they envisage that those provisional reviews will be published? Do they envisage that there will be one review for each country or region, or will the review apply to the whole United Kingdom—perhaps excluding Northern Ireland—all at once? I am particularly keen to know how the resources of those who may have to respond to those issues will have to be deployed.
Secondly, how do the Government envisage that there will be notification to the public of their right to make representations? This might be apparent if I thought about it more, but what is the effect of subsection (3) of the new Section 5? Will its effect be that, where there are new proposals, new Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) will apply again with exactly the same time limits? If the Boundary Commission makes a provisional proposal that is then changed for whatever reason, will it be necessary to advertise the proposal in precisely the same way and will the commission need to advertise again that representations can be made?
Separately, do the Government envisage that the boundary commissions will each issue guidance on what they will do to comply with the new Section 5? If the boundary commissions will issue guidance, will that be in draft form so that this House can see it before the conclusion of Report so that we get some idea about how the new Section 5 will operate?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am particularly pleased that we are making such great progress on the Bill. It is very encouraging to have had that earlier response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to the amendment moved by the Cross-Benchers. It was particularly encouraging that the noble and learned Lord responded and took the initiative, because earlier today I was reading a blog—strangely enough—belonging to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in which there appears a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who wrote:
“There has been a potential (and sensible) deal available on this Bill for at least the past two weeks and the failure to clinch it is (in my view) mainly on the government side. The irony is that the deal has substantial Liberal Democrat support”.
I am glad that the deal has been clinched, and I am glad that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who came here to do the clinching, as it were.
On Clause 12, although almost everyone in this debate has talked about “the Boundary Commission”, I remind the House—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, does not need reminding—that there is more than one such commission in the United Kingdom. Although England and Wales might have a combined boundary commission—I am advised that they have separate commissions, but that means that my argument applies a fortiori—there is otherwise a different boundary commission in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom.
On this matter, and on other matters, how are the Government going to achieve a measure of consistency in the work carried out in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England in relation to, for example, appeals? Following the passage of this Bill, will guidance be issued to the boundary commissions that says, “This is what we expect you to do”, so that the Government take the lead, or will the Government perhaps say to the chairs of the four commissions, “You should get together and work out a modus operandi for your areas”?
Obviously, local hearings are the important issue that we have been dealing with recently, but there are a number of other issues on which it would be invidious if one decision was made in Scotland and different action was taken in England. It could be that in entirely similar circumstances, an oral hearing was held in Scotland but not in England, or vice versa. It would be helpful if the Minister in his reply could put this into a United Kingdom context and talk about the collaboration and co-operation that he envisages among the boundary commissions.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for their contributions and questions. I was just a bit wary when the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned me coming here for the clinching, particularly for an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, but I understood the spirit in which he made his remark.
I shall pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. He was absolutely right to remind the Committee that in fact there are four Boundary Commissions responsible for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. One of the issues that we will want to address in preparing the amendment which I indicated in the earlier debate is that of consistency. The important point is consistency, but it need not necessarily be one of exactness, which raises issues of how much should be set out in the Bill and what should be left to the guidance of the Boundary Commissions themselves. That is something we want to work through with them.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether the Boundary Commissions would provide guidance on how they will carry out the review. Prima facie this is a matter for the commissions, but the practice in the past has been for them to do so. It is my understanding that the secretary to the Boundary Commission for England confirmed for the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place that they intend to do so again for this review. However, the question of draft guidance is a matter for the Boundary Commissions. I do not think that it has been produced in the past, but if the noble and learned Lord has information to the contrary, I would be interested to hear it. Moreover, I am not aware of any being ready to be published at the moment. In fairness to the Boundary Commissions, it would be difficult for them to produce draft guidance given that we are still at the stage where changes are being made. Indeed, as I indicated in my responses to the amendment moved last week by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on how long it would take to put these matters online, and indeed the matter that was debated earlier today regarding public hearings, it might be rather difficult for the Boundary Commissions to produce draft guidance ahead of the Report stage when your Lordships are still debating what the actual shape of the consultation will be.
I was asked when the initial recommendations would be published. That is entirely a matter for the commissions. I was also asked by the noble and learned Lord whether the commissions have to advertise in the same way for the initial and the revised recommendations. My information is that, yes, they would have to do that. I shall give a little more clarification on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It is certainly not the Government’s intention to issue guidance on how the commissions should interpret the legislation, but I understand that the commissions work together on issues that are of common interest and common practice. While not issuing them with guidance on how to do that, we would certainly give them every encouragement to work together. It is also my understanding that each Boundary Commission will produce a report, and certainly I do not think it is intended that there would be one UK report. What I could not be certain about is whether there would be separate reports produced at different intervals for each of the regions of England. I really do not know whether that has happened in the past. But, again, it is certainly not my understanding or anticipation that there would be one mega-UK report. There will be reports from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, I assume, England, but I do not know whether the Boundary Commission for England would wish to break up its report into separate regions. At the moment, I am not in a position to say.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The way it is done at the moment is that Boundary Commission reports are issued within England or Scotland covering a particular part, usually a county, because there are limits on being able to cross particular boundaries. You have to decide within a particular area which constituency will go where. We know that that is not going to be the position here, so while I understand completely that there will not be a UK-wide report, I am keen to try to ascertain the extent to which the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will, as a matter of practice, be divided up between areas of, say, the eastern region, the East Midlands and the West Midlands. That is significant in terms of how resources are dealt with by political parties in looking at the particular issue, even though it may well be that the Boundary Commissions have not resolved how to do that at the moment. I would ask, therefore, whether they will produce guidance indicating how they are going to do it or does one just have to wait until a particular report covering, for example, the north-east or the south-west of England is produced so that resources can be put to dealing with the area at that particular point? That is what I was interested in.
The noble and learned Lord took my questions as relating to inquiries, but my question was really about the timing of the guidance. I have with me a document from the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England covering the procedure at local inquiries. Of course the commission could not possibly have that ready yet because only this afternoon did we find that there are now going to be local inquiries. Having raised the matter, is it envisaged that further guidance relating to the whole consultation process, part of which will be in writing, will be issued? However, I am much more focused on the order of batting and the timing.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The answer I gave was not intended to be specific to the issue of public hearings, but rather was meant to be illustrative of where there obviously will be changes from what is set out in the Bill at the moment as a result of amendments to be brought forward at the Report stage in response to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about counter-representations. That is why I wanted to make the point that we cannot really expect the Boundary Commissions to produce draft guidance when they do not know what they are actually going to be asked to deliver. Clearly, we will have to examine what the issues of public hearings and counterproposals mean in terms of timing in the coming weeks. However, as I just indicated, it has been the practice in the past that, as the secretary to the Boundary Commission for England confirmed for the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place, the commissions again intend to issue guidance. The point I sought to make was that I did not think that they had issued draft guidance in the past, and I certainly would not anticipate any draft guidance before next week or whenever we debate the Bill on Report.
I am also advised that the Boundary Commission for England published its recommendations on a county basis, which coincides with what the noble and learned Lord said. It is certainly a matter for the Boundary Commission itself to determine how it will report. It could use regions, and I understand that it would be consistent with the powers in the Bill for it to do so. But I envisage that this matter will become much clearer when the Boundary Commissions get the Act of Parliament, as we hope, and they can respond. I have no doubt whatever that we will hear what the respective Boundary Commissions propose in terms of bringing forward reports.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The target size is 76,000, with the 5 per cent leeway making a ceiling of something like 79,500 per constituency. What will happen when a ripple effect is caused by the five-yearly review of constituencies which are all on the maximum and there is no slack in the system to take up? Surely the Boundary Commission will have to report on huge areas because of the ripple effect on each constituency which has already met the 76,000 plus 5 per cent limit. Will the Government take into account this ripple effect on Boundary Commission decisions when finally they make their statement on the commission?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. Whether it would work out like that is a matter of conjecture. However, it underlines the fact that these matters are probably better left to the Boundary Commissions. They should determine how they issue their reports and deal with these points, rather than Ministers or the legislation being prescriptive in that sense. It should be permissive rather than prescriptive.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I respect the noble and learned Lord’s refusal to contemplate laying down the law to the Boundary Commissions on exactly how they should conduct their publicity and consultation. However, it might be helpful to them—it would certainly be helpful to the House—if the noble and learned Lord could be prevailed upon, either now or on Report, to think out aloud, to an extent, on this and to indicate in general terms his expectations as to what would constitute satisfactory publicity and consultation.
We live in an age in which there is greatly increased scope for publicity and consultation through new technologies. For example, the use of social networking would be available to the Boundary Commissions if they were intent on communicating with the generality of electors. I hope that they would be. This would be consistent with the principle upon which the Government have agreed that, after all, it would be proper to allow public inquiries to be held. The key principle is that the constitution belongs to the people—not to the Government and certainly not to the boundary commissioners—and we are all the servants of the people. However, it is through the drawing of boundaries and the subsequent election of Members to the House of Commons that the people of this country give their democratic authorisation to the political class, to Members of Parliament, to form a Government and to take decisions on their behalf; and it is through the drawing of constituency boundaries and the holding of further elections that Governments are called to account.
This is such a fundamental feature of our constitution that we have taken the view as a House—and the Government have agreed—that the public should have their say not only through written representations but in oral submissions, either uttered by themselves or their representatives, at public inquiries. However, if that process is fully to engage the citizens of this country and be fruitful, it follows that there has to be effective communication between the boundary commissioners and the people.
We cannot overemphasise the importance of the spirit in which this is done. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to say that he expects the publicity and consultation to be much more than perfunctory; that he expects it to be full-hearted and thorough. There might be a temptation for the Boundary Commissions to make the process relatively abbreviated—not least because they are being asked to proceed on a more rapid timetable than in the past. It will be a genuine challenge for them to transact all the processes involved in redrawing the boundaries in the timescale that the Government have permitted. It should be possible, but it would more difficult to do it to the timescale set by the Government in the Bill if they are to be as thorough and as generous in their publicity and consultation as we hope they will be. It is important that the Government state that they expect a thorough and genuine consultation.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I support what my noble friend Lord Howarth has said. Following on from what the Minister said on the briefing about the Boundary Commissions working together, as he knows only too well I am strongly in favour of devolution—as he is—and, where appropriate, different solutions north and south of the border. I am also not too keen on Governments giving directives—particularly this Government, but that is another story.
However, given that we are talking about elections in the United Kingdom, some degree of consistency and guidance is important. Earlier today I read the words of Bruce Millan, one of the greatest Secretaries of State for Scotland, who many noble Lords will recall with great affection. When he was shadow Secretary of State in a debate in the other place—this may seem a long time ago but it is still relevant today—he said:
“On Tuesday I drew attention to the fact that there were differences in approach between the English, Scottish and Welsh Boundary Commissions—for example, with regard to overall numbers. The Scottish commission uniquely among the three started with a pre-determined total and worked from that. Subsequently that total had to be adjusted. I thought that it was wrong in principle that the commission should start with a predetermined total. That approach is not compatible with what happened in England and Wales. It is worrying that there are different approaches to the interpretation of the same rules in the three countries. This is another argument for looking again at the rules.
There were differences in approach by the three commissions to rule 6—the geographical consideration rule. There were also differences in approach in practical terms as to what the commissions did about movements of population after the enumeration date. It is not clear that any commission is entitled to take into account any change in population beyond the enumeration date. The English commission believes that it is not empowered to take any movement of population into account. That has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction south of the border, because England’s enumeration date was 1976. There have been tremendous movements in population since then. The Scottish commission took a more relaxed view. Whether it was entitled to do so is a matter of considerable argument. That should be looked at”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/83; col. 428.]
That points to some of the problems that can arise if there is not close co-operation between the four Boundary Commissions under what I think is the general benevolent guidance of the Government. I know that the Minister cannot give an instant answer, but I hope that he will take this away and look at it to see whether some more guidance should be given, particularly if the rigid figure of 600 is going to be adhered to. I imagine that that is going to make it very difficult for the Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish Boundary Commissions to work in similar ways. They are working necessarily to different totals within different geographical areas, and some guidance from the Minister might be appropriate. I am not expecting an instant answer, but it is worth while having a look at it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, perhaps I may first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. I hope he would not expect the Government to give directions to the Boundary Commissions, and I indicate that the Bill provides that the Boundary Commissions,
“shall take such steps as they see fit to inform people in the constituency—
(a) of the effect of the proposed recommendations and”—
to ensure that—
“a copy of the recommendations is open to inspection at a specified place within the constituency”—
that is unless, of course, no change is recommended for the constituency—
“(b) that representations with respect to the proposed recommendations may be made to the Commission during a specified period of 12 weeks”.
The provisions of this Bill are a bit different from those of the past. The 1986 legislation made a stipulation with regard to newspaper advertisements, and that is not in this Bill. We are leaving that to the discretion of the Boundary Commission. When I was replying to an amendment moved on Wednesday by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who was talking about online advertising, I indicated that again it was a matter for the Boundary Commissions. However, as there had been use of online advertising for the purposes of the Boundary Commissions’ work during the last general review, I have every confidence that it will be done again. I am sure there is no way in which the Boundary Commission is going to have a perfunctory regard in ensuring that the proposals are widely publicised. All parts of the House—it should be a matter not just for Government but for Parliament—should be confident that the commissions will continue to adhere to the highest standards that they have shown in the past, irrespective of seeking representations that will strengthen their recommendations. There is a high level of expectation there, and I do not think there has ever been any suggestion that the Boundary Commissions have not lived up to that.
With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—
Lord Howarth of Newport
There will be a difference in the way that the Boundary Commission operates in future, because it is going to have to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600, if that provision stays in the Bill, and it is also going to have to make the quota of 76,000 a paramount consideration. Those two factors are going to constrain it in new ways. I am sure, as the noble and learned Lord suggests, it will wish to be thorough in its consultation, but the question of what it may see fit by way of publicity and consultation, given the pressures it is going to be under, and the pressures of time as well, will depend to an extent on the standard and expectation that the Government express. That is why I hope we shall hear from the noble and learned Lord a sentiment very vigorously expressed, that he would expect no less of the Boundary Commission than the utmost thoroughness of engagement to ensure that every one of our citizens is aware of the proposals that would affect their constituencies and genuinely have the opportunity to make their representation should they wish to make them.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It is not just a matter of Ministers expecting it because Parliament would expect a degree of engagement. I am in little doubt that good publicity will be given to the issue, because I the political parties have a role to play, as we have acknowledged. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, when he proposed that representations should be published online within 24 hours, we would want carefully to consider that before Report. I raised a number of practical issues, but acknowledged that we are living in an age when online communication is probably the norm rather than the exception.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The noble and learned Lord says he is going to frame an amendment—effectively, to produce a new clause to replace Clause 12. Will he consider including wording that really indicates unambiguously the demanding expectation that the Government and Parliament will have for the Boundary Commissioners in this regard?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am not sure that legislation is the proper place to express exhortation, but I have no doubt that the four Boundary Commissions will be looking at the debates in your Lordships’ House, as indeed in the other place. They will have heard the reasonable expectations with regard to publicity of their recommendations.
I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that perhaps it was a matter of controversy in some of our earlier debates, but one of the reasons why, for example, the British Academy report welcomed some of the features of the Bill with regard to the rules was the clear hierarchy we have laid down and which has not previously been the case. Therefore, I hope that the concern expressed by the former Secretary of State, Bruce Millan, will not arise in this particular case.
For completeness, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that, as I indicated earlier, it is the case, as stated in new subsection (3) proposed in Clause 12 (1):
“Where a Boundary Commission revise any proposed recommendations after publicising them”,
subsection (1), which contains the publicity part, would apply to the revised proposals, but it does not apply to any proposals that are revised for a second time. I give this for completeness.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to come back on a question I asked earlier, but it is quite important. May I give the Minister a scenario with which many constituency organisations across the country may well be confronted? Imagine six Conservative seats in a county all on the margin of 79,800. In other words, they have taken up the 5 per cent slack above 76,000, making a total of 79,800. When the review takes place, they will all have to change. The date when that information is made public is very important because the constituencies in the county next door will want to know exactly what is happening on the boundaries for those six constituencies. Whatever decision is taken with regard to those six will affect the adjacent county where there equally might be Members of Parliament of the same party who are arguing over seats.
Is there a timetable which will be made available to deal with what would happen in those circumstances where all constituencies are on the 5 per cent-plus margin, at 79,800, and where automatically they have to start crossing boundaries to sort out the new quota?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as I understood that question following on from the previous intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, we are now looking to the second review which we are looking towards publishing in October 2018. The answer does not vary, inasmuch as it will be a matter for the Boundary Commission to take into account the likelihood of any ramifications of its decisions at that point and the extent to which it publishes, either county by county or region by region. This is not a matter which, with the best will in the world, we could stipulate in legislation. We must leave that to the good sense and discretion of the Boundary Commissions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for answering the questions. I was trying to get at two strands. The first, as I think everyone agrees, including the secretaries of the Boundary Commissions, is that it is going to be a testing timetable to deliver the first review by 31 October 2013. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is for the Boundary Commissions to determine how they will do that, including when they will make their announcements of provisional proposals; how they will divide up the four countries; and the method by which they will announce how representations will be made. When legislation is going through Parliament, it is not unreasonable or unusual in this House to ask that the body concerned, without in any way infringing its discretion, sets out its broad proposals. That helps us then determine the validity or otherwise of a timetable, particularly a timetable such as this. I ask the noble and learned Lord—
Lord Tyler
While it is one thing is to express an opinion in the House, does the noble and learned Lord agree that having exhortation in the Bill implies that it is somehow necessary to encourage the Boundary Commissions to operate in a particular way? That implies a degree of a lack of trust in the work that they do. I wonder whether he would take this opportunity to reject the suggestion from his noble friend Lord Howarth that to express that sort of exhortation in the actual Bill is not helpful in this case. I accept what the noble Lord says about expressions of support and encouragement for a due process in the discussion that is taking place in the Committee, but to put it into the Bill itself seems to me to be a retrograde step.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Before my noble and learned friend answers the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, perhaps I could clarify that while I have asked the Minister to express on behalf of the Government their expectation of a high standard of publicity and consultation, it would certainly not be my view that we should resort to exhortation in the language of the Bill but rather that we should state a requirement in the language of the Bill.
Lord Tyler
The noble Lord actually said, and I listened with great care, that it should be in the new clause that my noble and learned friend should bring forward—that is, in the Bill.
Lord Howarth of Newport
It was a word used by the Minister, I think the noble Lord will find.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
If I might interrupt this momentary and rather fascinating debate about statutory drafting, my experience of Bills passed before 1997, and post-1997, is that legislators sometimes resorted to exhortatory language in Bills when they thought it was appropriate. I do not feel able to give the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, the comfort that he seeks because, for reasons that I cannot adequately explain to the Committee, that was often the way that deals were done on legislation, so one cannot be quite categoric about that.
My point, if I might revert to it, was: without in any way interfering with the discretion of the Boundary Commissions, if we were able to get some indication about how it would be done that would be helpful to show that it can be done and, just as importantly, it would help the other groups—in particular, the political parties—to prepare their resources for what everybody agrees to be a quite testing process. Secondly and separately, resources provided by the state for this are important to get the requisite high standards and to ensure that consultation will be proper. When we return to this on Report, it would also be of value if there were some indication of how the resources have been worked out and how we are to be satisfied that those resources are adequate. However, I will not stand in the way of Clause 12 standing part at this stage.
Lord Baker of Dorking
That last point is a very fair point. If there are to be public inquiries as well, I am sure that the resources of the Boundary Commissions will have to be increased because that would extend the timescale and, indeed, the work of the activities. On the general questions raised on the nature of the boundary inquiries by noble Lords opposite who had previously served in the House of Commons, very little advice needs to be given to the Boundary Commissions, quite frankly, because in the past—I have been involved in two boundary inquiries myself because my seats were affected—they worked completely honourably, openly and fairly.
The commissions first published a great deal of advice and ask for comments from everybody and then they considered those comments. Overwhelmingly, the comments made at that stage were made by the local political parties. It is quite rare for communities to form a view at that stage. I know that noble Lords opposite have made great play about this provision—that it is disrupting the natures of old communities. When it came to the actual inquiries which I went to there was, first, lots of advertising: it was on the radio and in the local newspapers. I suppose they could now use e-mail and all the rest of it. When the two inquiries which I attended actually took place, no representatives from the local communities turned up at all although there were substantial changes.
The people who turned up at those inquiries were the local Conservative representatives, the local Labour representatives and the local Liberal representatives. It became an absolute haggle: “We’ll move that ward out but have that village back, please”. In that haggling the Labour representatives usually won, in my experience. They are very good at haggling on that basis. However, do not believe for a moment that an outraged community is going to turn up in droves at these inquiries.
Lord Baker of Dorking
No, I will not give way to the noble Lord: I think we have heard enough from him and that he should contain himself.
I feel that that is in fact the reality of the situation which we will be faced with, but the argument that I have seen on the Boundary Commission is, in practical terms, that it works very well indeed. It publishes all its findings and the way in which is going to work. It has a procedure for inquiries which has stood the test of time. We should leave the commissioners to it.
Lord Lipsey
“Assistant Commissioners’ report
(1) The Commission shall appoint Assistant Commissioners to report on and make recommendations emerging from the written representations submitted for each separate area that provisional recommendations have been published for.
(2) The report of each Assistant Commissioner shall be published by the Commission along with copies of all the representations received, before the Commission either publishes its revised recommendation for the area or confirms its provisional recommendations.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, first, I apologise for the fact that I arrived back in the Chamber seconds too late to move Amendment 99ZA. I do not think that anything catastrophic has been lost thereby, because Amendments 99ZA and 99A were in effect accepted by the Minister. We will see the drafting on Report. If I might be permitted to say it, Amendments 99B and 99C are purely technical and if the Minister or his officials would correspond with me about their substance, we might avoid having to return to the subject on Report.
Amendment 100, however, has fine breeding because it is another from the stable of the British Academy, whose thoroughbreds have been praised throughout these debates. It relates to the discussion that we have just had because it is perfectly clear that the commissions have a big task on their hands to complete the work before them by 2013. In particular, the English commission faces a tough task. It would be very regrettable if there was any slippage in the timetable, because it leaves only 18 months for parties to choose their candidates and for those candidates to bed themselves in. That is even without the possibility, which must still exist even under the Government’s fixed-term Parliament legislation, of an earlier general election. It really is crucial that the Boundary Commissions do not get behind with the task.
The Government have been comforting throughout on the question of the resources that will be made available to the Boundary Commissions. That is important, but the British Academy study argues that an additional weapon in the commissions’ armoury would be the appointment of assistant commissioners. This amendment, as I understand it, in effect repeats the provision of the 1986 Act in that regard by providing for the appointment of assistant commissioners. That may, it occurs to me, also have a part to play when the Government bring forward their detailed proposals for implementing the spirit of the amendment spoken to earlier today by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, in providing for oral hearings in some form or another. I hope that this modest, technical proposal—it is of course not saying that the commissions have to appoint assistant commissioners—sourced as it is from the true experts of the British Academy study, will find favour with the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
In light of the Government’s agreement that provision shall after all be made for public inquiries with oral hearings, would my noble friend wish to modify the terms of his amendment when we return on Report?
Lord Lipsey
I am so sorry if I was unclear. I explained that I thought that that new provision might increase the necessity for assistant commissioners and therefore be incorporated into the Government’s proposals.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I want to make a couple of brief points in support of this proposed new clause. I think there is general agreement in the Committee that the engagement of the public in this process is desirable. There has been a great deal of discussion about what format that could take, but that principle is generally accepted by everybody and this proposed new clause goes to the heart of that agreement.
When the previous Government looked at a whole range of methods of engaging the public in policy formation—of which this would be a part—we came to the very clear view that fundamental to all forms of consultation was the need for the public to know what had happened to their contributions to the debate. That was crucial for the credibility of the process and it avoided cynicism creeping in about what had happened. I think that this new clause is entirely consistent with that principle. I understand that it might be thought unnecessary to put such a provision into the Bill, but it might also be thought to be a sound principle that could be relied upon and about which the Boundary Commission could be relied upon to make a judgment. Putting it into the Bill in the way that my noble friend proposes with this new clause would signify the importance of such feedback, and I very much hope that the Minister will look favourably on it. I do not think that it fundamentally compromises the Government’s objectives in the Bill and it could play an important part in building public support for the process.
Finally, I notice that my noble friend has used the generic term “published”. I do not think that any amendment to the clause is needed but, if the Minister is prepared to look at the proposal favourably, as I hope he will, I should be grateful if he could make it clear that all forms of publication should be used. Obviously, the web should be deployed but we should also bear it in mind that, even today and despite the best efforts of the previous Government, large sections of the population are excluded from the web. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could make it clear that he would expect the Boundary Commission to use all forms of publication.
Lord Howarth of Newport
It seems to me that what is proposed in this amendment is the more important if one takes the view, as I do—but contrary, I think, to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Baker—that there will be extensive public interest in, at any rate, certain proposals for boundary changes. In recent days and weeks, the people of Cornwall and the Isle of Wight have given us to understand in no uncertain terms that they have very strong views about how constituencies should be drawn in their parts of the world. Given the radical and wholesale changes that the provisions of the legislation will entail, I think that we should be prepared for considerable strength of feeling and for vigorously expressed representations not just on the part of the political parties but, certainly in controversial cases, on the part of many members of the public. It is, as my noble friend Lord Wills suggested, important that people have feedback and that they should know that their representations have been listened to, gathered up and presented for careful consideration by the boundary commissioners through the activity of assistant commissioners, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey has proposed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is quite an important amendment because it relates to what happened earlier this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Lipsey is proposing that an assistant commissioner should look at all the written representations relating to a particular provisional recommendation and publish the effect of those written representations. That is important because it means that the representations are being considered and the public as a whole can see them all in context. It also seems to be of relevance in determining whether a public inquiry is appropriate. If a proper analysis is carried out, which is what an assistant commissioner will do if the proposal of my noble friend Lord Lipsey is adopted, it will be easier to see whether a public inquiry is appropriate or helpful. The effect of the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is that, even if the technical requirements are satisfied, there will be a public inquiry only where it is helpful—that is, the Boundary Commission will have the discretion to say no if a public inquiry will not help in any way.
Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the proposal of my noble friend Lord Lipsey will be of value, first, in ensuring that written representations are properly considered and that that is apparent; secondly, in properly analysing what issues there may be in relation to a particular provisional recommendation; and, thirdly, in deciding whether, in exercising its discretion to have a public inquiry, there are sufficient issues for the Boundary Commission to bite on to be sure that such an inquiry will be useful. I respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Lord considers this amendment in the context of the public inquiry amendment and comes back on Report to tell us what conclusions he has reached.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by taking up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made about the earlier amendments. I shall certainly try to ensure that he has a response on that. I think that they are very much tied up with the amendment which we debated last Wednesday and to which we have already indicated there will be a government response with an appropriate amendment on Report.
The new clause proposed in Amendment 100 requires two things from the Boundary Commission as it consults the public on any proposed changes to constituency boundaries: it must publish all the representations that it receives on provisional recommendations relating to an area, as well as publish a formal response written by assistant commissioners which is very much focused on those written representations.
It has usually been the commissioners’ practice to appoint assistant commissioners to manage the process of local inquiries, and the noble Lord seeks to apply this practice to the consultations under the provisions of the Bill. As I indicated earlier in the Committee’s deliberations, and as I think has been touched upon by a number of contributors to this debate, the Government propose a public hearing process enabling an opportunity for the public and parties to express their views. We need to consider how best to achieve that so as to ensure that the timetable for completion of the Boundary Commission’s reviews by October 2013 is met. It is fair to say that in order to do so we will need to consider all the existing provisions concerning consultation in the round, and I hope that that gives some reassurance. The Government have committed to further action on how consultation is undertaken by the commissions not only in terms of public hearings but in terms of counter-proposal provisions as well. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
Coming so soon after the progress that we have made this afternoon, I obviously entirely accept what the Minister has said. Not all the “t”s can be crossed and the “i”s dotted but I am sure that they will be by the time we get to Report. With that, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bach
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and my noble friends Lady McDonagh and Lord Kennedy of Southwark and I have given notice of our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill. We have done so not because we oppose Clause 13 standing part but just in order that we might hear the Minister respond to some questions.
Last week we heard from noble Lords concerning Cornwall and the Isle of Wight, as my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport reminded us. However, we also had a long and interesting—and, I think, worthwhile—debate on Wales, to which Clause 13 relates. The clause amends Section 2 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 so that the Assembly constituencies are those specified in the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006, as amended. The effect of this change is that any future alterations to parliamentary constituencies made under the new rules introduced by the Bill will not affect Assembly constituencies.
We appreciate that without the first part of Clause 13 the reduction in the number of Westminster seats in Wales made necessary by Clause 11 of this Bill would see a comparative reduction in the number of Welsh Assembly seats. It is not this part of Clause 13 that we object to; we do not wish to see the representation provided for the people of Wales by its devolved institutions affected by legislation which will cut that representation at Westminster. However, the remaining parts of Clause 13 are included to deal with interim reviews of constituencies in Wales which might happen to be undertaken under the terms of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which are ongoing or have not been implemented when Part 2 of the Bill comes into force.
We want to raise again the particular impact that the Bill’s proposals will have on Wales. We wish to ask the Minister whether there might be a phased reduction in the number of Westminster constituencies due to be lost in Wales under the terms of the Bill. If there is not to be a phased reduction, perhaps there is a case to be made that the amount of the reduction be delayed until after the result of the March referendum on powers to the Welsh Assembly and any attendant transfer of power.
The Minister will recall—he is, after all, an expert on this point—that last week he made the comparison with the cut in Scottish Westminster representation following devolution. We would argue that that cut in seats happened only after law-making powers had been transferred to Holyrood. In holding a referendum to extend primary law-making powers in the light of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the Calman Commission, Wales will, in a way, be catching up with Scotland in this respect. Perhaps it is appropriate that, once this has happened, its Westminster representation be reduced and a better judgment can be made as to how much it should be reduced by. I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord’s response in due course.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, if the number of parliamentary constituencies in Wales is to be reduced, it must inevitably follow that the boundaries of constituencies for the Welsh Assembly and the boundaries of constituencies in Wales for this Parliament will no longer be aligned. I do not think that it would be right for us to seek to reduce the number of constituencies that return Members to the Welsh Assembly, but I think we should appreciate that, if we are going to legislate to cause these boundaries to cease to be coterminous and to diverge, problems will arise and damage will be done politically.
My noble friend reminded us that last week we considered two amendments on this issue. One proposed a phased reduction in the number of parliamentary constituencies in Wales and the other proposed that the reduction should be delayed until such time as the people of Wales had voted to have primary law-making powers transferred to the Welsh Assembly. Both would be helpful mitigating amendments, but let us recall, in the mean time, that the Welsh Assembly, unlike the Scottish Parliament, does not have primary law-making powers and that policy for Wales is made, on a very large scale, in the Westminster Parliament. There is a block grant which transfers resources from London to Cardiff. Home affairs, criminal justice, social security, pensions and, of course, defence, foreign policy and very major areas of policy are determined still for Wales by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
It follows from that that it is a responsibility of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies at Westminster to work in close relationship with their colleagues who are Assembly Members in Cardiff. They need to be able to talk to each other about the interests of the constituents that they jointly serve. The needs of Wales need to be represented by Welsh Members of Parliament at Westminster and as things are, they are well represented by Members of Parliament of all parties at Westminster. It is easier for them to do that job because the constituencies of Welsh MPs are the same as the constituencies of Welsh Assembly Members. When that ceases to be the case, it will be far more difficult for Welsh MPs and Welsh Assembly Members to work closely and effectively together in the interests of their shared constituents. There will overlapping of boundaries. There will be cases in which Welsh Members of Parliament will have to try to represent, at one and the same time, the interests of two Welsh Assembly constituencies which may not be in agreement about what it is that they would like their champion in the House of Commons to be arguing for. There will be a muddying and a blurring of responsibility. It will be more difficult for people to do their job.
Of course, the noble and learned Lord, like others in the Chamber, is very well aware of the experience in Scotland. I see that my noble friend Lord Foulkes is not here, but my noble friends Lord McAvoy and Lady Liddell are well able to testify that, whatever the merits may have been of the redrawing of constituency boundaries in Scotland, it cannot have been made easier for an appropriate collaboration to take place between Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Westminster Parliament. This is one reason—there are other powerful reasons—why I believe that it is undesirable to reduce the number of constituencies in Wales, or, if the number of constituencies in Wales is to be reduced, we should do it at a gradual pace. The service that their elected representatives are able to give to their constituents will be impaired if we lose the existing alignment of boundaries.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as has been indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, one of the purposes of this clause is to ensure that the number of seats in the Welsh Assembly is not reduced as a result of the proposed reduction in the number of United Kingdom Parliamentary seats at Westminster. Indeed, a similar end was procured in relation to Scotland through primary legislation in 2004. I am not sure whether it was when the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, was Secretary of State, but if it was not, she probably instigated it, and it was to secure the size of the Scottish Parliament, notwithstanding the significant reduction in the number of Scottish seats at Westminster. I am pleased to have heard the noble Lord confirm that he has no objection to that part of this clause.
The noble Lord did inquire, however, about the transitional provisions and took the opportunity to raise again the issues which were pretty thoroughly debated one day last week—I cannot remember which day it was; possibly Wednesday night. We had a thorough debate and I do not propose to go into all the arguments again. Suffice to say that it is the case that, even now, the Welsh Assembly has powers given to it under framework powers in primary legislation, or under legislative competence orders, to promote measures in the Welsh Assembly. As I indicated on that occasion, the underlying principle of the Bill is to ensure equality of constituencies throughout the United Kingdom and I have still not been given any answer as to why a seat in Cardiff should be smaller than a seat in Belfast, Edinburgh or Birmingham. I do not think that we can pursue that matter much further this evening.
The transitional provisions are intended to deal with interim boundary reviews which have already been begun by the Boundary Commission for Wales and have not been completed or have not yet been implemented at the time when Part 2 of the Bill comes into force. The commission will be able to decide whether to continue with any reviews which it has in hand but the consequence of continuing with any reviews would be that, in practice, they would apply only to the boundaries of Assembly constituencies.
The transitional provisions also provide that, where the commission has already delivered a report recommending alterations to constituencies before Part 2 of the Bill comes into force, but there has not yet been any order giving effect to the recommendations, an order must be laid in Parliament in accordance with the previous requirements. Such an order would therefore affect the Assembly constituencies and, where appropriate, Assembly electoral regions, but would not have any effect on parliamentary constituencies, which, of course, would be the subject of the boundary review, which is the substance of Part 2 of the Bill. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord. I beg to move that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar)
Before I call Amendment 100A, I have to tell noble Lords that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 101.
Amendment 100A
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, it is traditional with all Bills for both Houses of Parliament to seem to ascribe still higher levels to the degree of parliamentary affirmation that must be given to orders under them. In this case, I have been trumped in advance by my noble friend Lady McDonagh, with her desire for the super-affirmative procedure. In this case, though, my amendment might turn out to be of more significance than immediately meets the eye.
I do not want to go over old ground too much, but this Bill was introduced very quickly. It passed through another place before many Members there had fully digested its implications, particularly the fact that it is the starting point for what I call “permanent revolution” in the electoral geography of our country—converting them all into carpetbaggers traipsing around the country looking for a new seat. That penny might have been slow to drop, but I am told by Members of another place—they have many great uses to this House—who have kept in close contact with people down the other end that it has. I think that if the Bill were introduced into the House of Commons today, it would have a much rougher ride than it did. Indeed, if we all had a few pounds for every time an MP—dare I say it, a Conservative MP—had clapped us on the back and said, “Keep up what you’re doing in the Lords”, we should be very much richer.
Who can say whether by 2013 the House of Commons in its wisdom—there should be no question of this House questioning orders under the Bill; that would be quite unconstitutional—will have moved to a very different position? Rather disgracefully, the House of Commons in 1969, on the instructions of the Government, voted down an order to introduce boundary changes proposed by the Boundary Commission, so this would not be unprecedented. It is perfectly conceivable, at any rate, that in 2013, when the Commons sees the damage that the Boundary Commission will inevitably have to wreak in redrawing the maps within the limit of 5 per cent and 600 constituencies, it might not fancy it. Although to vote down an order in those circumstances would be an act that required the most careful consideration, the Commons might want to do that.
When you think that a matter of that magnitude might again come up as a matter of serious public debate, you can see that you really cannot dispose of this other than under the affirmative procedure. It would look, rightly or wrongly, as though the Government were trying to sneak something through, and in the wake of that they would look very bad. It is crucial that the House at the other end is given a full opportunity to debate the orders before it in those circumstances.
As I say, all this might be a mistake. The Boundary Commission might miraculously square the circle, and no doubt that would be a wonderful thing. I am not holding my breath for that, though. More importantly, nor are 650 people not very far removed from this House holding their breath and expecting the circle to be squared before the 2015 general election. In that case, the House would be well advised to pass this amendment and ensure that the affirmative procedure is used for all the orders under the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, all three amendments in this group seek to place a higher threshold on passing any order contained in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Lipsey’s first amendment does that quite generally by amending Clause 14, on orders, to ensure that orders are exercisable by an affirmative statutory instrument.
Amendment 102A, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, refers to the commencement order bringing into effect the alternative vote provisions in the event that more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer yes than in favour of the answer no. The amendment specifies that any such order must be made under the affirmative procedure.
The affirmative procedure would require an order to be laid in draft for a period of 40 days, after which it would need to be agreed by both Houses. The Companion informs us that if a scrutiny committee of either House recommends between the end of the 30-day period and the end of the 40-day period that the order should not proceed, it might not proceed unless the House concerned rejects the recommendation by resolution in the same Session.
Amendment 101 is in the name of my noble friends Lady McDonagh and Lord Snape, who I look for anxiously.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lords are not moving their amendments, so I will not comment on them.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey’s amendments give the House the opportunity to think again. They give Parliament an additional check on the changes that the Minister can bring forward by order. In the context of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation that the Bill received, such checks are unarguably a good thing.
There is an issue of whether recourse to the super-affirmative procedure might be appropriate in all cases of orders being moved under the terms of the Bill. This affirmative procedure has significance in the context of a later amendment, Amendment 102AB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. That amendment says that Clauses 10(2) and 11, which are in effect the operative clauses for changing the rules and for changing the number of Members of Parliament from 650 to 600,
“shall come into force on a date to be appointed under subsection (1B) following reports from the Boundary Commissions, made as if section 11 of this Act were in force, being laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State”.
As I understand the noble Lord’s amendment, the Boundary Commissions would do their work, Clause 11 would not formally be in force and it would then be for Parliament—that is, both Houses—to vote on whether Parliament wanted to bring Clause 11 into force. Parliament would then be deciding before implementation whether it was the appropriate thing to do.
If Parliament were taking such an important decision, then, in my respectful submission, that decision should be taken in accordance with the super-affirmative procedure proposed by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. There is real merit, although we will debate this more fully later, in what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, is saying, because it would give the House the opportunity to consider not only the effect of what is being done but what an independent body—for example, a commission set up to look at the size of the House of Commons—had said about whether it was appropriate to reduce the size of the House from 650 to 600 and, if that was not appropriate, what the appropriate figure, if any, was to reduce the House to.
Those of us who have been enjoying the provisions of Committee have come to know well the views expressed by the cross-party committees in both Houses on the lack of proper constitutional process on the Bill. I know that noble Lords enjoy hearing me repeat old favourites, so I say again that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the House of Commons and our Constitution Committee have said that there should have been a public consultative process before the Bill came to the House and pre-legislative scrutiny to enable it to be properly considered. Those points are added to by the fact that it has been very difficult for the Government to justify precisely how they get to the figure of 600. The Leader of the House saying that it is a nice round figure perhaps lacks the intellectual and constitutional justification that one looks for in this significant change in the House of Commons. The lack of intellectual justification and of proper process goes to an important constitutional point. The House genuinely feels uneasy about a majority in the House of Commons and a political majority in the House of Lords—that is, a political majority of the Liberal Democrats and the Tories over the other parties in the House—being able to push through a change in the size of the House of Commons, which reputable independent experts think has been chosen as a means of favouring the governing party.
It is worth quoting a statement that Mr Mark Field, the Conservative MP for Cities of London and Westminster, endorsed on Second Reading in the other place. Mr Straw quoted from the statement put on the Conservative website by Mr Field. Referring to Mr Field, Mr Straw said:
“He says that ‘the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by Party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 47.]
Therefore, there is a legitimate argument that this is being done for party-political advantage. The importance, therefore, of my noble friend proposing the super-affirmative procedure is that if, as I hope, we adopt the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, a process will be in place that will ensure that the Government can undertake proper arrangements to look at whether the figure is right, and that when we pass that amendment—I hope that we do so—and debate whether we bring Clause 11 into force, we will be informed by a report of a body that is beyond reproach. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider my noble friend’s amendment in that context.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lipsey is self-evidently proper. The legislation provides for seismic constitutional and political change but has been all too little considered hitherto. There was not only the lack of public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny to which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has referred but the reality of the way in which the Bill was transacted in the House of Commons is that the Committee stage was entirely perfunctory.
At Second Reading in another place some Members of the other place expressed considerable anxiety about the way in which things were being done. For example, Mr Simon Hart, a Conservative Member of Parliament, said:
“I wish to address the issue of honesty. Let us not try to fool people about this Bill. Let us not pretend that it is a response to some kind of great public desire or thirst”.
He did not necessarily want the Bill to fail because he accepts the foundations on which it was constructed, but he continued:
“It is the process, not the principle to which I object”.
He went on to say that,
“there is a fine line between political reform and political vandalism”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 120.]
If the House of Commons passed this legislation in the pretty shallow and perfunctory way in which it did—with a very brief Committee stage and very important sections of the Bill, including Clause 11, not being thoroughly examined in Committee—it follows that the other place must have the opportunity in due course to consider again whether it has done the right thing. If the orders made under the Bill were in effect to go through simply on the nod under the negative resolution procedure, that would not be good enough and the House of Commons would not be performing its proper constitutional role. Therefore, the simple affirmative procedure is probably the right procedure to be adopted for decisions on orders made under this legislation.
I have some reservations that the super-affirmative procedure would create too much scope for obstruction and too much scope for the intervention of party- political interest in the eventual decision-making.
However, it is imperative that, when the other place comes to make decisions on orders under the Bill, it should do so consciously and deliberately, which the affirmative resolution procedure would enable it to do. In that way, the other place might slightly make up for the pretty neglectful and haphazard way in which it considered the primary legislation.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has moved an amendment that seeks to apply additional parliamentary procedures to the delegated powers in this Bill. The amendment would subject all delegated powers conferred by the Bill to the affirmative resolution procedure. As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, will not move her amendment proposing the super-affirmative resolution procedure, so I shall confine my remarks to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
There is no doubt that the Government recognise the value of parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, that is why, in both Houses, we have sought to ensure that Members have had adequate time to debate the provisions of this Bill in detail. I cannot accept the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, that somehow or other the proceedings in the other place were perfunctory. I cannot remember offhand how many days were spent in Committee of the Whole House or on Report, but I know that every effort was made by the Government to ensure that those provisions in the Bill that were not subject to more detailed consideration in Committee were the ones with which the Report stage started. I think that I am right in saying that the only substantive clause that was not debated in the other place was that on which we have just had a brief clause stand part debate on the breaking of the link between the parliamentary constituencies in Wales and the constituencies of the National Assembly for Wales. That is not an unimportant matter, but I do not think that it is the most controversial part of the Bill.
None the less, we do not believe that it is necessary to apply additional parliamentary procedures, as suggested in the amendment, to those powers in the Bill that are not already subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Moreover, it is worth noting that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not recommended that any such procedure should apply to these order-making powers. Like our predecessors, we attach considerable importance to what that committee says and, indeed, to what it does not say.
One exception to that was that the DPRR committee recommended that the power to make a transitional or saving provision in Clause 8(4) should be subject to the negative procedure. However, as we indicated when the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, raised an amendment on that matter, the Government have made it clear that they intend to deal with this point by removing the power and instead making explicit provision to deal with the only scenario in which we would anticipate the power being necessary: namely, to ensure that, where a parliamentary by-election is called after the AV provisions are implemented—were they to be implemented—but before the first general election, that by-election would be held under first past the post.
There are a number of reasons why the amendment is not appropriate. Noble Lords may find it helpful if I briefly set out why I think that the increased scrutiny that the amendment seeks is unnecessary in relation to the delegated powers contained in the Bill that are not already subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
First, it is not appropriate to make the order implementing or repealing the alternative vote provisions following the referendum subject to additional parliamentary debate. I think that we had some debate around this when we considered Clause 8, which was probably before Christmas. The relevant provisions in Clause 8 do not give Ministers wide-ranging powers about when the provisions can be brought into force or repealed; quite the opposite, they impose a number of clear, binding duties. The effect is that Ministers must bring certain provisions into force—or, indeed, repeal those provisions—depending on the outcome of the referendum. Furthermore, if there is a yes vote, the provisions will already have been debated in full during the passage of this Bill and the order would simply implement the will of the public as expressed in the referendum.
Fundamentally, subjecting the order-making powers in Clauses 8(1) and 8(2) to the affirmative procedure would change the nature of the referendum. As we also debated when we considered Clause 8, the referendum would become indicative rather than binding, since the order giving effect to the referendum result could subsequently be prevented from taking effect if the order was voted down. The Government believe that voting reform is a significant constitutional reform on which the people should have their say. Once they have had their say, this should not be thwarted by further procedural process.
Another key power on which the amendment seeks to impose an additional parliamentary procedure is that in paragraph 20 of Schedule 1, which provides for an order to be made to determine the maximum expenses recoverable by regional counting officers. That power replicates an existing power in the Representation of the People Act 1983 for parliamentary elections, which is similarly not subject to any parliamentary procedure because it is purely of an administrative nature.
By contrast, I think that it is sensible for the Bill to provide—as it already does in Clause 9—that the power to amend legislation in order to make purely consequential further changes to implement AV should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
On those grounds, I hope that your Lordships will agree that an additional parliamentary procedure for orders that are not already subject to the affirmative procedure in the Bill is neither necessary nor appropriate. No doubt we will return to the important points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and I would propose to deal with these points then. In the mean time, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I cannot claim to be absolutely convinced by every word that the Minister has just said. In particular, my antennae started twitching when he started talking about an indicative referendum on AV. Many of my friends believe that the AV referendum should have been indicative in the first place. I would not necessarily go that far, but I accept that if, on the day, the only two people who turn up at the polling station are the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and myself, both of us voting yes, there might be a small problem with the legitimacy of proceeding in those circumstances, to which a political solution will have to be found.
However, the Minister gave a reasonably comprehensible reply. I will study it and, if necessary, return to the matter at Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bach
102: Clause 18, page 15, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) Part 1 of this Act shall not come into force until 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.”
Lord Bach
My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister has frequently tried to place the Bill in the proud lineage of great reforms that led to the introduction of universal suffrage in Britain. I quote from his “new politics” speech, delivered in May last year:
“I’m talking about the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great reforms of the 19th Century. The biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832”.
In the same speech, recalling the “anger and disappointment” felt by thousands of people who were turned away from the polling stations on general election night, he declared:
“You must be confident that, come polling day, your voice will be heard … Under this government’s plans, you will”
However, we know, as the Committee has heard before, that as a result of gaps in our electoral register, many millions of people are going to be denied a voice—indeed, any acknowledgement of their existence—in the two central proposals contained in the Bill.
The Government are fond of saying that this Bill is underpinned by the principle of equality, but you cannot get equality on the electoral playing field on the basis of a grossly unfair or unequal register. This is particularly so in respect of the proposed boundary changes, which are to be drawn on the basis of the December 2010 register, from which it is agreed that upwards of 3.5 million eligible voters are missing.
Putting that problem on one side, I think that the problem of underregistration also has a significant bearing on the referendum on the alternative vote, which is the subject of Part 1 of the Bill. As we are well aware, the Government intend that the referendum will be held on 5 May next, which, in our view, would be an unsuitable date. Even if the referendum goes ahead on that day, the referendum will at least be contested on a marginally more up-to-date electoral roll than that to be used for the boundary changes, if for no other reason than that there is still time to put missing people on the register. If the referendum was not going to be held so soon, this would allow even more time.
Happily, the Bill provides for that eventuality. Following the Committee’s acceptance of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker, the Bill will not actually require a referendum to take place until October of this year. We believe that that extended deadline provides an important opportunity for the registration problem to be properly addressed and sufficient leeway for the acceptance of Amendment 102.
Amendment 102 is concerned with the commencement of Part 1 of the Bill. If accepted, the amendment would require the Electoral Commission to certify,
“that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible”,
before the AV referendum is held. The amendment would not require a certain percentage of eligible voters or resident adults to be registered. In previous debates, that was felt to be an unreasonable target. Indeed, there was some disagreement about what the right percentage target would be. The amendment would simply impose on the Electoral Commission a requirement to judge whether local authorities are doing all that they reasonably should to ensure that as many people as possible are registered to vote.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I have noted what the noble Lord has said. Does he consider that there may be some people—perhaps a lot of people—who do not register simply because they are not interested in voting at all? That may be deplorable, but that may be the case. Therefore, many of those who are not on the register may not be so due to any failure on the part of the responsible authorities in getting them on the register.
Lord Bach
Of course the noble Lord is right. There are some people who decide, as a matter of choice, not to vote in any election of any kind or may, in the past, have had some reason for not putting their names on the register. However, my amendment seeks to ensure only that local authorities have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible.
Baroness McDonagh
Is my noble friend aware that there is a legal duty to register? It is the choice of the citizen whether to vote, but it is a legal responsibility and requirement to register.
Lord Bach
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for reminding the Committee of that. During the course of this Committee, I asked the Government Front Bench whether it is a legal requirement to register—of course it is not a legal requirement to vote, although I must say that I was brought up to believe, and still believe, that it is a duty. As my noble friend has reminded me—I cannot remember which Minister replied—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in an Oral Question some months ago maintained that it is not a legal requirement to register. That is a very important matter that needs to be determined. It may be that registration is a legal requirement that is observed more in the breach than in fact. That would still make it a requirement, albeit one that is somehow put on one side.
Baroness Golding
I think that what was said was that it was a legal requirement but that, as far as the Minister knew, nobody had ever been prosecuted.
Lord Tyler
Will the noble Lord revert to the question of timing? I expect that the noble Lord and I both recall a very powerful speech by one of his noble friends earlier in the Committee's proceedings, in which it was pointed out that, because of the general election last year, quite a lot of people registered even in the last few days when they were permitted to do so. Therefore, the register of December 2010 is probably more comprehensive than one that we might imagine in future. Delaying the referendum, perhaps until October, might mean that people would drop off the register rather than be fully and comprehensively covered by the one that will currently be the basis of the referendum. The noble Lord's point about timing could be taken either way.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, it was not I. The point was presented much more powerfully on his side of the House, and I simply endorsed it.
Lord Bach
In that case, congratulations are in order all round. The point is interesting, but we could improve the register if the referendum was delayed by a number of months, as seems to be the will expressed by the Committee.
As far as voter registration is concerned, noble Lords will recall an Electoral Commission study published this year—it has been quoted before, but I make no apology for repeating it—which states that,
“under-registration is concentrated among specific social groups, with registration rates being especially low among young people, private renters and those who have recently moved home ... The highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation”.
I do not need to go through the figures again. We have heard before about the percentages of certain groups of our population who are unregistered. It is a sad story that should not be allowed to continue. The point has been made many times that we did not do enough about that issue until late on in our Government; we are asking this Government to do something about it now, particularly as we are moving towards a plebiscite in the form of a referendum, which is very rare in our country, and we want as many people as possible who are entitled to vote to be on the register. In the context of a potentially low turnout, which the House will perhaps want to debate again on Report, the differences likely to result from the unequal participation of social groups such as young people and others could have a major bearing on the outcome of the referendum.
It is very rare that we resort to a referendum in Britain. When we do, we should ensure that it takes place on an even basis. In the interest of fairness, I urge the Minister to consider our amendment with some care. I beg to move.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I support the amendment. It touches on two things. The first is the general principle that we need to improve registration. I have argued before that we have something of a postcode lottery in how good registration is from one local authority to another. That general point relates to this debate because the amendment would require that we deal with that before the referendum. I suspect that the Government are concerned only about whether they could do so in time. However, we must start the process.
As an adviser to the Electoral Commission, I have felt for a long time that we need to improve the registration process. I do not think that anybody on either side of the House disagrees with that. My experience is that until we get an agreement on a body that will raise the standard by saying what that standard should be across the country, some local authorities will carry out registration extremely well, others will do so very poorly and others will be in between. We know which local authorities perform well and we know which perform very badly. The in-between group is more difficult to identify. The Electoral Commission must have a duty placed on it to come up with a standard in electoral registration that local authorities must achieve.
Having just filled in my registration form again, I know that the form suggests very heavily that not to fill it in accurately is illegal and that one would risk prosecution. It implies that registration is a legal requirement in exactly the way that was described in the earlier intervention. I would like the Electoral Commission to have a duty to say that all local authorities have to make every effort to get people on to the register. I recognise that there is a time problem in relation to this amendment and the referendum, but I do not see why we should not make a start. We could do that now. It would be possible to say that, given the variable standards at the moment, the small number of local authorities that we know do not make the effort have got to do so. Perhaps we could then build on that for future occasions, when we would expect the Electoral Commission to say that all local authorities have reached a minimum standard.
The issue of underrepresentation in key areas is crucial. We all know that some areas have much greater underrepresentation than others, and we all know that some local authorities in those areas do not make anywhere near enough effort to get people registered. Those are the authorities that we should focus on. It would be very good news if the Government said to the Electoral Commission, “We expect you to send out to those local authorities a note warning them that if they do not raise the standards in their area and do more to make sure that people are on the electoral register—and do that at least as well as the best local authorities—you will continue to breathe heavily down their neck until they deliver the standards that you expect”.
Underrepresentation is a major problem. It has distorted so many issues that we have debated in the Bill that we should not allow it to continue. What troubles me is that the Minister and the Government have made no effort to find a way of addressing the problem. I ask that in due course they take up this amendment and extend it beyond the referendum to a general expectation of local authorities and the Electoral Commission that they apply that standard.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene. I am too often tempted in these debates, but this will, on the McNally score, put him 4-2 ahead of me.
The noble Lord's speech was very interesting. In effect, he distinguished between whether efforts should be made to improve the registration system and the way in which that might be tied to a particular part of the Bill. That is exactly my position. I have no problem with trying to improve the registration system. However, there could be big questions of cost, not least arising from any prosecutions that may take place, for example of large numbers of 16 to 18 year-olds. That prospect appeared to lurk in what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said. Those issues can be considered on their own merits. What would not be sensible—this is where, for once, I am on the side of my Front Bench—would be to tie those to a provision of a particular Bill as a condition before something comes into effect.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, we all accept that it is desirable in any case to improve electoral registration, but I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in what he said in relation to the Bill. Happily and conveniently, the Committee accepted the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker, and there is therefore flexibility on the date of the referendum on electoral change, and there is no technical problem standing in the way of acceptance of the amendment of my noble friend.
Whatever view we take about the desirability of the forthcoming referendum—I favour a referendum on the question of electoral change—or whatever view we take on whether or not it is desirable to switch from first past the post to the alternative vote, although I prefer to keep first past the post, we can all agree that we want full participation by the people of this country in the referendum. We want its result not only to be legally binding but to have moral force. It will not have moral force if it is mired by a low turnout among those who are already registered. It will have less moral force if, unfortunately, it is conducted on a register which is demonstrably incomplete and inaccurate.
If there is to be an important moment in the national life in consideration of a major constitutional change, we should expect the Electoral Commission to take every reasonable step to ensure that there is a high level of registration. It is then for the campaigning groups to do all they can to ensure that there is a high turnout. This can be done and it should be done. The decision taken by the people at the referendum will have a greater validity. It will be more convincing if it takes place on the basis of fuller registration.
It is timely to have a drive for improved registration because we know that local authorities will have fewer resources in years to come, and that in the next few months they will perhaps still have the resources to mount the drive to improve electoral registration. We also know that given the housing benefit changes that are due to come in, more people may be obliged to move home. We will see more people coming off existing electoral registers and perhaps not getting on to new electoral registers. Before we see the full unfortunate consequences of those benefit changes, we should have a drive to improve electoral registration. It would be particularly timely and appropriate for that to take place in the next few months, certainly to ensure that we have the most complete and accurate electoral register possible when the referendum takes place, and as an investment in the electoral register for future elections.
For all those reasons, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bach.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, this amendment, as has been made clear, concerns the commencement of the provisions relating to the referendum in the Bill. Part 1 provides among other things for the referendum on the alternative vote, for the entitlement to vote in the referendum and for conduct of the referendum. The proposal in the amendment is that the provisions should,
“not come into force until 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”.
It will come as no surprise that the Government wish to resist the amendment. To be fair, it is a variation on a number of the amendments debated earlier in Committee, when debating Part 2, on whether the Boundary Commission’s review should commence until the Electoral Commission had certified that every local authority had taken all reasonable steps. We believe that the amendment would cause a serious risk of delaying the referendum.
Reference has been made to the successful amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Before that debate, I was detained by severe weather and was unable to get to the House, but I have noted what was said and I heard the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, say on other occasions that his intention was not to rule out 5 May, but to provide a lifeboat, whereas this amendment would, to all intents and purposes, rule out 5 May. In fact, the delay could be so substantial, perhaps even indefinite, if the relevant certification could not be provided, that the lifeboat might even be sunk before it was launched. I cannot understand why we should put ourselves in a position whereby perhaps one local authority electoral registration officer was somehow holding back and the Electoral Commission could not provide the required certification.
Lord Soley
The Minister has said that that will encourage improvement and I understand that. We all have to look for a way in which the Electoral Commission can set a basic standard below which people should not fall. I recognise that this point is wider than the amendment; it is not just a matter of improving it but trying to find a way of setting a basic standard.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I indicated that the commission's report on performance standards for electoral registration officers in Great Britain showed that just under 96 per cent of electoral registration officers met the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registration records standard this year. So they are already measuring and, against that, they found that just under 96 per cent had made it. I do not think there is any dispute in this Committee about the importance of electoral registration. We wish to pursue pilot studies to compare the electoral register against other public databases so that we can identify people who are not currently on the register. If the trials are successful, we will roll this out nationally to ensure that registration officers are aware of what has been shown up by the trials so that they can better target people to get them on the register. There is a commitment to improve the rate of electoral registration but we cannot accept that the referendum should be postponed, possibly indefinitely, awaiting the kind of certification which this amendment proposes. Therefore, I beg the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bach
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and particularly to the Minister for what he has said. I am not so sure about the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who made me sound like a kind of modern Herod who wants to lock up 16 to 18 year-olds who do not register. Both sides recognise that this is a serious issue and it has to be dealt with. Of course, I shall withdraw the amendment tonight but we may well bring this up again in some form on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williamson of Horton
“(1A) Sections 10(2) and 11 shall come into force on a date to be appointed under subsection (1B) following reports from the Boundary Commissions, made as if section 11 of this Act were in force, being laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.
(1B) The appointed date for the purposes of subsection (1A) shall be appointed in an order made by statutory instrument, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Williamson of Horton
This amendment relates to the date of the coming into force of Clause 11, which will be Section 11 if and when the Bill is passed. Noble Lords will know only too well from our very long discussions so far that Clause 11 is the important clause which deals with the reviews by the Boundary Commissions, the number of parliamentary constituencies and the equalisation subject to a small margin of the size of constituencies. I tabled this amendment in the hope that it would contribute towards an agreement on the Bill, in particular so that the referendum on the alternative vote could be held on 5 May this year. I even had hope last week and, of course, after today's proceedings I have even more hope.
The thinking which underlies the amendment is that, although there is a clear and close deadline set by the Government for the referendum, the timing for the completion of Part 2 of the Bill on the Boundary Commissions’ reviews and changes to constituencies is not so tight. The Government’s timing on Part 2 is that it will be completed in good time—perhaps by October 2013—for use in the general election of 2015. From the almost 100 hours that I have spent listening to discussions during the passage of the Bill so far, I am well aware of the political imperative for the Government that the Bill should not be split and that there is a link between Parts 1 and 2. Because my amendment still permits and requires the work on the constituencies to keep going forward, I do not consider that the link is broken.
I shall briefly explain my amendment. If Parliament agrees that the Bill be passed, the work of the Boundary Commissions would go ahead because they are required by this amendment to make their reports as if Section 11 of the Act were in force. These reports would therefore be subject to the provisions of Section 11 because they have to carry out their work as if Section 11 were in force. When these reports are complete they will be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State who will set by statutory instrument the appointed date for the coming into force of Section 11. As the date for the coming into force of this section would be set by statutory instrument it would require affirmative resolutions of both Houses.
What is the advantage of deferring the coming into force of Section 11 until it is needed, while the actual operation of the section continues in the mean time? In my view, there are at least two advantages. First, it will strengthen in practice the hands of citizens who wish to make representations about the Boundary Commission’s proposals because Section 11 will not actually yet be in force. Secondly, and more importantly, it will give time for further examination, in particular independent examination, of the practical consequences of the smaller House.
During the course of the debates in this House, there has been a recurring theme that 600 was a rather arbitrary figure—I choose my words carefully—and that the consequences may not have been fully worked through. So I think that it would provide time for an independent examination of the practical consequences of the proposals on constituencies that are in the Bill. This point has been made in the debates and it was made this afternoon, in a short trailer—I think that is the word—by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when he rather approved this idea. It is always very pleasant to have a trailer that is favourable so perhaps the drama itself may actually be favourably received.
What I have suggested may be relatively small advantages but I think they are worth having, particularly because my amendment does not slow up the work required by Section 11 in the period before it enters into force. Will the Minister think carefully about the independent examination of the practical consequences of the decisions on the constituencies? In my view it could be done under my amendment—I think it would be right to do that. However, at some stage there is a strong feeling in the Committee that we should not just let it happen without any independent examination.
To summarise my amendment: the Bill passes, the work goes on including the work on Section 11 but, just as in the well known showbusiness phrase that the show is not over until the fat lady sings, in this case the show is not over until the Secretary of State lays a statutory instrument setting the date for it to come into force and affirmative resolutions of both Houses are agreed. That is what I might call the political equivalent of the fat lady singing.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is an important amendment. It is designed to try to promote the settlement of an impasse in the House. We support the principle of this amendment. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, promotes it on two bases. First, it strengthens the hand of the citizen in making representations in relation to individual Boundary Commission issues. Secondly, and more importantly, it will give time for further examination, particularly independent examination, of the practical consequences of the reduction in the number of constituencies.
We thoroughly endorse that approach. It is implicit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that that examination should take place before the implementation of the reduction of the number of constituencies. It is also explicit in the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that Parliament should have another opportunity to consider this before the implementation. At the heart of the case in favour of that is the widespread concern around the House that the production of this Bill and its passage through Parliament have not been attended by the normal processes that one would expect to precede a constitutional Bill of this enormity and importance.
Noble Lords know the quotes well; the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place stated:
“The Government has declared that the Parliamentary Systems and Constituencies Bill is intended as a ‘major step’ towards restoring people's faith in Parliament. The Government’s failure to consult on the provisions in this Bill risks undermining that laudable intention”.
Our own Constitution Committee stated:
“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”.
Lord Rennard
Will the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee whether it is his view and, perhaps, that of his party, that on the completion of a boundary review by the independent boundary commissioners, he thinks it wise to go back to Members in the other place to ask them to vote on whether they should accept the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions on the new boundaries or simply to have the old boundaries—which, by then, will be even more out of date—from the previous general election? Is that not merely postponing an argument which will be even more fierce in another place in a couple of years’ time, or whenever it is, as we are invited to debate whether to accept the boundary recommendations of the independent commissioners or to keep the old ones? Is that not merely creating more of a problem?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has responded in an incredibly unconstructive way. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, has made it absolutely clear that what he envisages is a vote on the principle in relation to the issue and that is what we should be focusing on.
Lord Newton of Braintree
It is clear that a significant effort is being made, and I would like to pay my own tribute to the leading figures on the Cross Benches, to resolve the impasse or to bring us back from the precipice, to use the phrase that was used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I share the hope that there will be a positive and constructive response to this.
The noble and learned Lord indicated that he recognised this was not necessarily perfect and that there was some more thought to be given to the issues, which I thought was a very helpful way for him to have put his remarks. So I say to my noble friend, who I suspect is in a constructive frame of mind—I share the hope that he is—that there is at least one person behind him who would strongly support such a constructive approach.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Those words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, himself a former Leader of the House of Commons, who always sought to calm troubled waters in that capacity and did so very successfully, should certainly be heeded. I add my appreciation for the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, and the Cross Benchers who, in tabling this amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, did earlier in the day, have sought to steer our proceedings into calmer waters, recognising that in Part 2 there are some intensely controversial and very major constitutional issues that are not best resolved in a spirit of hot and angry political contest.
In any case, even if the mood of the Committee had been as placid and as genial in the previous 14 days as it has been today, it would still have taken time to consider properly and for us to be able to reach agreed conclusions that are in the interests of all our people and in the interest of sensible, constructive reform of the constitution, not animated by party political considerations but by real concern to reform and advance the constitution so that it better serves our people.
I very much welcome, therefore, what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has suggested. He offers a way in which we can resolve some of these very difficult and important issues in a calmer fashion and on a sensible timescale. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will respond in a similar spirit.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, just to make the bait on the hook of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, even more appetising, there is a point to be made. Earlier on the point was made that the problem with the reduction to 600 is that it increases the size of the Executive relative to the Back Bench. That point was taken on board by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. He said he did not think the legislation should be altered but he wanted to think about it. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, provides an excellent opportunity for a structured way in which we could look at that very important question and come up with a solution without amending the Bill. That should also commend it to the Government who have already endorsed the point that lies behind it.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for having introduced this amendment, which he did with characteristic modesty as this was his idea. As he was speaking, I could tell that he had struck a chord in the House and it was no surprise that my noble friend Lord Newton rose to support him. I was going to say that within this amendment there is a germ of an idea, but that belittles it too much. I thought maybe a seed, but really it is a sapling of an idea that we would like to work on.
I must refute the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord that this part of the Bill is fundamentally partisan. It is not designed to be and I know that he accepts that. I can understand why some Members of another place might think that it is, but it is not. The amendment provides that the new rules for drawing up constituency boundaries would not come into force upon Royal Assent, as the Bill provides, but that a boundary review would still be conducted on the basis of the new rules. The new boundary provisions would be commenced only once the Boundary Commissions had reported and following a debate in both Houses. The intention could be that Parliament could consider how the commissions had applied the new rules in drawing up constituencies and then consider whether the boundary reforms should be made. The existing legislation, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, would remain in force in the mean time, and Parliament would then effectively have the choice of commencing the new rules or retaining the 1986 Act rules.
While I understand that the amendment has been brought forward in a creative and helpful spirit, I am going to explain in a moment why the Government cannot accept it as it is, not as a knee-jerk reaction, but for two principal reasons. The first reason is that it would break the linkage in the Bill between the entry into force of the new boundaries following the review and the commencement of the provisions on the alternative vote in the event that there is a yes vote in the referendum. We have debated that linkage at length, and I understand that there are different views across the House. However, the Government have set out their stall on the matter, and we believe that the current position in the Bill is the right one.
The second reason is arguably even more important as we are concerned at the implications of the Boundary Commission conducting a review with the rules for doing so as if it were on probation. This is the point that my noble friend Lord Rennard made. It is one thing to ask this House and the other place to consider objectively the rules to which the commission should work when setting new boundaries; it is quite another for Members of Parliament, many of whom have a party-political interest in the outcome of such changes, to be shown the practical results of the application of a set of rules which would potentially be applied at a forthcoming election and then be asked to evaluate the merits of the proposals and to consider which set of rules they prefer.
The effect of the amendment would be that shortly after October 2013, when we expect the commissioners to report, Parliament and, in particular, the other place would be asked to vote on two alternative maps: one with 650 constituencies and one with 600. For me, that is a serious change in the nature of the scrutiny role that the House as a whole undertakes when the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions are put before it, and I have strong reservations about taking such a step. In addition, if the recommendations were rejected, constituencies would remain as they currently are until the next review, by which time, in England at least, they would be 20 years out of date. There is also the question of whether we should provide for considerable time and resource, not least that of the general public who contribute to these reviews, to be expended on a review that would have no guarantee of ever being implemented.
Having said that, I understand the issues that have been raised in debates about whether the size of the House of Commons set by this Bill at 600 MPs is the right one. I can see that this amendment, perhaps in part, is a response to that since it would ask Parliament to let the review proceed and put off the decision on whether to accept the new rules until after it has had a chance to see the resulting constituency map.
I have set out why the Government consider that approach goes too far. The Government have also been clear that the proposed size for the House of Commons set in the Bill is the right one. However, we would be open to bringing forward a provision on Report for a review under independent supervision after implementation of the new constituencies of the impact of 600 seats and requiring that that begins in a timescale determined in the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, finds that a helpful suggestion on going forward, and I am sure that he will reflect on it. Moreover, we would be extremely happy to discuss it with him further. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, I would like to comment briefly on the point which the Leader of the House made about the link. I said when I spoke first that I did not actually believe that it broke the link because all the work is going to go forward; and, of course, Parliament controls the result at the end because only the affirmative procedure brings it into effect. The noble Lord’s reply implies considerable pessimism about the coalition’s success in achieving an affirmative resolution in both Houses. I would say that the Government are highly likely to achieve an affirmative resolution in both Houses since the material that we are dealing with is material that they have put into their own Bill. I am therefore not convinced by that argument, but I am convinced of the strength of the Government’s position on it. That is my first point.
Secondly, on the more important question of the independent review, I note that the Government have gone some way towards accepting that there should be an independent review. That is something, but it is not exactly what would result from my amendment, which would make the independent review available before the coming into force of Section 11, so there is a significant difference. I therefore conclude that, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the Government have not actually clinched anything on this amendment—I think that is the phrase. I am, however, interested in the extent of the commitment to an independent review, what it would be and when it might come into force.
I remain of the view that my amendment has value, and I reserve the right to come back to it on Report, when I hope we will be clearer about an independent review, which a large number of people in the House obviously want. Indeed, I thank all those who have supported my amendment, and this part of the amendment in particular. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness McDonagh
“( ) Section 11 shall not come into force until legislation has been passed introducing household voter registration throughout the United Kingdom.”
Baroness McDonagh
This amendment is not a criticism of the Government but an opportunity to right a wrong created by my own party. I suppose that successive Governments who did so much good would also occasionally get things wrong, and this is one of them. I shall just explain the current situation for registration both now and historically. We have household registration, which means that a form goes to each household, be it a flat, a house or a bungalow, and one person in the household fills out the form on behalf of all others living there. That person is normally mum, who fills out the form for her children who are aged over 16, and her husband or partner. If we think of our own situations, whatever type of family relationships we have or the people we have shared our homes with in the past, there is always one person in the household who takes responsibility for things such as voter registration, paying bills and so on. The result is that we have a fairly accurate register that is one of the cheapest in the world to administer.
As part of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, the previous Government included a section that will change that system so that each individual will be responsible for registering themselves. We need to look no further than Northern Ireland to know what will happen if this change is implemented. In 2002, when the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act was passed, under which individual registration was introduced and each person had to register themselves, 10 per cent of the public were lost overnight from the register, which went from 96 per cent to 85 per cent of the population.
When an investigation was held into the loss from the register, it was found that it consisted mainly of three groups of people. The first group consisted of young people, first-time voters and 18-25 year olds, the second group consisted of people in areas of high social deprivation, and the third group consisted of people with mental health disabilities. Mencap has produced a useful report in Northern Ireland should anyone wish to look at it.
Before implementing such provisions across the rest of the United Kingdom, we should consider the fact that there are sections of the population here that are not similar to that in Northern Ireland. For example, Northern Ireland does not have a very mobile population. There is no high provision of privately rented, insecure tenancies of a year or under; there is very little multiple occupancy; and it has a stable population—people do not move far from their parents and grandparents. The rest of the United Kingdom has a large population of ethnic minorities; a recently arrived, large population of inward migrants; a huge private rented sector of tenancies of a year and under; and many multi-occupancy properties. Many people also move for jobs. We know that something like 20 per cent of the population of Great Britain moves every year.
At the last general election, just over 45 million people were registered. If what happened in Northern Ireland were to happen in the rest of the UK, we would lose 4.5 million people from the register in addition to the 3.5 million that are already missing. This would amount to 8 million. Academics suggest that we would lose another 10 per cent because of the reasons that I have outlined, which would remove another 4 million people from the register. This would mean that almost 12 million people in this country would not have a stake in the democratic election of our Government.
In Northern Ireland in 2005, some 160,000 voters who did not complete registration forms were reinstated on the register. I therefore do not understand why the Government, when looking at their databases to increase registration in this country, could not do something similar to what has been done in Northern Ireland. As I said, there were 160,000 more voters at the 2005 elections.
We have an opportunity to change this situation now because we have not yet moved to individual registration, which was initially envisaged to happen post the 2015 election. I am now confused because I believe the Government might soon introduce these provisions. Perhaps the Leader of the House will come back to me on that if it is envisaged that the new system will be in place by the 2015 elections.
If we retain this as it currently is, it will allow us to have a very cheap form of registration, and it will avoid the dip in registration that was seen in Northern Ireland. Household registration is also a recognition of the big society; it represents the understanding, responsibility and role of adults in the household, and also the importance of the family as a unit.
My own party was misguided in introducing these provisions in the 2009 Act, and this is a fantastic opportunity for this Government to change these provisions.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is the real danger of individual registration that when it comes to the second boundary review—in so far as there will be a reduction in the number of people who have registered under individual registration—there will be even more distorted constituencies?
Baroness McDonagh
That is absolutely right, and that is why I hope the Government will consider this. I also hope that the Government will consider bringing in an average number to each constituency, rather than a simple limit on 600. If this number of people falls off the register—and we all know the areas that will fall off the register—when you combine the current under-registration and the fall-off in the new register, in certain parts of the country some of these constituencies will have something like 150,000 eligible electors, not registered electors. That is not good for our society, in which we have so many people who do not have a stake in the democratic election of our Government. That creates weak communities and ends up creating bad government. I beg to move.
Lord Rennard
I am sure the noble Baroness will respond to the debate, but I just wanted to raise a couple of questions. It seems to me that since the boundary review will depend on electorates as of 1 December 2010, the only effective change brought about by this amendment would be to change the electoral registration system in Northern Ireland. Did she consult any of the parties in Northern Ireland, or indeed the Northern Ireland Assembly, in suggesting that the basis of electoral registration in Northern Ireland be changed in this amendment? Would it generally be accepted that the only effect of making that change in registration processes in Northern Ireland would be to delay the entire boundary review beyond the date of the next general election in 2015?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
At the risk of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, giving his automatic counter another click so that he can update his blog tomorrow, I just want briefly to support the excellent amendment of my noble friend Lady McDonagh. As always, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, finds the nit-picking objections and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler agrees. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, of course, is the constitutional spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. I do not know what that makes the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or indeed Nick Clegg, but the Liberal Democrats obviously need lots and lots of constitutional spokespersons.
My noble friend Lady McDonagh is absolutely right; this is a mistake that the former Labour Government made. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is not here today to hear this because he was the principal architect of it, but it worries me. My noble friend has great experience of running the Labour Party and understands these things intricately, and I give all credit to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. He opposed this individual registration on every opportunity in this House—again and again—vigorously and consistently, and no one paid any attention to him.
This kind of legislation reminds me that a lot of the thinking in some of our legislation comes from middle-class, middle-aged people sitting in drawing rooms in the south-east of England. I do not know whether they have sectarian discussions around their dinner table, but they have certainly come up with some of the craziest legislation.
No account is taken of the fact that some elderly people are confused and find it difficult to deal with that kind of form. Many years ago, I was the chairman of the Scottish adult literacy agency. A large number of people cannot read and write and are unable to fill in this form; they need someone to fill it in. I can go through category after category of people who would need help as they would be reluctant and unable to fill in that form. It is very difficult for students away from home and for people overseas. My son is working out in Bolivia at the moment, but he is still going to come back and will be entitled to vote. We can think of all sorts of examples of how this will make it difficult to vote.
My noble friend Lady McDonagh is absolutely right; it is about time that people in both Houses started to think of ordinary people and of the lives that they live. They do not all sit round the dinner table every night discussing these kinds of things. They lead a hard, difficult life. They might have difficulties with poverty or literacy, or they might be confused, in many cases, and need that kind of help. I hope that more people will come and support this.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I will intervene only briefly and do not really want to go down all the roads that I went down some years ago during the Labour Government’s two attempts—the second was successful, in my view quite mistakenly—to reintroduce individual registration. I have never been able to understand why the Liberal Democrats supported that. I understand that the Electoral Commission, in its various reports, kept on promoting the principle. However, the Liberal Democrats must have been aware of the dangers that would arise, even in some of their own seats such as the one that includes Bermondsey. Bermondsey is in a seat that could be gravely damaged through the introduction of individual registration, and I simply cannot understand why they seemingly allowed it all to happen.
My own view was very simple; there was a problem to be resolved, and that was fraud within the electoral system. That, I suspect, was the driving force behind those who argued for it. They chose an extremely expensive way of resolving the problem, whereby the whole of the United Kingdom would be subject to individual registration, against the parts of it in which there was a particular problem. Without going into detail, most Members of the Committee will understand precisely what I mean. There is a problem in certain parts of the United Kingdom, which had to be dealt with.
On two occasions under two separate Bills, I came up with a recommendation that would have sorted out that problem by giving local authorities the right to opt for a particular status whereby they would be given additional resources to sort out the problems in their areas, but the Labour Government unfortunately turned it down. Indeed, I lobbied almost every member of the Labour Cabinet about it to try to get them to understand the importance of avoiding individual registration, which will do immeasurable harm to our party in the longer term. Now we have it in place at a time when local authorities’ budgets in this area are not ring-fenced and when local authorities will not place the money that is necessary to ensure a high level of individual registration.
I welcome my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope only that the Government will accept it. They will not, of course, because they too have been convinced by this rubbish recommendation from the Electoral Commission, which should have known better.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I, too, stand convicted of being convinced by the rubbish recommendation of the Electoral Commission. I believe that the principle of moving to individual registration is right. Apart from anything else, the concept of modern citizenship is that the task of registering to vote should no longer be the preserve of the head of the household. However, if the principle of individual registration is correct, the practicality involved in the best way to get there is more complicated. As the experience of introducing individual registration in Northern Ireland has shown, the consequences can be catastrophic if you get the process wrong. The very swift introduction of individual registration in that part of the United Kingdom in 2002 led to a collapse in the number on the electoral register, with a fall of around 119,000.
Learning the lessons of that experience, the Labour Government legislated to introduce individual voter registration according to a clearly phased timetable based on the twin principles of ensuring the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the electoral register. That process gave the Electoral Commission a central role in determining whether the final move from household to individual registration was safe to proceed with, and the transition was based on a two-stage process—a voluntary phase and a compulsory phase. The legislation made it clear that the voluntary phase would not finish before 2014. In 2014, the Electoral Commission would then be required to assess, based on trends in voter registration, whether the collection of identifying information should be made obligatory. Assuming that a positive recommendation was agreed by Parliament, compulsory individual registration would follow in 2015.
The timetable received explicit backing from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Benchers in the other place. It is a matter of deep concern that the Government have now abandoned those pledges and that they intend to tear up our carefully formulated and agreed timetable and to accelerate the introduction of individual registration without the safeguards that we put in place.
As I have already noted, the rush to the production of individual registration in Northern Ireland produced a dramatic fall in registered numbers. The Electoral Commission subsequently reported that the new registration process disproportionately impacted on young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally and those living in areas of high deprivation. We must not repeat that outcome when the system is introduced in Great Britain. That is especially important in view of the Electoral Commission’s report of March 2010, which identified who was least represented on the electoral register.
The phased implementation of full individual registration by autumn 2015 was intended to minimise as far as possible the risk of worsening under-registration. The Government already intend to cut seats and redraw boundaries on the basis of an electoral register from which 3.5 million eligible voters are missing. The premature rollout of individual registration would increase that number and, over time, would distort the planned boundary revisions even more. I do not support the policy of reversing the move to individual registration. However, I do support making sure that it is done properly.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, what an interesting debate this has been, with noble Lords changing their minds about what they had done under the previous Government.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble and learned Lord sounded as though he agreed to it in principle but thought that the implementation was wrong, whereas the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Campbell-Savours, were never in favour of it. I must say that I very much allied myself with them in the past in that I was not convinced by the case for individual registration. However, I am now in government and we support it.
Noble Lords opposite know exactly what I am going to say; this is not the Bill on which to have this debate, so we are not going to accept the amendment, although there is an interesting debate to be had. I do not want to say “We are where we are”, although we sort of are where we are. Two or three years ago, I think that I would have allied myself with noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite, but the law was changed by the previous Government with cross-party support. Provision was made for an eventual move to individual registration in the rest of the United Kingdom under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. The Electoral Commission supports a move to individual registration, and Her Majesty’s Government are committed to speeding up the process of registration in Great Britain because, as is widely known, the current system of household registration is vulnerable to fraud. Although the number of cases of electoral fraud is low, the perception created by them undermines confidence in the electoral system as a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, asked whether we are speeding up the process. The answer is yes. The Government are speeding up the introduction of individual voter registration by making it compulsory from 2014. Under the new plans, the voluntary phase of individual registration will be dropped and, instead, Great Britain will in 2014 move directly to compulsory individual registration. If this amendment were passed, it would delay the commencement of one of the central provisions of the Bill, and this would prevent a boundary review from being carried out in time for the next general election. I am not suggesting that that is the noble Baroness’s motive, but it would be the effect if it were to be agreed. As the Committee knows, we must proceed with a boundary review to ensure that when the next general election is held, boundaries in England are not 15 years out of date and do not continue to exacerbate the inequality that is present in the current system.
Returning household registration to Northern Ireland would, we feel in government, be a detrimental step that is likely to lead in time to the widespread perception of fraud that was so prevalent in Northern Ireland before 2002. We want to prevent that from returning, with the consequent undermining of confidence in the political process in Northern Ireland.
It has been an interesting and useful debate, and I urge noble Lords to run a campaign on it, but they should do it outwith the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McDonagh
I thank the Committee for its contributions to the debate. I will quickly answer a few questions and come back to a couple of points. This amendment would make no difference whatever in Northern Ireland; the 2002 Act has been superseded by the Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Act and we are reinstating and registering people who had not even filled in forms. If the Government were to agree to continue with household registration, I would have no problem in removing Northern Ireland from the provisions of this amendment, but it would not make any difference, as I explained. They have reinstated some 160,000 voters already, and I remind the House that this has not resolved issues of fraud but has disenfranchised adult children, people in areas of social deprivation and people with mental health disabilities.
On the second question that was asked, yes, I do appreciate that it would have an impact on the second boundary and that the current boundaries would be the ones that were drawn up on the register at the end of last year. I am in no way seeking to delay the current Boundary Commission redrawing in my amendment. I particularly want to thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes. I have lived in households that have adults with literacy issues, and it is obvious that one person in the household takes responsibility for registration, bills, paperwork and so on. This is not an old-fashioned concept of the head of the household; it is about understanding families and understanding that everyone has a different responsibility and everyone helps everyone else.
I did see a sapling, a glint from the Leader of the House, on this issue. I thank him for his comments, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) The minimum period between the passing of this Act and the date of the referendum shall be three months.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, towards the end of a long speakers list in a debate in this House, someone stands up and says, “Everything there is to be said on this topic has been said, but not everyone has yet said it”. That usually raises a laugh, as it has today; good jokes, like wine, improve with age. Here I have invented a variant on the old saw for Committee stage: “Everything possible has been said on this amendment but it has not been said everywhere. The matter can be raised on the Bill”. That is what a harsh critic would say.
I want to say why my amendment is different from earlier amendments which laid down that the referendum should not take place on 5 May. In our earlier debates, the arguments that we concentrated on for not having it on 5 May were that it clashed with the Welsh Assembly elections, the Scottish Parliament elections and the local authority elections, that this would lead to a lot of political noise—particularly as Liberal Democrat and Labour candidates fought each other—and that that would not be an atmosphere in which there could be sensible consideration of this issue. Those arguments are all valid. My amendment is compatible, I admit, with 5 May as a referendum date. It is three months after Royal Assent. We have only to give the Bill Royal Assent on Thursday night. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be delighted if we achieve that timetable. Stranger things have happened in these Houses of Parliament, so it would be possible to have it on those days. All that the amendment lays down is that there must be three months between Royal Assent and the referendum to consider the matter. That is three months for information, persuasion and contemplation before decision.
Let us consider the present state of public opinion. I am taking a large poll done by YouGov in September last year. It asked first whether people had heard of AV and knew what it was. Roughly one-third said yes, they had heard of it and knew a bit about what it was. Of that one-third, I bet that half were lying—they did not know what it was, though they may have heard of it. One-third said that they had heard of it but they did not have a clue what it meant, and one-third had neither heard of it nor had a clue what it meant. That is the information backlog that we face as we run up to the referendum on this issue. There is a huge job of basic education to be done before we even get to the arguments for and against. Those arguments, which anyone studying the House’s proceedings on Part 1 of the Bill will have heard quite often, are difficult and balanced and need the most careful consideration. The electorate must think very hard about what they are doing.
The suggestion that this can be done in less than three months is not right. Yes, in that time a referendum can be held—the Electoral Commission can do its work, the ballot papers can be printed and so on—but we will not get a properly valid answer. I say that whether it is the answer that I want, a yes, or the one that many noble Lords want, a no. It will not be properly valid because the people will not have had long enough to contemplate the proposition put before them.
If the verdict seems invalid, that will have consequences for legitimacy. The side that loses will be able to stand up almost immediately and say, “It was fixed. It was cooked. This referendum is not the considered view of the British people. It’s a referendum held at a time to suit a political timetable”. Why on earth the Liberal Democrats want the referendum on 5 May continues to escape me, but they clearly do. That would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the verdict.
It is also true, of course, that had the House made faster progress on the Bill—I do not attribute blame on all this; I am delighted that we are now belatedly making progress—the Bill might by now have been law and the campaigning able to be started, so there would have been time to inform the public. However, the passage of time has meant that the time available for contemplating the actual issue in the referendum has been squeezed. My amendment says that it must be squeezed no further. There should be a three-month period between Royal Assent and the referendum. I hope that this is a common-sense proposition in a common-sense amendment and that therefore it will become a consensual amendment around the House. That just shows that I am a very hopeful sort of a chap. However, it should be understood that the argument is as I have set it out. If the Government reject it, it will be for reasons quite other, and arguably less reputable, than the House and the country have reason to deserve.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I intervene briefly and again address my remarks to the Liberal Democrats. They know from previous debates that I support the referendum and am in favour of electoral reform and a version of AV. Therefore, what happens in the polling booth is of great interest to me, as indeed it should be to them. The question is, in what circumstances is it more likely that the AV referendum will be won? I put to them two distinctly different scenarios: one where a person walks into a polling station, having heard a campaign, and votes for it deliberately, in circumstances where it is highly likely that those who are opposed to it will not bother going to the polls. The advantage of having a referendum day on its own is that it would concentrate the minds of those who were in favour of change to go and vote, whereas those who were against change would, more likely than not, simply stay away. The danger of holding a referendum on the same day as an election is that everybody will go to the polling booth and they will all vote. Those who are opposed, who otherwise would not turn up at the polling booth, will then go and vote against electoral reform. The Liberal Democrats will regret what they have done during the course of this Bill. The referendum will be lost for the reason I have given and they will bear the responsibility for that as they will have set the electoral reform agenda back decades.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, the only way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, could correctly say that his amendment is a common-sense proposition is if it suggested a six-month period. The provisions of the amendment are not compatible with a 5 May date: we do not need to look at our diaries to ascertain that. However, I agreed entirely with the rest of his speech. There is not enough time to do the job properly. There never was, in my view. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, this is a fundamental matter. The Liberal Democrats also know my position. They know that I support electoral reform and I want PR, but this is a dishonest form of AV. In my view, it is a corrupt form of voting. The coalition has chosen the date to match the election date. That is fine; that is the coalition’s responsibility. I am quite happy with that. I do not have a view whether it should be held on that or another day, but the Lib Dems will be severely punished for holding the referendum on 5 May for lots of other reasons. I think that it will be lost. However, it is sad to have a referendum on the major constitutional issue of our voting system—we have never had such a referendum—and to lose it due to insufficient time being given to the process.
I do not want to labour the point but one has only to look at what happened in New Zealand and read the information that was published by the New Zealand electoral commission that went out to individuals. I cannot envisage anything remotely like that being provided here in terms of quality and quantity, and then being taken on board by the electorate. Our Electoral Commission might push out a lot of leaflets but pamphlets and booklets are needed rather than leaflets. This matter goes well beyond two sides of A4. The information must be assimilated and debated if it is to be successful. The assessment was that 10 weeks were needed, which is how we have the date that we have, which was debated in this House back in December. We knew that the Bill needed to get Royal Assent before the recess in February. The assessment was that it could be done in 10 weeks. Mechanically, it can be done. Intellectually and educationally, I do not think that it can be done. That is what I think is wrong with my noble friend’s amendment. It should have been six months, but that is the Government’s responsibility. They have rushed this Bill. There was no need to rush it within a year of the general election. It could still have been done on the election date. I appreciate that the devolved elections come only once every four years, and if that is the key test that more people go out to vote, so be it. However, I just do not think that it can be done in the way that hearts and minds can be won. We will get a poor result. I think it will fail, but it will be for the wrong reasons. I wish it were for the right reasons. I will not support it; I will campaign against it, but I would rather that it failed for the right reasons. I would rather that there were a genuine debate about the real issues; but I do not think that it can be done in the time available.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, three of my noble friends who support proportional representation have spoken, so it is only fair that the first past the post majority viewpoint of the Labour Party is heard. From my noble friends—who are friends as well as noble friends—what we have here is excuse-gathering. It is always “if only” this had happened or that had happened, people would flock to the banner of PR. People are not interested. In the main, people are quite happy with first past the post because of all its benefits, which have been discussed many times before and I do not intend to go into them. There is always an excuse from the people who support PR that people do not understand it and there is also the deception that people have not been educated about it. Pro-PR people really do not take any account of how they sound. They sound arrogant saying, “If only people were educated, they would learn the error of their ways and flock to the banner of proportional representation”. It is not true.
I will not spend more time speaking about this, but I intend to clear up something, although sometimes it is like a bingo hall in here when you get the clickety-click of the little clicker of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, as he counts the number of times people have contributed. That is fair game. However, I would like to point out something to him. In the context of this, he is either completely unaware of or not interested in studying the way in which the other place operates, or he is quite content to spread misconceptions. I understand from my noble friend that a misconception has spread among the Liberal Democrats. The blog of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, says that Tommy McAvoy—it is quite insulting, actually— “muttered just four words” in the House of Commons in so many years. I do not really mutter. I have never been accused of muttering before. Clearly, either through lack of knowledge or deception—he can tell me which it is—he implies that I could have spoken there; but any politician worth his salt in here who is not intending to deceive people knows full well that Whips do not speak in the other place. I will give way in a moment, once I finish my point, and I will give the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, all the merit it deserves, whatever it is. A side issue is that my good friend Alistair Carmichael—he is a good friend even though he is a Liberal Democrat—is now silent. Does that mean that he is reduced to muttering?
Lord Tyler
I was Chief Whip for my party in the other place. It never stopped me speaking.
Lord McAvoy
That is absolutely right, but that is the difference between a party that aspires to power and a party that aspires to nothing but opposition.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord McAvoy and to confirm what he said, namely that it is the custom for government Whips in the House of Commons not to speak. That has been the case with both Conservative and Labour Governments. I also add that what he did not say in the Chamber, he made up for outwith the Chamber, to keep his friends and colleagues on the straight and narrow very effectively.
I will raise a completely new matter. I make no apology for that, except to the Minister for not alerting him, because I did not know that there would be an opportunity today to raise this. I doubt if officials have cottoned on to this, unless they are really top-notch. The matter was raised yesterday in Scotland on Sunday. The Minister may have picked it up, because he lives in Scotland, as I do, and may have seen the paper. The matter was picked up today by the dailies and I alerted my Front Bench to it earlier. It is a new and genuine worry about having the election and the referendum on the same day. It was raised not by me but by the association of returning officers in Scotland, which said that it would be impossible to do the count for the Scottish Parliament elections on Thursday evening and make the announcement on Friday morning—as was the case in the past—because of the complications arising from having two elections together and the possibility of making mistakes in the middle of the night. We know the difficulties that arise when one has to work through the night.
It is a genuine worry of all parties in Scotland—certainly of the Labour Party and of the SNP Government, and I understand that at least some Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have expressed concern—that this will mean that on Friday morning there will be total confusion about the outcome of the election, because it will take some time to go through the count on Thursday night and Friday, and probably the result of the Scottish election will not be known until Saturday or Sunday. That will create tremendous problems—with the additional member system that we have, when constituencies are counted before additional members—for parties to know which of them will be in power, for there to be discussions between them about possible arrangements or for the largest party to decide to go ahead. It will create tremendous problems.
I will not blame the Minister if he has no immediate response to this, because the matter has just come up recently and I only became aware of it on Sunday. It would be helpful for all of us if he would look at that, take it away and ask officials—particularly officials in Scotland and in the Scotland Office, in discussion with the Scottish Executive—what the problems are and whether there is any way that they might be ameliorated.
Lord Rooker
I have not seen any of the reports that my noble friend quotes. However, it seems that this is a scam by the first past the posters to attack a PR fair voting system. It is inevitable with a PR system that one will not get an instant result. That has never been the case and no one has ever claimed that it was. So what if it takes 48 or 72 hours to count the votes because they have been cast in a fairer system than first past the post? Is my noble friend sure that he is not part of a conspiracy to undermine the successful operation of the PR fairer voting systems of the devolved Administrations of the UK?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I would love to think that I am part of a conspiracy to undermine the so-called fair voting systems that some people want. It is a genuine slur on the returning officers—I know my noble friend Lord Rooker does not mean it—to suggest that they are part of any kind of scam. They are raising genuine concerns as non-political civil servants who work for local authorities. However, I draw the attention of my noble friend to Belgium, which has this PR system. It is seven months since the Belgian election and the country still does not have a Government. That is probably a better example. In Scotland, we can manage it rather more quickly than that.
Aside from that diversion, I ask the Minister—who has been very helpful, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace—to look into this and, if there is a problem, to see whether there is any way to resolve it.
Lord Bach
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment is entirely sensible. Indeed, following on from the previous amendment, I suspect that the Leader of the House may secretly or quietly agree with it. He may not be able to say so, because, as he reminded us, he is now in government. However, the amendment is sensible and I ask the noble Lord at least to take it back and consider it carefully. Also, the point of my noble friend Lord Foulkes about what appeared in the Scottish press yesterday is well worth the Government considering, if not responding to tonight.
This amendment is not contrary to the will of this Committee, due to the second Rooker amendment that is now well known in political history—the one that this Committee passed on 30 November stating that the voting system referendum must be held at some point before 31 October next year, which is clearly within the three months that this amendment mentions. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Rooker was subtle but important. It was hastily dismissed by the Government at the time of its passing, but perhaps they now regret that. It would have eased the pressure under which the Government find themselves.
By recommending a gap of three months between Royal Assent and the holding of the referendum, this amendment facilitates a period of proper preparation, including, most importantly, a proper information and education campaign on the difficult issues that the public are being asked to vote on, which are not that simple. We were reminded about New Zealand, which, when it changed its voting system in the early 1990s, provided a year-long information campaign.
I remind the Committee that Amendment 6 to this Bill, moved a long time ago, advised that a gap of between six and 18 months be inserted into the timetable for the referendum to allow for preparation and an information campaign. This amendment falls far short of that, but is moved with the same motivation. It seeks to facilitate a state of affairs that is an improvement on the 10 weeks or less that the Government’s timetabling will provide the Electoral Commission with to disseminate information about the poll. It is less than 10 weeks in which to inform the public about an issue which Electoral Commission research informs us there is perilously little information or knowledge about.
This is not the proper context in which to be asking the public to make such an important decision, whether you are for this form of AV or for first past the post. Officials and interested participants should be given adequate time to provide this information.
Lord Tyler
As I recall, the noble Lord and his colleagues supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which the Committee then passed, on the basis that we could still hold the referendum on 5 May, but it was left open for the referendum to be held at any time thereafter, before October. Is the noble Lord, Lord Bach, now saying that he is precluding the referendum being held on 5 May? That is a change of position, is it not?
Lord Bach
My Lords, we now know that the Bill certainly cannot be passed three months before the referendum due on 5 May. Therefore, we think that my noble friend, in moving this amendment, is being realistic. That does not take away from the effect of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rooker, which we were glad to support and still do in principle. However, if the Government wanted a kind of middle way, they might be very sensible to pick up what my noble friend Lord Lipsey has suggested. We hope that the Government treat the amendment with some sympathy.
Lord Strathclyde
One of the most interesting facts that I have learnt today is just how many noble Lords opposite read the blog of my noble friend Lord Rennard. He should be immensely pleased and impressed that he has elicited such a reaction from noble Lords. I hope that at some stage he will commercialise it in an appropriate manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked questions about the Scottish association of returning officers. I will certainly look into the questions that he has raised. Earlier in Committee we discussed this and the information we had at that time was that there would be no problem in Scotland. It will be interesting to see whether that has changed.
The view of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was that people are not prepared. Interestingly, he said a number of things in support of the amendment. The amendment provides a three-month delay, as though they would not be prepared now but they would be prepared if there were a three-month delay. I am not sure that is right. I think people have a perception about AV and I am not sure that there will be an enormous difference between the 10-week limit that we have at the moment and three months. The Government see no compelling reason to fix the length of the period for this referendum to a minimum of three months.
It is worth reminding noble Lords opposite that the previous Government worked to swift timetables in organising the 1998 devolution referendums. This referendum was announced as far back as June or July. The Bill was introduced in July in the House of Commons. Of course, as has been recognised, I do not know when the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, tabled the amendment but it would mean that a target date of 5 February would have to be set, and that is later this week. If that target were not met, the provision would need to be given retrospective effect so that the referendum period could still begin three months from the date of the poll; for example, on a date before the Bill receives Royal Assent, and neither is desirable or necessary.
Practical arrangements by the Electoral Commission have been well under way for months, ensuring that the referendum can take place on 5 May under the current referendum period timeframe. The Electoral Commission expanded on that in its briefing on 7 December and said:
“We have been working with local Counting Officers and Returning Officers to prepare plans on the basis of a referendum on 5 May 2011, alongside the other polls planned for that day, and in our most recent assessment we said that sufficient progress has been made for us to be confident they will be well run. Similarly, those intending to campaign at the referendum will have been developing their plans for the date specified in the Bill as introduced”.
So a good deal of work has already been done by the registration officers and those who wish to run the campaigns have been working on their material. For those reasons we do not think that there is a need to extend the referendum period, as everything points to those involved being well prepared.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Can the noble Lord remind the House of the rules governing the ability of the Electoral Commission or any other agency to spend public money on planning implementation of a Bill which has not yet passed through Parliament?
Lord Strathclyde
I think the bodies that will need to spend money as a result of the Bill can do so once Second Reading has taken place in the first House. I will check that for the noble Lord but, under these circumstances, I do not think that there is any problem with the Electoral Commission spending money. For those reasons, we think the campaigns are well prepared. A lot of organisation has continued and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey
This has been a trip down memory lane to the early days of the debate on the Bill. I thought we might still be here for some hours to come but that is not so. I am afraid that the Minister has not convinced me. First, he said that practical arrangements could be made by 5 May and I said precisely the same thing myself. That was never in question. The question is whether a legitimate debate can take place in so short a period. The only argument which I think I heard him use against that was the argument from Scottish and Welsh devolution. He did not say what the exact timetable on those Bills was but that the referendums were carried out quickly. That is true, but there is no analogy between the two. The issues of Scottish and Welsh devolution had been matters of the most intense debate in Scotland and Wales. There had been a failed attempt with a referendum about 10 years before the critical referendum took place. There was not a moment when this was not in the public eye in Scotland and Wales, with one political party having a change to the Government’s arrangements as its central and single objective.
Lord Low of Dalston
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I have been preparing for this moment since well before Christmas and I thought it would never come but my hour has come and I shall also speak to other amendments in the group. They may seem a bit of a comedown from the heady constitutional stuff we have been discussing—I was going to say for the last six weeks but the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referring to 30 November in the last debate suggests to me that it must have been at least eight weeks. In any case, I hope your Lordships would agree that the amendments are of considerable importance none the less and I would hope less apt to be contentious in your Lordships’ House.
The purpose of these amendments is to disability-proof this legislation and to ensure that the referendum it establishes is fully inclusive and accessible to disabled people. Noble Lords will remember how the last general election was marred by scenes of voters queuing for hours, a shortage of ballot papers and the electorate being denied access to polling stations. Sadly, this is routinely the experience of millions of disabled voters at every election for every tier of government. There is also a worrying lack of accountability as there is currently no way for people to appeal when they are wrongly denied their right to vote, other than by mounting an expensive, onerous and bureaucratic legal challenge.
Following the report in 1999 of the Disability Rights Task Force—which the last Labour Government set up at the beginning of their administration and on which I had the honour to serve—some attempt has been made to give higher priority to the accessibility of elections for disabled people. Some provision has been made in the Representation of the People Act and the Electoral Commission has produced some helpful guidance. However, local authorities do not always implement it and more still needs to be done at local level to ensure that elections are fully inclusive.
Over the past decade and more the Polls Apart coalition of charities, led by Scope, has produced evidence of the continuing inaccessibility of polling stations and has been working to raise awareness of the need to make elections more accessible. The 2010 Polls Apart survey revealed that in the 2010 general election, 67 per cent of polling stations had poor access for people with mobility difficulties; 47 per cent of postal voters had problems with the accessibility of the ballot papers and nearly half of all polling stations failed to display a large-print ballot paper—31 per cent worse than in the 2005 survey. Local authorities knew that 14 per cent of the polling stations they intended to use would not be accessible to disabled voters, but very few authorities outside Northern Ireland made any effort to tell voters about the accessibility of their polling stations or to offer an alternative option to them.
The right to vote is laid down in statute, the European Convention on Human Rights, and, most recently, in Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but, in practice, voting is still a right denied to many disabled people. We need to bolster the legislation to guarantee that right. Of course, the Bill can do that only for the referendum, but I would hope that if we can get it right on this occasion, that could set the standard for all future elections.
Amendment 103 would give the chief counting officer a duty, rather than a power, to give regional counting officers and counting officers directions requiring them to take specified steps in preparation for the referendum. Amendment 104 would require that such steps should include ensuring that adequate provision is made for disabled voters. Amendments 105 and 106 lay an analogous duty on regional counting officers, for a region; and on counting officers, for voting areas within that region. Amendment 107 further adds to the matters on which regional counting officers should give direction to counting officers,
“directions about the discharge of their functions in relation to voters with disabilities”,
and,
“directions requiring them to address any complaints from voters arising from the administration of the referendum”.
Amendment 110 creates a robust duty for the Electoral Commission to ensure that voters are able to access information about the referendum, and strengthens its general duty to give specific guidance on achieving equality of access to the voting process. Amendment 114 and Amendments 116 to 119 would require counting officers to ensure that the polling places used for the referendum were accessible to disabled voters, to notify voters of any polling stations that may not be accessible, and to provide details of alternative voting options.
The Electoral Commission has stated—and I fear that the Government may say—that it does not believe that the amendments are necessary, given the duties and responsibilities already laid on counting officers and the Electoral Commission by existing legislation. Existing legislation is not working, as the Polls Apart surveys have demonstrated, so we clearly need something more.
I have brought forward a reasonable set of amendments designed to address the situation. If they can do it in Northern Ireland, they can do it in the rest of the United Kingdom. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the amendments, thus helping to expedite the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I pay tribute to the part played by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, on the Disability Rights Task Force and to his resourceful, imaginative and courageous campaigning in the interests of disabled people over a great many years. We are proud to have him as a Member of this House and greatly welcome his contribution not only to debates on the status and position of disabled people in our society but much more widely.
The situation that the noble Lord has described to us is a disgrace. It may be that, as the Electoral Commission has suggested, legislation is more or less sufficient, or ought to be, to ensure that the proper requirements of disabled people within our electoral system are accommodated, but evidently it is not working in practice. Whether that is a matter of lack of financial resources or, more likely, that it is a matter of attitudes and culture I do not know. But in all events, we need to take energetic and determined steps to greatly improve the state of affairs to which the noble Lord has alerted us.
It may be that the amendments he has proposed are the kind of practical amendments needed to rectify some of the deficiencies in existing legislation and regulations. Again, I do not know for sure, but it seems to me that the measures that the noble Lord has proposed are modest, practical and reasonable, and it is hard to imagine what objection could be made to them. But whether or not legislative change is the key to improving the state of affairs that he has described, ensuring that disabled people are included as they should be within our electoral and broader political systems, it is evident that there needs to be leadership and drive to ensure that the attitudes and the performance of professional staff in this field, and I daresay also of the political parties, are greatly improved.
I therefore look forward to the response from the Minister. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, for calling our attention to a matter of serious concern and on a purely bipartisan basis. There is no party politics in this. I am sure it is universally agreed around the House that the arrangements that govern elections and certainly the holding of this particular referendum will in practice ensure that disabled people are in no way inhibited or debarred from participating.
Lord Bach
My Lords, the Committee should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, for moving his amendment and speaking to the other amendments in this group, and for informing the House about the results of the Polls Apart survey. The noble Lord said that this was a reasonable set of amendments and we on the opposition Front Bench agree. We think they are all sensible as well as reasonable and that they should be supported around the House in due course.
Our advice to the Government is that they should go away with these amendments and think very carefully indeed about how they can implement them. If they do not, I suspect the noble Lord will come back on Report and will have very wide support around the House from all sides so that these practical suggestions can be put into effect. As I say, the opposition Front Bench support these amendments.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, from these Benches we, too, are immensely grateful for the way the noble Lord, Lord Low, moved his amendments and I am sorry he had to spend so long waiting and listening to the rest of us before he got to them. Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government enormously welcome the principles behind these amendments. I shall give him a very full reply and I hope that he will consider it before Report.
Similar amendments were debated in the other place and the Government stated their commitment to ensuring that everybody has an equal opportunity to cast their votes in this referendum. It is right and important that every effort is made to ensure that all individuals, with or without disabilities, are able to exercise their democratic rights. The Bill already contains significant provisions to ensure that voting is fair for all. This includes those voters with disabilities. Existing anti-discrimination legislation also already imposes duties on public authorities which are directly targeted at involvement in public life. Specifically, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 was amended to include a duty on public authorities to promote the equality of individuals with disabilities.
Ensuring that ballot papers and polling stations are accessible to all is already a duty that counting officers will need to take forward. For the purposes of the referendum, the chief counting officer will also be able to give directions to counting officers on how they discharge these functions.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and particularly I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. He spelled out the dynamics that underlie the difficulties faced by disabled people in accessing elections even more eloquently than I did in moving the amendment. I am extraordinarily grateful to him. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his support on behalf of the Opposition.
I thank the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the fullness of his response, which of course I will take away and consider very carefully. I am also grateful to him for the offer of dialogue which I am sure we will want to take up. I would not maintain that these amendments are necessarily and in every respect the best way of seeking to implement the principles that we all share, so if between now and the Report stage we can find a better way of doing it, I am certainly more than open to that. Indeed, I particularly welcome the noble Lord’s reference at the end of his remarks to his desire to see if we can a find a way in which not only this Bill on parliamentary constituencies and voting systems but electoral legislation more generally can be disability-proofed so that it is more user-friendly for disabled people. Indeed, that would be a much better outcome than simply getting these amendments into this Bill. In that spirit, and with the prospect of discussions with a view to trying to make a greater impact than has already been made on general electoral legislation, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde